EN    EN EN 
 
EN    EN  EUROPEAN COMMISSION 
Brussels, 30.9.2010 
SEC(2010) 1120 final 
  
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
Mid-term review of the LIFE+ Regulation 
 
COM(2010) 516 final 
 
 
EN 2   EN COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 
Mid-term review of the LIFE+ Regulation 
 
EN 3   EN  
Commission Staff Working Paper   
1. C ONSOLIDATED EXPENDITURE  
LIFE+ budget comprises two budget lines:  
LIFE+ multiannual programming legal base 2007 voted 2008 voted 2009 voted
LIFE+ administrative line (BA) Commission 13,000         17,850          17,150     
LIFE + Operational 226,620       248,094         300,000    
of which Commission 39,620        40,594          50,000     
 of which MS / projects (78 %) 187,000       207,500        250,000   
Total LIFE + programme 239,620       265,944         317,150    
07 01 04 01 - administrative assistance 13,000         17,850          17,150     
07 03 07 - LIFE + operational 226,620       248,094         300,000    
BA / Total 5,43% 6,71% 5,41%
Commission share (incl BA) % (max 22) / total 21,96% 21,98% 21,17%
MS / Projects  % (min 78) / total 78,04% 78,02% 78,83% 
During the reporting period the budget has been allo cated according to the priorities set out in 
the 6th Environmental Action Programme as speci fied in the Annual Management Plans. 
Figures 1 and 2 below show the distribution of LIFE+ expenditure per policy area. Data 
includes expenditure under bot h budget lines but excludi ng NGOs operating grants and 
technical assistance contracts, such as t hose to help managing LIFE+ action grants. 
Expenditure for each policy area includes servi ce contracts and projects financed under the 
action grants intervention. Thematic communica tion activities have been included in the 
category "Compliance and Communication". This ca tegory also includes  projects financed 
under the LIFE+ Information & Communication st rand. Noise is included under the category 
Chemicals and Environment& Health.  
Figure 1: LIFE+ expenditure per policy area 
(2007-2009)
14%4%4%5%11%5%8%
49%Figure 2: LIFE+ expenditure per policy area (2007-2009)
369,64106,4827,7130,1937,7783,9739,4164,2
0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350 400policy area
million EURCompliance&Communication
Green economy
Waste 
Water
Air& E m issions
Chemicals and Env&Health
Climate change
Nature & soil
 
Around 49% of the budget has been invested in nature conservation and biodiversity, 
including forest and soil protection. 19% has b een devoted to improve resource efficiency and 
environmental quality, and gr eening the economy. 14% of the budget ha s been used to 
address climate change problems and 8% has been committed to ensure compliance with environmental legislation and to communica tion activities. The increased budget for 
communication compared to previous pr ogramming periods shows the Commission's 
conviction regarding the relevance of communi cation for a successful environmental policy. 
As Table 1 below shows, the budget allocated per policy area during the reporting period has 
been relatively similar. 
 
EN 4   EN Table 1: LIFE+ budget allocation per policy area/per year (million€) 
LIFE+ Budget
2007 2008 2009 2007 2008 2009
4,53 4,38 4,84 13,75 112,1 112,71 131,08 355,89
Nature& Bio 3,59 3,19 2,56 9,34 94,4 107,31 123,29 325
Forest & soil 0,94 1,19 2,28 4,41 17,7 5,4 7,79 30,89
6,9 6,48 8,06 21,44 23,1 25,88 36,06 85,04
2,23 3,33 3,6 9,16 3,18 6,82 8,55 18,55
2,17 2,62 3,18 7,97 3,19 4,78 14,25 22,22
2,58 2,82 3,84 9,24 6,09 10,92 11,52 28,53
1,78 1,8 2,32 5,9 24,38 25,57 28,12 78,07
4,15 2,16 4,21 10,52 4,15 10,9 13,84 28,89
10,27 13,46 16,39 40,12 7,9 9,91 6,27 24,08
34,61 37,05 46,44 118,1 184,09 207,49 249,69 641,27
NGOs 8,35 8,65 8,9 25,9
Others (e.g., LIFE TA) 8,35 9,34 10,07 27,76
TOTAL (million EUR) 51,31 55,04 65,41 171,76 184,09 207,49 249,69 641,27Total
Waste Public procurement (budgeted) Action grants (actual)
Policy areaTotal
Green economy
Compliance&CommunicationNature & soil
Climate change
Chemicals and Env&Health
Air& EmissionsWater
 
When comparing the distribution of LIFE+ expenditure per policy area for each intervention 
(i.e., public procurement and action grants), the actions grants interventi on is by far the largest 
contributor to nature conserva tion (Figures 3 & 4 below). Expenditure on nature represents 
12% of spending under the public procuremen t in the reporting period. However adding 
projects financed under LIFE+ Nature and Biod iversity and projects on soil and forest under 
LIFE+ Environment& Governance, LIFE+ spendi ng on Nature conservation represents 49% 
of budget.  
Figure 3: LIFE+ expenditure comparison including/excluding action grants 
Public procurement expendinture per policy area (2007-2009)
12%
18%
8%
7%
8%5%9%33%
Nature & soil Climate change Chemicals and Env&Health
Air& Emissions Water Waste 
Green economy Compliance&CommunicationLIFE+ expenditure per policy area (2007-2009)
49%
14%4%4%5%11%5%8%
Nature & soil Climate change Chemicals and Env&Health
Air& Emissions Water Waste 
Green economy Compliance&Communication 
Figure 4: LIFE+ expenditure comparison including/excluding action grants 
Public procurement expenditure per policy area (2007-2009)
13,7521,449,167,979,245,910,5240,12
0 1 02 03 04 05 0policy area
million EURLIFE+ expenditure per policy area (2007-2009)
369,64106,4827,7130,1937,7783,9739,4164,2
0 100 200 300 400policy area
million EUR
Nature & soil Climate change Chemicals and Env&Health
Air& Emissions Water Waste 
Green economy Compliance&Communication 
 
