Opinion of the Commission pursuant to Article 251 (2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty, on the European Parliament's amendments to the Council's common position regarding the proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment (Life+) amending the proposal of the Commission pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty
Date: 2006-11-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU financial instrument, EU programme, budgetary procedure, economic instrument for the environment, environmental policy, sustainable development

COMMISSION OF THE EUROPEAN COMMUNITIES 

Brussels, 28.11.2006 
COM(2006)759 final 

2004/0218 (COD) 

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION 

pursuant to Article 251 (2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty, 
on the European Parliament's amendments 
to the Council's common position regarding the  
proposal for a 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT  
AND OF THE COUNCIL 

concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment (Life+) 

AMENDING THE PROPOSAL OF THE COMMISSION 
pursuant to Article 250 (2) of the EC Treaty 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
2004/0218 (COD) 

OPINION OF THE COMMISSION 

pursuant to Article 251 (2), third subparagraph, point (c) of the EC Treaty, 
on the European Parliament's amendments 
to the Council's common position regarding the  
proposal for a 

REGULATION OF THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT  
AND OF THE COUNCIL 

concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment (Life+) 

1. 

BACKGROUND 

PROCEDURE 

On 29 September 2004 the Commission adopted a proposal for a Regulation of the 
European Parliament and of the Council1 concerning the Financial Instrument for the 
Environment  (Life+)  for  adoption  by  the  co-decision  procedure  as  laid  down  in 
Article 251 of the EC Treaty. 

The  Committee  of  the  Regions  and  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee 
delivered their Opinions in April 2005. 

The European Parliament gave its opinion in first reading on 7 July 2005. 

The Council adopted a partial political agreement on 2 December 2005. 

The Commission adopted a revised proposal on 24 May 20062. 

The Council adopted its Common Position on 27 June 2006. 

The Commission's Communication on the Common Position was adopted on 28 June 
20063. 

The European Parliament adopted its position in second reading on 24 October 2006.  

OJECTIVE OF THE COMMISSION PROPOSAL 

The  proposed  Regulation  is  one  of  several  relating  to  the  financial  framework  for 
2007 to 2013, but the only proposal specific to the environment. Its objective is: 

1 
2 
3 

COM(2004)621 final (2004/0218 (COD)) 
COM(2006)239 final 
COM(2006)355 final 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
                                                 
–  to  provide  specific  support  at  Community  level  for  measures  and  projects  with 
European  added  value  for  the  implementation,  updating  and  development  of 
Community environmental policy and legislation, in particular the implementation 
of  the  sixth  Community  Environment  Action  Programme  (while  funding  for 
investments  and  management  measures  benefiting  the  environment  would 
generally be available through other financial instruments); and 

–  to replace a number of existing programmes (while some elements of the current 

LIFE regime would be integrated into other financial instruments). 

The aim of this "integrated approach" is to provide more scope for co-financing, to 
encourage  joint  policy  making  and  enable  funding  to  better  reflect  national  and 
regional priorities. 

2. 

COMMISSION COMMENTS 

2.1. 

General comments 

At  its  plenary  session  of  24  October  2006  the  European  Parliament  adopted  all  32 
amendments  tabled.  Out  of  these  32  amendments,  4  were  acceptable  to  the  Commission  in 
their  entirety,  as  they  clarified  or  improved  the  original  proposal,  6  amendments  were 
acceptable  in  principle  and  a  further  2  amendments  in  part.  The  remaining  20  amendments 
adopted by the Parliament are not acceptable to the Commission. 

2.2. 

Detailed comments 

2.2.1.  Amendments accepted in full 

–  Amendment 23 proposes to apply the regulatory procedure with scrutiny to the adoption of 
the multi-annual strategic programmes and to Annex I of the Regulation. The Commission 
agrees that this procedure would be appropriate in this case. 

–  Amendment  26  clarifies  the  criteria  that  must  be  met  by  NGOs  for  their  operational 
activities to be eligible for LIFE+ funding. It is acceptable, since it reflects the wording of 
article 1(2) of the current NGO operational funding instrument. 

