Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) concerning the financial instrument for the environment (LIFE)'
Date: 1999-05-26
Institutions: European Economic and Social Committee
Subjects: EU financial instrument, EU programme, environmental protection, quality of the environment

C 209/14

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

22.7.1999

Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC)
concerning the financial instrument for the environment (LIFE)’ (1)

(1999/C 209/05)

On 9 February 1999 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 Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for
preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 4 May 1999. The rapporteur was
Mr Ribbe and the co-rapporteurs were Mr Chiriaco and Mr Linssen.

At its 364th plenary session (meeting of 26 May 1999), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the
following opinion with 118 votes in favour, no dissenting votes and three abstentions.

1.

Introduction

The abovementioned external evaluation set out a
1.4.
number of conclusions and recommendations, including the
following:

1.1.
The second phase of implementation of the EU finan-
cial instrument for the environment (LIFE II) (2), which covers
the period 1996-1999, comes to an end on 31 December
1999. The Commission is therefore proposing that a third
phase (LIFE III) be introduced with a provisional funding of
613 million euros; this phase is to expire on 31 December
2004. The overarching aim of the LIFE programme, which
comprises three thematic components (LIFE-Nature, LIFE-
Environment and LIFE-Third Countries), remains the develop-
ment and implementation of the EU environmental policy.

the report of December 1998 provided for

1.2.
The new proposal takes account of the experience
gained with LIFE II. It is based partly on two evaluation reports
drawn up in accordance with the provisions of LIFE-II, namely:
i) the report of December 1997 provided for in Article 7(3) (3)
and ii)
in
Article 14 (4). The first of these two reports examined the case
for increasing the reference amount of 450 million euros
allocated to LIFE II. The report pointed out that, whilst extra
funding over and above the reference amount of 450 million
euros could have been put to good effect in LIFE II, it was not,
however, possible, in the light of the tight budgetary situation,
even to make full use of the proposed reference amount.

1.3.
The second report evaluated the track record of LIFE II
and put forward proposals for a series of improvements. The
report was drawn up on the basis of an external evaluation of
the implementation of LIFE II (5),
linked to the SME 2000
project (6).

(1) OJ C 15, 20.1.1999, p. 65.
(2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1973/92, as amended by Council

Regulation (EC) 1404/96.

(3) COM(97) 633 final, 12.12.1997
(4) COM(98) 721 final, 4.12.1998.
(5) Assessment of the financial instrument for the environment (LIFE)

(Final Report), Arthur Andersen, July 1998.

(6) Sound and Efficient Management Project (SME 2000); this project
called for a systematic assessment to be made of all programmes
benefiting from EU funding.

— LIFE has made only a limited contribution to the develop-
ment (i.e. preparation) of new environmental policy and
legislation (see the general objective set out in Article 1 of
the LIFE II regulation). The results of individual projects do
not in most cases point the way towards general EU-level
solutions or provide practical know-how for use by the
political players. There is therefore a need to define a clear
strategy for identifying in advance the extent to which
individual LIFE projects further the formulation of EU
environmental measures.

— Partly in this context, two criticisms were levelled: the
dissemination of project findings within DG XI (‘internal
dissemination’) was not up to par; and there was a failure
to take adequate account of the priorities of the various
EU environmental measures. One of the reasons for these
failings was the organisational structure of DG XI: the
departments responsible for the LIFE programme were
working on a far too independent basis. There was hardly
any (horizontal) communication with other departments
in DG XI with a result that the necessary exchange of an
experience was absent. Internal communications needed
to be improved and the organisational structure of the
LIFE programme should be revised to enable the juxtapo-
sition of three autonomous instruments within DG XI to
give rise to one real instrument for use by this DG.

— The conclusion that the LIFE programme concentrated too
much on the projects and not enough on disseminating
the results of the projects also applies as regards the
dissemination and utilisation of the results of the projects
in the Member States (‘external dissemination’). To this
end it is essential to adopt a communication strategy
targeted much more on external communication,
to
develop a ‘know-how’ management system and to group
individual projects in order to enable practical, sectoral
recommendations to be derived from the projects. The 3 %
of funding earmarked for such communication measures
should be considerably increased.

22.7.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 209/15

1.5.
The proposed LIFE III Regulation seeks to take account
of the conclusions drawn in the abovementioned reports.
Individual projects funded by the EU are, for example, to be
more strongly linked to the priorities of EU environmental
policy and steps are to be taken to improve the dissemination
of the results of projects. The existing provisions are also to be
defined in the articles in a more effective and more readily
comprehensible form.

