Report under Article 14 of Regulation (EC) No 1404/96 - LIFE
Date: 1998-12-04
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU financial instrument, environmental protection, exchange of information, quality of the environment, use of aid

COMMISSION  OF THE  EUROPEAN  COMMUNITIES 

mm 
&m 

Brussels, 04.12.1998 
COM( 1998) 721 final 

Report under Article 14 of 

iWP 

Regulation (EC) No 1404/96 

Life 

(presented by the  Commission) 

« * •• 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1  Presentation of LIFE 

1.2  The context of this report 

2.  ACTIONS FINANCED BY LIFE FROM 1992 TO 1995 

2.2.  Life-Nature: 

2.3.  Life -Environment 

2.4.  Life-Third countries 

3.  FRAMEWORK OF THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION OF LIFE 

4.  MAIN  CONCLUSIONS  AND  RECOMMENDATIONS  OF  THE 

EXTERNAL EVALUATION 

4.1.  Contribution 

to 

the  development  and 

implementation  of 

Community environmental policy and legislation 

4.2.  Life's added value in relation to other  financial  or environmental-

policy instruments 

4.3.  Means and procedures for implementing Life 
4.4.  Recommendations of the external assessors 

5.  THE  COMMISSION'S  ANALYSIS  AND  PROPOSALS  FOR 

CHANGE 

5.1.  General objective of Life 
5.2.  Forging  closer  links between  Life and  Community  environmental 

policy 

5.3.  Dissemination of results in line with their potential 
5.4.  The  role  of  Life  in  relation  to  non-EU  and  Central  and  Eastern 

European countries 

6.  DURATION AND REFERENCE AMOUNT OF THE THIRD PHASE 

7.  CONCLUSION 

ANNEX 1 Life - Nature 

ANNEX 2  Zz/e-Environment 

ANNEX 3  LIFE- Third countries 

3 

3 

5 

6 

6 

7 

7 

8 

9 

9 

9 
10 
10 

11 

11 

11 
11 

12 

12 

13 

15 

19 

26 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

1.1  Presentation of LIFE 

1.1.1.  The financial  instrument  for  the environment,  Life,  was  set up by 
Council  Regulation  EEC  No  1973/92,  as  amended  by  Council 
Regulation EC No  1404/96 of  15 July  1996. 

1.1.2.  The  general  objective  of  Life 

is  to  contribute  to  the 
implementation  of 
if  appropriate, 
development  and, 
Community  environment  policy  and  legislation  (Article  1 of 
the Life  Regulation)  by  co-financing  specific  actions  in the three 
eligible areas of activity. 

1.1.3.  The areas of activity eligible for financial support from Life are: 

* 

* 

* 

nature conservation actions (/.//^-Nature) 

demonstration  actions  involving  industry  and  local 
communities (L//<?-Environment) 

co-operation  actions  with  third  countries  bordering 
the  Mediterranean  and  Baltic  seas,  other  than  the 
countries  of Central  and Eastern Europe which  have 
signed  association  agreements  with  the  European 
Union {Life-Third  countries). 

the  Mediterranean 

1.1.4.  When  it  was  set  up  in  1992, Life  took  over  ACNAT,  MEDSPA 
and  NORSPA,  which  financed  projects  in  the  fields  of  nature 
conservation, 
the 
environment  of  the  Atlantic  and  North  Sea  coasts  respectively. 
Life  provided  a coherent,  stable  and  better  funded  framework  for 
these  environmental  activities. The Annex  to the Life  Regulation 
contained  a  list  of  priorities,  which  change  in  practice  from  one 
year to another. 

environment, 

and 

1.1.5.  The  main  change 

introduced 

in  1996  by  the  second  Life 
Regulation  was  the  suppression  of  these  priorities,  the  eligible 
fields  of  action  being  valid  for  the  duration  of  Life  II  (1996-
1999),  and  the  definition  of  evaluation  criteria  for  selecting 
actions to be  financed. 

The Life II Regulation  also made provision for preparatory  actions 
under  ^//^-Environment,  preparing  structural  actions,  and  for 
nature  conservation  and  demonstration  actions  under  Life-Third 
countries, alongside the technical assistance actions. 

1.1.6.  Since  1996,  Life  has  been  open  to  participation  by  associated 
countries  of  Central  and  Eastern  Europe,  as  a  pre-accession 

exercise,  in  accordance  with  the  requirements  of  the  additional 
protocols  to  the  association  agreements.  These  countries  can 
therefore  participate  in  Life-Nature  and  Zz/ê-Environment  on 
terms close to those of Member  States, but may no longer  benefit 
under  Life-Third  countries.  No  project  has  yet  been  selected  in 
this  framework. 

1.1.7.  Projects  to  be  funded  by  Life  are  selected  on  the  basis  of  their 
merits  and  their  contribution  to  the  objectives  of  Community 
environment  policy,  using  the  evaluation  criteria  set  out  in  the 
Regulation.  The  evaluation  procedure 
the 
characteristics of each eligible area of activity. 

is  adapted 

to 

For  Life-Nature 
the  Commission,  with  the  help  of  outside 
scientific  consultants,  makes  an  initial  selection  of  applications 
which  are  formally  acceptable  and  eligible  according  to  the 
criteria  in  the  Regulation.  It  then  puts  forward  a  list  of  the  best 
projects  at  Community 
level  for  approval  by  the  Habitat 
Committee. 

For  /.(/^-Environment,  a  parallel  evaluation  procedure 
is 
conducted  in the Member  States and by the Commission,  leading 
to  the  selection  of  a  short-list  representing  around  a  third  of 
projects  submitted. The  shortlisted  projects  are then examined  by 
panels  of  independent  experts.  On  the  basis  of  this  three-stage 
evaluation,  the  Commission  submits  a  list  of  projects  to  be 
funded  for approval by the Life Management  Committee. 

For Life-Third  countries,  the  evaluation  procedure  begins  with 
an  initial  selection  by the  Commission.  It then  proposes  a  list  of 
projects  to  be  assessed  by  independent  experts.  On  the  basis  of 
this  two-stage  evaluation,  the  Commission  submits  a  list  of 
projects  to  be  funded  for  approval  by  the  Life  Management 
Committee. 

1.1.8.  Since  1992,  Life  has  received  8 502  proposals  for  projects  of 
which  almost  one third  were  eligible.  1  275 projects  were jointly 
funded  at a total cost of ECU 643 million.  Some 900 projects  are 
in progress. 

1.1.9.  The following  table  gives a breakdown  of appropriations  used to 
co-finance  projects  in  the  three  areas  of  activity  (amounts  in 
million ECU). 

Life I 

Life 11 

92 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 

(EU-12) 

(EU-12) 

(EU-12) 

(EU-15) 

(EU-15) 

(EU-15) 

(EU-15) 

36.9 

20,6 

43 

48.5 

43.4 

42.4 

48 

44.6 

44.7 

53.1 

48.1 

43.3 

43.6 

48.6 

5.3 

3.5 

4.8 

5.7 

6.0 

4.2 

4.7 

LIFE-Nature 
(in  1992, with  ACNAT) 

£,/F£'-Environment 
(in  1992, with  MEDSPA 
and NORSPA) 

LIFE-Third 
countries 
(in  1992, with  MEDSPA 
and NORSPA) 

Total 

86.8 

68.8 

100.9 

102.3 

92.7 

90.2 

101.3 

The Annex gives detailed data for each area of activity. 

1.2  The context of this report 

1.2.1.  This  report  has been prepared  within the context  of both  the Life 
Regulation  and the "Sound  and Efficient  Management"  initiative 
(SEM 2000). 

