Special Report No 11/2009 #The sustainability and the Commission’s management of the LIFE-Nature projects
Date: 2009-07-02
Institutions: European Court of Auditors
Subjects: EU control, EU financial instrument, EU financing, biotope, environmental protection, management audit, protected species

IN THIS REPORT THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS ANALYSES THE 

COMMISSION’S MANAGEMENT OF LIFENATURE PROJECTS IN TERMS 

OF THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THEIR RESULTS. THE REPORT PROVIDES 

DETAILS ON THE FOUR MAIN PHASES OF A PROJECT CYCLE WHICH 

I N C LU D E  T H E  S E L E C T I O N  P R O C E D U R E,  I M P L E M E N TAT I O N  A N D 

MONITORING OF PROJECTS, DISSEMINATION OF RESULTS AND LONG

TERM MANAGEMENT OF PROJEC T RESULTS. THE AUDIT INVOLVED 

ONTHESPOT VISITS TO 35 PROJEC TS IN SIX MEMBER STATES AND 

LED TO  RECOMMENDATIONS  FOR  EACH  PHASE TO  ENHANCE THE 

SUSTAINABILITY OF FUTURE LIFENATURE PROJECTS.

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS

Q
J

A
B

0
9

0
1
1

E
N


C

EUROPEAN 
COURT OF AUDITORS

4
3
8
0

1
3
8
1
N
S
S

I

9
0
0
2

1
1
o
N

t
r
o
p
e
R

l

a
i
c
e
p
S

THE SUSTAINABILITY AND THE 
COMMISSION’S MANAGEMENT
OF THE LIFENATURE PROJECTS

EN

 
 
 
 
How to obtain EU publications

Publications for sale:

•	

•	

•	

via	EU	Bookshop	(http://bookshop.europa.eu);

from	your	bookseller	by	quoting	the	title,	publisher	and/or	ISBN	number;

	by	contacting	one	of	our	sales	agents	directly.	You	can	obtain	their	contact		details	on	the	Internet	
(http://bookshop.europa.eu)	or	by	sending	a	fax		to	+352	2929-42758.

Free publications:

•	

•	

via	EU	Bookshop	(http://bookshop.europa.eu);

	at	the	European	Commission’s	representations	or	delegations.	You	can	obtain	their	contact	details	
on	the	Internet	(http://ec.europa.eu)	or	by	sending	a	fax	to	+352	2929-42758.

special r eport no 11

2009

The susTainabiliT y 
and The Commission’s 
managemenT of  
The life-naTure projeCT s

(pursuant to article 248(4), second subparagraph, eC)

european CourT of audiT ors

european CourT of audiT ors  
12, rue alcide d e g asperi 
1615 luxembourg 
luXembourg

Tel.: +352 4398-45410 
fax: +352 4398-46410 
e-mail: euraud@eca.europa.eu 
internet: http://www.eca.europa.eu

special r eport no 11

2009

a great deal of additional information on the european union is available on the internet. 

it can be accessed through the europa server (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication. 

luxembourg : publications office of the european union, 2009

isbn 978-92-9207-431-9 

doi 10.2865/70702

© european Communities, 2009 

reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Luxembourg

Table of ConTenTs  

Paragraph

List of AbbreviAtions And GL ossAry

i-viii  

executive summAry

1-11 

introduction 

12-17 

Audit scoPe  And  APPro Ach

18-67 

observAtions

18-20 

Life Achievements And imProvement oPPortunites

21-28 
22-27 
28 

29-40 
30-36 
37-40 

41-53 
42-48 
49-53 

54-67 
55-59 
60-67 

seLection Procedure
 insuffiCienT  visibiliT y of susTainabiliT y in The seleCTion proCedures 
long seleCTion proCess

imPLementAtion of Projects
Weaknesses in moniT oring projeCT  ouTpuT s and long-Term resul Ts
ouTC ome indiC aTors To be developed

disseminAtion of resuLts
disseminaTion a CTiviTies require improvemenT
knoWledge  Transfer requires revised  CommuniC aTion sT andards

LonG-term mAnAGement of Project resuLts
afTer-life  folloW-up  Would  ConTribuTe  To susTainabiliT y
ConservaTion measures no T safeguarded beyond projeCT  end

68-77 

concL usions And  recommend Ations

Projects Audited on-the-sPot  

 Annex i -  
Annex ii -   cALendAr of the Life+ evALuAtion And seLection Procedure  
Annex iii -   mAnAGement PLAns

rePL y of the commission

 
 
 
glossary

4

birds  directive: Council  directive 79/409/eeC of 2  april 1979 on the conservation of wild 
birds 

eAfrd: e uropean agricultural fund for rural d evelopment

eeA: e uropean environment a gency

ec: e uropean Community/Communities

eec: e uropean economic Community

eff: e uropean fisheries fund

erdf: e uropean r egional d evelopment fund

eionet: e uropean environment i nformation and observation network

etc: european Topic Centre on biological diversity

eu: e uropean union

eunis: e uropean nature i nformation system

habitats  directive: Council  directive 92/43/eeC of 21 may 1992 on the conservation of 
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora.

input:  financial, human and material resources that are mobilised for the implementation 
of an intervention.

intervention:  any action or operation, carried out by public authorities or other organisa-
tions, regardless of its nature (policy, programme, measure or project).  