EN 5   EN However, once LIFE+ projects on Nature and Biodiversity are exclude d, the distribution of 
spending by public procurement and action grants  per policy area is comparable (Figures 5 
and 6). The exception is waste, where only 5% of procurement is spent on waste but 26% on 
the action grants.  
Figure 5: Comparison of Spending by Polic y Area between Public Procurement and 
Action Grants, 2008 
4%7% 8%28%
11%9%11%
7% 6%8%51%
3%13% 13%
6%
2%1%2% 3%6%
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%
DG ENV Public Procurement % of 
T otal (€27m) 2008
LIFE+ Action Grants % of Total 
(€197m) 2008
 
Source: Mid-Term Evaluation of the Implementa tion of the LIFE+ Regulation (Final Report) 
GHK in association with Arcadis and VITO 
Figure 6: Comparison of Spending by Polic y Area between Public Procurement and 
Action Grants, 2008 (excluding Nature) 
0%8%8%29%
11%
10%12%
7% 7%9%
0%6%26%27%
11%
3%3%4%7%12%
0%5%10%15%20%25%30%35%
DG ENV Public Procurement % of T otal 
(€26m) 2008
LIFE+ Action Grants % of T otal (€96m) 2008
 
Source: Mid-Term Evaluation of the Implementa tion of the LIFE+ Regulation (Final Report) 
GHK in association with Arcadis and VITO 
 
EN 6   EN 2. A CTION GRANTS  
141 projects were funded in the 2007 call for proposals, 196 in 2008 and 210 in the 2009 call. 
The programme has provided co-finance of €642m under the first three calls. A total 
investment of €797m in environmental protection in 2007-2008 has been secured.1  
Figure 7: Comparative analysis of  LIFE+ calls for proposals 2007-2009 
  2007  2008  2009  
Proposals received  707 613 615 
LIFE+ EU co-financing available  187 Mio €  207.5 Mio €  250 Mio €  
Rejected Admissibility & Eligibility (%)  17%  8% 4% 
Rejected Financial Selection (%)  12%  5% 4% 
Rejected Technical Selection (%)  16%  13%  6% 
Rejected Award Phase (%)  67%  56%  54%  
Number of projects in final short-list  143 195 210 
Overall success rate (%)  20%  32%  34%  
Compliance with National allocation  73,32%  76,84%  73,49%  
In these three calls, projects under the nature and biodiversity component represented in 
average 51% of total action grants budget. The obligation to allocate at least 50% of the 
budgetary resources of action gran ts to supporting nature and biodiversity was thus met.  
However, the financial crisis had an impact on the calls for proposals. Private beneficiaries 
and NGOs found it more difficult to obtain co-fin ancing and in several cases private entities 
withdrew their support. This pr oblem was also observed in public  applicants due to budgetary 
restrictions derived from the measur es adopted to overcome the crisis. 
The problems identified raise c oncerns regarding the adequacy  of the current co-financing 
rate. The evaluation data suggests that current co-financing rate is preventing some applicants 
from submitting good quality proposals with ove rreaching objectives especially in certain 
Member States and for Biodiversity and In formation & Communication strands (see below 
for more details). 
                                                 
1 At the time of preparing this report, final information on projects total budget was not available.  
 
EN 7   EN  
Programme Policy area n° of projects Total budget EC contribution
ENV Air 1 2.720.033 1.344.966
ENV Chemicals 1 1.645.154 822.577ENV Climate Change 21 48.070.968 23.060.412ENV Environment and Health 1 1.031.836 506.168ENV Forests 1 34.443.390 16.139.278
ENV Innovation 3 4.610.076 2.102.896
ENV Noise 1 4.209.587 1.848.468
ENV Soil 2 3.237.731 1.574.808
ENV Strategic Approaches 4 4.139.987 2.046.043ENV Urban Environment 2 3.728.865 1.858.906ENV Waste and Natural resources 27 59.026.591 24.383.116ENV Water 8 13.827.132 6.087.514
ENV Total 72 180.691.350 81.775.152
INFAwareness raising campaigns for the prevention of forest fires 
and/or training for forest fire agents 0 0 0
INFNational or transnational communication or awareness raising 
campaigns related to nature protection or biodiversity matters 2 2.099.597 953.250
INFNational or transnational communication or awareness raising 
campaigns related to the implementation, updating and development of EU environmental policy and legislation, except nature protection and biodiversity matters 9 13.970.695 6.936.056
INF Total 11 16.070.292 7.889.306
NAT LIFE + Biodiversity 4 6.669.210 3.232.910
NAT LIFE + Nature 54 163.994.893 91.168.031
NAT total 58 170.664.103 94.400.941
TOTAL 141 367.425.745 184.065.399
Programme Policy area n° of projects Total budget EC contribution
ENV Air 2 5.455.289 2.693.386
ENV Chemicals 5 6.903.271 3.305.719ENV Climate Change 26 53.803.260 25.878.047ENV Environment and Health 2 5.187.585 2.500.033ENV Forests 3 4.178.657 2.067.469
ENV Innovation 7 8.779.539 4.217.834
ENV Noise 2 2.393.541 1.022.008
ENV Soil 3 6.841.569 3.335.543
ENV Strategic Approaches 6 13.798.073 6.680.491ENV Urban Environment 3 5.855.953 2.088.933ENV Waste and Natural resources 26 72.625.911 25.567.135ENV Water 14 23.787.075 10.916.409
ENV Total 99 209.609.723 90.273.007
INFAwareness raising campaigns for the prevention of forest fires 
and/or training for forest fire agents 4 3.953.173 1.680.102
INFNational or transnational communication or awareness raising 
campaigns related to nature protection or biodiversity matters 8 9.052.641 4.484.937
INFNational or transnational communication or awareness raising 
campaigns related to the implementation, updating and development of EU environmental policy and legislation, except nature protection and biodiversity matters 5 7.589.831 3.748.795
INF Total 17 20.595.645 9.913.834
NAT LIFE + Biodiversity 8 11.676.288 5.671.535
NAT LIFE + Nature 72 188.788.667 101.641.722
NAT total 80 200.464.955 107.313.257
TOTAL 196 430.670.323 207.500.098
Programme Policy area n° of projects Total budget EC contribution
ENV Air
6 6.724.337
ENV Chemicals 3 2.302.214
ENV Climate Change 30 36.063.802
ENV Environment and Health 4 4.774.368
ENV Forests 2 2.970.684
ENV Innovation 8 6.136.835
ENV Noise 3 1.478.681
ENV Soil 3 4.815.072
ENV Strategic Approaches 7 7.702.626
ENV Urban Env ironment 9 7.532.716
ENV Waste and Natural resources 29 28.124.077
ENV Water 13 11.520.010
ENV Total 117 0 120.145.422
INFAwareness raising campaigns for the prevention of forest fires 
and/or training for forest fire agents 1 750.188
INFNational or transnational communication or awareness raising 
campaigns related to nature protection or biodiversity matters 5 2.909.369
INFNational or transnational communication or awareness raising 
campaigns related to the implementation, updating and development of EU environmental policy and legislation, except nature protection and biodiversity matters 4
2.614.249
INF Total 10 0 6.273.806
NAT LIFE + Biodiversity 12 14.869.045
NAT LIFE + Nature 71 108.421.214
NAT total 83 0 123.290.259
TOTAL 210 516.337.507 249.709.487LIFE+ 2007: projects financed
LIFE+ 2008: projects financed
LIFE+ 2009: projects financed
 