1.2.2.  SEM  2000  states  that  the  implications  of  political  decisions  in 
terms of resources must be known at the time these  decisions are 
taken.  To that  end, it recommends  a systematic  evaluation  of all 
programmes entailing expenditure of Community  funds. 

1.2.3.  The Life  Regulation  includes  two  articles  concerning  resources, 
namely Articles 7(3) and Article  14. Article 7(3) asks the Council 
to  examine  the reference  amount,  on the basis  of a  Commission 
report, with a view to revising it if necessary. 

The  Commission's  report  under  Article  7(3)  was  sent  to  the 
Council  in  December  1997, reporting  on the  implementation  of 
the  Regulation  and  outlining  the  following  stages  of  the 
evaluation  of Life.  It concluded  that Life could  make good  use of 
resources up to and even beyond the current  reference  amount of 
ECU  450  million  for  the  period  1996-99.  However  the 
Commission  considered that the budgetary outlook would  restrict 
the Life budget to less than the reference  amount. 

1.2.4.  Article  14 stipulates that: 

'"No  later  than  31  December  1998,  the  Commission  shall 
submit a report to the European  Parliament  and the  Council 
on  the  implementation  of  this  Regulation  and  on  the  use  of 
appropriations  and  shall  make proposals  for  any  adjustment 
to  be  made  with  a view  to  continuing  the  action  beyond  the 
second phase." 

1.2.5.  This report was written  in application  of Article  14. It is based on 
a  detailed  evaluation  commissioned  from  outside  experts  who 
submitted  their  report  in  June  1998.  The  objective  of  this 
evaluation  was  to  assess  performance 
in  implementing  the 
scheme  and  its  efficiency 
in  attaining  its  objectives,  while 
assessing  their  relevance  and  whether  the  ideas  behind  the 
scheme  remain  valid.  This  report  presents  the  main  conclusions 
and  the  Commission's  analysis  of  the  experts'  report,  and  the 
changes proposed for  stage three of Life. 

2.  ACTIONS  FINANCED  BY LIFE  FROM  1992  TO  1995 

2.1.  Before  considering  the  evaluation  of  Life,  we  need  to  describe  the 
projects  it funds  and the results it has achieved, to serve as a basis for the 
evaluation of the instrument as a whole. 

2.2.  Life-Nature: 

During  the  first  phase  (1992-95)  Life-Nature  co-financed  many 
projects  in  Special  Protection  Areas  for  birds  as  well  as  national 
natural  heritage  inventories  in  several  Member  States  in  order  to 
prepare the implementation  of Natura  2000. The latter type of project  no 
longer has priority under Z,//ê-Nature II. 

During  the  second  phase  (1996-98),  Life-Nature  gave  priority  to  site 
protection  projects, especially  those  proposed  and  in  progress  under 
the  Habitats  Directive  (NA1).  The  breakdown  by  topic  of  projects 
funded  by Z,//è-Nature II has evolved over time as follows: 

nN A3 
BN A2 
m N A1 

1 9 96 

1 9 97 

1 9 98 

(NA1  =  projects  concerning  Habitat  Directive  sites;  NA2  =  projects  concerning  Birds 
(NA1  =  projects  concerning  Habitat  Directive  sites;  NA2  =  projects  concerning  Birds 
(NA1  =  projects  concerning  Habitat  Directive  sites;  NA2  =  projects  concerning  Birds 
Directive sites; NA3= projects  concerning species non specifically  related to sites) 
Directive sites; NA3= projects  concerning species non specifically  related to sites) 
Directive sites; NA3= projects  concerning species non specifically  related to sites) 

Annex  1  gives a detailed analysis of these topics and the results obtained. 
Annex  1  gives a detailed analysis of these topics and the results obtained. 
Annex  1  gives a detailed analysis of these topics and the results obtained. 

2.3. 
2.3. 
2.3. 

Life - Environment 
Life - Environment 
Life - Environment 

The breakdown by topic of the projects  financed  under Z//ê-Environment 
The breakdown by topic of the projects  financed  under Z//ê-Environment 
The breakdown by topic of the projects  financed  under Z//ê-Environment 
between  1992  and  1997 reveals  that  the  most  common  topic  is  "clean 
between  1992  and  1997 reveals  that  the  most  common  topic  is  "clean 
between  1992  and  1997 reveals  that  the  most  common  topic  is  "clean 
technologies"  modifying  industrial  production  processes,  (accounting 
technologies"  modifying  industrial  production  processes,  (accounting 
technologies"  modifying  industrial  production  processes,  (accounting 
for  23%  of  budget  expenditure),  and 
lesser  degree  water 
for  23%  of  budget  expenditure),  and 
lesser  degree  water 
for  23%  of  budget  expenditure),  and 
lesser  degree  water 
management,  regional  planning  in  rural  areas  and  in  urban  areas,  and 
management,  regional  planning  in  rural  areas  and  in  urban  areas,  and 
management,  regional  planning  in  rural  areas  and  in  urban  areas,  and 
waste management  (14-17%). 
waste management  (14-17%). 
waste management  (14-17%). 

to  a 
to  a 
to  a 

Annex 2 gives a detailed analysis of these topics and the results obtained. 
Annex 2 gives a detailed analysis of these topics and the results obtained. 
Annex 2 gives a detailed analysis of these topics and the results obtained. 

2.4. 
2.4. 
2.4. 

Life-Third  countries 
Life-Third  countries 
Life-Third  countries 

During  the  first  phase  of  Life  (1992-95),  the  only  actions  eligible  under 
During  the  first  phase  of  Life  (1992-95),  the  only  actions  eligible  under 
During  the  first  phase  of  Life  (1992-95),  the  only  actions  eligible  under 
Life-Third  countries  were  technical  assistance  ones.  Since  1996,  the 
Life-Third  countries  were  technical  assistance  ones.  Since  1996,  the 
Life-Third  countries  were  technical  assistance  ones.  Since  1996,  the 
eligibility  criteria  have  been  extended  to  include  nature  protection  and 
eligibility  criteria  have  been  extended  to  include  nature  protection  and 
eligibility  criteria  have  been  extended  to  include  nature  protection  and 
demonstration actions. 
demonstration actions. 
demonstration actions. 

Technical  assistance  actions  are  the  most  common  requests  for  co-
Technical  assistance  actions  are  the  most  common  requests  for  co-
Technical  assistance  actions  are  the  most  common  requests  for  co-
financing,  accounting  for  50  to  70%.  The  reason  is  that  Life-Third 
financing,  accounting  for  50  to  70%.  The  reason  is  that  Life-Third 
financing,  accounting  for  50  to  70%.  The  reason  is  that  Life-Third 
countries  is  mainly  intended  for  national  administrations  who  need  to 
countries  is  mainly  intended  for  national  administrations  who  need  to 
countries  is  mainly  intended  for  national  administrations  who  need  to 
define their environmental policies and action plans. 
define their environmental policies and action plans. 
define their environmental policies and action plans. 

Nature  protection  projects  generally  relate  to  the  conservation  and/or 
rehabilitation of habitats in coastal areas and wetlands. 

Demonstration  actions,  co-financed  for  the  first  time  in  1997,  concern 
many fields, such as waste management  and treatment, the use of bicycles 
in cities and management of coastal zones. 

Annex 3 gives a detailed analysis of these topics and the results obtained. 

3.  FRAMEWORK  OF THE EXTERNAL  EVALUATION OF  LIFE 

3.1. 

The  external  experts'  evaluation  from  December  1997 to  June  1998  had 
to  answer  the  main  following  questions,  in  order  to  serve  as  a  basis  for 
the drafting  of this report: 

•  Does  Life  contribute  to  the  development  and  implementation  of 
Community environmental policy and legislation, and if so and how? 

•  Does  Life  have  a  knock-on  effect  on  other  Community  policies  or 

instruments? 

•  Did  the  project  selection  procedure  make  it  possible  to  choose 

projects matching the criteria laid down in the Regulation? 

•  Were  the  available  financial  resources  used  appropriately  or  should 

the conditions for allocating them be changed? 

•  What is the medium- and long-term potential of Life? 

3.2. 

The  external  assessors  followed  the  methodology  proposed  by  the 
Commission  under  SEM 2000. After  examining  the  logic  of  intervention 
under  Life,  experts  selected  a  sample  of  100  projects  according  to  the 
quotas  method;  the  sample  was representative  of projects  financed  under 
Life  II as well  as projects  financed  under Life  I conforming  to the Life  II 
intervention logic. 

Experts  met  23  project  managers  (from  the  100  selected  projects),  some 
competent  national  authorities,  the  consultancy  teams  responsible  for 
monitoring  Life  projects, 
in  charge  of  Life  and  other 
Commission staff working on subjects covered by Life. 

the  units 

3.3. 

The methodology  followed  considers Life as a whole, without  necessarily 
taking  account  of the different  approaches  in the three areas of Life.  This 
is  in  line  with  the  Commission's  evaluation  recommendations,  but 
introduces a device in  the case of Life,  which has to take account  of  the 

differences  in approach, objectives  and beneficiaries  between  Life-Nature, 
Z//ê-Environment and Life-Third  countries. 

4.  MAIN  CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS  OF THE EXTERNAL EVALUATION 

4.1.  Contribution  to the development  and implementation  of  Community 

environmental  policy and  legislation 

After  examining the implementation  of the instrument's general  objective 
set  out  in Article  1 of  the  Regulation,  the  external  experts  conclude  that 
implementation  of  Community 
Life  can  contribute 
environmental  policy  and  legislation,  but  its  contribution  to  the 
development of policy and legislation is very limited. 

the 

to 

Life's  general objective  appears to them  far too broad to be  achieved  and 
not  always  consistent  with  the  specific  objectives  of  the  three  areas  of 
activity,  which  refer  only  to  the  implementation  of  Community  policy 
and legislation. 

The objective  of developing  policy  could only be achieved by a "bottom-
up"  approach,  implying  better  use  of the results of  individual  actions  by 
political decision-makers at European level. 

On  the  other  hand,  with  regard  to  policy  implementation,  Life's  strong 
implementation  of 
points  are  its  participatory  approach,  effective 
environmental  legislation  and  the  management  of natural  resources.  Life 
contributes to a lesser extent to improving the quality of the  environment: 
this  contribution  is  significant  for  the  quality  of  water  and  landscape, 
more  limited  for  the  urban  environment,  and  flora  and  fauna,  and 
negligible for soil quality. 

4.2. 

Life's  added  value  in  relation  to  other  financial  or  environmental-
policy  instruments 

is  not 

the  only  Community  financial 

Life 
instrument  addressing 
environmental  issues. Others include the agro-environmental  measures of 
the  Common  Agricultural  Policy,  the  Structural  and  Cohesion  Funds, 
research  &  development  programmes,  and  the  Union's  external  policy 
instruments. 

In comparison with these instruments, Life has several strong assets: 

•  Life  is  the  only  instrument  dedicated  solely  to  the  environment.  It 
offers  flexibility  and  presents  less  constraints  than  other  Community 
instruments. 

•  Life  is  managed  directly  by  the  Commission  and  so  has  great 
potential for providing European decision-makers with field results. 

•  Life  is  a  political  instrument,  which  is  a  critical  asset  for  the 

environmental actors who often  still lack political  influence. 

A  detailed  analysis  of  Life  in  comparison  with  other  Community 
instruments  shows  that  in  most  cases,  Life  can  have  a  complementary 
role. 

However,  while Life has the potential  to  develop real  added  value, it has 
not yet realised this potential. It is still an "unfinished  symphony". 

4.3.  Means and procedures for implementing  Life 

The external assessors consider that better focusing  of financial  resources 
would  do  much  to  improve  the  instrument's  overall  effectiveness.  They 
consider  that  the  main  areas  for  improvement  are  management  of  land 
acquisitions  for Life-Nature,  dissemination  and  transfer  of project  results 
for  Zz/ê-Environment,  and  focusing  on  fewer  priorities  for  Life-Third 
countries. 

Human  resources  within  the  Commission  often  appear  to  be  too  scarce, 
and  organisational  limitations  are  impeding  the  development  of  Life. 
There  is currently  too much  emphasis  on projects  and not enough  on the 
dissemination  of  project  results;  the  budget  allocated  to  communication 
actions (3% of appropriations) also seems too low to be  effective. 

Selected  projects  are  usually  representative  of  proposers'  priority 
problems,  and  to  some  extent  the  priorities  of  the  national  authorities 
taking part  in the pre-selection of projects.  On the other hand  insufficient 
account 
the  various  Community 
environmental  policies.  When  selecting  projects,  the Commission  should 
systematically  anticipate  the  possible  re-use  of  results  of  projects  in 
Community  policies,  the  dissemination  of  those  results  and  their  long-
term  effects. 

the  priorities  of 

taken  of 

is 

4.4.  Recommendations  of the external  assessors 

•  Life  should  adopt  a  pro-active  approach  to  preparing  environmental 

policy, programmes and  legislation; 

•  Life  should  set  up  a  knowledge  management  system  and  make  full 

use of the information  accumulated  since it began; 

•  Life  should  clearly  identify  whether  it  has  a  role  to  play  with  third 

countries and Central and Eastern European Countries; 

•  Life  should  reinforce  the  political  strength  of  public  environmental 

stakeholders; 

.10 

•  Life  should  remain  independent  of  economic  and  geographical 

constraints. 

5.  T HE  COMMISSION'S  ANALYSIS AND PROPOSALS  FOR  CHANGE 

5.1.  General objective of Life 

The  objectives  of  developing 
implementing  Community 
environmental  policy and legislation  are not  separable  in the financing  of 
projects. Individual projects  selected by Life should contribute to both: 

and 

• 

implementation,  by  applying 
Community policies in an exemplary way , 

the 

legislation  and  objectives  of 

•  development  of  new  policies  or  updating  of  existing  policies,  by 

facilitating  feedback  to decision-makers. 

It  is  proposed  to  reformulate  Article  1 of  the  Life  Regulation  so  as  to 
define the development  objective more clearly. 

5.2.  Forging closer links between Life and Community  environmental  policy 

The  Commission  agrees  with  the external  experts'  suggestion  that  closer 
links  should  be  forged  between  Life  and  the  Community  environmental 
policy. 

This  is  particularly  true  of  /.//^-Environment,  where  it  is  proposed  to 
reformulate  the  eligible  fields  in  the  Regulation  and  lay  down 
guidelines  for  demonstration  projects,  with  a  view  to  directing 
proposers towards priority themes of Community  policy. This proposal  is 
in line with an amendment  introduced  by the European Parliament  during 
the discussion of the Life II Regulation in  1996. 

Similarly,  "preparatory  actions"  under  Life-Environment  are 
redefined  as  preparing  for  the  development  of  new  Community 
environmental  policy and will be collected  by direct calls for  expression 
of interest, in order to gather  a homogeneous  set of projects  in support of 
a policy in preparation. 

5.3.  Dissemination  of results in line with their potential 

The  external  experts'  assessment  regarding  the  dissemination  of  project 
results underestimates beneficiaries'  and the Commission's  dissemination 
activities  (Internet  site  including  a  database  of  projects  funded,  Natura 
letter  linking  to  Life-Nature,  anthology  of  Life-
2000  information 
Environment  success stories). Moreover, the Life Management  committee 
adopted a dissemination  strategy for Life -Environment  in April  1997. 

The  Commission  nevertheless  agrees  on  the  need  to  step  up  the 
dissemination  of results in order to realise the full  potential  of the  funded 

11 

projects. To that end, it is proposed to increase the budget allocation to 
accompanying  measures from 3 to 5% of Life  appropriations. 

For  Life-Nature,  this  increase  will  pay  for  two  new  accompanying 
measures:  the  "starter"  measure  will  help  to  prepare  multinational 
projects,  "co-op"  measure  will  encourage  the  networking  of  the 
funded  projects. 

For  Z//ê-Environment,  the 
increase  will  be  used  to  develop  the 
exploitation  of  project  results  on  the  basis  of  topic,  for  example  by 
industrial sector in the case of clean technologies. 

5.4. 

The  role  of  Life  in  relation  to  non-EU  and  Central  and  Eastern 

European  countries 

These groups of countries should be considered  separately: 

•  Participation 

in  Life  by  the  Central  and  Eastern  European 
Countries  applying 
follows  a  general 
for  EU  membership 
Commission  strategy  which  remains  valid;  participation  will  become 
effective  following  the specific  decisions of the association Councils. 
•  For  the  other  non-EU  countries  bordering  the  Mediterranean  and 
Baltic  seas,  the  Commission  agrees  on  the  need  to  concentrate  the 
efforts  of  Life-Third  countries  and  proposes  to  focus  on  technical 
assistance  actions  (institutional  and  capacity  building)  which  step 
up the Union's neighbours' power to act on environmental issues. 

6.  DURATION  AND REFERENCE  AMOUNT OF THE THIRD PHASE 

The  Commission  favours  a  duration  of  five  years  for  the  third  phase  of 
Life, and allowing for an updating of the eligible fields of action. 

In the  report  to  the  Council  under  Article  7(3), the  Commission  showed 
that Life  has considerable  growth  potential,  since the  instrument  receives 
twice as many valid project  proposals, i.e. which are formally  eligible and 
favourably  evaluated, than it can actually  fund. 

The  budgetary  record  of  Life  is  very  satisfactory.  All  commitment 
appropriations  are  regularly  used  for  Life-Nature,  L//^-Environment  and 
Life-Third  countries.  Use  of  payment  appropriations,  in  1997  for 
example, was  86% for Life-Nature,  100% for  L//^-Environment  and 79% 
for Life-Third  countries. 

12 

Life  also  satisfies  the  criteria  laid  down  under  Agenda  2000  for  defining 
priority  programmes,  where  growth  may  exceed  the  Community  budget; 
Life  takes  part  in  particular  in  "implementing  environment-friendly 
technologies"  and  contributes  indirectly  to  job  creation  by  financing 
activities  with  a high job-creation  potential,  such  as waste  recycling  and 
new services connected with the environment. 

Nevertheless,  with  current  budgetary  prospects  the  five-year  budget  is 
unlikely  to  exceed  ECU  613  million,  broken  down  as  follows,  without 
taking account of the costs of enlargement: 

Year 

2000 

2001 

2002 

2003 

2004 

Nature 

52.65 

54.5 

57.80 

59.70 

63.45 

Environment 

52.65 

54.5 

57.80 

59J0 

63.45 

Third 
countries 

6.7 

7.0 

7.4 

7.6 

8.1 

CEECs 

p.m. 

p.m. 

p.m. 

p.m. 

Life 

112 

116 

123 

127 

p.m. 

135 

(All amounts are in million ECU) 

7.  CONCLUSION 

When  preparing  the  third  phase  of  Life,  the  Commission  carried  out  a 
comprehensive assessment  exercise consisting  of the following  stages: the report 
under Article 7(3) of the Life Regulation, transmitted to the Council in December 
1997, the evaluation  by outside  experts between  December  1997 and  June  1998, 
and  finally  this report  to the  European  Parliament  and  Council  under  Article  14 
of the Life Regulation. 

As we  complete  this  evaluation,  we  can  reaffirm  the  importance  of Life  for 
Community  environmental  policy  and  its  positive  contribution  to  the  goals 
of  this  policy.  As  the  only  Community  instrument  specifically  dedicated  to  the 
environment,  it has a unique  position  among  Community  financing  instruments, 
relying  working  on  innovatory  and  exemplary  local  initiatives  to  foster  the 
implementation of Community policy and develop new activities. 

Thanks  to  Life-Nature,  thousands  of  hectares  of  natural  habitats  of  European 
interest  are  now  protected;  species  only  recently  endangered  are  now  safe;  the 
European  Natura  2000  network  is  gradually  taking  shape.  The  introduction  of 
new  accompanying  measures  during  the  third  phase  of  Life  will  encourage  the 
emergence of multinational projects  and the networking of ongoing ones. 

13 

Under  Li/<?-Environment,  dozens  of  clean  technologies  have  proved  their 
effectiveness  in the most polluting  industries; new techniques  and methods  have 
emerged  to improve  water  quality  or recycle  waste;  new partnerships  are  trying 
out  more  ecological  regional  planning  methods.  For  the  third  phase,  guidelines 
will  be  defined  to  improve  the  synergy  between  demonstration  actions  and 
Community policy, while better dissemination of project  results will enable us to 
exploit theif  full potential. 

Thanks  to  Life-Third  countries,  the  principles  of  Community  environmental 
policy  are  now  known  to  our  Baltic  and  Mediterranean  neighbours  and  inspire 
the  drafting  of their  own  environmental  policies  or protection  activities. For the 
third  phase  of Life, focusing  funding  on  institutional  and  capacity  building  will 
give the best return on the Life-Third  countries budget. 

The involvement of the applicant countries of Central and Eastern Europe in Life 
should  grow  in  the  coming  years,  and  Life's  contribution  to  the  European 
environment will take on a new dimension when they actually join the Union. 

Day  after  day and project  after  project,  concrete  examples  show that  sustainable 
development  can  become  reality.  These  examples  thus  contribute  to  the 
objectives that the European Union pursues through  legislation, integration of the 
environment  into  other  policies,  promotion  of  voluntary  approaches,  etc.  Life's 
aim  is  to  bridge  the  gap  between  such  exemplary  individual  projects  and 
Community  policy,  to  link  real  examples  of  innovation  with  European 
integration.  It is this aim  in the  service  of the  environment  that the  Commission 
proposes to pursue from  2000 to 2004. 

14 

ANNEX 1 

LIFE  -  NATURE 

1.  NUMBER OF CO-FINANCED  PROJECTS 

The  number  and  quality  of  projects  submitted  under  Life-Nature  changed 
between  1992 and  1998. 

•  Under Life  I, many  projects  included  actions  per phase  and  involved  several 
to 

these  projects  was  close 

for 

beneficiaries.  Average  co-financing 
ECU  1 million. 

• 

In  1995  the  Commission  revised  the  application  brochure.  Each  project  is 
now  under  the  responsibility  of  only  one  beneficiary.  The  Commission  no 
longer  commits  itself  in  advance  to  co-financing  following  phases.  It  prefers 
projects  whose  actions  are clearly  linked to  attainable  objectives.  All  projects 
are divided into 6 categories: 

-  Preparing management plans/preparatory  projects 

-  Land and land-use control 

-  One-off  habitat management  projects 

-  Ongoing habitat management  projects 

-  Awareness-raising/dissemination  of results 

-  Project  management 

In the  short  term this requirement  for  more accuracy  increased  the  number  of 
ineligible  projects.  But  as  from  1997,  the  average  quality  of  the  projects 
received has significantly  improved. 

