Report from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council - Mid-term review of Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000 LIFE
Date: 2003-11-05
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, EU financial instrument, EU programme, environmental cooperation, project evaluation, project management

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES

Brussels, 5.11.2003
COM(2003) 668 final

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

Mid-term review of Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000
LIFE

   
REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION
TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL

Mid-term review of Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000
LIFE

1.

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Article  12  of  the  LIFE  III  Regulation  stipulates  that  the  Commission  will  examine
the operation and results of LIFE III in September 2003 and publish a report together
with proposals, if appropriate, on the future of the instrument.

The  Commission  carried  out  this  examination  based  on  information  on  the  LIFE
projects  and  on  its  experience.  However,  in  the  interests  of  transparency  and
objectivity,  it  considered  it  appropriate  to  engage  the  services  of  an  external
consultant,  selected  on  the  basis  of  a  tendering  process,  in  order  to  supplement  its
own evaluation.

The first year of implementation of the LIFE III programme (2000) was disrupted by
the late adoption of the Regulation in July 2000. The selection of new projects could
only begin in 2001.

A major reorganisation of the Directorate-General for the Environment took place at
the beginning of 2001. A single unit was created for managing the LIFE instrument,
which had previously been managed on a thematic basis by five different units.

2001 and 2002 were dedicated to improving the management of LIFE by establishing
mechanisms and adopting working methods which reduced a significant burden from
the past (reduced the number of projects which were finished but not closed and the
amount  of  outstanding  commitments)  and  helped  improve  the  implementation  of
ongoing  projects.  The  financial  implementation  of  the  instrument  was  improved  at
the same time.

At the end of 2002, after the reorganisation, management capacities were freed up to
strengthen the policy on communicating and using the results as it was first necessary
to  ensure  the  best  possible  management  procedure  for  selecting  and  implementing
projects.

The  LIFE  III  programme  is  now  well  underway.  According  to  the  results  of  the
external  evaluation,  it  is  a  useful  programme  for  implementing  Community
environment policy. It would be desirable to continue with a specific instrument for
the environment, but several adjustments should be made in order to:

(cid:1)  simplify its management;

(cid:1)  improve  its  focus  on  the  priorities  of  the  sixth  environment  action  programme;

and

(cid:1)  improve the use and dissemination of the results.

2

2.

INTRODUCTION

The  LIFE  III  Regulation  came  into  effect  in  2000  and  will  apply  until  the  end  of
2004.  It  is  therefore  appropriate  to  evaluate  performance  in  the  middle  of  2003,  as
provided for in Article 12 of the Regulation.

This  evaluation  relates  to  the  administrative  operation  of  the  instrument  and  its
contribution  to  Community  environment  policy.  It  is  based  on  the  Commission's
presentation  of  the  statistical  information  available  and  on  the  concrete  results  of
ongoing  projects.  This  evaluation  is  backed  up  by  an  evaluation  carried  out  by  an
external consultant in July 2003.

In addition to ensuring that public funds are being properly used, the main aim of this
evaluation is to contribute to improving Community environment policy by drawing
lessons  from  the  past  in  order  to  help  make  choices  in  the  future.  Examining  the
programme's results in relation to the objectives of Community environment policy
is essential for deciding  whether it  is  going to be  continued  or  not  and,  if  so,  what
adjustments could usefully be made.

2.1.

The context

When it was set up in 1992, “L’Instrument Financier pour L’Environnement” (LIFE)
took  over  the  ACNAT,  MEDSPA  and  NORSPA  programmes,  which  financed
projects in the fields of nature conservation, the Mediterranean environment and the
environment  of  the  Atlantic  and  North  Sea  coast  respectively.  LIFE  provided  a
coherent, stable and better funded framework for these environmental activities.

The  current  phase  of  the  Financial  Instrument  for  the  Environment  (LIFE  III)  was
established by Regulation (EC) No 1655/2000 of the European Parliament and of the
Council  of  17  July  2000.  This  Regulation  repeals  Regulation  (EEC)  No  1973/92
(LIFE I), which first established the LIFE financial instrument and was subsequently
replaced by Council Regulation EC No 1404/96 of 15 July 1996 (LIFE II).

2.2.

Description of the LIFE-Programme

In  the  framework  of  sustainable  development  and  in  accordance  with  Decision  No
2179/98/CE  of  the  European  Parliament,  the  general  objective  of  LIFE  is  to
contribute  to  the  implementation,  development  and  enhancement  of  Community
environmental policy and legislation. LIFE should also favour the integration of the
environment into other EU policies and lead to new solutions for EU environmental
problems under examination.

LIFE  co-finances  environmental  initiatives  in  the  Member  States,  Acceding  States,
Candidate  Countries  and  a  number  of  specific  third  countries.  The  instrument  is
based on a practical approach, that works towards the implementation of Community
policy defined initially by the Fifth Action Programme for the Environment.

LIFE has been implemented in three phases:

• 400 million euros were allocated for the first phase (1992-1995),

• 450 million euros were allocated for the second phase (1996-1999),

3

• 640 million euros for the current phase, “LIFE III” (2000-2004).

LIFE  consists  of  three  thematic  components:  “LIFE-Nature”,  “LIFE-Environment”
and “LIFE-Third countries”.

The  specific  objective  of  LIFE-Nature  is  to  contribute  to  the  implementation  of
Community nature protection legislation (the “Birds” Directive 79/409/EEC and the
“Habitats”  Directive  92/43/EEC).  In  particular,  it  supports  the  establishment  of  the
“Natura 2000” network.

The  aim  of  LIFE-Environment  is  to  contribute  to  the  development  of  innovative
and integrated techniques and to the further development of Community environment
policy. This should be done through the financial support to demonstration projects,
the launching of preparatory projects aiming at the development of new Community
environmental actions and instruments and the operation of accompanying measures.

LIFE-Nature  and  LIFE-Environment  co-finance  projects  in  the  European  Union.  In
the  framework  of  the  Agreements  between  the  European  Union  and  the  Acceding
States  and  Candidate  Countries,  they  provide  the  support  for  their  participation  in
environmental and nature conservation projects, as a pre-accession exercise.

LIFE-Third  countries  operates  in  the  framework  of  the  Association  Agreements
concluded  between  the  European  Union  and  the  third  countries  bordering  on  the
Mediterranean  and  the  Baltic  Sea,  other  than  central  and  east  European  Acceding
States and Candidate Countries. Its objective is to contribute to the establishment of
capacities and administrative structures needed in the environmental sector and in the
development of environmental policy and action programmes.

An  annual  call  for  proposals  is  published  in  the  Official  Journal  (OJEC)  and  the
Member States and third countries send the Commission their project proposals. The
Commission  publishes  the  closing  date  in  the  Official  Journal  and  evaluates  the
proposals. The Commission is responsible for the financial control and monitoring of
the  implementation  of  LIFE  projects  as  well  as  for  the  overall  exploitation  and
dissemination of results.

Open to all “natural and legal persons”, projects co-financed by LIFE must meet the
following general criteria:

(cid:1)  they  must  correspond  to  the  priorities  established  at  Community  level  and
contribute  to  the  above-mentioned  objectives  and  to  the  specific  objectives
described hereafter,

(cid:1)  they must be submitted by technically and financially sound participants,

(cid:1)  they must be feasible in terms of technical content, timetable and budget and offer

good value for money.

A total of 1992 LIFE projects were given financial support between 1992 and 2002:

(cid:1)  665 LIFE-Nature projects, plus 79 in 2003.

(cid:1)  1166 LIFE-Environment projects, plus 104 in 2003.

4

(cid:1)  161 LIFE-Third Country projects plus 17 in 2003.

2.3.

Purpose of the evaluation

The  evaluation  complies  with  the  Regulation.  It  was  carried  out  by  both  the
Commission and an external consultant at the same time.

2.3.1.

Purpose of the evaluation and Commission response

Article 12 of the LIFE Regulation provides that the evaluation of LIFE III will focus
on:

(cid:1)  "The implementation of the Regulation and the use made of the appropriations".

To this end, the Commission presents in this report the technical and financial data
relating  to  the  implementation  of  the  Regulation  and  the  use  made  of  the
appropriations  (section  3).  It  stresses  the  aspects  highlighted  in  the  Regulation's
recitals,  namely:  reinforcing  LIFE  as a specific financial  instrument;  improving  the
efficiency  and  transparency  of  procedures;  ensuring  the  effective  monitoring  of
actions;  simplifying  management;  and  improving  the  dissemination  of  information
and the transfer of results.

(cid:1)  "The contribution to the development of Community environment policy".

In  order  to  evaluate  the  contribution  of  LIFE  to  the  development  of  Community
environment policy, the Commission engaged the services of an external consultant.
The  consultant's  terms  of  reference  and  main  conclusions  are  summarised  in
section 4.

(cid:1)  "Where  appropriate,  proposals  for  any  adjustments  to  be  made  with  a  view  to

continuing the action beyond the third phase".

The  Commission  then  draws  conclusions  (section  5)  based  on  the  previous
evaluations as to whether it is appropriate to continue the action and, if so, in what
form.

Due to the similarity between LIFE II and LIFE III, due to the short amount of time
which  has  elapsed  since  the  LIFE  III  Regulation  was  implemented,  and  due  to  the
fact that the projects co-financed under LIFE III have not yet finished, the analysis of
the  results  and  their  impact  on  Community  environment  policy  is  largely  based  on
the projects financed under LIFE II which are similar to the current projects.

2.3.2.

External evaluation

In addition to its own evaluation, in 2003 the Commission launched a call for tenders
regarding  the  external  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  LIFE-III  programme.  In  the
interests of transparency and objectivity, the evaluation was entrusted to an external
consultant. A coordination group monitored the consultant's work in order to ensure
the neutrality of the evaluation of the consultant's work.

The objective of the evaluation was to assess to what extent the LIFE Programme has
contributed  to  the  implementation,  updating  and  development  of  environmental
policy and legislation and as such, has met its objectives.

5

The evaluator was asked to provide the Commission with an objective review of the
strengths and weaknesses of the current programme including recommendations for
continuing improvement. The key evaluation objectives were the: scope, efficiency,
effectiveness, utility and sustainability.