 
EN 8   EN Public authorities and development agencies were the most common group of beneficiaries 
for all three LIFE+ components (42% of lead be neficiaries). As for the remaining types of 
beneficiaries, universities and research institutions represent 22% of the lead  beneficiaries 
closely followed by NGOs (19%) and by enterprise s and professional orga nisations (17%). In 
Nature and Biodiversity, public au thorities and NGOs led 84% of the projects financed (with 
public authorities representing 51% of lead beneficiaries an d NGOs 33%). In Environment 
and Governance the distribution was more even between universities, enterprises and public 
authorities. NGOs were also very activ e in running Information projects. 
Figure 8: Lead beneficiaries in LIFE+ projects per strand (2007-2008) 
42%
22%19%12%5%Public authorities and 
development agencies
Universities/Research 
institutions
NGO-foundations
Enterprises (including public 
enterprises)
Professional organisations 
(e.g. The Shannon Regional 
Fisheries Board)
 
Figure 9: Lead beneficiaries in LIFE+ projects per strand (2007-2008) 
71
58114
36
11452
74513
83121
0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%
Nature and 
BiodiversityEnvironment 
Policy and 
GovernanceInformation and 
CommunicationProfessional organisations
NGO-foundations
Universities/Research institutions
Enterprises
Public authorities and 
development agencies
 
Source: Mid-Term Evaluation of the Implementa tion of the LIFE+ Regulation (Final Report) 
GHK in association with Arcadis and VITO  
National allocations are a remnant of the first proposal submitted by the Commission. The 
aim was to ensure a proportionate distribu tion of projects throughout the EU in a 
decentralised management system. This aim is still valid in the current Regulation based on 
centralised management mode. In the reporti ng period the geograp hical distribution of 
projects has improved but not substantially. Italy, Spain and Germany remain the main 
countries receiving LIFE+ funding. The total am ounts awarded to beneficiaries in these 3 
Member States totalled €98 million in 2008, accoun ting for almost half of the total LIFE+ 
budgetary resources. Beneficiaries in new Member States have in general a lower rate of 
success. A study carried out by Ar cadis consultants identified several underlying causes for 
differentiated rates of success: active support to applicants by national au thorities or access to 
matching funds. In old Member St ates, low success rates are mainly related to the number of 
applications submitted. The higher the number of applications, the higher the probability that 
more quality proposals are submitted, and thus the higher the probability of being funded. 
 
EN 9   EN However, EU added value partially derives from the quality of the projects funded. 
Compliance with national allocations should not l ead to finance projects  of lower quality. For 
these reasons, the Commission is actively work ing to disseminate good practice to increase 
success rate in these Member States thro ugh improved communication efforts. These 
increased efforts include promoting better quality  proposals in those Memb er States of lower 
programme uptake.  
Figure 10: Use of National Alloca tions per Member States (2007-2009) 
0 20.000.000 40.000.000 60.000.000 80.000.000 100.000.000 120.000.000CYLUMTLVLTSKIEEEATCZBEBGSIDKHUPTNLGRFISEROPLUKFRITESDE
   National allocation used
   National allocation not used
   National allocation exceeded
 
Source: LIFE+ Unit 
In 2008, the actual amounts awarded to Member States appeared to match the indicative 
national financial allocations. Italy, Spain and Germany were  found to receive the highest 
amounts of funding beyond the indicative national al locations. In fact, the amount awarded to 
beneficiaries in Italy (€36 million) was found to  be twice as much as their corresponding 
indicative national allocation (€18 million). With  Member States that received less funding 
than the indicative national allocations, the differences between the actual amounts and the 
 
EN 10   EN indicative allocations were more subtle, with the biggest gap being in  the UK (approximately 
€5 million). 
Figure 11: Use of national allo cations per Memb er State (2007-2009) 
Natl. allocation 
2007 - 2009 (€)Total per 
country (€)Us e  r ate  
(%)
CY 6.800.000 3.778.521 56%
LU 7.048.826 3.349.860 48%
MT 7.408.583 229.106 3%
LV 8.250.000 3.860.958 47%
LT 8.877.508 5.889.332 66%
SK 9.852.778 10.121.593 103%
IE 10.152.657 4.206.014 41%
EE 10.684.546 4.180.265 39%
AT 12.104.329 22.226.271 184%
CZ 12.795.390 3.755.661 29%
BE 13.307.173 30.932.183 232%
BG 13.883.843 7.784.648 56%SI 13.895.697 8.174.266 59%
DK 15.835.566 14.788.181 93%
HU 16.118.146 11.457.822 71%
PT 18.058.081 13.181.959 73%
NL 20.679.431 19.064.401 92%
GR 21.920.880 36.888.840 168%
FI 23.093.635 22.838.827 99%
SE 26.504.715 42.722.183 161%
RO 28.072.385 7.261.029 26%
PL 30.550.646 22.613.014 74%
UK 51.292.230 27.544.407 54%
FR 56.417.161 38.307.062 68%
IT 56.761.810 108.314.302 191%ES 69.076.505 104.399.312 151%
DE 75.057.475 64.206.692 86%
644.499.998 642.076.706
 