1.6.
The Committee will first address the Commission’s
proposal, in particular in the light of the conclusions set out
in the evaluation reports. It will also put forward observations
on other aspects of the proposal.

2. General comments

The general comments made below should be read in conjunc-
tion with the specific remarks made under point 3, which
contains a number of concrete suggestions for amending the
draft regulation.

2.1. Need for

the LIFE programme and key features of

the

programme

The LIFE programme has a special and very valuable
2.1.1.
role to play as it is the sole EU financial instrument dedicated
exclusively to promoting and developing EU environmental
policy. The programme could thus make a special contribution
towards implementing the EU’s commitment to a sustainable
development and to incorporating environmental protection
into other policy areas. The Committee expressly underlines
the need and justification for this instrument and welcomes
the proposal for a third phase.

2.1.2.
The quality of the projects supported by the LIFE
programme has reached a remarkably high level. LIFE projects
are therefore able to provide a great variety of valuable ideas
for environmental, agricultural and structural policy. The LIFE
programme can, however, only provide examples of the action
which may be taken. The actual translation into concrete
action of experience gained in demonstration projects carried
out under the LIFE programme has to be put into effect by
other EU policies and by developing EU environmental law. In
this context the Committee would emphasise that the main
objective of the LIFE programme is not the actual funding of
projects but rather the further development and implemen-
tation of environmental policy and environmental laws by
virtue of the experience acquired from LIFE projects funded
by the EU. The dissemination (both internal and external
dissemination) and utilisation of the results of the projects has
a key role to play in this context. In the Committee’s view, it is
very important that (potential) applicants for project funding
be made firmly aware of these essential features of the LIFE
programme.

2.2. The development of new EU environmental policy — one of

the main objectives of the LIFE programme

the Commission, arguing that

2.2.1.
In response to the limited contribution which LIFE II
has been seen to have made to the development of new EU
environmental policy,
the
‘development’ and the ‘implementation’ objectives are not
separable and should thus be retained, proposes a number of
changes to the LIFE-Regulation. These include reformulation
of LIFE’s general objective as set out in Article 1 and a new
definition of ‘preparatory actions’ (for LIFE-Environment) in
Article 4.2.b in conjunction with Article 4.1.b.

to meet

2.2.2.
The Committee, whilst agreeing that LIFE’s twin
objective should be retained, has misgivings about whether the
proposed changes are sufficient
the particularly
ambitious ‘development’ objective, which is primarily a Com-
mission responsibility. The reasons for these doubts are
threefold. First, the Committee believes that the proposed new
definitions in Articles 1 and 4 are ambiguous, thus prompting
the question as to how these terms will be understood by
applicants for project funding. Secondly, it is hard to discern
from the proposal in what concrete ways the ‘development’
objective will be put into practice, as the definition of the most
important parameters (priority areas, specific selection criteria,
budgetary aspects) has been postponed (1) (in the form of
future ‘calls for expression of interest’ and ‘guidelines’). Thirdly,
the proposed Regulation does not contain an explicit reference
to the need for an underlying strategy — based on adequate,
horizontal communication between the different DG XI
departments as well as between the LIFE Units and other
Commission DGs — capable of anticipating how project
results can be used to develop new EU environmental policy.
Such horizontal communication is all the more important in
the light of the integration principle prominently enshrined in
the Treaty.

2.3. Optimising LIFE’s contribution to the implementation of EU

environmental policy

2.3.1. Whereas the Commission is the main body respon-
sible for the development of new EU environmental policy and
legislation, its implementation should be considered the shared
responsibility of a great number of actors: the Commission,
Member States, regional and local authorities, industry, trade
unions, NGOs etc. Therefore, to make LIFE fully contribute to
the implementation of EU environmental policy, it is essential
that these actors act on LIFE-project results as much as
possible. As acknowledged by the Commission, this requires
among other
considered external-
dissemination strategy. As the measures that the Commission

carefully

things

a

(1) In contrast to the LIFE II Regulation, which spelled out the priority
areas as regards the preparatory measures, namely the protection
of coastal areas, reducing the amount of waste, protection
of water resources and measures to tackle air pollution and
acidification.

C 209/16

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

22.7.1999

has undertaken in recent years to step up its action in this
respect (1) were considered insufficient, it is now making a
number of additional suggestions (2). Most importantly, the
Commission proposes increasing the funds for ‘accompanying’
(including ‘dissemination’) measures from 3 % to 5 % of the
planned appropriations.

