OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 1973/92 establishing a financial instrument for the environment (LIFE)
Date: 1995-10-25
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU financial instrument, environmental policy, environmental protection, project evaluation, report













EUR-Lex - 51995AC1154 - EN






Avis juridique important




|



51995AC1154

OPINION OF THE ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 1973/92 establishing a financial instrument for the environment (LIFE)  


Official Journal C 018 , 22/01/1996 P. 0015 





Opinion on the proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) amending Council Regulation (EEC) No  1973/92 establishing a financial instrument for the environment (LIFE) ()(96/C 18/03)On 5  July 1995 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 130s of  the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned 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 19 September  1995. The Rapporteur was Mr Colombo. At its 329th Plenary Session (meeting of 25 October 1995), the Economic and Social Committee  adopted the following Opinion unanimously. 1. Introduction1.1. The Community's environment policy has achieved a high level of  development with the fifth Action Programme on the Environment and the adoption of a huge number of  legislative and regulatory instruments based on EC Treaty Articles 130r and 130s. 1.2. However, in order to be implemented fully, this policy needs adequate technical and scientific  assistance as well as technologically innovative projects that can demonstrate the feasibility and  advantages of a strategy aimed at sustainable development and based on the prevention of pollution  through the use of clean technologies, the rational use of energy, resource and energy savings, the  preservation of the natural environment, sensible waste management and the improvement of urban and  rural living conditions. 1.3. The LIFE Programme (Council Regulation (EEC) No 1973/92) has proved to be a reasonably  adequate instrument for financially supporting these necessary actions, even though it is not yet  possible to provide an overall assessment of the extent to which it has given added value to  environmental policy throughout the Community. The limiting factors in any comprehensive assessment  are the number of projects financed and the vast range of topics covered. 1.4. Welcoming the establishment of this instrument in its 1991 Opinion (), the ESC pointed out  that LIFE would provide an important stimulus for the effective implementation of policy, but only  if it were appropriately funded; the Committee also affirmed that LIFE would have to be closely  linked to the fifth Action Programme if it is to become the financial instrument of a coherent  long-term Community strategy in the environmental field (cf. point 2.1.1 of the 1991 Opinion). 1.5. In analysing the present proposal amending this parent Regulation, the Committee would again  stress the critical importance of the following: an adequate level of funding, long-term coherence,  and a feasible strategy of sustainable development. It is also important, given the participatory  approach and the principle of sharing out responsibilities under the fifth Action Programme, to  evaluate the stimulus given to partnership schemes involving socio-economic actors and  non-governmental organizations and producing multiplier effects. 1.6. Finally, it is essential to set up monitoring systems to verify results as projects move  forward. 2. Areas of activity2.1. The Commission points out in its proposal that during the lifetime of  LIFE I the modest level of funding, coupled with the large number of areas originally selected,  reduced the impact of individual projects and led to high administrative costs in processing  applications. The Commission therefore considers it necessary to limit areas of activity and define  selection criteria more clearly. 2.2. The Committee is in agreement with the general principle of reducing the number of areas of  activity and defining them more carefully, but believes that the Commission's current choice is too  restrictive and does not adequately highlight at least two areas where Community action is  necessary and opportune. 2.3. By way of example we might mention the prevention and reduction of atmospheric emissions and  the protection of air quality. This area of activity has major trans-national implications in terms  of pollution, bearing in mind global phenomena such as acid rain, the greenhouse effect and the  reduction of the ozone layer. 2.4. Another example concerns protection of the quality of the soil and the remediation of  contaminated soil. Despite the seriousness and scale of the problem of reclaiming contaminated  sites in Europe, efforts by individual Member States to improve the level of know-how, introduce  homogenous environmental quality standards, and lay down appropriate and economically sustainable  land-recovery criteria and technologies, have hitherto proved inadequate. Major Community support  here could make a significant contribution to the development of uniform and incisive intervention  strategies. 2.5. In selecting projects it is important that the instrument be used to incorporate and stimulate  the use of other Community support instruments, particularly in the case of sectors identified by  the fifth Programme (agriculture, energy, transport and tourism) but to which insufficient  attention has been paid by LIFE. Examples are projects to safeguard and maintain the quality of  inland waterways, and demonstration projects in rural areas designed to help reduce the  environmental impact of agriculture and the agri-food sector. 2.6. The financing of such carefully selected demonstration projects may make a substantial  contribution to passing beyond the research and identification stages to pinpointing concrete  actions that offer more incisive prevention and improvement strategies. 