Source: LIFE+ Unit 
Expected outcomes and results per theme 
LIFE+ introduced the obligation to develo p Programme indicators. The Commission has 
already developed output indicato rs for projects selected, but re sult indicators are yet to be 
developed. This is so partly because of the di fficulties to identify indicators for Environment 
and Information projects and partly because indicators are an additional and complex 
requirement for beneficiaries. In  addition, results are often visibl e only years after the projects 
end. In any case, it is still early  to measure the results of proj ects financed in the reporting 
period since they only started in 2009.  
However, on the basis of provisional  data provided by beneficiaries,2 some information on 
expected outcomes is already available to assess the effectiveness of the Programme.  
LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity continues significantly contributing to the implementation 
of nature and biodiversity polic ies throughout the EU. Projects fina nced in the fi rst two calls 
                                                 
2 Beneficiaries submit outputs indicators at the time of the inception reports. The Commission is still 
validating those and thus data could not be aggregated for the purposes of this Communication 
 
EN 11   EN for proposals will invest around €91 million in concrete conservation activities and will 
produce around 190 plans (40% are manageme nt plans for Natura2000 sites). Projects 
financed under 2008 calls for proposals will acqui re 5.600 ha of land that will be dedicated to 
nature conservation for €14 million. A further €2.5 million will be invested in removing alien 
species from 84.000 ha. 50 sites will be newly created or enlarged implying 1.720,5 ha more to be added to the Natura2000 network.  
Table 2: Preparatory actions under LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity projects (2008)  
Types of preparatory actionsNo. of 
preparatory 
actions (NAT)No. of 
preparatory 
actions (BIO)
Plans of project measures 160 3
Action plans 96 7
Management plans 61 2
Guidelines 19 5Inventories & Studies 140 10
Ex ante  monitoring 86 3
Ex post  monitoring 86 2
 
Applying the estimates from the ex-post eval uation of LIFE Programme, LIFE+ will target 
about 9% of the terrestrial Natura 2000 ne twork. The marine environment increasingly 
occupies a prominent place in Nature projects w ith the possibility to finance the inventorying 
for new Natura 2000 marine sites. For exampl e, a 2007 Spanish project is inventorying 10 
new Natura 2000 sites; a furthe r 2.5 million ha are thus covered by LIFE+ projects. So far 298 
species are targeted by the projects financed . Important recipients continue to be large 
carnivores such as the wolf, the bear or the Iberian lynx, and prio rity birds such as the lesser 
spotted eagle and the red kite.  
Table 3: Concrete conservation action s under LIFE+ Nature projects (2008) 
DeliverableNo. of 
concrete 
actionsNo. of N2000 
sites involvedSurface 
involved 
(ha)Budgeted cost 
(€)
Natura 2000 site creation 22 50 1720,5 2749317
Natura 2000 site restoration/improvement 468 274 494684,9 51857337Reintroduction 31
Ex situ  conservation 16
Removal of alien species 27 84226,56 2603548
 
As for the Biodiversity strand, only 24 projects  have been selected for funding in 2007-2009 
calls. However, the success rate of biodiversit y projects has gone from  13% in 2007 call to 
38% in 2009 call showing a signifi cant positive trend, especially  after the changes introduced 
to the Guide for applicants which provided more examples.  
Table 4: Concrete conservation actions under LIFE+ Biodiversity projects (2008) 
DeliverableNo. of 
concrete 
actionsSurface 
involved 
(ha)Budgeted cost 
(€)
Enlargement of habitats
Site restoration/improvement 6 136 802123
Conservation actions 6 16,8 478422Reintroduction 1
Ex situ  conservation 7 51 69880
Removal of alien species 7 412 266809
 
The Biodiversity component has the potential to fund activities that  cannot be funded under 
any other programme since it covers a larger spectrum of activities well beyond the network 
of areas covered by the two nature Directiv es. These needs must be taken into due 
consideration (e.g. green infrastructures no t connecting Natura 2000 sites, ecosystems 
services outside Natura 2000, species not cove red by the Nature directives, IAS, etc).  
 
EN 12   EN While the "market" for nature conservation is defined and steadily growing, the one for 
biodiversity is not only wider, but also less consolidated, indi cating more a need for a catalyst 
financial instrument to s upport and guide its growth. 
The requirements under the current Biodiversity strand are stricter than for the Nature strand 
which makes it more difficult for applicants to  submit successful propo sals. In addition, the 
current co-financing rate may not provide incen tives to those who could submit applications 
under the component due to difficulties to find  matching funds. This is the case for NGOs, 
Universities or even the private sector. As the evaluation shows, some applicants prefer to 
submit applications for the Nature strand becaus e of the possibility to  request, under certain 
conditions, a higher co-financing rate. 
There is need to better identify and engage  new applicants from the broader biodiversity 
community including the private sector and encourage them to submit applications.  
LIFE+ supporting Nature and the wider Biodiversity 
LIFE+ significantly contributes to the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directive as 
well as to the preservation of the wider Biodive rsity. The following projects are examples of 
how LIFE+ contributes to the prot ection of EU natural heritage.  
Nature 
LIFE07 NAT/E/00732- INDEMARES  (budget €15.4 million; 50% EU co-financing rate): The main objective of 
this project is the protection and sustainable use of biod iversity in the Spanish seas through the implementation 
of the Natura 2000 network. The project will carry out the necessary studies are carried out to complete the 
identification of the most representative marine areas around Spain. It also proposes to add at least 10 sites to the 
marine Natura 2000 network. The results will support an y future revision of the Birds and Habitats Directives’ 
annexes and will contribute to the implementation and re inforcement of the marine international conventions 
applied in Spain – OSPAR and the Barcelona Conventi on. The project involves all relevant stakeholders, 
including the administrations concerned, NGOs, and fishermen. 
LIFE07 NAT/AT/00012- Traisen  (budget €12.8; EU co-financing 41.25%). This project coordinated by Verbund 
Austria Hydro Power AG aims at restoring the river dy namics and large-scale flooding areas, and creates free 
passage for fish and other water species by linking numerous floodplain waters to the new main river. The river was a heavily modified water body following the construction of the hydropower plant, Altenwörth, in 1976. 
This is one of the numerous projects financed by LIFE that have increased the ecological value of the Danube 
river and its neighbouring habitats and floodplains by  restoring sections to their natural conditions and 
demonstrating how future management can proceed. LIFE projects have restored several hundred kilometres of 
floodplain maximising the ecosystems services provided by the river.  
LIFE09 NAT/PL/00260- Biomass use for Aquatic Warbler  (budget €3.7 million; EU co-financing 74.07%). The 
objective of the project is to link the production of biom ass as a renewable energy source, with the large-scale 
mechanised management of aquatic warbler habitat. The aim is to demonstrate that conservation management of 
this habitat can also be economically viable. The project will be implemented in six project sites, all special 
protection areas (SPAs) according  to the Birds Directive.  
Biodiversity 
LIFE07 NAT/IT/00450 CENT.OLI.MED (budget €1.5; EU co-financing 48.39%) High Nature Value Farmland 
(HNVF) plays a crucial role in the protection of biod iversity. In the Mediterranean region, HNVF includes 
Ancient Olive Groves (AOGs). These ar e extensive crops – less than 50 trees per ha - that constitute one element 
in a mosaic of semi-natural and cultivated areas. The AOGs are typically intersected by small-scale structural elements or landscape features such as Mediterranean scrub, dry stone walls or woodland strips. The project 
ultimately aims to enhance biodiversity in Ancient Oliv e Groves (AOGs). It seeks to gain recognition of AOGs 
as HNVF and to implement actions to halt the loss of biodiversity in these habitats. 
LIFE08 NAT/E/00064 CUBOMED
 (budget €1.7 million; EU co-financing 48.33%). Spanish marine habitats 
have been adversely affected by increased  populations of the predatory jellyfish Carybdea marsupialis . The 
reasons behind unusual population growth patterns in C. marsupialis remain unknown, but these seem to follow 
a similar pattern of behaviour to other invasive species that can take advantage of environmental stresses caused 
 
EN 13   EN by human activity. The economic impacts in the tourism in Spain but also in other parts of the Mediterranean are 
obvious if this species expand. The main objective of this project is to gain sufficient understanding about C. 
marsupialis blooms to help develop measures capable of mitigating against negative impacts from the jellyfish 
on Mediterranean marine ecosystems in Europe. 
LIFE09 NAT/FR/00584 BioDIVine  (budget €1.8 million; EU co-financing 49.18%): Grape vines provide habitats 
with unlimited food supply and few natural enemies. This makes them an ideal breeding ground for pests. As restrictions on phytosanitary products increase, environmentally-sensitive biological pest control methods are 
growing in importance. The aim of this LIFE Biodiversity project focuses on demonstrating the benefits from 
strengthening landscape structures as a means to restore and conserve biodiversity in cultivated vineyards. This will be achieved by assessing biodiver sity-friendly actions in different Eur opean biotopes. Complementary semi-
natural spaces will be created in vineyards from seven test  sites in three countries (P ortugal, Spain and France) 
covering Atlantic, Mediterranean and Continental regions. The agronomic benefits of using arthropods and fungi biodiversity for viticulture will be tested. Results will inform the design of a landscape and ecological action 
plan intended to effectively combine wine production and biodiversity conservation actions.
 
For LIFE+ Environment and Governance , the themes waste & natural resources, climate 
change and water represent 71% of all funded pr ojects under this strand. Climate change has 
attracted a significantly higher number of proj ects compared to LIFEIII. This reflects the 
focus given to climate change in the calls fo r proposals. The addition of new themes has not 
led to a substantially different  distribution of projects per area compared to previous 
programmes. However, in the 2008 and 2009 calls a positive trend in numb er of applications 
and projects selected for those themes can  be observed. For example, in 2007 no projects 
focused on chemicals were funded but in 2008, five projects were selected  for funding. As in 
the case of biodiversity,  there is a need to attract new a pplicants to the programme that may 
be unaware of LIFE funding opport unities in a particular area.  
Table 5: Overview of Environment Project s Funded under LIFE II- LIFE III Extension 
(1996-2006) and Environment & Governance Funded under LIFE+ (2007-2008) 
Number of 
ProjectsCommitted 
Amount (€m)Number of 
ProjectsCommitted Amount 
(€m)
Air 93 52 3 4
Water 250 145 22 18
Natural resources & waste 312 184 54 53
Strategic approaches 189 103 10 9
Urban environment 69 35 5 4
Climate change 39 33 47 51
Chemicals 17 10 6 4Soil 92 49 5 5
Forests 15 6 4 18
Innovation 10 7Noise 3 3
Environment and 
health 3 3
Total 1076 616 172 180
Average per year 98 56 86 90LIFE II - LIFE III extension 
(1996-2006) LIFE+ (2007-2008)‘Pre-existing’ themesNew 
themes
 
Source: GHK analysis for previous periods based on COWI (2009) and on LIFE Unit data for the current 
programme. The ex-post evaluation classified projects funded by previous LIFE programmes (1996-2006) under 
9 themes as defined in the LIFE+ Regulation. These th emes were air, water, natural resources and waste, 
strategic approaches, urban environment, c limate change, soil, forests and chemicals. 
Note: The innovation theme should be distinguished from the innovative criterion used in project appraisal (note: 
all ENV projects in LIFE III were innovative and all Environment and Governance projects in LIFE+ have to be 
 
EN 14   EN either innovative or demonstrative). The innovation theme aims to assist implementation of the Environmental 
Technologies Action Plan (ETAP) (Regulation (EC) No 614/2007) 
Figure 12: Average number of Environmen t projects funded under LIFE II- LIFE III 
extension (1996-2006) and Environment & Go vernance projects funded under LIFE+ 
(2007-2008) 
28
423
17
28
6
1827
24
11
5
3 33 2 2
051015202530Average number of projects selected per yearLIFE II -
LIFE III extension 
(1996-
2006)
LIFE + 
(2007-2008)
 
Source: Mid-Term Evaluation of the Implementa tion of the LIFE+ Regulation (Final Report) 
GHK in association with Arcadis and VITO 
Environment projects represent a significant support for eco-innovation.  Projects financed 
under LIFE+ are expected to develop new te chnologies, methodologies, approaches, tools, 
processes and products that will improve the effective implementation of EU policies. 
However, the multi-thematic composition implies that relatively few projects are financed under each theme making it difficult to vali dly assess results at thematic level.  
In this context it should be also not ed that the protocol agreed between LIFE+ Environment 
and Governance  and CIP eco-innovation  to manage submissions a nd steer the applicants to 
the most suitable instrument envisages that LIFE + will tend to fund projects orientated to the 
public sector while CIP eco-innovation will concen trate more on market replication projects, 
presented by private undertakings and notably SMEs. 
Some information is available for the ma in three themes mentioned above. 27 new 
technologies, 85 methodologies and appro aches and 10 process and products will be 
developed in the next years. Waste concen trates on developing new technologies whereas 
climate change and water focus on new methodol ogies, approaches and tools. Waste is the 
most innovative theme in terms of creating an d developing new products and process. The 
wider impact due to possible replication is di fficult to assess at this stage although when 
evaluating EU added value during the selecti on process it was assessed medium or high.  
Table 5: Expected outputs for 2007-2008 f unded projects in term s of eco-innovation 
2007 call 2008 call  
Output  Climate 
change Waste WaterTotal 
Climate 
change Waste WaterTotal 
Technologies 4 8 0 12 5 8 2 15 
Methodologies/approaches/tools 17 13 7 37 20 16 12 48 
Processes/products 0 6 0 6 1 3 0 4 
             
TOTAL  21 27 7 55 26 27 14 67 
 
EN 15   EN  
LIFE+ supporting Environmental polic y implementation and development  
LIFE+ Environment & Governance provides a positive stimulus for supporting the transition 
to more sustainable production bridging the ga p between research and the development of 
large-scale commercial application. It is an e ffective tool to support key sectors to obtain a 
competitive advantage by adopting more resour ce efficient and greener  production processes. 
LIFE07 ENV/E/000787 Recyship (budget €3.4 million; EU co-financing 50%): a ship reaches the end of it 
working life after 20-30 years and is sold as scrap and dismantled to recover the steel. Almost 90% can be reused 
as high quality steel. The remaining 10% contains high quantities of dangerous waste. In the 1970s, ships were dismantled in European ports. Greater environmental regulation and higher security and health standards, 
increased the costs and the industry moved its operations to cheaper countries (e.g. Bangladesh, India, China, 
Turkey). The main objective of the project is to deve lop a technically and econom ically feasible, safe and 
environmentally sound methodology for the dismantling and decontamination of  end-of-life vessels and develop 
a pilot test in a shipyard in the southwest of Europe , where the prototype will be validated. The project will 
assess EU and national legislation and will propose a regulation for end-of-life ships management. 
LIFE07 ENV/FIN/07 VACCIA (budget 3.1; EU co-financing 48.98%): Climate change provides a major 
challenge for the sustainable management of key ecosystem goods and services, including biodiversity, forests, 
water and agricultural production. Despite increasing effort s to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, results 
from global circulation models show that major changes in the current climate cannot be avoided. The VACCIA 
project aims to derive realistic climate change scenarios for specific sites to enable impact and vulnerability 
assessments and suggest the most appropriate adaptation measures. 
LIFE08 ENV/IT/000435 ANTARES  (budget €1.1; EU co-financing 50%): REACH has introduced stricter 
European legislation on the handling, use and disposal of new chemicals. This aims to address the problem of chemical compounds ending up in the environment, but it also increases the cost to producers, who must 
demonstrate that a chemical is safe for the environment and human health. It  has been estimated that at least 30 
000 new chemicals will be introduced in the coming years in Europe. This project aims to show which non-testing methods (NTM) can be used to demonstrate compliance with REACH legislation and under what 
conditions. It seeks to bridge the gap of knowledge on which methods can be  used in practice to avoid animal 
testing. The project will carry out a preparatory survey of all current methods for assessing compliance with the 
REACH legislation. This will help identify the exact criteri a that the NTMs must meet. It will also evaluate the 
available experimental data for the eco-toxicological, toxicological and environmental endpoints for REACH. 
LIFE09 ENV/BE/00410 DEMOCOPHESII  (budget 3.4; EU co-financing 49.87%): Human Biological 
Monitoring (HBM) has long been used in the medical surveillance of workers. Currently it is increasingly used 
as a tool in environmental research and in health policy development. The European Environment and Health 
Strategy, launched in June 2003 by the European Commis sion as the SCALE initiative, paid particular attention 
to the potential of HBM. The main objective of this project is to demonstrate the feasibility of a harmonised 
approach to HBM in the EU by implementing a pilot stu dy in 16 Member States and sharing the expertise with 
five additional countries, which will be adhoc members of this project. The work will be guided by the external team, COPHES (COnsortium to Perform Human biomon itoring on a European Scale), which will prepare 
guidelines and protocols for all tasks, train beneficiaries, deliver preparatory materials and evaluate the process 
within the framework of an  FP7 Concerted Action that started in December 2009. 
LIFE09 ENV/E/000441 AGROCLIMATICA  (budget €1.6; EU co-financing 50 %): The Intergovernmental Panel 
on Climate Change has estimated that agriculture is di rectly responsible for 20% of global greenhouse gas 
(GHG) emissions. In Europe, this figure is around 9% of total GHG emissions. Key sources of GHG emissions 
in agriculture are fertiliser production and machiner y. The ACCIÓN AGROCLIMÁTIC A project aims to de-
velop a tool for carrying out energy and GHG audits on farms, and for identifying the most suitable crops and best practices for mitigation and adaptation to climate change. It seeks to provide a methodology that will be 
widely accepted by the EU-27 farming sector and applicable to most of the different agricultural systems. 
The growing significance of eco -innovation is evident with an  increasing percentage of 
projects dealing with innovative management or business methods introduced both by public 
entities and the private sector. Around two thirds of projects funded under LIFE+ 
Environment and Governance are eco-innovation projects.  
 