2.3.2. Whilst fully supporting the Commission in its efforts
to improve the external diffusion and exploitation of project
results, the Committee thinks that still more can be done.

2.3.2.1.
At a number of points, the draft Regulation should
be strengthened by including an explicit reference to the
importance of disseminating project results.

The Committee underlines the importance of ident-
2.3.2.2.
ifying well-defined target groups such as national and European
umbrella organisations (branch organisations, forms of coop-
eration between local or regional authorities, environmental
NGOs, district water boards, etc.), which can play a major role
in disseminating relevant project results among their members.
Obviously, this role would be further strengthened if such
organisations were also involved in the preparation and
submission of project proposals.

in appropriations

In addition, the question could be asked as to
2.3.2.3.
whether
for
the proposed increase
accompanying measures — which the Committee already
called for in its opinion on LIFE II (3) — is sufficient. Given the
crucial importance of disseminating and acting on results, and
the fact that only a part of the proposed increase will directly
benefit dissemination measures, a further increase might be
justified. The Committee also proposes making one official
within the LIFE departments exclusively responsible for intensi-
fication and overall co-ordination of dissemination activities.

2.3.2.4.
The Committee would also draw attention to the
fact that financial incentives are very important from the point
of view of the utilisation of the results of projects. In this
context national and EU funding instruments operating in the
fields of regional policy and agricultural policy (such as the
Structural Funds and the Cohesion Funds) should play a much
greater and more innovative role than has hitherto been the
case. Above all, national and regional authorities should pursue
a dynamic, coordinated strategy in respect of the establishment
and implementation of new framework programmes, e.g.
the operational programmes linked to the Structural Funds,
including cross-frontier programmes. This strategy should
involve defining particular areas of operation, appropriate
selection criteria, differential rates of assistance, etc. as the

basis for promoting, as a matter of priority, innovative projects,
including projects which have already proved their worth
under the LIFE programme. Cooperation between administrat-
ive bodies (including environmental bodies) involved in the
preparation and implementation of such framework pro-
grammes is of major importance. The Commission depart-
ments concerned should also play a more active role than has
hitherto been the case in linking LIFE projects to other
programmes benefiting from EU assistance. In this context the
Committee welcomes the Commission’s proposal that national
and regional authorities participate in the projected LIFE
seminars on specific themes; the administrators of the agricul-
tural and regional funds (e.g. the Structural Fund managers)
and the environmental authorities concerned should also take
part in these seminars.

2.3.2.5. With a view to promoting a systematic exchange
of information on innovative projects in the EU, there is, in
the Committee’s view, also an urgent need to extend the LIFE
database and to network with other European or worldwide
databases covering innovative projects and best practice (4).
Such a network of Europe-wide comparable databases — in
respect of which the European Environmental Agency could
play a coordinating role — would also help with the selection
procedure for LIFE projects by making it possible to prevent
the double funding of projects.

The Committee would finally point out that a
2.3.2.6.
distinction should be made between ‘dissemination on paper’
and ‘replication in practice’ (i.e. the final result of dissemination
activities, which is one of the most important measures of
LIFE’s success). The Commission is asked to create mechanisms
to monitor this latter aspect and to pay due attention to it in
the report to be submitted under Article 12 of the draft
Regulation.

2.4. LIFE-Nature

2.4.1.
The Committee welcomes the absolute concentration
in this part of the programme on the establishment and
operation of the Natura 2000 European network, drawn up in
the wake of the implementation of Directives 79/409/EEC
and 92/43/EEC; this network also represents a contribution
towards EU implementation of the UN Convention on Bio-
diversity. The LIFE programme which, by virtue of its very
practical and ‘tangible’ form, is able to demonstrate to people
living in the project areas that nature protection and economic
development are not mutually exclusive, can play an important
role in bringing about a higher level of acceptance of measures
to safeguard valuable habitats; in this way the LIFE programme
also has an important role to play in countering the extremely
disturbing major delay in announcing the Natura 2000
regions.

2.4.2.
The Committee welcomes the fact that LIFE-Nature
is also to be used to a greater extent for the purpose of
protecting habitats and species in the accession states which
have an endangered status throughout Europe. In this context
the Committee recommends that LIFE should cover pro-
grammes for protecting species listed in Annex IV of Directi-
ve 92/43/EEC; Article 3(5)(b) should be amplified accordingly.

(1) See Point 25 of the Explanatory Memorandum.
(2) See Point 26 of the Explanatory Memorandum.
(3) OJ C 18, 22.1.1996.