–  Amendment  27  further  elaborates  on  the  importance  of  disseminating  information  and 

raising awareness in connection with environmental matters. 

–  Amendment  32  expresses  the  Parliament's  wish  for  a  solution  to  be  found  regarding  the 
funding gap that the late adoption of the LIFE+ may create. While the budget question will 
ultimately  be  solved  by  the  Budgetary  Authority,  the  Commission  will  do  its  outmost  to 
facilitate agreement on this issue. 

2.2.2.  Amendments accepted in part 

–  Amendment 12 concerns the procedure surrounding the drafting and approval of the multi-
annual strategic programmes to be elaborated by the Commission. While the Commission 
agrees with the idea of providing for public participation on the draft multi-annual strategic 
programmes,  it  cannot  accept  having  LIFE+  implementation  subject  to  a  two-committee 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
procedure.  Consultation  of  the  Habitats  Committee  is  unnecessary,  since  Member  States 
may send to the LIFE+ Committee whichever representatives they wish. 

–  Amendment  17  concerns  the  complementarity  between  LIFE+  and  other  Community 
instruments. The Parliament introduces here 4 substantial changes to the Common Position 
text. First, it suggests replacing the words "eligibility criteria" by the words "main scope" 
in  the  first  sentence  of  this  article.  This  is  acceptable  to  the  Commission  so  long  as  an 
explanatory  recital  was  also  added.  Second,  the  Parliament  would  have  the  references  to 
the  Competitiveness  and  Innovation  Programme  and  to  the  7th  Research  Framework 
Programme removed from the list of Community instruments with which complementarity 
should  be  sought.  The  Commission  cannot  accept  this  part  of  the  amendment,  since 
complementarity should also be sought with these two programmes. Third, the Parliament 
asks  for  the  removal  of  the  reference  to  centrally  financed  measures  and  delegated 
measures.  The  Commission  cannot  accept  this  part  of  the  amendment,  since  having  both 
centralised and decentralised management is an essential element of its proposal. Fourth, 
the  Parliament  wants  the  Commission  to  ensure  coordination  and  complementarity 
between  LIFE+  and  other  Community  instruments.  The  Commission  cannot  accept  the 
new  text  as  proposed,  since  it  cannot,  on  its  own,  ensure  complementarity  among 
instruments:  Member  States  play  a  big  role  in  this.  Furthermore,  "ensure"  should  be 
replaced by a less stringent verb. 

2.2.3.  Amendments accepted in principle 

–  Amendment 1 contains alternative wording on environmental protection, as "one of the key 
dimensions  of  sustainable  development  of  the  European  Union".  This  alternative  to  the 
Common position text, which refers to the environment as a key objective for sustainable 
development, would be acceptable in principle. 

–  Amendment 5 concerns the regulatory procedure with scrutiny, which would apply to the 
adoption  and  possible  amendment  of  the  multi-annual  strategic  programmes  and 
amendments  to  the  Regulation  annex.  While  the  Commission  agrees  that  the  Regulatory 
procedure with scrutiny is appropriate in this case, it believes that the amendment should 
be redrafted to take account of the new Comitology Decision (2006/512/EC). 

–  Amendment 7 introduces a reference to climate change as one of the specific objectives of 
the  LIFE+  Nature  and  Biodiversity  component.  While  the  Commission  welcomes  this 
reference to climate change, it considers the wording proposed by the Parliament may be 
shortened. 

–  Amendment  18  raises  the  financial  envelope  for  the  implementation  of  LIFE+  to  € 
1,911,000,000 (in 2004 prices) for the period from 1 January 2007 to 31 December 2013. 
This would be acceptable to the Commission provided it were consistent with the agreed 
financial framework for the same period. 