Life:  financial instrument for the environment (from the french L’Instrument Financier pour 
l’Environnement)

Life iii:  life for the 2000–2006 period 

Life+:  life for the 2007–2013 period 

Life-nature:  a component of life which shall contribute to maintaining or restoring natural 
habitats and/or species populations to a favourable conservation status.

measure: Within the framework of policy, the basic unit of programme management, con-
sisting of a set of similar projects and having a precisely defined budget. 

ms: m ember state

natura 2000: The  european ecological network of special protected areas of conserva-
tion.

oj: Official Journal of the European Union

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

5

objective:  initial statement of the outcomes intended to be achieved by an intervention. 
a distinction should be made between global, intermediate, immediate and operational 
objectives: 

- 

- 

a global objective corresponds to the global impact of an intervention and is gener-
ally defined by Community legislation in very broad terms; it is usually translated by 
the Commission and member states into intermediate objectives which correspond 
to the expected intermediate impacts of programmes financed;

immediate objectives concern the results of an intervention on direct addressees and 
are normally defined by member states within the implementation of programmes 
financed;

-  operational objectives specify the outputs to be produced.

outcome: Change that arises from the implementation of an intervention and which nor-
mally relates to the objectives of this intervention. outcomes include results and impacts. 
outcomes may be expected or unexpected, positive or negative.

output: That which is produced or accomplished with the resources allocated to an inter-
vention (e.g. X hectares of habitat y restored).

Project:  non-divisible operation, delimited in terms of schedule and budget, and placed 
under the responsibility of an organisation which implements, closest to the field, the re-
sources allocated to the intervention.

result: immediate changes that arise for direct addressees at the end of their participation 
in an intervention.

sci: site of community importance

sebi: streamlining e uropean biodiversity i ndicators

sPA: special p rotection area

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

eXeCuTive   
summary

iv.
The audit assessed the effectiveness of the 
Co m m i s s i o n’s   m a n a g e m e n t   o f   t h e   gr a n t s 
p a i d   t o   l i f e - n a t u r e   p r o j e c t s   i n   t e r m s   o f 
t h e   s u s t a i n a b i l i t y   o f   t h e i r   re s u l t s.   i n   t h i s 
contex t, the beneficiaries’ management of 
t h e   v i s i t e d   p ro j e c t s   a s   re g a rd s   t h e i r   s u s-
tainability was also examined (paragraphs 
1 2 to 16 ). 

v.
Wo r k   w a s   p e r fo r m e d   a t   d g   e nv i r o n m e n t 
a t   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a n d   o n - t h e - s p o t   a u-
d i t   v i s i t s   w e r e   c a r r i e d   o u t   t o   e x a m i n e 
3 5   p r o j e c t s   i n   t h e   f o l l o w i n g   s i x   m e m b e r 
st ates:  b elgium , g er m any, i taly, sloven ia, 
s p a i n   a n d   t h e   u n i t e d   k i n g d o m .  T h e   o u t -
s o u r c e d   m o n i t o r i n g   a n d   c o m m u n i c a t i o n 
t e a m s ,   t h e   p r o j e c t   e v a l u a t o r s ,   a n d   t h e 
Topic   Ce nt re  on  biological  divers it y   (a c t -
ing under contrac t with the european en-
vironment agenc y (eea )) were also visited, 
b e i n g   c l o s e   p a r t n e r s   o f   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n 
for  t he  man agement  an d  develo pme nt  of 
env iron mental issues ( paragraph  1 7) .

vi.
o v e r a l l ,   t h e   p r o j e c t s   a u d i t e d   h a v e   c o n-
t r i b u t e d   t o   t h e   c o n s e r v a t i o n   o f   t h e   t a r -
g e t e d   s p e c i e s   a n d   h a b i t a t s ,   n a m e l y   i n 
t h e   na t u r a   2 0 0 0   s i t e s ,   c o n t r i b u t i n g   t o 
t h e   m e m b e r   s t a t e s’  e f fo r t s   a n d   s u p p o r t -
ing the eu citizens and their associations’ 
volunteer work and commitment in favour 
of biodiversity conser vation. The Commis-
sion   must  ens ure  th at  on ly   app ropr iately 
designed projec t proposals are approved, 
a r e   e x e c u t e d   a s   f o r e s e e n   a n d   i n s i s t   o n 
t h e   e s t a b l i s h m e n t   o f   o r g a n i s a t i o n a l   a n d 
financial struc tures sufficient for sustain-
ing the impact of the eu financed projects 
( pa ragraphs 1 8 to 2 0) .

i.
l i f e-na t u r e   c o - f i n a n c e s   p r o j e c t s   i n   t h e 
m embe r states, mainly  in rel at ion  to  nat -
ura  2000  sites,  in  favour   o f  t he  con se r va-
tion of species and habitats. such projects 
s h o u l d   h a v e   d e m o n s t r a t i v e   a d d e d   v a l u e 
a n d   c o n t r i b u t e   t o   t h e   d i s s e m i n a t i o n   o f 
b e s t   p r a c t i c e   c o n s e r v a t i o n   m e t h o d s   a n d 
a p p r o a c h e s .   l i f e   e a r m a r k s   a t   l e a s t   7 8   % 
of its  bud g et o f 300 mill ion eu ro  pe r  year 
t o   a c t i o n   g r a n t s ,   o f   w h i c h   a t   l e a s t   5 0   % 
i s   a l l o c a t e d   t o   p r o j e c t s   s u p p o r t i n g   t h e 
c o n s e r v a t i o n   o f   n a t u re   a n d   b i o d i ve r s i t y. 
i n financial terms it is the most impor tant 
e u r o p e a n   f u n d i n g   t h a t   i s   s p e c i a l l y   d e d i-
cated to the environment and is managed 
d i re c t l y   by   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n ,   b e i n g   a n   e s-
sent ial   to ol   wit h  regard  to   the  o b jec ti ve s 
o f   t h e   e nv i ro n m e n t a l   p o l i c y   o f   t h e   e u ro -
pean unio n.

ii.
The super vision and management of life-
n a t u r e   i s   c o m p l e x ,   a s   p r o j e c t s   d e a l   w i t h 
d i f f e r e n t   s i t u a t i o n s   f r o m   o n e   s i t e   t o   a n-
other across the union, are run by a great 
v a r i e t y   o f   b e n e f i c i a r i e s   a n d   s h o u l d   h a v e 
a   s u s t a i n e d   i m p a c t   o n   t h e   c o n s e r v a t i o n 
o f   i n d i v i d u a l   s p e c i e s   a n d   h a b i t a t s,   w h i l e 
a d d i n g   v a l u e   t h r o u g h   d i s s e m i n a t i o n   o f 
the  res ult s  ach ieved (p aragrap h s  1  to 8 ) . 

iii.
since the first  life instrument, introduced 
in 1992, the Commission has progressively 
developed and improved its management 
and control systems, inter alia tak ing into 
account the results of the Cour t ’s previous 
audits 1.  fu r t her chang es were introduce d 
w i t h   t h e   s t a r t   o f   l i f e+   a p p l y i n g   t o   t h e 
2007–2013 p er io d (p aragrap hs  9  to  11 ) .

1  special report no 11/2003 concerning the financial 

instrument for the environment (life) (oj C 292, 2.12.2003) and 

the follow-up in the annual report concerning the financial year 

2004, paragraphs 6.48–6.50 (oj C 301, 30.11.2005).

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

7

eXeCuTive   
summary

v ii.
a l t h o u g h   s i g n i f i c a n t   p r o g r e s s   h a s   b e e n 
m a d e   s i n c e   t h e   i n t r o d u c t i o n   o f   l i f e 
i n  1 9 9 2 ,   t h e r e   i s   s t i l l   r o o m   f o r   i m p r o v e -
m e n t   i n   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n’s   m a n a g e m e n t 
a n d   c o n t r o l   s y s t e m s   t o   o b t a i n   a n   a s s u r -
a n c e   t h a t   t h e   c o n s e r v a t i o n   m e a s u r e s   f i-
nanced by the eu better meet their objec -
t i ve s   a n d   a re   s u s t a i n e d   a f t e r   t h e   p ro j e c t 
eu financing. The following shor tcomings 
w e r e   h i g h l i g h t e d   i n   r e l a t i o n   t o   t h e   d i f -
fe re n t   p h a s e s   o f   t h e   m a n a g e m e n t   o f   t h e 
projec t s:

( d)  long-term management of the projec t 
results: since in most cases the results 
( o u t c o m e s )   o f   t h e   p r o j e c t s   f i n a n c e d 
c an  on ly  be   perce ived  af ter  fina l  pay-
m e n t   o n   t h e   p ro j e c t s   a n d   t h e r e   i s   n o 
e x - p o s t   f o l l o w - u p   p r o c e d u r e   e s t a b -
l i s h e d   fo r   a s s e s s i n g   t h e   e f fe c t i ve n e s s 
o f   t h e   a c t i o n s   f i n a n c e d,   t h e   Co m m i s -
s i o n   h a s   l i t t l e   i n fo r m a t i o n   i n   t h i s   r e -
s p e c t .   acco rd i n g l y,   t h e re   i s   a   n e e d   to 
e s t a b l i s h   a   s e t   o f   a p p ro p r i a te   i n d i c a-
tors for evaluating the results achieved 
( pa ragraphs 5 4 to 6 7) .

viii.
i t   i s   r e c o m m e n d e d   t h a t   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n 
s h o u l d   g i ve   f u r t h e r   c o n s i d e r a t i o n   t o   t h e 
v a r i o u s   f a c t o r s   r e l e v a n t   t o   t h e   s u s t a i n-
abilit y of t he projec t results,  im prove t h e 
dissemination of the acquired k nowledge 
a n d   s e t   u p   a   s y s t e m a t i c   fo l l ow - u p   o f   t h e 
projec ts af ter the final payment has been 
made  (paragraph s 68  to 77 ) .

(a)  s e l e c t i o n   p r o c e d u r e :   i m p r e c i s e   a n d 
re d u ce d   we i g ht   gi ve n   to   t h e   re l e va nt 
sustainability factors in project scoring 
for life+ and a lengthy award granting 
d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g   p ro ce s s   ( p a ra gra p h s 
21 to 2 8). 

(b)  i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   a n d   m o n i t o r i n g   o f 
p r o j e c t s :   i n s u f f i c i e n t   f o c u s   o n   t h e 
proj ec t s’ res ult s  (ou tco mes ),  m anag e -
m e n t   c o n t r a c t s   a n d   p l a n s ,   h i n d e r i n g 
th e e xp ec ted  s ust ain ab ilit y of  proj e c t 
res ul t s (p aragrap hs  29  to  40). 

(c)  dissemination of results: the potential 
added value of the individual life-na-
ture projec ts is not fully realised since 
t h e   l e s s o n s   l e a r n t ,   t h e   b e s t   p r a c t i c e s 
ide nt ified  and  t he  d etail ed  te c hn i c al/
scientific information acquired are not 
s y s t e m a t i c a l l y   m a d e   a v a i l a b l e   t o   a n 
i n t e r e s t e d   p u b l i c   o u t s i d e   t h e   i m m e -
d i a t e   p ro j e c t   n e i g h b o u r h o o d   ( re g i o n 
or  cou ntr y) ( pa ragrap hs  41 to 53 ).

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

inTroduCTion

8

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

 life is an acronym which stands for  L’Instrument Financier pour l’Environ­
nement,   i . e .   fi n a n c i a l   i n s t r u m e n t   f o r   t h e   en v i r o n m e n t .   T h e   f i r s t 
p ro j e c t s   f i n a n ce d   by   l i f e  s t a r te d   i n   1 9 9 2 2  a n d   co n t i n u e d   u n d e r 
t h e   s u b s e q u e n t   s p e c i f i c   l i f e  i n s t r u m e n t s   t h r o u g h   t o   t h e   t h i r d 
phase (life  iii) for 2000-2006 3. life was split into three thematic 
comp o nents:

- 

- 

- 

'lif e-nat ure'; 

'li fe-env ironme nt ';  and 

'lif e-Third Co u ntr ies'. 

2  Council regulation (eeC) 

no 1973/92 of 21 may 1992 

establishing a financial instrument 

for the environment (life) (oj l 206, 

22.7.1992, p. 1).