(4) e.g. databases such as that of the German Federal Institute for the
Environment, UNEP and the Clearing House Mechanism of the
Convention on Bio-diversity.

22.7.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 209/17

2.5. LIFE-Environment

The Committee’s comments under this heading concern three
main aspects: i) the relation between LIFE’s ‘development’ and
‘implementation’ objectives on the one hand and the planned
‘demonstration’ and ‘preparatory’ projects on the other; ii) the
proposed priority areas for demonstration projects; and iii) the
proposed specific selection criteria.

2.5.1. With respect to the first aspect, the Committee would
stress that the draft Regulation would gain in consistency and
clearness if a more clear-cut distinction were made between
demonstration projects (Art. 4.2.a in conjunction with Art.
4.1a), which should be explicitly linked to and confined to the
‘implementation’ objective, and preparatory actions (Art. 4.2.b
and 4.1.b), which should solely serve the ‘development’
objective. In the present wording, the difference between the
two types of projects is unclear.

2.5.2.
As regards demonstration projects, the Committee
welcomes the fact that, in the case of LIFE-Environment, too,
the scope of the programme is to continue to be limited to
given priority areas. The Committee would, however, stress
that the list of priorities set out in Article 4(1) will not be
readily understood unless more detailed explanations are
provided. It is noticeable that the abovementioned list of
priorities does not include the three sectors pinpointed at the
Cardiff Summit, namely agriculture, energy and transport, in
respect of which the respective meetings of
the Council
of Ministers were to draw up strategies for incorporating
environmental considerations. Equally, no reference is made
to a series of fields referred to in the revision of the fifth
environmental action programme (1). More precise reasons
should be set out in the recitals to the draft Regulation in
respect of
forward by the
Commission; this list should also be expanded to include the
abovementioned sectors and fields.

the list of priority areas put

2.5.3.
In the case of the specific selection criteria set out in
Article 4(6), the Committee would suggest underlining the
importance of giving priority to promoting the innovation
capacity of SMEs. The criterion of ‘promoting cooperation’
(Article 4(6)(f)) should also be defined more precisely by, for
example, drawing attention to the role which could be played
by employees and by local or regional cooperation between
authorities, members of the public, industry, trade unions and
environmental associations.

2.6. Application of LIFE programme in the CEEC seeking to join

the EU

2.6.1.
The situation as regards environmental protection in
the associated states is characterised by a great need for
innovative (and cost-efficient) solutions, involving the use of
environmental technology, to the problem of reducing the
most blatant environmental pollution, whilst at the same time
bringing environmental standards and environmental laws in
the states concerned into line with the existing body of EU
law. The associated states still possess many natural heritage
areas the like of which has ceased to exist in western Europe.

(1) Decision No. 2179/98/EC of the European Parliament and the

Council — OJ L 275, 10.10.1998.

These areas, which are of fundamental
importance to the
establishment of the Natura 2000 network, must be safeguard-
ed on a lasting basis as soon as possible. It is, however, well
known that in view of the difficult economic situation facing
many of the associated states and because of the large number
of other problems which need to be resolved, protection of
nature and the environment in these states often plays only a
marginal role. This makes it all the more important for
‘bottom-up’ projects to be launched with the help of assistance
from the LIFE programme.

2.6.2.
is that
The problem which arises here, however,
under the Association Agreements and the relevant additional
protocols, the accession states were only eligible to take
part in the LIFE programme on condition that they made
contributions to the programme, the amount of which was
subject to negotiation (the so-called ‘entry ticket’). This meant
that the associated states were treated in a completely different
way to both the EU Member States and the ‘third countries’.
The fact that so far only Rumania has decided to take part in
the LIFE programme demonstrates how difficult
is to
convince the governments of the associated states of the
advisability of participating in the LIFE programme and that
they should be ready to pay for such participation. As long as
the associated states remain to be convinced of these benefits,
interested parties (business, private individuals, associations)
— i.e. the LIFE blood of the programme — will be denied
access to it.

it

2.6.3.
It is a matter of great concern to the Committee that
these ‘hurdles’ are preventing a start being made on applying
the LIFE programme in the associated states; this assistance is
both potentially beneficial and urgently required. The Com-
mittee therefore calls upon the Commission and Member
States to examine, without delay, how these hurdles can be
removed, e.g. by increasing the level of participation of Phare
funding in the ‘entry ticket’ and/or by using assistance received
from other relevant financial instruments, such as ISPA or the
Pre-accession Measures for Agriculture and Rural Develop-
ment, for this purpose.