–  Amendment  21  concerns  on-the-spot  checks  to  be  carried  by  Commission  officials  and 
other  staff  on  projects  financed  under  LIFE+,  in  particular  to  check  compliance  with  the 
eligibility criteria set out in Article 3 of the draft Regulation. While the Commission can 
accept  that  an  assessment  of  the  contribution  of  such  projects  to  EU  policy  objectives 
should  be  conducted,  it  believes  the  appropriate  place  for  the  wording  suggested  by  the 
Parliament  would  be  Article  16(3),  which  refers  to  the  final  evaluation  of  the 
implementation of the Regulation. 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
–  Amendment 22 concerns the LIFE+ Committee. It introduces a reference to the regulatory 
procedure  with  scrutiny  which  should  be  redrafted  to  bring  it  into  line  with  the  standard 
text agreed by the three institutions. 

2.2.4.  Amendments not accepted 

–  Amendments 2, 9, 10, 11, 14, 15, 16, 20, 24, 25, 28 and 31 aim at deleting all references to 
the  delegated  management  of  the  programme.  The  Commission  maintains  its  view  that 
decentralised management of at least 80% of the LIFE+ budget is preferable, and therefore 
rejects  the  Parliament's  amendments  on  this  issue.  Should  it  however  appear  that  a 
compromise  is  possible  between  the  Council  and  the  Parliament  on  this  issue,  the 
Commission  stands  ready  to  facilitate  an  agreement.  Linked  to  the  issue  of  delegated 
management,  amendments  8  and  30  would  make  staff  and  civil  servant's  costs  ineligible 
for  Community  co-financing.  The  Commission  cannot  accept  these  amendments,  since 
most  Member  States  have  underlined  that  they  need  to  keep  these  costs  eligible  (under 
certain criteria clearly set out in the draft Regulation) to afford setting up and running their 
national agencies. 

–  Amendment  4  concerns  financing  for  the  Natura  2000  Network.  It  calls  for  the 
Commission and Member States to ensure that sufficient funds are made available through 
other instruments for the management of the network, whose annual estimated cost for the 
EU is € 6.1 billion. Amendments 6 and the second part of amendment 11 would have the 
Commission  and  Member  States,  respectively,  ensuring  that  transnational  projects  and 
measures are foreseen in the national annual work programmes. The Commission cannot 
accept amendments 4, 6 and the second part of amendment 11 in its present stringent form. 
Amendment 3 calls  upon  the  Commission to  produce a review of the contribution  of the 
various  complementary  instruments  on  financing  the  Natura  2000  network  (including 
LIFE+) in time for the 2008/9 review of the Financial Framework, with a view to adapting 
LIFE+  to  the  necessary  changes.  While  the  Commission  will  conduct  such  a  review,  the 
timing proposed by the Parliament cannot be accepted. This is so because the Commission 
will not have much of substance to say about the results of LIFE+ implementation and its 
complementarity with other instruments by 2008. 

–  Amendment 13 would introduce mandatory consultation of the Habitats Committee. This 
amendment  cannot  be  accepted  for  the  reasons  explained  above  when  referring  to  the 
second part of amendment 12. 

–  Amendment 19 concerns the allocation of "at least 55%" of LIFE+ budgetary resources to 
nature and biodiversity conservation. Both the Commission and most Member States prefer 
the  Common  position  text  "at  least  40%",  which  does  not  prevent  Member  States  from 
spending  more  if  they  wish.  It  should  be  recalled  that  LIFE+  is  meant  to  support  the 
implementation  and  development  of  Community  environmental  policy  and  legislation  in 
general, and in particular the implementation of the sixth Community Environment Action 
Programme, which is much wider than nature and biodiversity. 

–  Amendment 29 concerns "capacity building assistance" as one of the measures eligible for 
funding  under  LIFE+.  The  Commission  is  of  the  opinion  that  adding  "capacity  building 
and improvement assistance" as suggested by the Parliament is redundant. 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
3. 

CONCLUSION 

Pursuant  to  Article  250  (2)  of  the  Treaty,  the  Commission  amends  its  proposal  as  set  out 
above. 

EN 

6 

   EN