3  regulation (eC) no 1655/2000 of 

the european parliament and of the 

Council of 17 july 2000 concerning 

the financial instrument for the 

environment (life)  

(oj l 192, 28.7.2000, p. 1), as amended 

by regulation (eC) no 1682/2004  

(oj l 308, 5.10.2004, p.1).

 pro j e c t s   we re   s e l e c t e d   fo r   e a c h   o f   t h e   t h re e   c o m p o n e n t s   u s i n g 
dedic ated  pro cedu res. Th e  n ew  l ife+   phase   alloc ates  2  1 43   mil-
lion  eu ro fo r t he p er iod fro m 2 0 0 7  to 2 0 1 3 4. at least  7 8 % of  th is 
a m o u n t   m u s t   b e   u s e d   fo r   p ro j e c t   a c t i o n   gr a n t s.  Th e   t h re e   co m -
ponents  have b eco me: 

4  regulation (eC) no 614/2007 of 

the european parliament and of the 

Council of 23 may 2007 concerning 

the financial instrument for the 

environment (life+) (oj l 149, 

9.6.2007, p. 1).

- 

- 

- 

'nat u re and bio diversit y' ; 

'enviro nme nt  a nd g over na nce'; an d

'i nfo r mat ion and Commu n ication'. 

 C o n t r a r y   t o   l i f e  i i i,   p r o j e c t s   a r e   n o w   s e l e c t e d   u n d e r   a   s i n g l e 
pro cedu re fo r al l  t hree co mp on ents.

 d u r i n g   t h e   2 0 0 0 - 2 0 0 6   p e r i o d   l i f e - n at u re   f i n a n ce d   4 3 4   p ro j e c t s 
wh ich   were  imp l emented  in  26  m ember   st ates  and  amounted  to 
436 million euro (see Figure 1). With an average  eu contr ibution 
o f   1   m i l l i o n   e u ro,   p ro j e c t s   i nvo l ve d   s u b s t a n t i a l   f i n a n c i a l   e u  re -
s o u rce s   i n   a d d i t i o n   to   n at i o n a l   co - f i n a n c i n g.   l i f e+ ,   ' nat u re   a n d 
bio dive rs it y' ,  w ill  remain t he m ost  im por t ant  l ife  compone nt  as 
a n   a n n u a l   a l l o c a t i o n   o f   a t   l e a s t   5 0   %   o f   t h e   b u d g e t   d e d i c a t e d 
fo r   a c t i o n   gra nt s   ( 8 5 0   m i l l i o n   e u ro )   i s   e a r m a r k e d   fo r   t h e   p e r i o d 
2007 –2013.   

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission’s management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
 
 
 
9

5. 

 both life  iii and  life+ regulations provide suppor t to nature con -
s e r vat i o n   p ro j e c t s   t h at   co nt r i b u te   to   t h e   i m p l e m e nt at i o n   o f   t h e 
bi rd s   a n d   ha b i t a t s   di re c t i ve s 5.  T h e s e   d i re c t i ve s   e s t a b l i s h   a   n e t -
wo r k   o f   p ro te c te d   te r r i to r i e s   c a l l e d   ' nat u ra   2 0 0 0'   s i te s   to   w h i c h 
life-natu re  p rovides  s up p o r t 6.  i mplement ation  of  th e  direc t ives 
i s   t h e   r e s p o n s i b i l i t y   o f   t h e   r e s p e c t i v e   m e m b e r   st a t e .   ho w e v e r, 
th e  s ites  a re   el igib l e  for  eu  f inan cial  suppor t  under  t he  rel evant 
Co m m u n i t y   i n s t r u m e nt s 7.   acco rd i n g l y,   l i f e  nat u re   p ro j e c t s   p re -
domin antl y aim to contr ib u te  to  th e mai nta inan ce  or  re storati on 
of natural habitats and/or endangered species listed in one of the 
t wo   d i re c t i ve s.  T h e   l i f e +   s t r a n d   o n   b i o d i ve r s i t y   c o - f i n a n c e s   i n -
novative or demonstration projec ts that contr ibute towards halt-
ing   t he  lo ss  o f  b io diver sit y  by  2 0 1 0   and   beyo nd 8  and  allows  l ife 
fundin g o ut side natu ra 2000 sites.

5  Council directive 79/409/eeC of 

2 april 1979 on the conservation of 

wild birds (oj l 103, 25.4.1979, p. 1); 

Council directive 92/43/eeC of 21 

may 1992 on the conservation of 

natural habitats and of wild fauna 

and flora (oj l 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7).

6  article 4 of the life+ regulation 

specifies the life+ nature objectives: 

develop and implement the natura 

2000 network; consolidate a 

knowledge base; monitor and assess 

nature and biodiversity; governance.

7  article 8 of the habitats directive.

8  Com(2006) 216 final of 

22.5.2006: Communication from the 

Commission – halting the loss of 

biodiversity by 2010 – and beyond 

– sustaining ecosystem services for 

human well-being.

f iGu r e 1

Li f e - nA t u r e   co n t r i b u t i o n   Pe r   m e m b e r   s t At e  2 0 00 — 20 0 6   
( 436  m iL Li o n   e u r o )

70

60

50

40

30

20

10

0

60,49

37,71

26,26

44,81

38,90

23,68

1,12

16,02

10,28

4,21

32,28

24,55

18,57

14,81

6,37

6,95

6,24

4,84

18,34

11,08

11,34

12,78

1,53

1,48

1,13

0,46

be CZ dk de ee

ie

el

es

fr

iT Cy lv lT

lu hu mT nl aT pl pT ro si

sk

fi

se uk

S ource: dg environment.

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission’s management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
 
10

6. 

7 . 

 all the relevant eu legislation emphasises the impor tance of sus-
t a i n a b l e   d e v e l o p m e n t   o f   t h e   e n v i r o n m e n t .   T h e   fi f t h   e u r o p e a n 
Communit y environmental ac tion programme is entitled ' Towards 
s u s t a i n a b i l i t y ' 9.  Th i s   co n ce p t   i s   d e ve l o p e d   by   t h e   o n g o i n g   s i x t h 
environment ac tion programme 10 and is par ticularly impor tant for 
nature conser vation projec ts since the restoration and protec tion 
of  h abit ats  an d  sp ec ies  is,  by  defi n it io n,   a  long -te r m  proce ss.   as 
f i n a n c i n g   i s   o n l y   g r a n t e d   t o   a   p a r t   o f   t h e   a p p l i c a t i o n s,   s u s t a i n -
abil it y   sho ul d  b e  a  major   p rojec t  se le c ti on   c r ite r ion   i. e.   pro j ec t s 
s e l e c t e d   s h o u l d   b e   t h o s e   fo r   w h i c h   t h e   b e n e f i t s   w i l l   l a s t   l o n g e r 
af te r t he eu fu nd in g.

9  european Community programme 

of policy and action in relation to 

the environment and sustainable 

development 'Towards sustainability', 

Council resolution of 1 february 1993 

(oj C 138, 17.5.1993, p. 1).

10  decision no 1600/2002/eC 

of the european parliament and 

of the Council of 22 july 2002 

laying down the sixth Community 

environment action programme 

(jo l 242, 10.9.2002, p.1).

 The Commission’s management of life-nature grants is a complex 
p ro ce s s.   a p p l i c a nt s   f ro m   a l l   m e m b e r   s t ate s   i nt ro d u ce   p ro p o s a l s 
for inves tme nt s in favo ur of mult iple  spe c ie s a nd  h ab it ats.  Th e se 
may have innovative components that may require several imple -
mentation years and shall have a sustained impac t on the conser-
vation status while adding value through the dissemination of the 
resu l ts  ac hieved.  Diag ra m 1 gives a sy noptic view  of  t he  pre se nt 
pro jec t  manag ement c ycl e.

8. 

 m oreover, applicants may be public or pr ivate entities, and quite 
frequently include ngos of ver y different sizes whose strong com-
mitm ent  to  the  p rojec ts  is  a k ey  ele me nt for   th ei r  s ucce ss.

L i f e - n At u r e   P r o j e c t s   A r e   m u Lt i - A n n uA L  W i t h   o f t e n   co m P L e x 
o b j e c t i v e s   A n d   i n v o Lv e  vA r i o u s   PA r t n e r s

S o urce: european Court of auditors.

special report no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special report no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
 
 
11

d i A G r A m  1

t h e   P r o j e c t   L i f e   c yc L e   o f   A   L i f e - n At u r e   P r o j e c t

Project phase

What happens under the 
Commission’s management?

Where are commitments 
or results documented?

Selection

Assessment of the proposals 
Selection of the projects

Grant 
Grant 
agreements
agreements

Implementation

Dissemination

f
o
n
o
i
t
a
c
i
n
u
m
m
o
c
s
’
y
r
a
i
c
fi
e
n
e
B

,
s
t
l
u
s
e
r
d
n
a
s
s
e
r
g
o
r
p
t
c
e
o
r
p

j

s
n
o
i
t
c
a
y
t
i
c
i
l

b
u
p

Implementation of the 
actions

Monitoring and 
assessment of the 
project progress

Payment of eligible 
actions by LIFE-Nature 
funds

f
o
n
o
i
t
a
c
i
n
u
m
m
o
c
s
’
n
o
i
s
s
i

m
m
o
C

s
t
l
u
s
e
r

j

t
c
e
o
r
p

Progress/
Progress/
intermediary 
intermediary 
intermediary 
reports
reports

Final report and 
Final report and 
Final report and 
After-LIFE 
After-LIFE 
conservation 
conservation 
conservation 
plan
plan

Commission’s communication on 
the LIFE-Nature 
instrument

Publications,  
Publications,  
noticeboards
noticeboards
noticeboards

Long-term 
management

Ex-post audits
Evaluation of results

Financial audit 
Financial audit 
Financial audit 
reports
reports

TIME

Follow-up of project results 
by After-LIFE 

Management 
Management 
Management 
plans
plans

special report no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special report no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
12

9. 

 The Cour t ’s previous special repor t on the life instrument, which 
wa s   p u b l i s h e d   i n   2 0 0 3 1 1,   i d e nt i f i e d   we a k n e s s e s   i n   t h e   q u a l i t y   o f 
t h e   i nve s t m e n t s   a n d   i n   t h e   l o n g - t e r m   e f fe c t s   o f   t h e   re s u l t s :   t h e 
audit found that the life instrument lacked clearly defined objec -
tives  as  wel l   as  su ffic ient   analys i s  of   i ts   impa c t  a n d  an   ade quate 
diss em inat io n o f resu l ts 12. 

11  special report no 11/2003.

12  special report no 11/2003 

paragraphs 81 to 84 and 86 to 87 

(Conclusions).

13  paragraphs 6.48 to 6.50.

10. 

11. 

 T h e   Co m m i s s i o n   a d d re s s e d   a   n u m b e r   o f   t h e   Co u r t ’s   re c o m m e n -
datio ns   in  su b sequ ent   years.   however,  th e  follow-up  of  t he   spe -
cial r ep o r t in t he 200 4 annu al  r epor t 13 ind icated th at n ot all t he 
Cour t ’s recommendations had been ac ted upon. i n par ticular, the 
definition of the objec tives was still unclear, the scope of the on-
t h e - s p o t   a u d i t s   p e r fo r m e d   b y   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   w a s   s t i l l   c e n t re d 
on the financial aspec ts, and the evaluation of the projec t results 
att aine d re mained o ut standing. 

 since  th e firs t  li fe inst rume nt  wa s i ntrod uced  in  1 9 9 2 ,  th e  Com-
m i s s i o n   h a s   p r o g r e s s i v e l y   d e v e l o p e d   a n d   i m p r o v e d   i t s   m a n-
a g e m e n t   a n d   c o n t r o l   s y s t e m s ,   i n t e r   a l i a  b y   t a k i n g   i n t o   a c c o u n t 
t h e   re s u l t s   o f   t h e   Co u r t ’s   p re v i o u s   a u d i t s.   m o r e o ve r,   a d d i t i o n a l 
c h a n g e s   t o   t h e   l i f e  g r a n t s   s c h e m e   we re   i n t ro d u c e d   i n   2 0 0 7   fo r 
t h e   2 0 0 7 - 2 0 1 3   f i n a n c i a l   p e r i o d.  Th e   c u r re nt   a u d i t   a d d re s s e d   t h e 
weak nesses previously identified by focusing on their implications 
fo r   t h e   s u s t a i n a b i l i t y   o f   p ro j e c t   re s u l t s,   w h i c h   i s   c r u c i a l   fo r   t h e 
effec tiveness of the eu  life expenditure direc tly managed by the 
Com miss io n.

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
 
 
audiT  sC ope and approaCh

13

12.  

 The  ob jec t ive  o f  t he  aud it   was  to  as se ss   th e   ef fe c t ive ne ss   of   th e 
Co m m i s s i o n' s   m a n a g e m e nt   o f   t h e   l i f e-nat u re   gra nt s   d u r i n g   t h e 
d i f f e r e n t   p h a s e s   o f   t h e   p r o j e c t   c y c l e   i n   r e s p e c t   o f   t h e   s u s t a i n-
abil it y  of  t he proj ec t resu l ts.

13.  

The  fo ll owing  ques tio ns were ad dre s se d:

- 

did t he revised s el ec t ion  proces s  pr ior i ti se  t he  proj ec ts  t hat 
o ffered  t he hig hes t expec tation  for  s ust ain a bi lit y?

-  Were the projec ts adequately implemented and monitored by 

t he Co mmissio n? 

- 

- 

d o es  t he  Co mmissio n  ens ure   t hat   i nfo r mati on   on   proj e c t   re -
su l ts  and l esso n s l ear nt is appropr i ately  d iss e min ated?

d o es  t he  Co mmiss ion  car r y  out   th e   follow- up  of  proj e c ts,  or 
a s s e s s   t h e i r   re s u l t s   by   o t h e r   a p p ro p r i ate   m e a n s   i n   t h e   l o n g -
te r m? 

14.  

15.  

 The  m anag ement  of   li fe  ii i  nat ure   proj ec ts  ( 2 000 –20 0 6)   an d  t he 
selec tion procedure for the new life+ (2007–2013) were audited. 
Th e   o b s e r v a t i o n s   fo r m u l a te d   re m a i n   i m p o r t a n t   fo r   t h e   Co m m i s-
s i o n’s   m a n a g e m e n t   s i n c e   t h e   i s s u e s   a d d re s s e d   a l s o   c o n c e r n   t h e 
new li fe+ p ro jec t s. 

 as   t h e re   i s   n o   re g u l ato r y   o r   fo r m a l l y   a gre e d   co n ce p t   o f   s u s t a i n -
a b i l i t y   a p p l i c a b l e   t o   l i f e- f i n a n c e d   p r o j e c t s ,   t h e   a u d i t   a d o p t e d 
t h e   s p e c i f i c a t i o n s   o u t l i n e d   i n   t h e   bi r d s   a n d   ha b i t a t s   di r e c t i v e s 
to w ho se  imp l ementatio n li fe-nature proj ec ts  cont r ibu te.  The se 
provide t hree basic el ement s: 

- 

- 

- 

a   re s u l t s   e l e m e nt :   ' m a i nt a i n   o r   re s to re,   at   f avo u ra b l e   s t at u s, 
natu ra l  habit ats  an d  sp ecies'  (habit at s  direc t ive)   and  ' main-
t ain t he po p u lation of  t he s pec ie s'  (bi rd s dire c t ive ) ;

a time element: 'likely to continue for the foreseeable future' 
(ha b i t a t s   di r e c t i v e )   a n d   ' l o n g - t e r m   d i s t r i b u t i o n   a n d   a b u n-
dan ce o f [sp ec ies ]'  (birds direc ti ve ) ;

a   m a n a g e m e n t   e l e m e n t :   ' s p e c i f i c   s t r u c t u r e s   a n d   f u n c t i o n s 
w h i c h   a r e   n e c e s s a r y   f o r   i t s   l o n g - t e r m   m a i n t e n a n c e   e x i s t ' 
(hab it at s dire c t ive).

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
 
 
 
14

16.  

17.  

 for   th e  cu r rent   aud it ,   the  s us tain abili t y   of   a  proj ec t   f in ance d  by 
l i f e  h a s   b e e n   d e f i n e d   a s   t h e   a s s u r a n c e   w h i c h   c a n   b e   o b t a i n e d 
( p r o j e c t   q u a l i t y,   m a n a g e m e n t   s t r u c t u r e s ,   f i n a n c i a l   g u a r a n t e e s , 
etc. )  t hat   the  inves tment s  fin anced  an d  th e ir   ef fec t s  w ill   be   s us-
t a i n e d   a f t e r   t h e   p r o j e c t   e n d s   a n d   i t s   r e s u l t s   a r e   d i s s e m i n a t e d . 
W h e n   a s s e s s i n g   t h e   s u c c e s s   o f   t h e   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   o f   t h e   l i f e-
n a t u r e   i n s t r u m e n t ,   t h e   c o n s i d e r a t i o n   g i v e n   t o   s u s t a i n a b i l i t y   a t 
each p hase o f t he p rojec t m ana g eme nt c yc le  is  of  central im por-
t a n ce,   s t a r t i n g   f ro m   t h e   s e l e c t i o n   p ro ce d u re   u nt i l   a f te r   t h e   l i f e 
fina ncing  o f the p ro jec ts. 

14  The sample was initially of 

36 projects. however, for one of 

the projects selected, the on-the-

spot audit could not take place as 

the beneficiary was not available, 

had meanwhile abandoned the 

realisation of the project and had 

paid back the advance to the 

Commission.

 audit evidence was collec ted from dg environment, the european 
environment  agenc y, the european Topic Centre on biological  di-
v e r s i t y,   t h e   o u t s o u r c e d   m o n i t o r i n g   a n d   c o m m u n i c a t i o n   t e a m s , 
t h e   e v a l u a t o r s ,   a   s a m p l e   o f   b e n e f i c i a r i e s   a n d   t h e   r e l e v a n t   n a-
t i o n a l   a u t h o r i t i e s.   ev i d e n ce   wa s   o b t a i n e d   t h ro u g h   d o c u m e nt a r y 
rev iews,  inter views   an d  q uestion n aire s.  audit  visits   were  car r ie d 
ou t o n-t he -sp o t for a samp l e of 3 5 l ife  iii proje c ts approve d be -
t w e e n   2 0 0 0   a n d   2 0 0 5   a n d   i m p l e m e n t e d   i n   s i x   m e m b e r   st a t e s : 
b elgium, g er many, i taly, slovenia,  spain and the  united  k ingdom 
( s e e    A n n e x   I) 1 4.  Th e   p ro j e c t s   s a m p l e d   co r re s p o n d   to   1 3   %   o f   t h e 
life  ii i  eu exp endit ure of 436 millio n euro an d,  th ere fore,  it  pro -
vide s s ufficie nt  eviden ce for th e  audi t c ar r i e d o ut .

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
 
observaTions

15

18.  

19.  

Li f e   A c h i e v e m e n t s   An d   i mPr o v e m e n t   oP Po r-
t u n i t i e s

 o verall, on the basis of the 35 projec ts audited, it was found that 
t h e   i nve s t m e nt s   fo re s e e n   we re   co nt r i b u t i n g   to   t h e   co n s e r vat i o n 
o f   t h e   s p e c i e s   a n d   h a b i t a t s   i n   n a t u r a   2 0 0 0   s i t e s .   e v e n   i f   s o m e 
p ro j e c t s   f a ce d   d i f f i c u l t i e s,   t h e   co m m i t m e nt   by   t h e   b e n e f i c i a r i e s 
a n d   t h e i r   s t a f f   m a d e   i t   p o s s i b l e   to   ove rco m e   t h e m   a n d   t a k e   co r-
rec t ive a c t io n.

 The Commission has consistently improved the management of the 
life grants since 1992.  however, the audit highlighted shor tcom-
i n g s   w h i c h   s h o u l d   b e   a d d re s s e d   t o   s a fe g u a rd   t h e   s u s t a i n a b i l i t y 
o f   p r o j e c t   r e s u l t s .   Ta b l e   1  g i v e s   a   s y n o p t i c   v i e w   o f   t h e   t y p e   o f 
shor tcomings identified in projec ts audited on-the -spot, grouped 
in cate go r ie s in acco rdance with  th e  proje c t  l i fe c yc le.

tAbLe 1

t y Pe   o f   s h o r tco m i nGs   d e t e c t e d   i n   Pr o j e c t s   Au d i t e d   
o n - t h e - sPot   

•  inadequate preparation of project proposal,
•  beneficiaries’ insufficient legal and technical capacities for maintaining the project results after 

Selection  
procedure:

LIFE financing,

•  non-transparent structure of co-financers and partners,
•  no predefined criteria and indicators to assess project outcome,
•  no budget for maintaining project results after LIFE financing.

Implementation 
phase:

•  difficulties in obtaining land parcels foreseen for the project site,
•  weaknesses in the partnerships responsible for the management of the project,
•  demographic pressure affecting the project site,
•  competing interests, in particular with agriculture,
•  weak monitoring of project results,
•  missing guarantees to safeguard purchased land for nature conservation,
•  missing support from stakeholders.

Dissemination of 
results:

•  local population not adequately informed or involved, or opposed to the project itself,
•  dissemination of results mainly focused on reaching local and regional public,
•  project websites not systematically maintained or of limited quality,
•  project websites not used efficiently for disseminating project outputs and outcomes.

Long-term  
management of 
project results:

•  management plan not approved by the Member State authorities,
•  insufficient integration of LIFE project conservation measures in the surrounding areas,
•  insufficient legal and financial capacities of those responsible for sustaining the project results 

after the LIFE financing,

•  insufficient monitoring of species or habitats for assessing impact.

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
 
16

20.  

 T h e   f o l l o w i n g   p a r a g r a p h s   e x a m i n e   e a c h   o f   t h e   p h a s e s   o f   t h e 
projec ts’ management by the Commission identifying the relevant 
sho r tco ming s  and o p p or tu nities for  im provem ent.

s eLe c t i o n   Pr o c e d u r e

21.  

The  aud it  examined:

-  whether the Commission had established clear and appropr i-
a t e   c r i te r i a   a n d   s co re s   fo r   s e l e c t i n g   p ro j e c t s   b a s e d   o n   t h e i r 
q u a l i t y,   t h e   re l e va n ce   o f   t h e i r   o b j e c t i ve s   a n d   t h e   l i k e l i h o o d 
o f t he s ust ainab il it y o f their  re sul ts  ( ou tputs );  an d,

- 

w het her t hese c r iter ia had  bee n  applie d  in  prac t ice.

i n s u f f i c i e n t   v i s i b iLi t y   o f   s u s tAi nAb iLi t y   i n   t h e 
s eLe c t i o n   Pr o c e d u r e s  

22.  

 The   ai m   o f  t h e  s e l ec t i o n  p ro ced u re   is   to   al lo c ate   t h e  s ca rce   l if e 
funds to the best projec ts among a large number of applications. 
applicants need to submit proposals which meet demanding and 
detail e d technical,  finan cial  an d ot he r  re qui rem e nt s.  The  Cour t ’s 
a u d i t   o f   l i f e   i i i   a n d   l i f e +   s e l e c t i o n   p r o c e d u re s   c o n c l u d e d   t h a t 
the Commission should pay greater attention to the prioritisation 
cr ite r ia  as  wel l   as   to  t heir  weightin g   and   th e   s cor in g  s c ale s  use d 
to ensure that sufficient and quantified consideration is given to 
sust ainab ilit y fac tor s.