2.7. Duration of the third phase and budgetary resources

The Committee believes that there is an urgent need
2.7.1.
to increase the proposed level of funding for LIFE III,
i.e.
613 million euros. In this context the Committee fully sup-
ports the stand taken by the European Parliament in its first
reading of the Proposal for a Regulation on 15 April 1999.
The Committee proposes that funding of at least 850 million
euros be earmarked for the implementation for LIFE III.

2.7.1.1.
The Committee would point out in this context
that, once the figures have been converted, less funding is to
be available for projects in the EU Member States under LIFE III
than was the case under LIFE I. (2) The need for environmental
protection is still more pressing today than it was in 1992
when the LIFE I programme was established. Furthermore, in
the wake of the Amsterdam Treaty, the incorporation of
environmental protection measures into other areas of EU
policy has become a binding requirement; in reality, however,
considerable shortcomings still exist in this field. In view of

(2) Under LIFE I, average annual funding available to the 12 Member
States was 100 million euros, i.e. 8.3 million euros per Member
State per year. Under LIFE III, the average sum available per year
is to be 122.6 million euros, which, when divided by 15, makes
8.2 million euros per Member State per year.

C 209/18

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

22.7.1999

the above factors, it is hardly conducive to promoting the
credibility of EU environmental policy if the ‘Environment’
and ‘Nature’ sections of the Community’s very own financial
instrument for the environment are allocated less funding than,
for example, the promotion of the audio-visual production
industry (1). In this context, it should be borne in mind that the
distribution of funding under the LIFE programme has so far
been very effective (see the report referred to in point 1.2
above, drawn up in pursuance of Article 7(3)). Furthermore,
assistance could have been provided to many more projects if
a higher level of funding had been available. Attention is also
drawn to the fact that studies have shown that several billion
euros will be required each year to set up the Natura-2000
network, a project to which LIFE-Nature is to contribute.

2.7.2.
As regards the proposed duration of LIFE III, the
Committee takes the view that the third phase of the pro-
gramme should come to an end — in parallel with Agen-
da 2000 and the Structural Funds — on 31 December 2006
(rather than 31 December 2004, as proposed by the Com-
mission). There are two reasons for this proposed extension;
it would undoubtedly enhance the very important
firstly,
synergies between the LIFE programme and other EU funding
instruments; secondly,
the
evaluation of the third phase of the LIFE programme would
embrace many more (completed) projects, thereby enhancing
the significance of the evaluation report provided for under
Article 12. Should the duration of the third phase be extended,
the proposed level of funding would of course have to be
correspondingly increased, over and above the level suggested
in point 2.7.1 above.

it would help to ensure that

and ‘dissemination’), on which observations have been made
by the Committee in this opinion. This would imply, inter alia,
that the report would also deal with the impact and the value
of the LIFE programme as regards the major sources of EU
funding (agricultural policy, structural policy, including the
Cohesion Fund) (2).

3. Specific comments

The Committee wishes to propose the following amendments
to the individual recitals and articles of the Proposal for a
Regulation, on the basis of the general comments made in
point 2 above:

3.1. Recitals

Add at the end of the first recital: …; whereas, to that
the dissemination and replication of project results

3.1.1.
end,
financed by LIFE is essential;

Add recital 1a (new):

3.1.2.
‘Whereas a dissemination
strategy has to be based, inter alia, on a well-defined target
group approach and whereas the potential financial incentives
for project dissemination and replication offered by other
national and Community financing instruments have to be
fully exploited;’

2.8. Procedure for selecting projects and the administration of

projects

Fourth recital:

3.1.3.
‘Whereas (…) a third phase for a
period of seven years ending on 31 December 2006 should be
set in motion;’

The way in which projects are selected and adminis-
2.8.1.
in the Committee’s view, both transparent and
tered is,
appropriate.
In view of the prime objectives of the LIFE
programme, it is vital that Commission officials are closely
involved in the selection and monitoring of projects and the
implementation of the results. It is therefore right to exclude
the possibility of giving outside experts full responsibility for
running the project; these experts can and must only play a
supporting role.

2.8.2.
The Committee requests the Commission to examine
whether there is further scope for cutting back on the time
and money spent on drawing up applications for assistance
in particular in the case of SMEs and small
for projects,
organisations, and enabling such bodies to prepare project
applications by themselves. With this aim in view, it is also
important to harmonise, as far as possible, the document
requirements laid down for the various EU financial instru-
ments.