2.7. This role of providing an inter-sectoral stimulus might be enhanced if more funds were made  available (cf. chapter 6 below). 3. Project selection criteria3.1. The Commission underlines in its proposal the importance of  defining project selection criteria more carefully so that the decision-making process is more  transparent, the administrative costs of processing applications are kept under control, and  potential beneficiaries are given greater guidance. To this end, Article 9a lays down a general set  of conditions and criteria to be met by applicants. 3.2. The Committee considers that these criteria are spelt out with sufficient clarity. To be  effective, however, the priority actions and strategies within each area of activity - which  applicants must take into account and adhere to when preparing their projects - must be clearly  defined at an early stage of the annual publication of the invitation to submit applications. 4. Dissemination of information4.1. The Commission underlines the need to financially support  the promotion of specific actions, surveys, analyses and the dissemination of the results of  projects financed (3% of the annual budget). The funds set aside for these are amply justified but  insufficient. 4.2. If we are to accept that the aim of the LIFE instrument is to support 'demonstration projets'  and 'projects setting examples' for the transfer and dissemination of findings, then we have to  accept the need for strong, on-going action to ensure the dissemination of know-how and  information. Account must also be taken of the need to set in motion systematic procedures for  monitoring and checking the progress of projects receiving financial support so that appropriate  preventive action can be taken to limit the failure rate. 4.3. A significant proportion of the funds allocated to accompanying measures adopted on the  initiative of the Commission should therefore be reserved for the above-mentioned actions.  Administrative expenditure should be kept on as tight a rein as possible whilst fixed  appropriations reserved for the monitoring of projects and the dissemination of results should, if  necessary, be increased. 4.4. Socio-economic and non-governmental organizations have an important role to play in increasing  transparency and improving the dissemination of information; the crucial role however continues to  be played by national, regional and local authorities - where necessary through the creation of  appropriate networks possibly funded by the Commission and offering free access. 4.5. For the sake of more effective utilization of the limited funds for disseminating information,  the Commission should devise an information strategy that makes use of a wide variety of channels.  In addition to using the instruments referred to above, the findings of at least the most important  and significant projects should also - and first and foremost - be disseminated through scientific  publications and/or trade journals. This would ensure that the economic sectors concerned are  directly informed. 5. Forms of financing5.1. The Commission notes that during the first phase (LIFE I) the  'interest rebate' system of financing has not been used adequately. Greater use of this type of  financing might have a multiplier effect, with available funds topped up by third-party financing.  The Commission considers that this type of financing should continue to be on offer. 5.2. The Committee endorses the line taken by the Commission, believing that it satisfies the  requirement that third parties should be more closely involved and that market support should be  obtained for environmental spending. At the same time, however, the Committee notes that the  Commission does not submit concrete proposals in support of this type of financing which would  probably require an organization offering mediation services. 5.3. The Committee considers that specific action needs to be taken to encourage this type of  financing. The way to do this is to promote and support the presentation of projects requiring  interest-rate subsidies, perhaps stipulating that a proportion of the total funds made available  must be reserved for this type of financing. 5.4. With regard to projects presented by non-governmental organizations, it is obvious that the  funding level cannot be limited to 50%. By analogy with what is said in Article 8(3) regarding  Community financial support for technical assistance projects and accompanying measures, action  supported by NGOs should be covered 100% to enhance the status of voluntary involvement. 6. Coordination with other financial instruments6.1. A comparison between funds available under  LIFE II and environmental expenditure earmarked under other funds (Structural Funds, Cohesion Fund,  RTD, Phare, Tacis, EAGGF, etc.) shows the former to be at a disadvantage. This can be explained by  the specific nature of the LIFE instrument whose sole purpose is to support demonstration projects  and projects serving as examples. 6.2. We cannot however help but make the point that the various financial instruments need to be  closely coordinated, with uniform aims, strategies and concrete decisions, so that Community action  is not contradictory and does not lead to duplication. 6.3. With this in mind LIFE - even though its own financial resources are relatively modest -  should play a dynamic role in stimulating and guiding all other environmental funding from a  variety of Community instruments. Existing horizontal links between appropriate departments should  if necessary be stepped up. 6.4. In the light of what is said in points 2.5, 2.6 and 2.7, it is obvious that the role of LIFE  might in future be expanded with more adequate funding. Done at Brussels, 25 October 1995. The Presidentof the Economic and Social CommitteeCarlos FERRER() OJ No C  184, 18. 7. 1995, p. 12.  () OJ No C 191, 22. 7. 1991.