This  evaluation  concerns  the  LIFE  III  Programme  and  does  not  focus  on  the
evaluation of projects. However, as it is an interim evaluation, and as few LIFE  III
projects  are  completed,  the  evaluator  considered  outcomes  from  LIFE  II  projects,
given that the objectives of LIFE II and LIFE III are very similar.

The  evaluation  is  based  on  interviews  of  different  stakeholders  in  the  Commission
and in the Member states.

3.

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE LIFE-III PROGRAMME

Due to the late approval of the LIFE Regulation in 2000, the call for tender for 2000
was not possible and there was a single selection for 2000 and 2001.

3.1.

LIFE-Nature

Introduction

Since  it  began  in  1992,  LIFE-Nature  has  had  a  very  specific  role  in  EU  nature
conservation policy. Funding is only available to projects that meet the objectives of
nature  conservation  legislation,  namely  the  “Birds”  and  “Habitats”  Directives.  In
practical terms projects should assist the establishment  of the  Natura  2000 network
of protected areas and safeguard listed species which occur both inside and  outside
these areas. The key goal of LIFE-Nature intervention is to be found in Article 3 of
the Habitats Directive, “the maintenance or, where appropriate, the re-establishment
of  a  favourable  state  of  conservation  of  types  of  natural  habitat  and  habitats  of
species concerned”.

3.1.1. Nature conservation projects financed by LIFE

The  LIFE-Nature  instrument  -  although  relatively  small  in  financial  terms  (about
0.07% of the European budget) - has been the only EU financial instrument that has
been  directed  specifically  at  nature  conservation  and  has  integrated  all  aspects  of
Nature protection in single projects.

Typically LIFE III-Nature conservation projects include most or all of the following
actions:

(cid:1)  Implication of different stakeholders concerned with the site(s) or species;

(cid:1)  Restoration of degraded sites, and in exceptional cases site creation;

(cid:1)  Preparation and execution of site management plans or species actions plans;

(cid:1)  Safeguard of existing and restored sites (including purchase and long term leases);

(cid:1)  Awareness raising amongst administrations, experts and the general public;

6

(cid:1)  Scientific monitoring of habitats and species.

New  conditions  were  included  in  LIFE  III  coincidental  with  the  progress  in  site
designation. In order to receive funding, the major part of a LIFE III-Nature project
must comprise concrete actions, such as site restoration or improvement. All projects
must include awareness-raising activities.

With  the  gradual  implementation  of  EU  nature  conservation,  LIFE-Nature  has  also
evolved.  Whilst  a  priori  site  designation  was  not  a  condition  for  funding  under
LIFE I, this has been strictly adhered to in the subsequent phases. Purely theoretical
projects, for instance the preparation of management plans without implementation,
are no longer eligible under LIFE III.1

In the three LIFE  III selection rounds to  date  a  total of  680  applications have been
received, of which 243 (36%) were selected for co-financing.

LIFE III-nature. Proposals received and co-financed

Number of
proposals
received

Number of
proposals co-
financed

Total EC
funding -
all projects
(€ mill.)

Total budget
all projects -

(€ mill.)

Average co-
financing per
project
(€ mill.)

2001

2002

2003

310

188

182

94

70

77

79.4

72

70.9

152.7

130

132.8

0.844

1.028

0.92

Details  and  comparisons  with  earlier  phases  of  LIFE  are  given  in  Table  A  in  the
Annex.

Under LIFE III around 80 projects with an average value of €1.8 million are awarded
funding each year. The average co-funding for LIFE III-Nature to date is 54%.

In  view  of  the  traditional  actors  in  nature  conservation,  public  and  especially  the
regional  authorities  are 
(73%).  Non-governmental
the  main  beneficiaries 
organisations  (NGOs)  cover  25%  but  together  with  scientific  institutions  are
frequently partners to projects (see Table C in the Annex).

In order to assess the achievement of LIFE-Nature in terms of its goals it is necessary
to  examine  where  projects  have  been  carried  out  and  what  actions  have  been
undertaken.

1

Exception is made for associate candidate countries and new member states in 2004.

7

                                                
3.1.2.

Type of projects and coverage (since the beginning of LIFE)

LIFE-Nature  projects  target  either  primarily  birds  on  Natura  2000  sites  (18%),  or
primarily  habitats  within  Natura  2000  sites  (74%)  or  species  outside  Natura  2000
sites (8%)2.

Natura 2000 sites

By the end of 2001, ten per cent of the almost 18 000 proposed Natura 2000 sites had
been the subject of a LIFE-Nature project. Only 2.5% of sites have been the subject
of  more  than  one  project.  This  is  line  with  the  “pump-priming”  function  of  LIFE.
Projects proposed are selected as far as possible to cover new areas of Natura 2000
and continuation projects are given lower priority for funding.

Habitats and species

Detailed analysis of projects over a four-year period shows that LIFE-Nature targeted
at least once as many as 87% of the types of habitat which are considered to be of
Community  interest3.  Two-thirds  of  habitat  types  have  been  targeted  by  three  or
more projects.

A  majority  of  projects  target  –  at  least  partially  –  wetlands.  In  this  way  LIFE
contributes also to the objectives of the 1971 International Convention on Wet Areas
(Ramsar Convention) and the 1995 Commission communication on wetlands4.

Almost  28%  of  the  species  in  the  "Habitats"  and  "Birds"  Directives  have  been
directly  targeted  by  one  or  more  LIFE-Nature  projects.  The  coverage  of  species  is
variable.  At  one  end  of  the  spectrum,  thirty-one  listed  species  have  each  been
covered by at least five projects. Species directly targeted by more than four projects
were mostly mammals and birds, but included also one higher plant species.

Whilst the proportion of reptiles, amphibians, fish, invertebrate and plant species of
the  Habitats  Directive  that  were  directly  targeted  by  LIFE  projects  remains  fairly
low,  however,  the  vast  majority  of  Habitats  Directive  species  have  benefited
indirectly  from  restoration  or  improvement  actions  targeting  habitats  and  sites  they
rely on.

Several  LIFE-Nature  projects  have  been  dealing  with  emergency  actions  covering
the entire world population of species in immediate danger of extinction.

Projects that target species outside of Natura 2000 areas are mostly in countries with
a high level of biodiversity, in particular Spain.

Coverage  by  LIFE  projects  has  been  relatively  large  and  sufficiently  significant  to
contribute to stemming the decline in biodiversity throughout the European Union.

2

3

4

The figures refer to projects co-financed between 1998 and 2001 inclusive.
i.e. listed in Annex I to the “Habitats” Directive.
Commission  of  the  European  Communities.  1995.  Wise  Use  and  Conservation  of  Wetlands.
Communication  from  the  Commission  to  the  Council  and  the  European  Parliament.  (COM(95) 189
C4-0224/95).

8

                                                
Countries (LIFE III)

The distribution of LIFE-Nature projects over EU Member States is as follows:

Number and average budget of LIFE-Nature projects in Member States, 2001 - 2003.

UK

SE

PT

NL

LU

IT

IE

GR

FR

FI

ES

DK

DE

BE

AT

UK

SE

PT

NL

LU

IT

IE

GR

FR

FI

ES

DK

DE

BE

AT

0

10

20

30

40

50

0

2

4

6

number of projects

average budget per project (mill. euros)

Projects  in  Northern  Member  States  tend  to  be  larger.  Southern  Member  States,
particularly Italy and Spain, have large numbers of small projects. The condition of a
priori  designation  of  sites  for  funding  meant  that  Member  States  for  which  the
Natura  2000  procedure  was  delayed  were  less  able  to  present  projects.  This  was
notably the case for France and Germany.

3.1.3.

Accompanying measures

New  under  LIFE  III  was  a  small  allocation  of  funds  to  the  Co-op  and  Starter
accompanying measures for LIFE-Nature.

Co-op projects support exchange  of experience between on-going  and  past  projects
whilst Starter projects provide preparation for international LIFE-nature projects.

In the  first  year of  tender  (2002)  four  Co-op  and  12  Starter  projects  were  accepted
from  respectively  12  and  46  applications.  Tenders  for  Co-op  projects  are  being
repeated in 2003 and 2004.

3.2.

LIFE-Environment

Introduction

9

 
Since  its  inception  in  1992,  LIFE-Environment  has  aimed  at  the  promotion  of  EU
environmental policies in the Member States through the implementation of concrete
demonstration  projects.  These  projects  have  normally  been  selected  for  their
innovative nature and dissemination and transfer potential.

its  potential  for
The  main  characteristic  of  LIFE-Environment  projects 
demonstration  of  new  methods,  techniques  and  schemes  paving  the  way  for  the
implementation  of  existing  EU  policies  in  the  different  environmental  fields  or  for
the future development of policy.

is 

3.2.1.

Actions financed by LIFE-Environment

Although  there  are  fluctuations  in  the  number  of  proposals  received,  the  average
funding per project has remained stable from one year to the next.

LIFE  III  Environment.  Number  of  proposals  received,  financed  and  total  EC
contribution

Year

Number of
proposals
received

Number of
proposals
funded

Total EC
Funding

Total Project
Budget

(€)

(€)

Average
funding per
proposal

(€)

2001

2002

2003

898

479

532

103

114

104

63 411 036

191 568 988

615 641

71 766 257

218 096 445

629 529

69 470 808

216 153 448

667 989

LIFE  III  Environment  actions  consist of demonstration projects covering the topics
set in the Regulation. The breakdown by topic of the projects financed under LIFE-
Environment between 2002 and 2003 reveal a rather uniform allocation of resources
amongst 
topics  “urban  and  planning”,  “water”,  “clean
technologies”,  “waste”  and  “products”.  The  two  topics  which  received  the  highest
share  of  funding  were  waste  and  products  (accounting  for  23%  and  22%  of  the
expenditure respectively).

the  broad  project 

LIFE Environm ent funding per policy area 
2002 & 2003

22%

19%

23%

18%

18%

10

URBAN AND PLANNING

W ATER

CLEAN TECHNOLOGIES

W ASTE

PRODUCTS

3.2.2.

Type of projects /Geographical distribution

As regards the geographical distribution, projects from northern Member States tend
to  be  larger  vis-à-vis  those  based  in  southern  Member  States.  Spain  and  Italy
continue to be the countries with the highest number of projects funded, although the
tendency is progressively levelling off.

Amount of LIFE-Environment funding per country 
and year

2000

2002

2003

.

€
(

g
n

i

d
n
u
f

E
F

I

L

18.000.000

16.000.000

14.000.000

12.000.000

10.000.000

8.000.000

6.000.000

4.000.000

2.000.000

0

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

Greece

Spain

Estonia

Finland

France

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

The Nederlands

Austria

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

United Kingdom
Slovenia
Sweden

T o ta l a m o u n t o f L IF E -E n v ir o n m e n t fu n d in g  p e r  c o u n tr y  fo r  th e  
p e r io d  2 0 0 0 - 2 0 0 3

3 5 .0 0 0 .0 0 0

3 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0

2 5 .0 0 0 .0 0 0

2 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0

1 5 .0 0 0 .0 0 0

1 0 .0 0 0 .0 0 0

5 .0 0 0 .0 0 0

g
n

i

d
n
u
f

E
F

I

L

0

ark
Belgium
Denm
Germ

any
Greece

Spain

Estonia

Finland

France

Hungary

Ireland

11

Italy

Latvia

The Nederlands

Austria

Portugal
Rom

ania
Slovakia

weden

United Kingdom
Slovenia

S

 
 
 
3.3.

LIFE-Third Countries

Introduction

LIFE-Third Countries encourages neighbouring countries of the European Union and
countries bordering on the Baltic Sea and the Mediterranean to formulate and initiate
environmental actions. Between 1992 and 2003, 178 projects were funded; the total
contribution  was  EUR  60.7  million;  84  projects  have  finished  and  94  are  ongoing,
including 17 new ones decided on in 2003.

3.3.1.

Actions financed under LIFE III

The  specific  objective  of  LIFE-Third  Countries  has  changed  since  LIFE  II.  The
objective  is  now  to  contribute  towards  creating  administrative  capacities  and
structures  and  developing  policies  and  action  programmes.  Geographical  eligibility
has  not  changed  since  LIFE  II,  but  Cyprus  and  Malta,  which  are  due  to  become
Member States, will no longer be eligible for LIFE-Third Countries from 2004. Since
the  start  of  LIFE  III,  236  proposals  have  been  received  and  61  projects  have  been
funded; LIFE's total contribution of EUR 21.3 million was on average EUR 347 000
per project.

LIFE III - Proposals received, financed and total EC contribution

Year

2001

2002

2003

Number 
proposals
received

of

Number 
proposals
funded

of

Total 
funding

EC

92

74

70

28

16

17

9.0

5.7

6.5

3.3.2. Geographical distribution and types of LIFE III projects

The  LIFE  III  projects  are  divided  geographically  between  the  Baltic  Sea  (Russian
regions of St Petersburg and Kaliningrad: 5 projects; LIFE contribution €1.6 million)
and  the  Mediterranean  (from  Croatia  to  Morocco:  56  projects;  LIFE  contribution
€19.7 million). The distribution per country is  shown in Table  I in  the Annex.  The
countries with the highest number of projects are Croatia (7), Turkey (7), Bosnia and
Herzegovina  (6)  and  Cyprus  (6).  However  there  are  no  projects  in  Egypt  and  only
one  in  Syria.  The  7  projects  presented  by  international  organisations  are  being
implemented  in  the  Middle  East  (particularly  in  the  Lebanon)  and  the  Maghreb.
There are more LIFE-Third Countries projects in the north of the Mediterranean than
in the south.

Within  the  broad  framework  of  “capacity  building”,  most  LIFE-Third  Countries
projects  consist  of  a  set  of  different  measures,  according  to  the  local  or  national
needs.  All  LIFE  III  Third  Countries  projects  address  one  or  more  of  the  following
types of measures:

(cid:1)  development or adaptation of legislation;

12

(cid:1)  training of staff;

(cid:1)  creation or reinforcement of environmental management structures;

(cid:1)  creation  or  reinforcement  of  structures  for  data  collection,  inventory,  storage,

monitoring or dissemination;

(cid:1)  definition of planning processes including policies, strategies or action plans;

(cid:1)  drawing up of standards or regulations;

(cid:1)  awareness raising; and/or

(cid:1)  development  of  technical  tools,  including  technical  guidelines,  the  transfer  of

know-how and the identification of best practice.

The  support  can  be  at  the  local,  national,  or  regional  level.  It  can  be  focused  on
harmonisation with EU standards or legislation, or on implementation of existing EU
environmental tools (including EMAS, CORINE, Natura 2000…).

LIFE-Third  Countries  projects  cover  most  key  environmental  issues.  They  fall
largely into three groups: pollution (23%), biodiversity (20%) and waste (11%). As
shown  in  the  diagram  below,  the  joint  largest  category  of  projects  is  that  covering
general  environmental  management  structures  (23%  or  10  projects).  This  category
covers  general  support  to  structures  responsible  for  environmental  management.  A
closely related category of projects focuses on specific environmental tools, such as
eco-management  and  EMAS.  The  ‘Other’  category  accounts  for  six  projects,
covering issues such as environmental education, land survey and soil resources.

The 2003 projects are related to environmental tools and structures (6), biodiversity
and management of natural resources (5), solid waste (3), water (1), air pollution (1)
and environmental education (1).

LIFE TCY funding by theme (2001 and 2002)

14%

23%

Pollution

Biodiversity

Waste

Environmental management structures

9%

23%

Environmental tools

20%

Other

11%

13

3.4.

Management of LIFE projects by the Commission

3.4.1.

Technical management

Simplification of management.

Under  LIFE  II,  the  management  structure  was  divided  into  five  units  which
independently  monitored  LIFE-Environment,  LIFE-Nature,  LIFE-Third  Countries,
LIFE-Candidate Countries and the financial management of LIFE.

In  February  2001,  when  the  first  selection  exercise  for  LIFE  III  began,  the
Directorate-General  for  the  Environment  was  restructured  and  all  of  the  activities
relating to  LIFE  were brought together in one unit (unit Environment D1,  LIFE) in
order to simplify its management.

The  administrative  unit  which  manages  LIFE  is  assisted  by  external  teams  which
ensure the monitoring of the projects on the ground.

Agreements have been adopted to define the relations between the LIFE unit and the
thematic units in DG Environment in order to encourage the latter to get involved in
choosing the projects and using the results.

The  management  unit  has  facilitated  the  gradual  harmonisation  of  management  for
the three branches of LIFE by creating similar tools and standards, in particular for:
application  guides;  standard  administrative  clauses;  project  selection  criteria;
methods  for  presenting  and  monitoring  projects;  administrative  management  tools;
services of external teams; the presentation and use of results.

Efficiency and transparency of procedures

The selection criteria and rules are communicated before the selection procedure and
are available on the Internet. Presentations of the programme have been organised in
all the Member States with the support of the Commission.

The Member States are requested to give their opinion on the projects before the end
of  the  selection  procedure  and  to  meet  with  the  Commission  in  order  to  give  their
comments  on  the  evaluations  before  giving  an  opinion  in  the  formal  consultation
procedure of the LIFE Committee for the Environment and Third Countries projects
and of the Habitats Committee for the Nature projects.

The  comments  from  experts  and  from  the  Commission  on  project  evaluations  and
their scores are available on the Internet (ESAP system). Member States can access
them directly.

Monitoring and evaluation of action

A  single  management  database  -  BUTLER  -  was  created.  It  means  that  the  exact
situation of each project can be seen at all times and statistical data on the projects
can be collected in order to make sectoral analyses of their impact.

A standard format for presenting accounting data has been adopted. A computer tool
has  been  available  to  project  managers  since  2003  to  help  them  fill  in  their
statements of expenditure.

14

The administrative rules were adjusted to bring them into line with the Commission's
new financial regulation.

The (technical and financial) controls were standardised and made more systematic
for the external teams and for the Commission.

Standard  forms  for  the  final  evaluation  are  now  produced  for  all  projects  and  are
available  on  the  LIFE  website  in  order  to  disseminate  the  results  more  widely  and
contribute to the creation of networks.

Bringing  the  technical  and  financial  teams  together  in  the  same  unit  facilitates
permanent contact between technical and financial evaluators.

The  Commission  has  launched  ex-post  evaluations  of  some  projects  in  order  to
measure their subsequent impact.

Results

The policy pursued has improved the programme's financial situation (see following
chapter) and resulted in:

(cid:1)  permanent monitoring of  the situation of each  project  using the  monitoring  tool,
BUTLER.  A  stricter  policy  with  regard  to  projects  which  do  not  submit  the
required information within the deadlines has reduced the number of projects for
which  the  balance  has  not  been  paid.  The  Commission  automatically  issues
recovery  orders  after  sending  two  recorded  delivery  letters  and  receiving  no
response  within  a  period  of  three  months.  The  total  number  of  ongoing  projects
was thus reduced from 1 100 at the beginning of 2001 to 800 at the beginning of
2003;

(cid:1)  a reduction in outstanding commitments;

(cid:1)  a  reduction  in  the  length  of  the  evaluation  periods  and  a  shortening  of  payment

times;

(cid:1)  a small number of disputes and formal complaints;

(cid:1)  technical and administrative monitoring of the projects is obligatory and most of
the  human  resources  have  been  dedicated  to  this  since  the  reorganisation.  The
action to disseminate results and promote and create networks for the instrument
began towards the end of 2002 after a communication strategy had been adopted.

3.4.2

Financial management

Much  progress  was  made  in  relation  to  the  financial  management  of  the  LIFE
Programme.  Until  2001  the  Finance  Unit  executed  the  financial  management  on  a
centralised basis, but during 2001 the  financial reform process took place  and  a  re-
engineering of the financial management was proposed.

This  resulted  in  the  creation  of  the  LIFE  Unit  with  a  fully  decentralised  financial
structure  (model  1).  This  meant  that  from  that  time  onwards  the  entire  financial
management process of the LIFE-Programme is executed by the newly created LIFE
Unit. The Head of the LIFE Unit is the authorising officer by sub-delegation for the
LIFE-Programme  and  is  fully  responsible  for  all  operations  connected  with  the

15

implementation  of  the  LIFE  budget,  which  represent  about  two  thirds  of  the  entire
operational budget of the Directorate-General for the Environment.

The re-engineering of the financial management has led to improvements at all levels
as indicated by the following data.

LIFE III Budget

The financial framework is set for the period 2000 to 2004 at € 640 million.

The allocated amounts5 for the different actions are as follows:

NATURE: 47% or 300.8 million

ENVIRONMENT: 47% or 300.8 million

THIRD COUNTRIES: 6% or 38.4 million.

The annual appropriations being authorised by the budgetary authority are shown in
the table of the budget appropriation (see Table J in the Annex).

The  budget  appropriations  are  distributed  between  supporting  measures  limited  to
5% of the available appropriations and the project grants.

The  tables  in  the  Annex  give  an  overview  of  the  budget  appropriations  and  the
consumed commitment appropriations for the supporting measures  and  the  projects
by year and by action.

Up to 2003, 75% has been appropriated of the total budgetary resources foreseen in
Regulation No 1655/2000 concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment.

Commitments

The start of  LIFE  III  was  not  without problems because of the late  approval  of the
new  LIFE  Regulation.  These  are  reflected  in  the  amounts  committed  in  2000  and
2001.  In  2000  it  was  not  possible  to  launch  a  call  for  proposals.  As  a  result  the
amount  was  carried  over  to  2001  and  the  allocation  for  the  projects  in  2001  was
much higher than the amount in 2002.

The financial tables in the Annex indicate that since the start of  LIFE III  a positive
evolution can be seen for the used commitment appropriations: in 2000 only 83.18%
was used and in 2002 99.73% and it is expected that in 2003 a comparable level will
be reached as in 2002. For LIFE-Nature and Environment the use was almost 100%,
but due to a lack of projects of sufficient quality the allocated budget  could  not  be
used entirely for LIFE Third Countries. However, the latter represents  only a small
share of the total budget (6%). The overall level of commitment use is satisfactory.

5

Without the amounts foreseen for enlargement.

16

                                                
Payments

The used and executed payment appropriations also show an upward trend, although
only a comparison between 2001 and 2002 is significant due to the reasons already
explained.

The  tables  (Table  N)  clearly  indicate  that  for  all  actions  considerable  progress  has
been made in the  execution of payments since 2002. Whereas LIFE-Nature already
had a score of 96.57% in 2001, the results of LIFE-Environment and Third Countries
could  have  been  much  better.  However,  in  2002,  LIFE-Environment  went  from
76.51% to 99.78% and LIFE Third Countries almost doubled its score  by  climbing
from 47.28% to 98.84%.

Payment delays

The reduction of payment delays is also  a  good criterion  to  judge  the  efficiency  of
the financial management.

Important  progress  has  been  made  between  2000  and  2002  as  indicated  by  the
figures.

The evolution is important, since in 2002, 71% of the payments were made within 60
days which represents an increase of 69% since 2000.

In 2000, only 64% of the payments were made within 90 days, whereas in 2002 82%
of the payments took place within 90 days, an increase of 28%.

Outstanding commitments

In  March  2001,  187  outstanding  commitments  were  listed.  One  year  later  only  83
outstanding  commitments  remain  and  in  2003  for  the  same  period  only  21
commitments have expired for reasons such as recovery orders, requested additional
information, etc. All of them are monitored very closely.

Acceding and Candidate Countries

Since  1999  (LIFE  II)  Romania  has  joined  the  LIFE-Programme  and  has  paid  its
annual ‘entry ticket’ to participate with projects to the LIFE-Programme.

Other  countries  followed  in  2001:  Estonia,  Hungary,  Latvia  and  Slovenia.  The
contribution  of  these  countries  is  fixed  in  the  Memorandum  of  Understanding,  a
document signed by the Ministry of Environment of the country and the Member of
the  Commission  for  the  Environment.  Since  2003,  Slovakia  also  joined  the  LIFE-
Programme and participates fully by submitting projects.

Five of the six Acceding/Candidate Countries draw benefits from their participation
in the LIFE-Programme as can be concluded from the tables in Table P in the Annex.

The  percentage  of  the  contribution  of  the  LIFE-Programme  to  projects  from  these
countries  related  to  their  own  contribution  (including  PHARE)  has  increase  every
year (2001: 151%; 2002: 265%; 2003: 312% for LIFE-Nature and 105%, 150% and
221%  for  LIFE-Environment).  It  should,  however,  be  noted  that  some  countries
benefit more  considerably  than  others  and  that  Romania  has  contributed  more  than

17

what  it  has  received  from  the  LIFE-Programme.  This  is  explained  through  the  fact
that during the selection period the nationality of the project is not taken into account
and only the highest ranked projects are selected.

From 2004 onwards all accession countries can participate in the LIFE- Programme.

3.5

New “Communication Strategy”

The LIFE  III Regulation, strongly emphasises the importance of dissemination as a
means  of  circulation  and  transfer  of  the  results  of  LIFE  projects  to  other  similar
projects  and  of  the  lessons  of  the  programme  for  other  policies  or  Community
legislation in the environmental area.

However, past communication activities have not sufficiently highlighted  the  assets
of the programme, which include the numerous positive environmental results of the
projects, the development of a “knowledge-based approach”, the implementation of
the  existing  environmental  legislation  and  the  development  of  new  legislative
instruments.

In  order  to  meet  the  statutory  requirements,  a  new  LIFE  Communication  Strategy
was launched in March 2002. This Communication Strategy is strongly committed to
exploiting the potential of the  LIFE-Programme through  the  best use  of  the limited
available  budgetary  and  human  resources.  It  seeks  to  enhance  the  communication
towards both the direct participants (institutions, beneficiaries, etc.) and the indirect
recipients  (potential  re-users  of  the  results,  potential  beneficiaries,  environmental
organisations, 
the  European
citizen/taxpayer.

the  public)  as  well  as 

informed  sections  of 

The  Communication  Strategy  aims  to  demonstrate  the  relevance  of  the  instrument
and  to  show  the  transferability  potential  of  the  project  results  as  well  as  their
relevance to the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme.

Since the launch of the Communication Strategy, a very wide set of communication
actions has been introduced.

(cid:1)  The  LIFE  website  (http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/home.htm)  was
redesigned  in  June  2002  with  a  new  look  and  the  updating  of  some  350  project
forms  in  the  LIFE  project-database,  which  now  contains  the  project  results,  the
legislative references and a set of search keywords. A survey established that the
LIFE  website  has  become  the  most  popular  among  the  websites  of  the
Environment  Directorate-General  and  one  of  the  most  visited  of  the  European
Commission  in  2002,  with  an  average  of  65  000  visitors  per  month,  20%  more
than in 2001.

(cid:1)  Several  LIFE-Projects  were  presented  in  2002  in  four  major  specialised
environmental  fairs  (Greenweek-Brussels,  TemTecma-Madrid,  Open  Day-
Brussels, Aquatech-Amsterdam), where the LIFE-Programme was present with a
stand and organised conferences and projections.

(cid:1)  In  November  2002  the  LIFE  Unit  launched  an  electronic  monthly  Newsletter,
which  reaches  more  than  3000  contacts  (mostly  beneficiaries,  institutions,

18

specialised public) and  contains information  on successful  LIFE  projects,  events
and publications.

(cid:1)  During 2002, the brochure “LIFE, the Financial Instrument for the Environment”
was  published  with  the  aim  of  providing  a  basic  information  document  for  the
general public.

(cid:1)  Again  during  2002,  the  series  of  publications  entitled  “Focus”  was  inaugurated
with the brochure “LIFE and Water”, which summarises the achievements of the
LIFE projects in the field of water management.

(cid:1)  In  2003,  the  brochures  “LIFE  and  Natura  2000”,  “LIFE  and  the  Rural
Development”  and  “LIFE  and  EMAS”  illustrated  the  contribution  of  the
instrument in those sectors.

(cid:1)  A  set  of  standard  slides  on  LIFE-Environment  was  completed  in  2003  with  the
aim of informing the specialised public during presentations in the Member States
and in the countries associated to LIFE.

(cid:1)  In  2002  and  2003  a  “Yearly  Compilation”  of  newly  selected  LIFE  projects,
together with press releases, have been published, in order to inform the public of
the results of the selection rounds.

(cid:1)  The staff of the LIFE Unit took part in  several  LIFE events and seminars in the
Member States, Acceding Countries,  Candidate  Countries  and  in  other  countries
associated to LIFE.

For 2003 and 2004, the development of the Communication Strategy will include:

(cid:1) 

(cid:1) 

(cid:1) 

(cid:1) 

(cid:1) 

the  creation  of  a  media  library  with  video,  CD  and  photos  from  the  LIFE
projects;

the publication of four new brochures (“LIFE and Clean Technologies”, LIFE
and  Alien  Species”,  “LIFE  and  Waste”  and  “LIFE  and  the  Birds  Directive”)
and  the  new  “Yearly  Compilations”  of  newly  selected  projects  with  press
release;

the completion of the updating of the project database and the improvement of
the search engine;

the continuous updating of the LIFE website;

the continuation of the publication of the LIFE Newsletter.

4.

EVALUATION RESULTS

This chapter first presents the Commission's analysis of the results, then the external
consultant's  main  conclusions  following  the  structure  of  the  Regulation  which  has
three different thematic components.

19

4.1

Commission findings

In  order  to  evaluate  LIFE-Nature,  the  Commission  was  able  to  use  the  database
which it created in 2001. This database contains specific data about projects funded
since  the  start  of  LIFE  and  can  therefore  give  an  overall  evaluation  of  the  results.
However,  the  database  is  currently  being  developed  for  LIFE-Environment  so  the
Commission used a sectoral example (tanneries) for the evaluation.

As  most  Candidate/Acceding  Countries  did  only  start  to  participate  in  the  LIFE
Environment  and  LIFE-Nature  programmes  from  2001  onwards,  the  current
evaluation is mostly based on projects funded in the 15 current Member States.

4.1.1

LIFE-Nature

LIFE-Nature can never replace general financing support for nature conservation. A
modest  €47  million  have  been  committed  on  average  each  year  between  1992  and
2003. Considering that the estimated annual cost of Natura 20006 has been estimated
at  €3  400  to  €5  700  million  p.a.,  the  return  from  LIFE-Nature  for  10%  of  Natura
2000 sites should be considered significant.

LIFE-Nature  projects  have  brought  improvements  to  the  scientific  data  concerning
sites and corrections to site boundaries.

LIFE-Nature  projects  have  contributed  to  the  understanding  and  progressive
acceptance  of  Natura  2000,  particularly  in  countries  such  as  France,  Ireland  and
Finland, where local stakeholders were sceptical about Natura 2000.

The  a  priori  site  designation  condition  for  LIFE-Nature  funding  has  encouraged
Member States to designate more rapidly Natura 2000 sites.

In  the  first  and  second  phases  LIFE-Nature  supported  Member  States  in  fulfilling
their  obligations  under  Article  6  of  the  "Habitats"  Directive,  i.e.  to  develop
management plans for all Natura 2000 sites. LIFE-Nature also enabled participation
in several action plans published under the auspices of the Council of Europe. This
work has continued in the production and updating of site management plans in the
majority of LIFE III projects.

LIFE-Nature has made a significant contribution to the development and application
of monitoring programmes to check the effects of conservation actions and provide
management  guidelines.  This  has  helped  Member  States  fulfil  their  obligation  to
monitor under the “Habitats” Directive. Feedback from projects has lead to calls for
the inter-connection of sites through biological corridors, crucial in guaranteeing the
long-term coherence of the Natura 2000 network. Projects generally provide valuable
“on the ground” information on the state of Natura 2000 and biodiversity in the EU.

LIFE-Nature  has  also  worked  in  combination  with  other  funding  and  measures.
Many  projects  have  brought  about  implementation  (pump-priming  effect)  and
adaptation  of  agri-environmental  measures  to  Natura  2000  sites7.  The  associated
payment  stream  can  ensure  continuous  management  of  the  sites  concerned.  Other

6

7

Reference to Article 8 working group report.
LIFE and agri-environment ……..

20

                                                
LIFE-Nature projects are contributing to the management of  catchment  areas  under
the EU Water Framework Directive.

The  coverage  of  species  and  sites  remains  partially  covered  (see  section  3.1.2)
according  to  the  type  of  projects  proposed  and  to  the  financial  resources  of  the
programme.

There is still a lack of expertise in some areas and of technical capacities to run the
network and LIFE-Nature projects should contribute to capacity building.

Networking – the passage of information between stakeholders working on different
sites – is still in its youth. The development of Co-op projects (since 2002), however,
is specially designed to fill this gap.

In the past relatively little attention has been given to the practicalities of obtaining
longer-term  funding  to  continue  conservation  work  begun  during  LIFE  projects.
More  attention  is  being  paid  to  this  under  LIFE  III,  but  too  little  is  being  done  in
terms of long-term follow up of the projects.

Because  of  the  intrinsic  links  with  the  establishment  of  Natura  2000,  the  role  of
LIFE-Nature is being considered in the larger discussion on financing Natura 2000.

4.1.2

LIFE-Environment

So far, the only co-financed projects have been demonstration projects as defined in
Article  4.2a)  of  the  Regulation.  In  2004  the  Commission  is  planning  to  launch  a
series  of  preparatory  projects  for  new  Community  actions  and  instruments  in
accordance with Article 4.2b) of the Regulation.

The use of aggregated results per sector has not been possible so far, since the results
of  projects  have  always  been  assessed  individually.  The  actual  creation  of  a
centralised  database  incorporating  the  results  of  all  projects  will  soon  make  this
possible.

Despite its relatively modest financial weight, LIFE-Environment has shown itself to
have technical clout. LIFE-Environment has had a positive impact on demonstrating
the  viability  on  the  ground  of  environment  policy.  This  “go  native”  approach
together with its sector oriented strategy has  allowed  LIFE-Environment to become
an effective tool to boost the implementation of Community policies at national and
sector level and has opened new in-roads. Perhaps the most outstanding achievement
of  LIFE-Environment  has  been  its  capacity  to  trigger  changes  at  national  level  as
regards the implementation of solutions for a number of major environment problems
(e.g. number of successstories in the waste treatment especially at local level, clean
technologies…).  The  on-the-ground  approach  of  LIFE-Environment  projects  has
helped local and regional players to integrate environmental concerns into their day-
to-day  activities.  LIFE-Environment  is  particularly  rooted  in  local  communities,
small and medium size enterprises and regional governments.

The following case clearly illustrates this point.

21

Case study: The impact of LIFE-Environment in the tanning sector.

Since the very outset,  LIFE-Environment  has been  particularly active in  addressing
the  environmental  problems  raised  by  the  tanning  sector.  Since  1993,  LIFE-
Environment  has  funded  25  projects  managed  by  21  different  beneficiaries  in  this
area of activity.

Number of LIFE projects in the tanning sector across the EU

15

10

5

0

A

B

D

DK

E

F

FIN

GR

IRL

IT

LUX

NL

P

S

UK

The  €9.2  million  contribution  from  LIFE-Environment  has  resulted  in  a  total
investment amounting to €35.5 million.

These  projects  are  distributed  across  the  different  Member  States  and  in  particular
those in which the tanning industry is represented.

The LIFE-Environment projects developed in the tanning sector cover all the fields
of  application  of  the  existing  BATs  (best  available  techniques)  to  support  the
implementation  of  the  Integrated  Pollution  Prevention  and  Control  Directive  96/61
for the sector.

BAT areas addressed by the LIFE projects in the tanning sector

j

s
t
c
e
o
r
p
f
o
r
e
b
m
u
N

12
10
8

6
4
2
0

Management and
good housekeeping

Substitution of
chemicals

Process-integrated
BAT measures

Effluent and water
management and
treatment

Waste management
and treatment

The  indirect  impact  of  LIFE-Environment  is  estimated  to  be  much  higher  than
indicated  by  the  above  figures.  Most  of  the  techniques  and  methodologies
demonstrated by these projects are now being fully deployed in the Member States.

4.1.3

LIFE-Third Countries

LIFE-Third Countries is  an instrument which  has aroused  widespread  interest  from
the  European  Union's  neighbouring  countries  as  shown  by  the  numerous  project
proposals received.

22

 
 
It meets these countries' need to launch and develop new actions in order to respond
to  the  degradation  of  their  environment.  The  approach  defined  in  the  LIFE  III
Regulation (objective of developing capacities, projects designed by third countries,
broad  thematic  field  which  covers  both  nature  and  industry  aspects)  accurately
reflects these countries' concerns.

Capacities to produce good project proposals seem to be better in the North (Baltic,
North  Mediterranean)  than  in  the  South  (Maghreb,  Machrek).  Increased  efforts  to
promote  LIFE-Third  Countries  should  therefore  be  made  in  the  south  and  east
Mediterranean countries. This selection process takes place in close cooperation with
other Commission departments, in particular the Commission delegations in the third
countries  concerned,  which 
facilitates  consistency  with  other  cooperation
programmes (SMAP, MEDA, CARDS, TACIS, etc.).

LIFE-Third Countries gives significant support to developing and implementing new
environmental  actions  in  the  neighbouring  countries  of  the  European  Union;  the
structures in place in these countries are not sufficiently sound or effective. However,
increased efforts should be made to measure the impact of projects more effectively
and to improve the dissemination of lessons learned from successful projects in order
to increase the incentive effect of LIFE-Third Countries.

4.1.4

LIFE and policy development

By their very nature LIFE projects provide support to current and future policy. The
interaction  of  LIFE-nature  with  EU  nature  conservation  and  agricultural  policy  is
documented in 2 publications.

“LIFE for Nature 2000” assesses the extent to which LIFE-nature has covered Natura
2000  sites  (see  3.1.2  above).  This  has  implied  the  application  of  appropriate
management  on  at  least  10  per  cent  of  Natura  2000  sites  designated  under  the
“Habitats”  Directive,  the  development  of  national  and  regional  guidelines  for  site
management  and  general  familiarisation  with  the  Natura  2000  objectives.  The
publication  “Natura  2000  and  the  EU  agri-environmental  measures”  describes  the
synergy between LIFE and the Rural Development Policy through the description of
a  series  of  “on  the  ground”  cases.  Typically  such  LIFE  projects  have  adapted  the
management  of  Natura  2000  sites  in  agricultural  situations  so  that  they  can  benefit
from long-term financial support available through agri-environmental measures.  In
certain  cases  the  measures  themselves  have  been  adapted  to  better  serve  nature
conservation or entirely new measures have even been proposed.

LIFE-environment  has  had  more  intangible  implications  for  a  wider  range  of
policies. One example is demonstration of techniques to reduce the level of noxious
waste from the tanning industry (see 4.1.2).

4.2.

External evaluation and practical recommendations

The  external  evaluation  has  highlighted  a  number  of  salient  aspects  related  to  the
management  of  the  instrument  and  its  deliverables  and  benefits  for  its  three
components.

23

General

According  to  the  external  evaluation,  the  LIFE-Programme  remains  the  only
instrument  primarily  dedicated  to  supporting  Community  environmental  policy.
LIFE is complementary to other Community programmes which are also supporting
Community  environmental  policy,  such  as  research,  structural  fund  and  rural
development programmes.

There is abundant evidence that the programme contributes to the implementation of
policy. However, it is less clear as to whether LIFE contributes to stimulating debate
and  developing  policy  or  legislation.  This  is  not  surprising  since  the  programme  is
comprised  of  three  very  different  thematic  components,  each  with  their  own
objectives.  Of  these  components,  only  LIFE-Environment  has  an  objective  to
develop Community policy. The remaining two components, LIFE-Nature and LIFE-
Third Countries are concerned with implementing current policies and/or developing
capacity  for  their  implementation.  According  to  the  external  evaluation,  all  three
elements of LIFE are fulfilling useful roles and continue to be useful.

Management

The report findings show that the management of the LIFE-Programme appears to be
cost-effective  in  comparison  with  other  EC  programmes.  In  general  the  LIFE-
Programme  is  effectively  managed  using  systematic  and  rigorous  procedures  that
have been introduced by the LIFE Unit. The Unit has also adopted some extremely
useful  management  tools,  particularly  the  ESAP  and  Butler  databases.  These
databases should be considered as representing best practice and be adopted or used
as models for a future LIFE-Programme or its successor.

According to the findings, many stakeholders feel that the management processes are
becoming bureaucratic and that there may be an opportunity to simplify them.

The external evaluation recommends that:

-

The  LIFE  Unit’s  management 
team  should  review  processes
periodically as a continuous improvement activity to identify scope for
streamlining them.

Most stakeholders had no strong feelings as to whether all three LIFE themes should
be managed within one unit. However, most stakeholders considered that the LIFE-
Programme  and  its  three  components  or  successors  should  be  managed  within
Directorate-General for the Environment.

The external evaluation recommends that:

-

There  is  no  advantage  to  changing  the  management  structure  at
present,  but  consideration  should  be  given  to  the  management  of
LIFE-Third Countries after enlargement.

Application and proposal selection process

In  addition,  it  was  found  that  most  stakeholders  considered  that  an  annual  call  for
proposals  was  appropriate,  but  considered  that  this  should  occur  during  a  fixed

24

month,  early  each  year.  This  would  enable  applicants  to  schedule  the  planning  of
their proposals. The external evaluation believes that an annual call is appropriate but
the process should be moved forward by two months if possible.

Many  stakeholders  feel  that  the  application  and  proposal  selection  process  is  too
bureaucratic and would benefit from simplification.

The external evaluation recommends that:

-

Particular  consideration  should  be  given  to  ensuring  that  proposal
selection criteria correlate to the application guidance and, in turn, to
the structure of the application forms.

This  would  provide  applicants  with  an  insight  as  to  how  their  proposals  would  be
evaluated and simplify the tasks of the evaluators.

in  Member  States  have  called  for  greater
Other  stakeholders,  particularly 
transparency in the project selection process. However,  the evaluator  considers that
the  extension  of  access  to  the  ESAP  database,  previously  available  to  National
Authorities for  LIFE Environment, to all National Authorities, should address most
Member States concerns.

LIFE-Nature

The report findings show that LIFE-Nature has been very successful in defining and
helping to set up the 20 000 Natura 2000 conservation sites across the EU. The main
impact of the programme has been to define the sites, an activity that is now largely
completed,  and  develop  management  plans.  However  to  date  LIFE  has  only  been
able to fund practical conservation measures in around 10% of the Natura sites.

The external evaluator indicates that while this is in itself a significant and valuable
achievement, the key challenge for LIFE-Nature is to achieve a multiplier effect by
stimulating activity in the other 90%.

All  stakeholders  contacted  considered  that  LIFE-Nature  has  been  a  necessary  and
highly effective instrument for implementing the “Birds” and “Habitats” Directives.
They  felt  that  more  actions  could  be  carried  out  if  additional  budget  was  available
but  most  considered  that  LIFE-Nature  is  best  suited  to  funding  pump-priming
projects. A key problem is that there  is not a large  enough  capacity of experienced
and skilled conservationists in Europe to carry out many more projects.

Accordingly, the external evaluator considers that:

-

-

LIFE Nature should continue to have a significant role in driving the
implementation  of  Natura  2000  or  building  for  Natura  2000
implementation.

The  programme  could  have  a  stronger  role  in  signposting  funding
sources  for  conservation  and  assist  in  the  development  of  training
materials for nature conservation workers. This could take the form of
guides  or  toolkits  and  would  complement  the  demonstration  activities
already carried out.

25

-

Applications  for  more  co-operative  projects  should  be  encouraged  to
help  develop  Natura  2000  as  a  network  of  sites  and  would  further
promulgate the benefits of LIFE projects.

The  findings  show  that  the  Birds  and  Habitats  Directives  are  equally  relevant  to
Acceding countries, which will shortly become part of the European Union.

The external evaluator recommends that:

-

Consideration should be given to expanding the scope of LIFE-Nature
to include additional countries bordering the Black Sea.

Furthermore, the external evaluator recommends that:

-

LIFE-Projects should be systematically followed up several years after
completion,  to  facilitate  evaluation  of  how  sustainable  or  how  much
replication  was  possible.  This  would  provide  for  identification  and
dissemination  of  critical  success  factors  and  also  of  barriers  to  the
long-term success of projects.

The  only  significant  criticism  in  the  report  of  LIFE-Nature  relates  to  its
dissemination activities. Most criticism relates to stakeholder experience  with  LIFE
II.  During  the  third  phase  of  LIFE  significant  efforts  appear  to  have  been  made  in
order  to  improve  communication  between  LIFE  beneficiaries  and  transparency  of
project  results,  particularly  through  the  development  and  implementation  of  a
communications strategy.

The external evaluator recommends that:

-

A communication strategy should form a key part of any similar future
programme.  Consideration  should  be  given  to  contracting  specialists
with  skills  in  marketing  to  support  the  dissemination  activities  of  the
programme.

The  “NEWSFLASH”  and  “Natura  2000”  newsletters  appear  to  be  an  especially
useful  tool  in  disseminating  latest  developments  and  facilitating  contact  between
project managers. This should also be considered as an area of best practice.

LIFE-Environment

The  external  evaluation  indicates  that  there  is  only  limited  evidence  that  LIFE-
Environment  is  supporting  “preparatory  actions”  to  assist  the  testing,  update  and
development of either EU or Member State policy. However, there is good evidence
that LIFE-Environment has demonstrated and proven a variety of clean technologies
in  key  areas  such  as  improving  water  quality  and  recycling  waste,  the  adoption  of
which will aid the implementation of EU environment policy.

The  findings  show  that  Member  States  value  the  programme  and  feel  that  LIFE
complements and fills the gaps in national programmes. It is felt that LIFE projects
are  most  effective  where  the  private  and  public  sectors  work  together  and  where
larger SMEs are involved.

26

There  has  been  considerable  debate  both  in  the  Commission  and  amongst  Member
States over the definition of innovation and whether only projects that are innovative
across Europe should qualify for support.

Therefore, the external evaluator recommends that:

-

-

Consideration  should  be  given  as  to  how  greater  impact  can  be
achieved  at  European  level.  One  possible  option  is  to  focus  LIFE-
Environment  funding  on  larger  multi-country  projects  with  a  pan
European  dimension,  leaving  Member  States  to  fund  smaller  projects
under  their  own  programmes.  Another  is  to  continue  to  support  the
type of project that is currently funded but to then set aside a budget for
monitoring  the  technical  success  of  the  project  and  “marketing”  the
results of the project for replication across the Community.

If LIFE-Environment continues in its current form, it should  identify
two distinct types of projects:

“Innovation”  projects  that  support  the  first  commercial  use  of  a
technology  or  practice  in  Europe  and  “Dissemination”  projects  that
facilitate  the  transfer  of  technology  across  Europe  by  supporting  the
first  commercial  use  of  a  technology  or  practice  in  a  country  even
though the technology has been demonstrated elsewhere in the EU.

Innovation  projects  should  be  funded  at  a  higher 
than
Dissemination projects and that Member States make a commitment to
disseminating the results of their Dissemination projects.

level 

The  standard  of  external  experts  is  considered  by  many  Member  States  to  be
extremely  variable.  However,  most  stakeholders  recognised  the  need  for  the  use  of
external experts as it was considered that all the expertise and experience required to
evaluate all proposals was not available within the Commission.

The external evaluator recommends that:

-

The Commission should review the criteria for the selection of external
experts.

Nearly all stakeholders feel that for LIFE-Environment, dissemination of the results
of  projects  at  the  Community  level  needs  to  improve.  While  all  projects  have  a
dissemination  element  and  produce  dissemination  outputs  such  as  case  studies  and
videos, it is rare for project teams to contain marketing professionals and it is clear
that  the  outputs  are  not  used  to  their  maximum  effect.  Accordingly  there  is  very
limited evidence of replication of the projects.

The external evaluation recommends that:

-

Specialist-marketing  skills  should  be  employed  to  assist  in  the
dissemination of the results of successful LIFE-Environment projects.

27

LIFE-Third Countries

The  evaluation  highlights  that  there  is  good  evidence  that  LIFE-Third  Countries  is
well managed and these projects are contributing significantly to developing capacity
in third countries. LIFE fills an important niche in that it is able to respond relatively
quickly and flexibly to the environmental need and priorities of third countries. It is
also well co-ordinated with the larger aid programmes such as SMAP, CARDS and
TACIS through close liaison with the EU delegation in the target countries.

The bottom-up nature of the programme, with the project ideas being developed by
the  recipients,  has  meant  that  LIFE  has  addressed  key  environmental  issues  in  the
target countries in a timely manner.

The  geographical  coverage  of  LIFE  Third  Countries  will  need  to  change  after  the
enlargement  in  2004  when  ten  countries  including  Cyprus  and  Malta  join  the
European Union. The future geographical coverage of LIFE Third Countries should
be in line with the European Commission position on cooperation with its European
neighbours  set  out  in  its  communication  on  Pan-European  Environmental  co-
operation after the 2003 Kiev conference.

The external evaluation recommends that:

-

Consideration  should  be  given  to  expanding  LIFE  Third  Country
coverage  to  include  Serbia-Montenegro,  Macedonia  and  the  Western
NIS countries that border the Black Sea.

5.

CONCLUSIONS

The following conclusions were drawn from the internal evaluation and  analysis as
well as from the recommendations of the external study.

(cid:1)  The  management  of  LIFE  should  be  simplified,  in  particular  the  selection
procedure which is still very laborious. The monitoring of projects also creates a
very  heavy  administrative  burden.  The  human  resources  employed  by  the
Commission  for  these  operations  would  be  better  used  if  they  spent  more  time
disseminating and  using  the results  to improve  the environment in  the  European
Union.

-

-

-

It  therefore  seems  appropriate  to  review  the  existing  selection  and
management procedures and examine ways of simplifying them without
reducing their reliability or efficiency.

The  number  of  innovative  projects  should  be  limited  (favouring
programmes  which  bring  together  several  national  or  transnational
projects  thus  ensuring  the  creation  of  networks  from  the  design  stage).
This  option  would  combine  the  advantages  of  more  decentralised
management with better dissemination and use of results.

For LIFE-Environment, launching preparatory actions (see above) could
also contribute to strengthening the programme approach and simplifying
central administrative management.

28

(cid:1)  LIFE-Nature  has  still  only  covered  a  small  part  of  the  network  to  introduce  the
Natura  2000  management  approach.  The  positive  evaluation  of  the  programme
suggests that it should be continued on the same lines.

During  a  short  transition  period,  it  is  not  necessary  to  amend  the  Regulation.
However:

-

-

-

-

the criteria for selecting projects should be adapted, without requiring  a
revision of Article 2 of the LIFE Regulation, in order to promote projects
which have:

the greatest knock-on effect and a wide geographical coverage (launch of
regional or international management plans),

an increased training capacity in order to ensure subsequent monitoring,
and

a network effect (strengthening of Coop projects).

Finally the dissemination and use of results should be improved.

(cid:1)  The potential of LIFE-Environment has not yet been  fully utilised. The current
Regulation could be better used by promoting programmes which are preparatory
to  the  development  of  new  Community  actions  and  instruments  in  accordance
with the priorities defined in the sixth environment action programme.

The current demonstration projects concern too many issues, which complicates the
task of  selection and  does not make  it easy to  evaluate  or  make  rational  use  of  the
results.

-

-

It  is  important  to  limit  the  field  of  eligible  projects  to  issues  where  the
need is greatest by launching calls for proposals which are more targeted
in terms of current political priorities. This possibility is already offered
under the guidelines but has not been used until now.

The  innovation  criterion  should  be  better  defined  and  concern  only
innovative  technologies  and  not  the  transfer  of  existing  technologies
which should be covered by other financial instruments which are more
suitable than LIFE.

(cid:1)  LIFE-Third  Countries  can  also  be  continued  in  its  current  form  whilst

strengthening action to support the preparation of projects.

(cid:1)  For  the  three  thematic  areas  of  LIFE,  more  use  should  be  made  of  the  results,
particularly  by  increasing  communication  and  networking.  Increased  financial
resources and possibly the help of external experts should be foreseen.

The Commission's conclusion, supported by the external evaluation, is that:

(cid:1)  LIFE is a useful instrument and continuing it is justified;

(cid:1)  Efforts relating to the organisation and management of the programme undertaken

since the start of LIFE III should be continued;

29

(cid:1)  The potential of LIFE-Environment should be fully exploited in the context of the

sixth environment action programme;

(cid:1)  More use should be made of the results to further sustainable development.

It is  therefore  proposed  to  renew  the  Regulation  for  a  period  of  three  years,  taking
account  of  the  improvements  identified  during  the  evaluation.  The  renewal  should
take  account  of  the  need  for  continuity  and  also  establish  the  transition  to  the  new
Financial Perspective after 2006.

For the period after 2006, it will be necessary to take account of the new Community
objectives  and  the  resources  allocated  to  these  objectives  as  well  as  the  extent  to
which the environment is included in other Community funds.

30

ANNEX

LIFE-Nature

Table A:

LIFE-Nature. Projects received and funded (to complete)

LIFE I

LIFE II

LIFE III

Year

No. applications
received

EU contribution
requested
(€ million)

No. eligible
projects

Share eligible
projects

Number of projects
funded

EU co-funding
granted (€ million)

92

86

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

2001

2002

2003

198

296

313

241

174

191

243

310

188

182

227

294

270

235

174

128

136

164

290

192

198

n/a

80

116

139

123

97

115

156

184

133

152

40%

39%

44%

51%

56%

60%

64%

59%

71%

84%

35

22

36.9

20.6

47

43

72

63

60

48.5

43.4

42.4

85

48

101

65

94

77

70

72

77

70,9

NOTES: (years EUR 12/15/CC)

31

Table B:

LIFE-Nature. Number and value of LIFE-projects

LIFE I 1992-95

LIFE II 1996-99

LIFE III (part) 2001-03

No. of
projects

Average
project budget
 (000 €)

No. of
projects

Average
project budget
 (000 €)

No. of
projects

Average
project budget
 (000 €)

Austria

Belgium

Germany

Denmark

Spain

Finland

France

Greece

Ireland

Italy

Luxembourg

The Netherlands

Portugal

Sweden

United Kingdom

Associated  Cand.
Countries

International EU

3

6

14

3

16

5

21

11

4

23

0

1

16

2

13

0

2

All projects

140

1192

691

2244

1240

2906

1097

1842

1129

3680

1032

0

8270

750

3827

1181

0

7289

1731

13

13

28

4

56

20

31

17

1

70

2

5

17

14

11

7

0

309

3269

1506

1337

1333

943

1627

1228

1387

4882

642

2167

2366

928

2621

2573

179

0

1294

Note: international; project size; budget as at proposal

9

11

18

4

40

15

12

13

4

42

0

3

11

6

14

41

0

243

1665

1221

1584

4051

1116

1185

1192

1194

1324

696

0

1760

741

1858

2875

443

0

1164

32

Table C. LIFE-nature beneficiaries (1992-2001 inclusive)

Share of funding
awarded
%

Share of projects
%

Local authorities

Regional authorities

National authorities

Other public bodies

Private sector non-profit-making
bodies

Non-governmental organisations

TOTAL

7%

37

16

14

2

25

100

11

31

12

17

2

27

100

Table D : LIFE-nature: project cost by category of action
(for the 94 projects co-financed in 2001)

Category of action

A Preparatory work, including
management plans

B Purchase and rent of land and

rights

C Site investment works

D Continuous site management

E Awareness raising and

publications

F Overall project operation

Total :

Share of total
project cost
%

Average per site
€ 000

7

17

40

13

9

14

100

117,3

282,0

641,8

205,2

143,9

233,9

1624,3

33

 
LIFE-Environment

Table E : LIFE ENV - EC Funding per Policy Group 2000 –2002

Policy group

Nr. of
project

EC
contribution

Project
Budget

€

€

URBAN & PLANNING

PG 1.1 Urban environment

PG 1.2 Quality of air and noise abatement

PG 1.3 Integrated Coastal Zone Management

PG 1.4  Other area - Land-use development and planning

PG 3.4 Sustainable tourism

WATER

PG 2.1 At the scale of a river basin

PG 2.2 Groundwater protection

PG 2.3 Waste water treatment

PG 2.4 Diffuse and dispersed sources of pollution

PG 2.5 Other area - Water Management

CLEAN TECHNOLOGIES

PG 3.1 Clean technologies

PG 3.3 Reduction of gases having a greenhouse effect

PG 3.5 Other area – Impact of economic activities

WASTE

PG 4.1 Packaging and plastics

PG 4.2 Hazardous or problematic waste

PG 4.3 Waste important in volume

PG 4.4 Other  kinds  of  waste  and  sound  management  of  waste

streams

PRODUCTS

8

7

8

4

7

5 841 249

12 784 454

2 961 819

6 402 787

5 605 427

13 037 136

1 475 520

3 608 856

2 763 282

6 584 198

34

18 647 297

42 417 431

6

6

6

4

2

3 044 872

7 155 929

2 268 876

13 424 169

3 051 075

10 934 797

1 778 560

4 396 809

1 056 661

2 513 684

24

11 200 044

38 425 387

18

9 970 099

44 970 506

4

1

1 723 308

6 461 601

322 088

651 106

23

12 015 495

52 083 212

4

7

6

2

2 774 292

12 128 223

4 490 468

16 271 509

3 861 018

9 082 802

807 407

1 801 810

19

11 933 185

39.284.344

PG 3.2 Integrated environment management (EMAS etc.)

13

7 031 118

15 948 218

PG 5.1 Eco-design, Eco-efficiency, Green financial products

PG 5.2  Eco-labelling

PG 5.3 Other area – Integrated Product policy

7

2

3 973 666

9 849 604

1 203 058

2 451 318

22

12 207 842

28 249 141

The table shows the distribution by topic of the actions funded from 2000 to 2002. It is not
exhaustive and regards completed projects.

34

Table F - LIFE-Environment Number of projects funded per year and country

2001

2002

2003

Total

Belgium

Denmark

Germany

Greece

Spain

Estonia

Finland

France

Hungary

Ireland

Italy

Latvia

The
Netherlands

Austria

Portugal

Romania

Slovakia

Slovenia

Sweden

United
Kingdom

1

3

13

7

20

3

5

6

2

2

20

3

9

5

2

4

1

8

3

3

3

7

7

4

3

7

8

27

15

2

8

8

4

16

2

10

3

2

2

4

6

1

2

4

4

1

14

1

12

2

6

1

1

2

8

8

8

9

27

22

62

6

15

18

10

3

50

6

31

10

10

7

1

3

20

17

117

114

104

335

35

Table G - LIFE-Environment Financial contribution to LIFE Environment projects
(€ per country)

2001

2002

2003

Total

Belgium

535 449

2 183 783

2 230 513

4 949 745

Denmark

1 435 533

5 256 892

4 259 056

10 951 481

Germany

8 905 890

4 484 062

2 922 236

16 312 188

Greece

Spain

Estonia

Finland

France

4 693 054

3 856 955

6 478 549

15 028 558

8 642 831

15 736 539

7 950 980

32 330 350

954 279

2 033 190

327 153

3 314 622

2 579 664

3 742 207

3 813 606

10 135 477

4 351 081

4 053 952

2 739 701

11 144 734

Hungary

677 950

2 052 587

2 347 795

5 078 332

Ireland

1 889 737

490 000

2 379 737

Italy

Latvia

The
Netherlands

10 634 306

7 551 490

8 126 941

26 312 737

568 205

712 132

431 890

1 712 227

3 989 192

6 590 150

6 860 398

17 439 740

Austria

2 429 902

1 703 475

518 010

4 651 387

Portugal

814 098

710 263

3 010 021

4 534 382

Romania

988 015

672 060

314 391

1 974 466

Slovakia

0

Slovenia

244 558

0

0

1 011 900

1 011 900

416 609

661 167

Sweden

7 239 045

4 759 055

6 358 988

18 357 088

United
Kingdom

1 838 247

5 667 465

8 862 071

16 367 783

Total

63 411 036

71 766 257

69 470 808

204 648 101

Data source: Commission decisions

36

LIFE-Third countries

Table H LIFE Third Countries. Projects selection

LIFE I

LIFE II

LIFE III

92

93

94

95

96

97

98

99

00/01

02

03

45

55

65

103

82

121

181

142

92

74

70

9

12

14

16

13

16

16

21

28

16

17

5.3

3.5

4.8

5.7

6.0

4.2

4.7

5.3

9.0

5.7

6.5

Number of
projects
received

Number of
projects
financed

Financial
contribution
granted
(million €)

37

Table I LIFE III Third countries. Projects per country

2000 /
2001

Number
of
projects

2002

2003

Total

EC
contribution

Number
of
projects

EC
contribution

Number  of
projects

EC
contribution

Number
of
projects

EC
contribution

ALBANIA

ALGERIA

BOSNIA 
HERZEGOVINA

&

CROATIA

CYPRUS

EGYPT

GAZA

INTERNATIONAL

ISRAEL

JORDAN

LEBANON

MALTA

MOROCCO

RUSSIA

SYRIA

TUNISIA

TURKEY

€

405 700

182 869

1 340 162

1 067 613

357 700

0

299 100

1 307 160

0

274 050

632 080

378 000

0

352 400

380 030

692 177

1 344 800

1

1

4

3

1

0

1

4

0

1

2

1

0

2

1

2

4

€

0

0

738 067

1 292 774

698 080

0

319 095

778 998

0

327 425

450 500

0

169 423

379 290

0

394 755

224 972

0

0

2

3

2

0

1

2

0

1

1

0

1

1

0

1

1

€

556 413

454 420

0

479 541

1 089 706

0

0

638 135

433 048

0

299 686

211 630

412 882

928 683

0

403 032

660 056

2

1

0

1

3

0

0

1

1

0

1

1

1

2

0

1

2

€

962 113

637 289

2 078 229

2 839 928

2 145 486

0

618 195

2 724 293

433 048

601 475

1 382 266

589 630

582 305

1 660 373

380 030

1 489 964

2 229 828

3

2

6

7

6

0

2

7

1

2

4

2

2

5

1

4

7

TOTAL

28

9 013 841

16

5 773 379

17

6 567 232

61

21 354 452

Average size

321 923

0

360 836

0

386 308

0

350 073

38

Table J BUDGET APPROPRIATIONS*

ACTIONS

2000

2001

2002

2003 2004**

TOTAL

F.F.

BA/FF%

Nature

3.14670

81.5533

70.30

72.00

78.80

305.8000

300.80

101.66

Environment

2.58158

82.11842

70.30

72.00

78.80

305.8000

300.80

101.66

Third Countries

0.02300

9.499

6.52

10.00

10.8

36.8443

38.40

95.95

TOTAL

5.75128

173.17072

147.12230

154.00

168.40

648.4443

640.00

101.32

* in million €

BA : budget appropriations

financial 

FF: 
No 1655/2000

framework 

regulation

**  preliminary  draft  budget  including  the
budget needed for enlargement

39

Table K Budget COMMITMENTS

Supporting measures -
commitment

Actions

2000

2001

2002

2003**

Appropr. C.C.A. %C.

Appropr.

C.C.A.

%C. Appropr. C.C.A.

%C.

Appropr.

C.C.A.

%C.

Nature

2.5425

1.5837 62.29

2.6100

2.5158

96.39

3.009

2.9790

99.00

3.2500

0.0500

Environment

2.5425

2.5349 99.70

2.6100

2.6100

100.00

2.79

2.7900

100.00

3.2000

2.9297

Third Countries

0.023

0.0221 96.09

0.3150

0.2150

68.25

0.381

0.3807

100.00

0.4610

0.4258

TOTAL

5.108

4.1407 81.06

5.5350

5.3407

96.49

6.18

6.1497

99.51

6.9110

3.4055

1.54

91.55

92.36

49.28

** Till June
2003

40

Table L Budget Projects - commitment

Actions

2000

2001

2002

2003**

Appropr. C.C.A. %C.

Appropr.

C.C.A.

%C.

Appropr. C.C.A. %C.

Appropr.

C.C.A.

%C.

Nature

0.6042

0.6042

100.00

78.9433

77.5347

98.22

67.29 67.2910

100.00

68.7500

65.4470

95.20

Environment

0.0391

0.0391

100.00

79.0000

65.6876

83.15

67.51 67.5100

100.00

68.8000

68.8000

100.00

Third Countries

0

0 N/A

9.1840

9.0669

98.72

6.522

5.7734

88.52

9.5390

6.5672

TOTAL

0.6433

0.6433

100.00

167.1273

152.2892

91.12

141.3

140.57

99.47

147.09

140.81

68.85

95.73

** Till June 2003

41

Table M Budget LIFE III Supporting measures and projects - commitment

Actions

2000

2001

2002

2003**

Appropr. C.C.A. %C.

Appropr.

C.C.A.

%C.

Appropr. C.C.A. %C.

Appropr.

C.C.A.

%C.

Nature

3.1467

2.1879

69.53

81.5533

80.0505

98.16

70.3 70.2700

99.96

72.0000

65.4970

Environment

2.5816

2.5740

99.71

82.1184

68.2976

83.17

70.3 70.3000

100.00

72.0000

71.7297

Third Countries

0.023

0.0222

96.41

9.4990

9.2818

97.71

6.522

6.1541

94.35

10.0000

6.9930

TOTAL

5.7513

4.7841

83.18

173.1707

157.6299

91.03

147.1

146.72

99.73

154.00

144.22

90.97

99.62

69.93

93.65

* in million €

**  Till 
2003

June

**2003  :  the  amounts  are
provisional

Appropr.  =  annual  appropriation  authorised  by
the budgetary authority

C.C.A.  =  consumed  commitment  appropriation
by the LIFE III program

%  C  =  percentage  of  the  commitment  consumed  related  to
the annual appropriation

42

Table N Budget PAYMENT

Supporting measures -
payment

Actions

2001

2002

Appropr. C.P.A.

%P.

Appropr. C.P.A.

%P.

Nature

2.6100

2.3303

89.28

2.817

2.7548

97.79

Environment

2.6100

2.3942

91.73

3.192

3.1305

98.07

Third
Countries

0.3150

0.1439

45.68

0.3807

0.2966

77.91

TOTAL

5.5350

4.8684

87.96

6.3897

6.1819

96.75

Actions

2001

2002

Projects - payment

Appropr. C.P.A.

%P.

Appropr. C.P.A.

%P.

Nature

32.29

31.3722

97.16

25.1330

25.1068

99.90

Environment

25.29

18.9510

74.93

26.5080

26.5047

99.99

Third
Countries

4.685

2.22004

47.39

7.0923

6.5763

92.72

TOTAL

62.265

52.5432

84.39

58.7333

58.1878

99.07

LIFE III Supporting measures and projects - payment

Actions

2001

2002

Appropr.

C.C.A.

%C.

Appropr.

C.C.A.

%C.

Nature

34.9000

33.7024

96.57

27.9500

27.8616

Environment

27.9000

21.3453

76.51

29.7000

29.6352

Third Countries

5.0000

2.3639

47.28

7.4730

6.8729

TOTAL

67.8

57.4116

84.68

65.1230

64.3697

* in million €
Appropr. = annual payment appropriation
C.P.A. = consumed payment appropriation by the LIFE III program
% P = percentage of the payment executed related to the annual payment appropriation

99.68

99.78

91.97

98.84

43

Table O Budget PAYMENT DELAYS

YEAR 2000

0 - 60 days

61 - 90 days

>90 days

Total

B43200B

Nature

B43201B

Environment

B43209B

LIFE I-II

B78100B

Third
Countries

Total

Percentage

0

0

183

31

214

42%

0

0

98

13

111

22%

0

0

176

6

182

36%

YEAR 2001

0 - 60 days

61 - 90 days

>90 days

Total

B43200B

Nature

B43201B

Environment

B43209B

LIFE I-II

B78100B

Third
Countries

Total

Percentage

89

87

127

11

314

56%

3

1

68

6

78

14%

7

0

154

11

172

30%

YEAR 2002

0 - 60 days

61 - 90 days

>90 days

Total

B43200B

Nature

B43201B

Environment

B43209B

LIFE I-II

B78100B

Third
Countries

Total

Percentage

59

104

145

50

358

71%

6

7

44

1

58

0

3

79

9

91

0

0

457

50

507

100%

99

88

349

28

564

100%

65

114

268

60

507

11%

18%

100%

44

Table P NATIONAL AND COMMUNITY CONTRIBUTION IN LIFE PROJECTS*

NATURE

Country

2000-2001

National
Contribution
(including
PHARE)

LIFE
Contribution
to Projects

Percentage

2002

National
Contribution
(including
PHARE)

LIFE Contribution
to Projects

Difference

2003

National
Contribution
(including
PHARE)

LIFE
Contribut
ion to
Projects

Difference

Estonia

285 000

1 222 593

429%

285 000

1 098 382

Hungary

1 045 000

254 015

24%

1 045 000

2 272 778

385%

217%

209 000

710 063

427 500

635 462

340%

149%

Latvia

285 000

1 213 849

426%

285 000

3 147 238

1104%

228 000 2 796 052

1226%

Romania

1 100 000

1 061 647

97%

1 100 000

700 841

64%

669 750

697 760

Slovenia

Slovakia

330 000

849 835

258%

330 000

813 565

247%

270 750

963 988

0

0

0

0

389 500 1 039 500

104%

356%

267%

TOTAL

3 045 000

4 601 939

151%

3 045 000

8 032 804

264%

2 194 500 6 842 825

312%

Data source: SINCOM – commitments for projects

45

ENVIRONMENT

Country

2000-2001

National
Contribution
(including
PHARE)

LIFE
Contribution
to Projects

Percentage

2002

National
Contribution
(including
PHARE)

LIFE Contribution
to Projects

Difference

2003

National
Contribution
(including
PHARE)

LIFE
Contribut
ion to
Projects

Difference

Estonia

285 000

954 279

335%

285 000

2 033 190

Hungary

1 045 000

677 950

65%

1 045 000

1 137 221

Latvia

285 000

568 185

199%

285 000

Romania

1 100 000

988 015

90%

1 100 000

Slovenia

Slovakia

330 000

0

0

0

0%

330 000

0

712 132

672 060

0

0

713%

109%

250%

61%

0%

209 000

327 153

427 500 2 347 795

228 000

431 890

669 750

314 391

270 750

416 609

389 500 1 011 900

157%

549%

189%

47%

154%

260%

TOTAL

3 045 000

3 188 429

105%

3 045 000

4 554 603

150%

2 194 500 4 849 738

221%

In million €

46