•  The Life  II Regulation  adopted  in  1996 reinforced  the link with Natura 2000. 
More  projects  were  then  declared  ineligible  because  Member  States  had  not 
proposed the sites in time. Potential applicants also preferred  to postpone their 
project  until  the sites had been  included  in the national  lists of sites proposed 
under the Habitats Directive. 

• 

1998 has seen an increase in the number and the quality  of projects.  Average 
co-financing  per project  is between ECU 500 000 and  1  000 000. 

The table below gives a year-by-year  breakdown. 

15 

LIFE I 

LIFE II 

92' 

93 

94 

95 

96 

97 

98 

(EUR  12) 

(EUR  12) 

(EUR  12) 

(EUR  15) 

(EUR  15) 

(EUR  15) 

(EUR  15) 

86 

198 

296 

313 

241 

174 

191 

227 

294 

270 

235 

174 

128 

136 

_2 

1 

80 

116 

139 

123 

97 

115 

1863 

153 

139 

93 

76 

83 

35 

22 

36.9 

20,6 

47 

43 

72 

63 

60 

48.5 

43.4 

42.4 

85 

48 

Number of  projects 
received 

' Contribution 
requested 

Number of eligible 
projects 

Contribution 
requested  for 
eligible  projects 

Number of projects 
funded 

Financial 
contribution  granted 

The  1992 budget  for  Z//£-Nature  includes  reports from ACNAT;  2 not  available;  3 including 
ECU 61 million  for one single project.  (Amounts are in million  ecus and  account  only for the 
Community contribution, generally between 50 and 75% of the total cost) 

2.  GEOGRAPHICAL  DISTRIBUTION  OF PROJECTS 

Life-Nature  has  no  provision  for  sharing  out  the  amount  available  between  the 
Member States according to fixed  criteria. 

Rather, the Commission considers that the quality of each project, compared with 
other  projects  proposed  in  the  same  year,  should  be  the  only  basis  for  the 
decision on  co-financing. 

A  Member  State  may  send  several  very  good  proposals  one  year  and  few  the 
next.  It therefore  makes little sense to analyse the annual allocation of funds  per 
Member State. 

However, it is interesting to analyse figures  for the whole of the  1992-98 period. 

It shows that: 

-  Member  States  with  large  territories  are  the  main  beneficiaries  (including 

Finland and Sweden as from  1995); 

-  when areas are comparable, countries with higher bio-diversity, mainly in the 

Mediterranean and the Alps, benefited  from more  funding. 

These criteria tie in with the purpose of Life, and explains why  Spain is the main 
beneficiary  of Life-Nature. 

The table  below shows the distribution  between  Member  States  of  contributions 
of Z,z/e-Nature between  1992 and 1998. 

16 

Member State 

Belgium 
Denmark 
Germany 
Greece 
Spain 
France 
Ireland 
Itaty 
Luxembourg 
Netherlands 
Austria * 
Portugal 
Finland  * 
Sweden * 
United Kingdom 

LIFE-Nature 
(92-98) 
ECU  '000 000 

6.9 
3.5 
30.2 
18^9 
54~7 
32.2 
83 
2^6 
0.2 
6.6 
11.9 
1677 
fO 
i~8l> 
18.2 

(* as from  1995) 

3.  TYPES OF PROJECTS  CO-FINANCED 

Life -Nature  co-finances  projects  to  protect  natural  sites  and  species  of  interest 
under the Birds and Habitats Directives, so the types of projects co-financed  have 
changed between  1992 and  1998 as these two directives have been  implemented. 

•  Bird  protection  projects:  these  accounted  for  most  of  the  projects  funded 
under Life-Nature I (1992-1995). The aim is to protect, and therefore  manage, 
important sites for the birds listed in Annex  1  to the Birds Directive. Measures 
include for example: 

-  Restoring habitat: cleaning up areas of water, improving water systems 

-  Managing habitat: annual clearing of ditches and undergrowth 

- 

Implementing  a  management  plan:  changing  farming  practices,  controlling 
tourism 

-  Renting  or purchasing  key  land  in order to protect the biological  quality  of a 

site. 

17 

Many of these projects  concerned wetlands. The Commission  thus contributed to 
the  objectives  of  the  Ramsar  Convention  to  protect  wetlands  of  international 
importance. 

•  Protection  of  natural  habitats:  these  projects  accounted  for  most  of  those 
funded  under  Life-Nature  II.  As  from  1996-1997,  Member  States  have 
proposed  thousands  of  sites  containing  natural  habitats  quoted  in Annex  1 to 
the Habitat Directive, so Life-Nature logically  gives those priority. 

As with the protection of birds, these projects  combine measures to  safeguard 
the future  of these sites: land control, improving the biological  state of habitat, 
and  regular  biotope  management.  The  preparation  of  a  management  plan, 
involving  the  various  site  users  (municipalities,  farmers,  hunters,  forest 
managers, etc.), improves the prospects of long-term  success. The cooperation 
later  to  implement  agri-
initiated  under  Life  often  makes  it  possible 
environmental  measures, funded  by the  CAP, or infrastructure  for  sustainable 
tourism, paid for by the Structural Funds. 

•  Protection  of species  of fauna  and  flora:  the Union  has chosen to focus  its 
policy on sites necessary  for  the survival  of endangered  flora  and fauna.  Life-
Nature  thus  co-finances  as  a  matter  of  priority  site-related  actions.  But 
specific  actions  may  be  necessary,  for  example  to  study  the  reproduction  or 
movements  of  a  species  or  to  prepare  its  reintroduction,  although  actions 
which  do  not  relate  to  sites  proposed  for  Natura  2000  are  very  much  the 
minority (some 5% of projects). 

4. 

DETAILED CONTENT OF  PROJECTS 

Experience  sharing  between  projects  is  an  essential  component  of  Life.  Each 
year,  in  the  trimester  following 
the  co-financing  decision,  in  order  to 
encourage  the  circulation  of  ideas,  the  Commission  published  a  summary  in 
three languages of each of the selected Life-Nature  projects.  This transparency 
and  rapidity  facilitates  the  networking  of  projects  and  their  integration  into 
local  development  programmes.  These  annual  summaries  can  be  ordered 
through the Nature homepage at the following  address: 
http://europa.eu.int/en/comm/dg 11 /nature/docum.htm 

18 

ANNEX2 

L/F£-ENVIRONMENT 

1.  NUMBER OF CO-FINANCED PROJECTS 

Between  1992 and 1998 the Commission received 5449 applications under Life-
Environment.  Between  1993 and  1998 these applications  represented  a total of 
approximately ECU 5900 million in requested contributions. 

During the same period, the available budget made it possible to co-finance  795 
projects (15%) for an overall amount of ECU 321 Million (5%). 

The table below gives a breakdown of essential data for each year: 

LIFE I 

LIFE II 

921 
(EUR  12) 

93 
(EUR  12) 

94 
(EUR  12) 

95 
(EUR  15) 

96 
(EUR  15) 

97 
(EUR  15) 

98 
(EUR  15) 

Number of projects  received 

300 

1447 

1224 

729 

Contribution  requested 

_2 

2012 

Number of eligible  projects 

+/-  185 

Number of pre-selected  projects 
(short-list) 

Contribution  requested  for pre 
selected  projects 

Number of projects  financed 

_3 

_3 

70 

601 

306 

79 

99 

653 

721 

258 

2214 

431 

264 

601 

393 

283 

177 

514 

328 

244 

194 

634 

292 

526 

226 

84 

84 

90 

81 

100 

160 

135 

104 

112 

115 

Financial contribution  granted 

44.6 

44.7 

53.1 

48.1 

43.3 

43.6 

48.6 

Difference  between  projects pre 
selected and  financed 

_3 

33.8 

30.6 

36.0 

47.2 

37.4 

51.4 

1 The L//ë-Environment budget  for  1992 includes reports  from  MEDSPÀ and NORSPA;  2 not 
available;3 no shortlist was drawn up in  1992 as the projects were selected under MEDSPA and 
NORSPA  procedures.  (All  amounts  are  in  million  ecus  and  account  only  for  the  Community 
contribution, generally 30-50% of the total budget.) 

The number of projects  submitted, which declined between  1993 and  1997 rose 
in  1998; this number has always been much higher than the number of projects 
funded (by a ratio of 1 to 5 at least). 

The pre-selected projects, after  parallel  evaluations by the Commission  and the 
Member  States, also greatly  exceed  the budgetary  possibilities  of Life: the gap 
between  the  budget  available  and  the  potential  contribution  to  pre-selected 
projects has continued to widen since the beginning. 

19 

2.  GEOGRAPHICAL DISTRIBUTION OF THE PROJECTS 

Lz/e-Environment has no provision for sharing out the amount available between 
the Member States according to fixed criteria. 

The evaluation procedure is designed to select projects on the basis of merit, the 
projects being evaluated by subject category (waste, water, air, etc). This system 
of  evaluation  on  merit  nevertheless  takes  into  account  the  state  of  the 
environment  in  each  Member  State,  so  as  not  to  penalise  less  innovatory  but 
exemplary projects, which can have a strong local impact. 

The annual  distribution  of contributions between  Member  States thus has  little 
significance. As an indication, the year-by-year distribution of Z,z/ê-Environment 
contributions between Member States is as follows: 

Member  States 

Life I 

Belgium 

Denmark 

Germany 

Greece 

Spain 

France 

Ireland 

Italy 

Luxembourg 

Netherlands 

Austria 

1992 
2.1 

1993 
3.6 

1994 
2.4 

1995 
3.6 

1996 
1.4 

0.8 

7.1 

2.1 

3.1 

5.5 

3.9 

5.1 

0.0 

2.1 

-

3.7 

6.7 

2.4 

1.1 

4.2 

3.1 

5.7 

0.8 

3.4 

1.2 

7.7 

4.5 

4.7 

9.2 

2.9 

6.2 

0.8 

3.5 

0.8 

6.9 

3.2 

4.7 

6.6 

0.2 

6.8 

0.2 

4.1 

2.1 

5.0 

2.5 

4.8 

6.7 

0.7 

6.0 

0.0 

2.8 

-

-

1.8 

2.5 

Portugal 

2.9 

3.4 

1.8 

1.2 

2.3 

Finland 

Sweden 

-

-

-

-

-

-

2.2 

2.0 

0.5 

2.8 

United  Kingdom 

8.6 

6.4 

8.1 

5.3 

1.8 

Life II 
1997 
3.9 

1998 
3.1 

2.3 

4.8 

2.8 

3.9 

5.7 

1.2 

4.1 

0.5 

4.0 

1.2 

1.2 

1.9 

2.1 

4.2 

1.0 

6.9 

2.5 

4.6 

5.5 

1.9 

5.0 

0.7 

3.6 

1.5 

1.0 

1.4 

3.0 

7.1 

Total 

20.1 

11.9 

45.1 

20.0 

26.9 

43.4 

13.9 

38.9 

3.0 

23.5 

7.0 

13.8 

7.5 

8.4 

41.5 

Total 

44.61 

44.7 

53.1 

48.1 

43.3 

43.6 

48.6 

326.0 

1 including one international project for ECU 1.3 million. 
(all amounts are in million ecus and account only for the Community contribution.) 

20 

3.  TYPES OF PROJECTS CO-FINANCED 

The following  table  shows the distribution  by topic of the actions funded  from 
1992 to 1997. It is not exhaustive as regards completed projects. 

It shows that the actions most funded by ^//^-Environment concerned « clean 
technologies »,  modifying 
then  water 
management,  regional  planning  in  rural  areas,  in  urban  areas,  and  waste 
management. 

industrial  production  processes, 

Topic 

Clean technologies 

Reduction of the industrial emissions (all sectors) 

Agri-food  sector 

Glass and ceramics 

Chemical and electronics  industries 

Construction  industry 

Paper 

Surface treatments paint and ink 

Tanneries 

Textiles and laundries 

Wood and furnishing 

Number 

Contribution 

% 

145 

53 809 301 

2 3% 

12 

20 

9 

28 

5 

13 

27 

15 

7 

9 

4 852 536 

6 246 427 

3 609 078 

9  175 709 

1 448 632 

9 949 234 

7 219 857 

4 410 396 

2 362 546 

4 534 886 

Water  management 

93 

42 747 634 

18% 

Drinking water 

Groundwater 

Surface water and sea water 

Urban waste water 

Industrial waste water and treatment of water for industrial use 

Regional planning in rural areas and coastal areas 

96 

Rural development and agriculture 

Management of forests 

Management of natural areas 

Environment-friendly  tourism 

Integrated management of coastal areas 

Protection of dunes 

21 

10 

8 

36 

21 

19 

18 

9 

12 

26 

24 

7 

4 316 386 

3 497 058 

18 655  804 

7 932 070 

8 346 316 

41 333 046 

17% 

5 357 886 

3 543 021 

6  161 320 

8 553 151 

13  171291 

4 546 377 

Regional planning in urban areas 

72 

32 660 512 

14% 

Actions specific to suburban areas 

Planning or integrated management of urban areas 

Reduction of noise 

Measurement of air pollution 

Management of transport 

7 

17 

4 

17 

27 

3 701 237 

10 058 497 

1431364 

6 229 960 

11239 454 

Waste management and treatment 

91 

35 868 390 

15% 

Household waste management 

14 

4 579 086. 

Management  of industrial or special waste 

Management of  landfills 

Incineration-related  projects 

Recycling of organic waste 

Recycling of sewage sludge 

Recycling of plastics and packaging 

Recycling of batteries 

Recycling of used tyres 

Mercury extraction and recycling 

Metallurgical  industry waste 

9 

9 

7 

9 

7 

3 086 590 

3 873 496 

2 783 172 

3 390 641 

2 060 433 

18 

9  169 006 

2 

3 

4 

9 

664 996 

1201403 

2 010  189 

3 049 378 

Soil protection and treatment 

23 

9 868 291 

4% 

Treatment of soil pollution 

Fire prevention 

21 

2 

9 422 330 

445 961 

Training,  promoting 

awareness, 

environmental 

48 

19 994 173 

8% 

management 

Impact assessment, evaluation, administrative  structures 

Training,  raising 
(inc. SMEs) 

the  consciousness  of  economic  actors 

12 

17 

8 451350 

4 455 344 

Environmental  management 

Total 

19 

7 087 479 

569 

236 281 347 

The  following  comments  consider  only  the  most  salient  topics  among  Life-
Environment  actions. The reader can get  further  information from the brochure 
"LIFE in action -  Demonstration projects for Europe's environment -  96 success 
stories"  available  from  the  Office  for  Official  Publications  of  the  European 
Communities, or by consulting the Zi/e-Environment database homepage at the 
following address: http://europa.eu.int/comm/life/index.htm 

22 

3.1.  Modifications  of industrial  processes 

An  important  function  of Z//ê-Environment is to promote  the use of new 
technologies  in  manufacturing  processes,  as  opposed  to  "end-of-pipe" 
pollution  treatment.  After  a  study  conducted  in  1995,  the  Commission 
tried to orientate proposers towards the most polluting  sectors  in order to 
concentrate  efforts.  Here  are  two  examples  of  sectors  where  Life-
Environment  contributed to the implementation of clean technologies: 

Surface treatment in many industrial sectors is very polluting because of 
the  chemicals  used.  One  such  case  is  de-coating  in  aeronautics,  which 
currently uses large amounts of acid baths. Two projects tested  alternative 
techniques:  KLM  in  the  Netherlands  for  high  pressure  water  jets,  and 
SOCHATA  in  France  for  ice  blasting.  The  first  project  was  a  success, 
while  the  second  proved  that  the  technique,  although  technically  valid, 
was  unprofitable. 

The  tanneries  sector  is  a  special  case  since  about  fifteen  Life-iunded 
projects,  including  eight  in  Italy,  cover  all  the  stages  of  the  tanning 
process  and  offer  a complete  solution  to  the  acute pollution  problems  in 
this  sector.  Pollution  has  been  reduced  in  air  emissions,  liquids  (in 
particular  those  containing  chromium)  and  solid  waste.  The  techniques 
developed  by  the  projects  also  appeared  also  interesting  from  an 
economic  point  of  view  (saving  raw  materials)  and  in  the  quality  of  the 
products.  Thus  there  are  possible  "win-win"  solutions  in  this  sector  in 
economic  difficulty,  in  the  "Objective  1  and  2"  areas  of  Community 
regional policy. 

3.2.  Water  management 

Many  of  the  projects  financed  by  Zz/ê-Environment  aim  to  improve  the 
quality  of water,  with  projects  from  both  industries  and  local  authorities. 
Completed  projects  generally  produced  interesting  and  reproducible 
results. 

issue  of 
The  treatment  of  urban  waste  water  is  an  important 
environmental  concern  and  the  subject  of  many  Life  projects,  applying 
techniques  such  as  basins  with  macrophyte,  mainly  between  1992  and 
1995,  the  improvement  of  nitrogenous  compound  treatments  or  the 
recycling  of  treated  waste  water  for  irrigation.  The  management  of 
sewage networks in storms is also the subject  of several projects. 

Projects  on  surface  waters  include  several  programmes  of  integrated 
water  management  and  quality  monitoring.  For  example,  several  Danish 
projects  in  1993  and  1994  tried  to  restore  water  streams  and  wetlands 
while monitoring the quality  of water in terms of biological  and physico-
chemical  composition. 

23 

3.3.  Regional planning in rural areas 

This  title  covers  projects  on  rural  development,  nature  management, 
environmentally-friendly  tourism  and the rational management  of coastal 
areas.  Projects  often  concern  several  of  these  topics,  so  the  proposed 
distribution is only indicative. 

For  example,  environmentally-friendly  tourism  projects  often  aim  to 
restrict visits to fragile  sites, planning tourism  in regions with  landscapes 
and natural  environment  of high value, trying out contracts to respect  the 
environment  (charter  for  durable  tourism,  eco-labelling,  environmental 
management  of  tourist  activities,  etc.).  Some  actions  were  reproduced 
afterwards  in  the  framework  of  regional  policies,  e.g.  Cohesion  Fund 
actions. 

The rational  management of coastal  areas has twice been a priority  for 
Life: in 1992, when Life took over from  MEDSPA, and in  1996, under the 
demonstration  programme  on  coastal  zone  management,  initiated  by  a 
Commission  communication  in November  1995. The projects  funded  set 
up  - for  example  - large partnerships  to monitor  the coastal  environment 
(monitoring  the  sea  and  water  quality)  and  pilot  actions  to  improve  this 
environment.  The  results  of  these  actions,  often  of  very  high  quality, 
probably  stimulated  the debate  in Europe on the specific  character  of the 
management of coastal areas. 

3.4.  Regional planning in urban areas 

This  title  covers  projects  relating  on  the  one  hand,  to  planning  or  the 
consistency  of  urban  policies  and,  on  the  other  hand,  to  more  specific 
actions on noise and air pollution  abatement. 

The  management  of  transport,  a  critical  and  tricky  aspect  of  urban 
policies,  has  been  the  subject  of  numerous  Life  projects  since  it  started. 
Although  they  rarely  cover  demonstration  of  new  vehicles  or  of  new 
fuels,  which  is  more  relevant  for  other  Community  financing,  there  are 
many  pilot  management  plans  among  Life  projects,  especially 
in 
Germany  and  the  Benelux:  mobility  indicators,  planning  of  goods 
transportation  to  release  the  pressure  on  city  centres  (Leyden  1994), 
modelling tools, etc. 

Between  1995  and  1997  some  projects  concentrated  specifically  on 
suburban areas, which represent an important issue for the  environment: 
whether  or  not  environmental  requirements  figure  in  the  extension  of 
urban areas, as well as the relationship between cities and the  surrounding 
countryside, have important  and  durable effects  on the environment.  The 
role  of  agriculture  in  suburban  areas  in  particular  was  examined  by  two 
Spanish projects of  1996, in Barcelona and  Aranjuez. 

24 

3.5.  Waste management and treatment 

Waste  management  is  an  important  topic  for  the  environment  and 
requires  much  expensive  investment  by  local  bodies;  it  has  been  the 
subject  of  numerous  Life projects  since  the  beginning.  Actions  funded 
cover all the issues involved, especially recycling, which ties in with the 
orientation of Community policy in this  field. 

The  management  of  industrial  or  special  waste  is  the  subject  of 
projects with specific  objectives  but often  interesting results, reusable at 
European  level:  hospital  waste  in  Freiburg  (D)  and  Helsinki  (FIN)  in 
1996 or treatment of end-of-life refrigerators in Milan (IT) in 1995. 

Incineration-related  projects 
include  the  demonstration  of  recent 
techniques, such as non-thermal plasma, in Culham (UK) in  1995 or the 
PyroArc  process  in  Hofors  (S)  in  1997.  Other  projects  include  the 
recycling  of  incineration  refuse  in  road  coating  in  Kassel  (D)  and  Le 
Mans (F) in 1996. 

The  recycling  of  plastics  and  packaging,  a  critical  aspect  of  waste 
management,  is  tackled  by  many  projects  on  different  materials  or 
products  (such  as  polyurethane  in  Langeac  (F)  or  coated  textiles  in 
Saarland  (D) in  1996) which  initiate  or  supplement  industrial  recycling 
concerns.  It  is  a field where  economic  factors  are  often  important  and 
require  full-scale  demonstration,  hence  the  importance  of  financing 
mechanisms  like  Life, which  still  has  an  important  role to  play  in  this 
field. 

The  recycling  of  batteries  is  a  field  where  collection  has  been 
compulsory since  1991 for certain types of batteries but where treatment 
techniques  are  still  under-developed  or  unsatisfactory 
the 
environmental point of view. With only three projects (plus the mercury 
recycling  projects  for  certain  types  of  batteries),  Life took  part  in  the 
demonstration  of  three  of  the  ten  or  so  techniques  arriving  on  the 
European market to respond to this need: acid and basic hydrometallurgy 
(Recupyl  1994  and  Zimaval  1998  respectively),  and  pyrometallurgy  in 
arc furnaces (AFE Métal 1996). 

from 

25 

ANNEX3 

LIFE- THIRD COUNTRIES 

1.  NUMBER OF CO-FINANCED PROJECTS 

Between  1992 and  1998, the Commission received  652 applications under Life-
Third Countries  totalling  approximately  ECU  250  million.  During  the  same 
period,  the available  budget  made  it  possible  to  select  96 projects  for  funding 
under Life-Third countries for a total EC contribution of almost ECU 33 million. 

The table below gives a breakdown of essential data for each year: 

LIFE I 

LIFE II 

92 

of 

projects 

45' 

93 

551 

94 

65 

95 

103 

96 

82 

97 

98 

121 

181 

of 

eligible 

40 

29 

23 

28 

83 

2 

2 

2 

2 

9 

Contribution  requested 

18.4 

10.2 

10.0 

9.8 

of 

projects 

12 

14 

16 

13 

16 

24 

16 

contribution 

5.3 

3.5 

4.8 

5.7 

6.0 

4.2 

4.7 

Number 
received 

Number 
projects 

Number 
financed 

Financial 
granted 

Estimate; 

2  Not  available.  (All  amounts  are  in  million  ecus  and  account  only  for  the  Community 
contribution, generally 50-100% of the total budget.) 

In 1995, which was the last year of Life I, the total number of acceptable projects 
increased  considerably  because  of  the  information  campaign  on  Life-Third 
Countries.  On the other hand, the number of projects considered eligible by the 
Commission decreased, because it wanted to place much greater emphasis on the 
technical quality of projects. 

The smaller number of projects accepted in  1996 is due to the fact that the new 
Life Regulation was adopted late leaving a relatively short period for submitting 
projects.  The number of projects eligible and financed is similar to that for 1995. 

In  subsequent  years, the efforts  made to  disseminate  information  on Life-Third 
Countries increased the number of projects  to  181 in  1998, approximately 50% 
more than in 1997. 

26 

2.  GEOGRAPHICAL  DISTRIBUTION  OF PROJECTS 

Life-Third  Countries covers two geographical regions: the Mediterranean  and the 
Baltic  Sea  (since  1996  only  the  Baltic  region  of  Russia,  i.e.  Kaliningrad  and 
Saint Petersburg). 

Since  1996  Life-Third  Countries  has  been  covering  the  non-Community 
countries bordering on the Mediterranean and the Baltic Sea, except the countries 
of  Central  and  Eastern  Europe  which  have  signed  association  agreements  with 
the European  Community.  The  latter can now take part in Life-Nature and  Life-
Environment,  as  a  pre-accession  exercise,  on  the  basis  of  specific  agreements 
with  these  countries.  At  the  time  of  drafting  this  report,  only  Romania  had 
completed  the  procedures  necessary  for  submitting  projects  under  Life  as  from 
1999. 

The main  objective  of Life-Third  Countries  is to  support,  in  countries  bordering 
on  the  Union,  technical  assistance  projects,  nature  conservation  projects  and 
demonstration  projects  to promote  sustainable  development,  in order to  promote 
awareness of the need for environmental protection in these countries. 

Life II is different  from Life I in two ways: 

• 

• 

the  instrument  no  longer  applies  to  Poland,  Slovenia  and  the  three  Baltic 
States  which  are  now  associate  countries  of  Central  and  Eastern  Europe;  on 
the other hand, since  1996, it includes the West Bank  and the Gaza  Strip, and 
since  1997, Bosnia and Herzegovina; 

it  may  cover  demonstration  projects  on  sustainable  development  and  nature 
conservation  in  addition  to  simple  technical  assistance,  as  was  the  case  with 
Life  I. 

The  following  table  shows  the  distribution  of  Life-Third  Countries  per  country 
between  1992 and 1998: 

Mediterranean  Region 

Baltic Region 

Country 

Albania 
Algeria 
Bosnia 
Cyprus 
Egypt 
Israel 
Jordan 
Lebanon 
Malta 
Morocco 
Palestine 
Syria 
Slovenia 
Tunisia 
Turkey 
Multinational 
Total 1 
Total 

million  ECU 
2.6 
0.66 
0.53 
2.45 
1.15 
1.18 
0.77 
0.97 
1.04 
1.15 
0.68 
1.62 
1.56 
0.75 
3.09 
5.41 
25.5 

27 

Country 

Estonia 
Latvia 
Lithuania 
Poland 
Russia 

million ECU 
0.81 
1.54 
0.14 
0.67 
3.55 

v 

Multinational 
Total 2 

33 

0.77 
7.5 

3.  TYPES OF FINANCED  PROJECTS 

Since  1996, the framework  for  eligible actions has included technical  assistance, 
nature conservation and demonstration  projects. 

"Technical  assistance"  projects  are  the  largest  group  of  applications  received, 
accounting  for  between  50%  and  70%.  This  can  be  explained  by  the  fact  that 
Life-Third  Countries  is targeted  primarily  at national  administrations  faced  with 
the  need  to  define  their  environmental  policies  and  action  plans.  The  other 
categories of action are less widely represented and concern: 

• 

• 

for  the  "Nature"  projects,  conservation  and/or  restoration  of  coastal  and 
wetland habitats. 

for  demonstration  projects,  pilot  projects  (co-financed  for  the  first  time  in 
1997) covering a very wide range of fields: waste management  and  treatment, 
use of bicycles in towns and management of coastal areas. 

3.1 

In  the  field  of  technical  assistance,  over  the  period  1992-1997,  Life-Third 
Countries  helped  to  establish  ECATs,  which  are  environmental  centres  for 
administration  and  technology  (in  St  Petersburg,  Kaliningrad,  Tirana,  etc.) 
which combine the know-how  of third  countries  and the Community  and play 
an important  catalyst role  in developing  environmental  policies in Central  and 
Eastern Europe. 

In  synergy  with 
the  action  of  other  environmental  programmes  and 
conventions (HELCOM  for the Baltic region), the authorities responsible  have 
thus benefited  from  efficient  technical  assistance  in several  fields.  Among  the 
most important are the  following: 

• 

• 

environmental  monitoring,  protection  of  water  resources  and  waste 
water treatment (Latvia), 

treatment of waste from  industrial galvanisation and management  of a 
the  collection  and  treatment  of  hospital  waste  in 
network  for 
St Petersburg, 

•  management  of  action  against  sea  pollution  by  hydrocarbons  in  the 

Baltic Sea (region of St Petersburg). 

3.2 

Life-Third  Countries  has  also  contributed  successfully 
to  Mediterranean 
Action  Plan  activities  by  funding  projects  submitted  by  some  of  its  regional 
centres. These projects  include  assistance  to national  authorities  in  fields  such 
as: 

• 

action  against  oil  pollution  in  the  territorial  waters  of  Cyprus,  Egypt 
and Israel (REMPEC), 

28 

• 

regional  development  of  environment  monitoring  activities  in  the 
Mediterranean and developing specific  indicators (Blue Plan), 

• 

conservation and rational use of wetlands (MED WET). 

3.3  Many  projects  involving  a  number  of  countries  from  the  South  and  East 
the  Mediterranean 

Mediterranean  have  also  been 
Environmental Technical Assistance Programme (METAP). Examples are: 

financed  under 

• 

• 

the problem of waste water treatment in the city of Cairo, 

the  creation  of  a  structure 
Environmental Impact Assessments (EIA) in Syria, 

to  develop  methodologies 

for 

• 

the design of an environmental action plan in Jordania. 

These  various  initiatives  co-financed  by  Life-Third Countries  illustrate  the 
fundamental  role  of  this  instrument  for  the Union's  neighbours  in promoting 
the  Community's  environmental  protection  principles.  Their  active 
participation is a clear sign of interest. 

Life-Third Countries  thus  helps  to  interlink  the  principles  and  legislation  of 
third  countries  and  the  European  Union,  and  to  transfer  Community 
technologies and know-how to these regions. 

29 

ISSN 0254-1475 

COM(98) 721  final 

DOCUMENTS 

EN 

14  17  01 

Catalogue  number  :  CB-CO-98-721-EN-C 

Office  for Official  Publications of the European Communities 

L-2985 Luxembourg 

30