Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE+)
Date: 2005-04-14
Institutions: European Committee of the Regions
Subjects: EU environmental policy, EU financial instrument

C 231/72

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.9.2005

therefore that the following conditions be retained:

2.8
— The worker's agreement must be obtained
— No worker is subjected to a detriment because he/she is not

willing to agree to opt out.

2.8.1.1
That the following conditions be removed:
— The agreement must be valid for a period not exceeding

one year, i.e. it must be renewable

— No worker works more than 65 hours in any one week,

unless the collective agreement provides otherwise.

That

2.8.1.2
the following conditions be removed or be
reserved to national Member States to implement as required in
accordance with their national practices and procedures having
regard to their relevance in respect of their own national legal
and industrial relations systems:

— An agreement given at the time of signature of the indivi-
dual employment contract or during any probationary
period shall be null and void

— The employer keeps up-to-date records of all workers who

opt out and of the number of hours actually worked

— The records are at the disposal of the competent authorities,
which may for health and safety reasons, prohibit or restrict
the possibility of exceeding maximum weekly working
hours

— The employer provides the competent authorities, at their
request with information on the number of hours actually
worked by the workers concerned.

Brussels, 14 April 2005.

The President
of the Committee of the Regions
Peter STRAUB

Opinion of the Committee of the Regions on the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parlia-
ment and of the Council concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE+)

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS,

(2005/C 231/11)

HAVING REGARD TO the Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council
concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE+) COM(2004) 621 final — 2004/0218
(COD);

HAVING REGARD TO the Decision of the European Commission of 1 October 2004 to consult it on this
subject, under Article 175(1) of the Treaty establishing the European Community;

HAVING REGARD TO the decision taken by its president on 26 May 2004 to instruct the Commission for
Sustainable Development to draw up an opinion on this subject;

HAVING REGARD TO the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the European Parlia-
ment on Financing Natura 2000 COM(2004) 431 final;

HAVING REGARD TO its opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council, the Euro-
pean Parliament, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the 6th Envir-
onment Action Programme of the European Community entitled ‘Environment 2010: Our future, Our
choice’ and the Proposal for a Decision of the European Parliament and of the Council laying down the
Community Environment Action Programme 2001-2010 COM(2001) 31 final — CdR 36/2001 fin (1);

HAVING REGARD TO its opinion on the Communication from the Commission to the Council and the
European Parliament entitled ‘Building our Common Future: Policy Challenges and Budgetary Means of the
Enlarged Union 2007-2013’ COM(2004) 101 final — CdR 162/2004 fin;

HAVING REGARD TO its draft opinion (CdR 253/2004 rev. 1) adopted on 1 March 2005 by its Commis-
sion for Sustainable Development (rapporteur: Mrs Michèle Eybalin, Member of the Regional Council of
Rhône-Alpes) (FR-PES);

adopted the following opinion, by a unanimous vote, at its 59th plenary session, held on 13 and
14 April 2005 (meeting of 14 April).

(1) OJ C 357, 14.12.2001, p. 44

20.9.2005

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 231/73

Views and recommendations of the Committee of the
Regions

1. General considerations

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

shares the standpoint of the European Commission that
1.1
the LIFE+ instrument cannot be considered in isolation from
the overall redefinition of EU financial interventions and the
conditions for implementing the different aspects of EU envir-
onmental policy; considers that it would, however, have been
desirable to:

— carry out a comprehensive stocktaking of EU financial
interventions in the environmental
field by making an
assessment of the relevance and the impact of each of the
funding measures in relation to the aims of the measures
themselves and the general objectives of the successive EU
action plans for the environment;

under

financed

— make an assessment of the European added value of the
projects
programmes
(programmes managed directly by DG Environment, on the
one hand, and programmes incorporated into other EU
financial measures, on the other hand) and to make an
assessment of the coherence between these projects and the
projects supported by DG ENVI;

various

the

considers that the European Commission should have
1.2
backed up the proposal for the Regulation on LIFE+ with an
analysis of the funding requirements in respect of the imple-
mentation at local and regional level of the various EU environ-
mental policy priorities and an appraisal of these interventions
in respect of the principle of subsidiarity;

1.3
appreciates the European Commission's desire to pursue
the goal of simplification by having recourse to a single instru-
ment but highlights the current difficulties in understanding the
real scope for financing environmental projects under the
various financial
instruments to be established in the period
2007-2013 and draws attention to the need to coordinate the
various funding measures in order to encompass the various
EU priorities and means of intervention;

notes that the projects hitherto funded under the LIFE
1.4
Environment strand (projects in respect of the industrial envir-
onment) and the LIFE Third Countries strand will no longer be
eligible for funding under LIFE+ and calls for the inclusion of
an environmental strand in the ‘Competitiveness and Innova-
tion’ and ‘Neighbourhood instrument’ programmes, under
which the abovementioned projects could be funded over the
period 2007-2013 to be specified and guaranteed;

1.5
considers that all of the abovementioned elements need
to be spelled out before making proposals in respect of the
contents and the means of financing projects which are in line

with the key priorities of EU environmental policy (and with
the work of the European Environment Agency (EEA)); if the
abovementioned points are not underlined, the proposal for a
Regulation on LIFE+ will be regarded more as a financial engi-
neering measures, the rationale behind which is difficult to
grasp, and project initiators will be unable to clearly identify
EU priorities and the possibilities of giving the green light to
their initiatives;

support under

warns that only studies, conceptual work and planning
1.6
activities are eligible for
the draft LIFE+
programme and that specific implementing measures will no
longer quality for
funding from the LIFE programme's
resources; the disadvantage of the Commission's drive to merge
all priorities for support (Structural Funds and the Rural Devel-
opment Fund)
is that environmental projects will have to
compete with other activities.