2.9. Drawing-up of reports

The Committee takes the view that

2.9.1.
the report
provided for under Article 12 of the Proposal for a Regulation
should address, above all, the general objectives of the LIFE
‘integration’,
programme (‘development’,

‘implementation’,

(1) See budgetary heading B3-201 MEDIA-Programme.

3.1.4.
Add recital 6(a) (new): ‘Whereas demonstration pro-
jects should concern the implementation of existing Com-
munity environmental policy and legislation;’

3.1.5.
Seventh recital: ‘Whereas preparatory projects should
concern the development of new Community environmental
policy and legislation;’

3.1.6.
Add to the end of the ninth recital: (…) and whereas
the LIFE programme should be used to contribute to increased
environmental and nature protection in these countries;

3.2. Article 1 — General objective

Second paragraph: amend to read as follows: ‘The
3.2.1.
general objective of LIFE shall be to contribute to the
development of new or to the implementation of existing
Community environmental policy and legislation in particular
as regards the integration of the environment into other
policies. To this end, LIFE shall also contribute towards the
dissemination of the results obtained from measures financed
by this instrument.’

(2) See in this context also the Committee’s Opinion, 24.2.1999 on
the Annual Report on the Cohesion Fund (1997) — OJ C 101,
12.4.1999.

22.7.1999

EN

Official Journal of the European Communities

C 209/19

3.3. Article 2 — Thematic components and general criteria

Second paragraph, indent a): amend to read as fol-
3.3.1.
lows:
‘be of Community interest by making a significant
contribution to the development of new or to the implemen-
tation of existing Community environmental policy and
legislation, as well as to the dissemination of the results
obtained from measures financed by this instrument.’

3.4. Article 4 — LIFE-Environment

3.4.1.

(1) The specific objective of LIFE-Environment shall be to

contribute to:

a)

b)

the implementation of existing Community environ-
mental policy and legislation;

the development of new Community environmental
policy and legislation

(2) (unchanged)

(3) Demonstration projects referred to in paragraph 2 (a)
specifically contribute to: (include text of Art. 1 (a) as
proposed by the Commission).

(4) As regards projects to be financed pursuant to the objec-
tives of LIFE-Environment set out in Article 4(1) and with
a view to the definition of the guidelines referred to in
Article 4.4 as well as to the calls for expression of interest
to be published pursuant to Article 4.8, account will also
be taken of:

— the need to integrate environmental considerations
into EU policy regarding agriculture, transport and
energy;

3.4.2.
Article 4.4 — ‘As far as demonstration projects are
concerned, on the basis of a strategy anticipating how project
results can be used to meet the general objective of LIFE
set out in Article 1, guidelines will be established by the
Commission (...)’ (rest unchanged).

3.4.3.
Article 4.6.f) — ‘Involving, where appropriate, vari-
ous socio-economic players (members of the public, and
representatives of
trade unions, environmental
associations and authorities) from the area covered by the
project concerned.’

industry,

Add new paragraph to the end of Article 4.6: ‘As
3.4.4.
regards proposals related to industrial activities, consideration
will be given, in particular, to project proposals submitted by
small and medium-sized enterprises.’

Article 4.8 — ‘At the Commission’s initiative and on
3.4.5.
the basis of a strategy anticipating how project results can be
used to meet the general objective of LIFE set out in Article 1
(...)’ (rest unchanged).

3.5. Article 8 — Duration of the third phase and budgetary

resources

3.5.1.
Article 8.1 ‘LIFE shall be implemented in phases. The
third phase shall start on 1 January 2000 and shall end of
31 December 2006.’

3.6. Article 12 — Evaluation of the third phase and continuation

of LIFE

Article 12.1 — ‘Not later than 31 December 2004,
3.6.1.
the Commission shall submit a report
to the European
Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee
and the Committee of the Regions on the implementation of
this regulation, in particular in the light of the general objective
of LIFE set out in Article 1 and the benefits of the programme
to EU agricultural policy and cohesion policy. The report shall
also cover the use made (...).’ (rest unchanged).

— the priorities established in Decision No. 2179/98/EC
on the review of the European Community programme
of policy and action in relation to the environment and
sustainable development ‘Towards sustainability’.

3.6.2.
Article 12.2 — ‘The Council and the European
Parliament, acting in accordance with the Treaty, shall decide
on the implementation of the fourth phase as from 1 January
2007.’

Brussels, 26 May 1999.

The President

of the Economic and Social Committee

Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI