EN Official Journal of the European Union CE 70/177

(2004/C 70 E/185)

WRITTEN QUESTION P-2950/03

by Dorette Corbey (PSE) to the Commission

(2 October 2003)

Subject: Future of LIFE-Nature

There is a great deal of confusion about the future shape of the LIFE-Nature financial instrument in a possible fourth period, and it is still not even clear that such a fourth period will be approved. LIFE'S greatest trump card consists in its ability to carry out targeted grass-roots measures which have a direct impact on local biodiversity. Such measures are frequently small-scale, most play an important role as demonstration projects, and, in the vast majority of cases, they have major local input, with not only nature and environmental organisations and authorities being involved but also farmers, the tourist industry and local inhabitants.

Can the Commission answer the following:

1. Compared with 2002, the average total budget increased this year by 7,5 %, as against 15 % the previous year. In other words, projects are becoming bigger every year. Is the Commission planning to support this trend, or quite the reverse? Can it produce figures relating to the small(er) projects which were not selected throughout the previous five-year period? Are there any indications that project partners are finding it increasingly difficult to produce their own (non-EU) share of the funds?

2. Does the increase in scale mean a relative increase in the number of authorities submitting project at the expense of NGOs? Can the Commission produce figures showing the ratio of authorities and NGOs as project applicants throughout the duration of LIFE since 1992? Will NGOs still be able to notify projects to the Commission, or just the Member States themselves?

3. In the future, too, is the Commission planning to restrict the zones where LIFE-Nature funds may be used to areas notified by the Member States and covered by the Habitats Directive, the Wild Birds Directive and areas which accommodate species which the EU feels must be given protection as a matter of priority, or will the Member States be able to use the funds horizontally throughout their territory in the future?

4. Will LIFE remain a separate financial instrument, will it be incorporated into agricultural policy, or will it become a component of the Structural Funds?

Answer given by Mrs Wallström on behalf of the Commission

(30 October 2003)

A proposal for a two-year extension of the present LIFE Regulation is currently being finalized with a view to submitting it to the Parliament and Council by the end of October 2003. Such an extension should bridge the period between 2004 and the adoption of the new financial perspectives. Only minor amendments are foreseen. A rapid adoption by the Parliament and Council should guarantee the necessary continuity.

With reference to the questions by the Honourable Member the following replies can be given:

1. The average total budget of LIFE-Nature projects increased from 2001 to 2002 by 18 % (EUR 0,84 million in 2001 compared to EUR 1,03 million in 2002) It then decreased in 2003 by 12 % as compared to 2002 (EUR 0,92 million in 2003). No significant trend is to be derived from the figure above and we can only conclude that small projects are not penalised. Finally, there is no indication that project partners are finding it increasingly difficult to produce their own share of the funds. The obligation for partners to bear part of their costs has been first introduced with LIFE III projects and we have not detected any drop in the number of proposals received.

2. In 2003, the share of projects financed directly to non-governmental organisations (NGOs) is equivalent to some 35 %. In the period 1992-2001, the NGO share was 25 % on average. The comparison of these figures indicates that the NGO share remains stable or tends to increase. Public authorities (local and national) remain, however, the most important type of beneficiary under LIFE-Nature with an average share of 73 % between 1992 and 2001. It should also be noted that NGOs very frequently work as partner in projects led by public authorities, thus increasing their effective share of the LIFE-Nature budget. Finally, the extension envisaged does not change the possibility for NGOs to submit LIFE-Nature proposals and the Commission expects them to continue to play a central role in the implementation of LIFE-Nature projects.

3. In the future LIFE-Nature will continue to support the implementation of the Habitats Directive (1) and Birds Directive (2) and in particular the set-up and active management of the Natura 2000 network. Both Directives identify a series of measure that are not site-related and will need to be implemented. Furthermore the ‘network’ concept for Natura 2000 will require an approach that goes beyond the boundaries of single sites. For these reasons, the Commission does not envisage restricting the use of LIFE-Nature funds to Natura 2000 sites only. However, the focus of LIFE-Nature will, at least during the extension envisaged, remain on the active management of Natura 2000 to avoid dispersion of the limited financial resources.

4. The Commission believes that LIFE should remain a separate instrument from the other existing ones. Its characteristics make it a very specific programme. At the same time complementarity and working in synergy with the other instruments should be improved to ensure that LIFE delivers its full potential. This is consistent with the findings of the intergovernmental group that worked on Article 8 of the Directive 92/43/EEC.

(1) Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora, OJ L 31, 6.2.1998.

(2) Council Directive 79/409/EEC of 2 April 1979 on the conservation of wild birds, OJ L 103, 25.4.1979.