EN 16   EN Figure 13: Total project funding under LIFE III and LIFE+ for Environment & 
Governance and Eco-innovation (‘broad’ and ‘strict) 
0100000002000000030000000400000005000000060000000700000008000000090000000
2000 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008Total of EU contributions (all projects, 
in €)
Total of EU contributions (broad eco-
innov projects, in €)
Total of EU contributions (STRICT eco-
innov projects, in €)
 
Source: GHK analysis. Mid-Term  Evaluation (Final Report) 
In these two calls, some projec ts will also significantly contribute to develop environmental 
legislation in the area of waste by testing methods  to manage new waste streams such as ship 
dismantling, fiber glass or biowaste.  
38 projects have been financed under LIFE+ Information  in the reporting period. A 
significant number of projects  were rejected in the 2007 call for not being sufficiently 
ambitious or without clea r environmental goals.  
Figure 14: INF projects submit ted and selected 2007 and 2008 
 
The Guide for applicants was modified to provide  more examples of types of projects to be 
financed under this component. As a conseque nce overall quality of projects improved but 
results remain low as compared to the othe r LIFE+ components. The evaluation shows that 
the co-financing rate may not provide enough incentives to s ubmit applications under the 
strand. It seems that finding matching funds is difficult for communication campaigns and 
projects had to downscale project objectives to  meet co-funding requirements thus focusing 
more on local or regional campaigns with some exceptions.  
 
EN 17   EN Figure 15: INF Themes 2007 and 2008 
 
Source: monitoring files LIFE ENV projects – GHK calculations 
The projects financed cover a wide range of th emes, from climate change or sustainable olive 
oil production. They also target  very diverse audiences, fr om the general public to 
professional stakeholders or public authoritie s. Most projects focu s on local or regional 
problems. However, some proj ects e.g. French project on the European Waste Week  will have 
more significant impacts at EU level. More effo rts are needed to better define this component. 
The evaluation also recommends in creasing the co-financing rate. 
LIFE+ supporting awareness and communication campaigns  
LIFE+ Information & Communication the strand o ffers a unique opportunity to overcome this 
barrier and widely promote environmental themes . The introduction of th e strand is perceived 
both at EU and national level as one of the elemen ts that added the greatest contribution to EU 
added value in the new Regulation. The stra nd has the potential of  financing EU-wide 
communication campaigns that will contribute to  reducing environmental problems in the EU. 
 
LIFE07 INF/FR/000185 Europe an Week for Waste Reduction  (budget €2.1 million; co-financing 50%): On 21 
December 2005, the European Commissi on, in applying the Sixth Community Envir onment Action Programme 
(2002 – 2012), presented the following: 
- A communication to the European Co uncil, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social 
Committee and the Committee of Regions entitled “Taking sustainable use of resources forward: a thematic 
strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste”; 
- A proposal for a European Par liament and EU Council Directive on waste, which became Directive 
2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on waste. 
The main objective of the European Week of Waste Reduction (EWWR) project is to reduce the amount of 
municipal waste generated in Europe by involving all the players concerned in awareness programmes. The 
project will be an awareness campaign to mobilize European society on the problems of waste. It will build on 
the experience of French waste reduction campaigns (whi ch were launched in 2004 within the framework of a 
national plan for prevention of waste production) and aims to sensitise and mobilise Europeans on the need to 
reduce the amount of waste that everyone produces daily. The project, managed by ADEME, Agence de l'Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l'Energie, incl udes as partners main waste management authorities in 
partners in Belgium, Spain and Portugal.
 
 
EN 18   EN  
Table 6: INF project target audiences 
INF project target audiences  
Broader public  Professional stakeholders Policy makers 
/authorities/other 
General publicchildren/schools YouthParents and familiesteachersVisitors of natural par krural residentsornamental  horticulture
professionalstrappersLand/forest ownersFarmers local producersbusinessesProfessional org. Natura 2000 site managersLaw enforcement authoritieslocal/regional  authorities
/decision makersnational authoritiesNGOs
15 6 2 2 3 1 1 1 1 2 2 3 3 2 1 1 7 3 1 
54
% 21
% 7% 7% 11
% 4% 4% 4% 4% 7% 7% 11
% 11
% 7% 4% 4% 25
% 11
% 4% 
Source: monitoring files LIFE ENV projects – GHK calculations 
Complementarity 
LIFE+ should not finan ce activities that could be financed  by other EU funds (Art.9 of the 
Regulation). This strict oblig ation would require a clear se paration line between LIFE+ and 
other funds. The evaluation recognises the effort s to ensure complementarity. The application 
forms require information on actions included in the proposal that could be financed by other 
support programmes. Applicants mu st explain why they consider that those actions do not fall 
within the main scope of alternative EU instrume nts and must declare that actions listed in the 
proposal do not and will not  receive aid from any other EU instruments.  
The Commission coordinates to id entify projects that may be financed by other EU funds. A 
protocol to manage submissions under the Competitiveness & Innovation Framework 
Programme (CIP) and LIFE+ Envi ronment & Governance was devel oped to identify the most 
suitable instrument for a given activity. Other measures include an agreement that Member States will provide additional guida nce to potential applicants.  
The evaluation shows that complementarity is improved where:  1. LIFE+ projects build on FP7 activity.  2. A broad base of activity in LIFE+ is retain ed from which to support further policy value.  
3. The policy benefits to environment (and 6EAP) are fed into other Programmes. For 
example, in many cases agri-environmental measures are tested in LIFE projects and afterwards they are incorporated into  the rural development programmes.  
4. Ensure that the policy needs of CIP, SF, EA FRD, etc are reflected where possible in calls 
and appraisal criteria.  
5. Ensure beneficiaries are aware of joint funding in larger proj ects, where different elements 
might be funded as discrete projec ts with different funding sources.  
6. There is a step change in levels of comm unication between actors in the various policy 
fields at EC, MS, regional / local and beneficiary levels.  
 