2. Contents and implementing provisions of LIFE+

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

2.1
expresses it concern over the desire expressed by the
European Commission to delegate a very substantial part of the
programming and the budget (between 75 % and 80 %) of the
LIFE+ instrument
to the various Member States, without
defining, in the proposal for a Regulation, the procedures and
conditions in respect of these ‘decentralisation’ measures;

warns of the need for vigilance in order to ensure that
2.2
the desire to achieve simplification and flexibility, which under-
lies the proposal for a Regulation, does not lead to a ‘renationa-
lisation’ of EU environmental policy and points out that, for
the first time, a key programme for supporting one of the
major internal policies of the European Commission is being
‘nationalised’
for no good reason, as European funding is
already available for taking action for the benefit of the envir-
onment at local level;

it

considers

inappropriate that all

2.3
the criteria for
defining the measures to be financed are set out in a multi-
annual strategic programme and annual work programmes and
draws attention, in this context, to the fact that the funding
arrangements (rates of grant, actions and eligibility criteria) are
not spelled out in the proposal for a Regulation;

2.4
calls for the concept of ‘European added value’ to be
clarified and explanations to be provided as to the bearing
which this objective is to have on the nature and selection of
the projects and its bearing on the other sources of EU funding
in this context, the need to
which could intervene; stresses,
draw up a number of objective criteria and to explore the
possibility of modulation in respect of clear European added
value;

C 231/74

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

20.9.2005

2.5
draws attention to the desire, set out in section 3 of the
Explanatory Memorandum, to make LIFE+ a simplified and
proportionate instrument and expresses the hope that vigilance
will be demonstrated in applying this proportionality to the
five main lines of intervention, bearing in mind that, irrespec-
tive of budgetary constraints, steps should be taken to ensure
that the LIFE+ instrument does not become the tool of just part
of EU environmental policy; this vigilance must be exercised
when the two multi-annual programmes, which it is planned to
formulate at EU level (2007-2009 and 2010-2013) are drawn
up; vigilance should, however, also be shown in the event of
the possible establishment of national programmes;

calls upon the Commission, in this context, to make an
2.6
appraisal of the consequences and the feasibility of introducing
minimum commitment thresholds in respect of each of the
intervention priorities;

the

environmental

2.7
expresses its deep concern over the maintenance of prio-
rities and the possibilities for funding certain projects, in par-
ticular the funding of the establishment and management of
the NATURA 2000 network of sites, as well as projects to
improve
surface waters;
believes that the financial instruments provided for under the
Financial Perspective for 2007-2013 are not such as to ensure
successful implementation of the network; and calls upon the
European Commission to explain the links and shed light on
the available (earmarked) budgets under each of the financial
instruments (European Agriculture Fund for Rural Development
(EAFRD) and ERDF), other than LIFE+, which should provide a
source of funding for these projects;

condition of

2.8
requests the Commission in particular to significantly
increase the EUR 300 million annual budget allocated to LIFE+
in order to cater for a variety of needs and to earmark a
minimum percentage for implementation of
the NATURA
2000 network;

2.9
has reservations about the area of intervention covered
by the ‘Implementation and Governance’ strand, which seeks to
improve the ‘knowledge base’ for the development and imple-
mentation of environmental policy; without wishing to call the
need for such a measure into question, these interventions
would appear to fall, first and foremost, within the remit of the
European Environment Agency (EEA);

calls upon the European Commission, therefore,

2.10
to
improve the definition of the actions which it is planned to
carry out under this heading and to improve the coordination
between these measures and both the initiatives and the
budgets of the EEA.

Brussels, 14 April 2005.

3. Involvement of local and regional authorities in the

implementation of LIFE+

THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS

3.1
considers that the expenditure commitments in respect
of improvements to the environment provided for under the
forthcoming financial perspectives should ensure that efficient
and effective back-up action is taken at EU level in such a way
as to trigger, by means of the multiplier effect, actions at
national, regional or local level and stresses that the bulk of
expenditure in this field has to be met by regional and local
bodies and that regional and local authorities are major players
in the funding of these actions;

3.2
considers that LIFE+ must not, however, serve as a mere
back-up instrument for these interventions; as is the case with
the projects financed under the current LIFE instrument, LIFE+
should rather provide funding, geared to initiatives which
provide a specific European added value in the field of EU
environmental policies;

3.3
attaches great importance to the involvement of local
and regional authorities in the establishment and implementa-
tion of funding programmes in the environmental field; does,
however, express its concern over the fact that this role is not
set out in clear and explicit terms in the proposal for a Regu-
lation, despite the fact that the Commission wishes to decentra-
lise, to a considerable extent, the programming and manage-
ment of LIFE+;

3.4
takes the view that there is a need to clarify a number of
the conditions relating to the implementation of the LIFE+
instrument, as regards the procedures for co-financing opera-
tions between the LIFE+ instrument, on the one hand, and the
Member States, local and regional authorities and other public
and private players, on the other hand, and draws attention, in
this context, to the difficulties encountered by several players
— in particular private sector players — in securing funding
for environmental projects having a low level of cost effective-
ness simply by pursuing a proactive approach;

urges that, in this context, steps be taken to explore flex-
3.5
ible methods of partnership and to establish an approach based
on a tripartite model, geared to the use of methods incorpor-
ating activities carried out under contract, thereby involving
local and regional governments in the achievement of political
objectives, with a view to giving a shot in the arm to the imple-
menting mechanisms.

The President
of the Committee of the Regions
Peter STRAUB