EN 19   EN The Commission focuses on avoiding double-funding but has tried a more positive attitude 
towards complementarity by granting additional points to projects de monstrating synergies 
with other funds or showing an integrated appr oach in the use of different funds. However, 
building and enhancing synergies with other pr ogrammes is a more challenging task when 
those are decentralised or in shared management with national, regional or local authorities. 
Also, applicants tend to select the fund they are more familiar with. 
More efforts are needed to improve synergies between 7th Research Framework Programme, 
LIFE+ Environment, CIP, EAFRD, Structur al and Cohesion Funds to accompany innovative 
ideas from creation, testing & demonstration to commercialisation and wide diffusion.  
The evaluation recommends combining the Ec o-innovation component of CIP and LIFE+ 
Environment & Governance for the next pr ogramming period to create a single eco-
innovation funding mechanism. Protocols and guide lines to better link the different funds are 
also recommended.  
3. NGO S OPERATING GRANTS  
30 NGOs were selected in 2007, 33 in 2008 and 32 in 2009.  
Output indicators were introduced during the evaluation period. However,  the results of NGO 
activities are difficult to measure in a quantita tive way since they relate mainly to policy 
contribution, by nature qualitative. Quantitativ e output indicators can only provide limited 
information for monitoring the outcome. Neverthe less, across all beneficiaries activities in 
policy development and implementation, includ ing awareness raising and organisational 
development were reported. Commonly reported activities include for instance publication of 
press releases, organisation of and participa tion in conferences, and written submissions to 
EU institutions. NGOs also reported on awaren ess raising activities, including education on 
EU policy implementation and development.  
During the evaluation, beneficiarie s were also asked to estimate  the distributi on of activities 
and funds across main activity areas. The result s show that most resources are devoted to 
policy development and implementation follo wed by capacity building of members.  
Table 7: NGOs expenditure per area of intervention 
Environment policy development 4.519.729 euro 27,1% 
Implementation 4.704.192 euro 28,2% 
Capacity building of members and 
partners 2.810.383 euro 16,8% 
Environmental Education 1.639.228 euro 9,8% 
Enlargement and Third Countries 1.319.172 euro 7,9% 
Internal Capacity Building 1.703.103 euro 10,2% 
 
EN 20   EN Figure 16: NGOs expenditure p er area of intervention 
operational funding in 2007-2008
27%
28%17%10%8%10%
Environment policy development Implementation Capacity building of members and partners
Environmental Education Enlargement and Third Countries Internal Capacity Building 
Source: Arcadis calculations (Mid -term evaluation- Final Report) 
All topics of the 6EAP are covered with a good balance between policy development, policy 
implementation and internal and external capacity building.  
Topic operational fund 2007-2008 (€) % 
  
Agriculture 1.011.094,68 6,06 
wood, forestry 651.167,93 3,90 
Fishery 290.285,15 1,74 
Tourism 961.389,46 5,76 
nature and biodiversity 3.107.961,24 18,62 
energy and climate 2.295.281,04 13,75 
Water 1.335.164,69 8,00 
industrial pollution 475.643,17 2,85 
Waste 726.178,57 4,35 
Transport 491.624,00 2,94 
Chemicals 1.090.290,72 6,53 
sustainable economy 
sustainable development 2.331.413,01 13,96 
 
EN 21   EN Topic operational fund 2007-2008 (€) % 
Soil 174.372,70 1,04 
GMO 174.204,22 1,04 
Air 599.236,26 3,59 
Health 450.156,17 2,70 
Standardisation 180.000,00 1,08 
legal issues 350.344,00 2,10 
Source: Arcadis calculations (Mid -term evaluation- Final Report) 
Figure 17: NGOs expendi ture per policy area 
distribution of operational funding over policy themes
19%
14%
14%
8%7%6%6%4%4%4%3%3%3%2%2%1%1%1%
nature and biodiversity
sustainable economy
sustainable development
energy and climate
water
chemicals
agriculture
tourism
waste
wood, forestry
air
transport
industrial pollution
health
legal issues
fishery
standardisation
soil
GMO
 
Figure 18: NGOs expendi ture per policy area 
 
EN 22   EN distribution of operational funding over policy themes (2)
30%
29%27%14%
nature and open space sustainable economy pollution energy and climate 
4. S UPPORT FOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION  
In 2007-2009, DG Environment concluded around 200 contracts/year to help implementing 
the priorities laid down in the 6EAP. The budget  allocation per policy ar ea in this reporting 
period was very similar for each year (Figure 19). 
Figure 19: Public procurement ex penditure per policy area/per year 
Public procurement expenditure per policy area (2007)
13%
20%
6%
6%
7%5%12%31%
Nature & soil
Climate change
Chemicals and Env&Health
Air& E m issions
Water
Waste 
Green economy
Compliance&CommunicationPublic procurement expenditure per policy area (2008)
12%
17%
9%
7%
8%5%6%36%Public procurement expendinture per policy area (2009)
17%
8%
7%
8% 5%9%36%10%
NB: 
Compliance & communication  includes contracts to support the Commission in ensuring compliance and 
enforcement of environmental policy as well as co mmunication activities contracted by the specialised 
communication units and by thematic units (e.g., EMAS brochures, climate change); 
Nature & soil  includes contracts to support policy implementation and development in the area of soil, forests, 
nature and biodiversity. It also includes specific contr acts on international affairs focused on nature conservation 
issues (e.g., wild trade).  
Chemicals and Env& health  includes contracts to support implementation and development of REACH, 
biocides, pesticides, GMOs, environment and health, and noise; 
Air & emissions  includes contracts to support policy implementa tion and development in the areas of transport, 
air quality and industrial emissions (e.g., IPPC);  
Technical assistance  for LIFE+ units (around 8-10 million) has not been included.  
 
EN 23   EN LIFE+ Budget (budgeted)
2007 2008 2009
4,53 4,38 4,84 13,75
Nature& Bio 3,59 3,19 2,56 9,34
Forest & soil 0,94 1,19 2,28 4,41
6,9 6,48 8,06 21,44
2,23 3,33 3,6 9,16
2,17 2,62 3,18 7,97
2,58 2,82 3,84 9,24
1,78 1,8 2,32 5,9
4,15 2,16 4,21 10,52
10,27 13,46 16,39 40,12
34,61 37,05 46,44 118,1
NGOs 8,35 8,65 8,9 25,9
Others (e.g., LIFE TA) 8,35 9,34 10,07 27,76
TOTAL (million EUR) 51,31 55,04 65,41 171,76Waste Public procurement
Policy areaTotal
Green economy
Compliance&CommunicationNature & soil
Climate change
Chemicals and Env&Health
Air& Emissions
Water
 
NB: LIFE+ budget includes both budget lines . 
33% of resources were dedica ted to compliance and communication activities. The specific 
policy area with the largest share of public procurement expenditure (average 18%) is climate change. The remainder of public procurement is fairly spread across th e other policy fields.