23.  

 T h e   s e l e c t i o n   c r i t e r i a   a n d   t h e   s c a l e s   f o r   p r o j e c t   p r i o r i t i s a t i o n , 
whic h  were  es tab l ish ed  in  the  for m  of   'm axi mum  s cores '  for   l ife 
iii and  li fe+,  are su mmar ised in Ta ble   2.

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
 
 
 
17

24.  

25.  

 fo r   l i f e +   t h e   t e c h n i c a l   q u a l i t y   o f   p ro j e c t   p ro p o s a l s   i s   c u r re n t l y 
a s s e s s e d   b y   e x t e r n a l   c o n t r a c t e d   e v a l u a t o r s,   o n   t h e   b a s i s   o f   t h e 
sele c t ion  cr ite r ia  defin ed  in  t he   Co mmi s sio n’s   l ife-nat ure   appli-
c at i o n   a n d   e va l u at i o n   g u i d e s.  Th i s   i s   i n   l i n e   w i t h   p re v i o u s   Co u r t 
reco mm endatio ns  for us ing o uts i de  e xpe r ts  to  en sure t he  n ece s-
sar y  segreg at io n of fun c tions 15.

 however,   eac h  cr iter ion  is  ex am in ed  wit h   re feren ce   to  analy t ic al 
q u e s t i o n s   h e re a f t e r   re fe r re d   t o   a s   s u b c r i t e r i a ,   w h i c h   a l l o w s   t h e 
eva lu ators a hig h l evel  of discre ti on i n e st abli sh i ng  proje c t s cor-
ing. since the subcriter ia that relate to each award cr iter ion have 
not been weighted, ever y evaluator may attach a different priority 
to them. Consequently, even if one or more of the subcr iter ia are 
not met, the projec t proposal can still receive a high score for the 
res pe c t ive awa rd c r iter ion.  Th is is e s pec i al ly t r ue  for  s ust ain abi l-
i t y   a s p e c t s   t h a t   a re   i n c l u d e d   a s   s u b c r i t e r i a   u n d e r   'c o n s e r v a t i o n 
b e n e f i t '   o r   'c o n t r i b u t i o n   t o   o b j e c t i ve s '   u n d e r   l i f e  i i i  a n d   l i f e+ , 
res pe c t ively 16.

15  special report no 11/2003, 

recommendation after paragraph 89.

16  for 2006 the subcriteria for the 

life iii 'conservation benefit' criterion 

were the following: value of the site/

species/habitats, importance of the 

actions proposed, contribution to 

european conservation strategies, 

and sustainability of the actions. 

for 2007 the subcriteria for the 

life+ 'contribution to objectives of 

life+' criterion were the following: 

european importance, contribution 

to solving the problem targeted, 

contribution to the implementation, 

updating and development of 

Community environmental policy 

and legislation, continuity and 

permanence of the project results, 

sustainable contribution to solving 

the problem targeted.

tAbLe 2

t h e   co m m i s s i o n ’s   L i f e - n At u r e   P r o j e c t   s e L e c t i o n   c r i t e r i A : 
mA x i m u m   s co r e s   ( e xPr e s s e d   i n   Pe r c e n t AGe s )

Award criteria

LIFE III (2006)

LIFE+ (2007)

Technical coherence 

Financial coherence

Conservation benefit

Socio-economic and operational context

Contribution to objectives

European added value

Complementarity 

Transnational character

National added value *

Total score

23

7

47

23

-

-

-

-

-

16

16

-

-

26

26

11

5

-

100

100

* 'national added value' is only taken into account when projects of the same member state have received 
the same overall scoring.

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
 
18

26.  

 T h e   a u d i t   h i g h l i g h t e d   t h e   f a c t   t h a t   t h e   r e l e v a n c e   o f   t h e   a b o v e 
m e nt i o n e d   s u s t a i n a b i l i t y- re l ate d   c r i te r i a   h a d   b e e n   co n s i d e ra b l y 
r e d u c e d   f r o m   l i f e  i i i  t o   l i f e+   ( s e e   Ta b l e   2) .   a c c o r d i n g   t o   t h e 
Co m m i s s i o n’s   s e r v i c e s,   t h i s   w a s   n e c e s s a r y   i n   o rd e r   t o   a l l o w   t h e 
p r o p o s a l s   r e fe r r i n g   t o   t h e   t h r e e   c o m p o n e n t s   ( s e e   p a r a g r a p h   1 ) 
t o   b e   e v a l u a t e d   b y   t h e   s a m e   c r i t e r i a   a n d   t o   c o m p e t e   w i t h   o n e 
a n o t h e r.   T h i s   a p p r o a c h   h a s   t r a n s f o r m e d   t h e   l i f e  i i i  e v a l u a t i o n 
guide’s more precise questions, that had been developed over the 
ye a r s,   i n to   ve r y   g e n e r a l   q u e s t i o n s   w i t h   l i t t l e   i n fo r m a t i o n   v a l u e. 
o v e r a l l ,   i t   w a s   fo u n d   t h a t   t h e   a m e n d e d   l i f e+   s e l e c t i o n   c r i t e r i a 
do not improve the consideration given to sustainabilit y and that 
th ey a re no t neces sar il y co ns iste nt ly  applie d.

b o x   1

sco r i nG   f o r   s u s tAi nAb iLi t y

T h e   re v i e w   o f   t h e   e x t e r n a l   e v a l u a t o r s’  f i l e s   s h o we d   t h a t   w h i l e   s i g n i f i c a n t   d o u b t s   we re 
raised about the sustainabilit y of the projec t results, high scores were never theless given 
in re sp ec t o f t he rel evant  cr iter i on :

• 

• 

• 

' i t   i s   o b v i o u s   t h a t   h a b i t a t s   s u c h   a s   r a i s e d   b o g s ,   t o   b e   p r e s e r ve d   o n ce   r e s e r ve d ,   w i l l 
n e e d   co nt i nu o us   m a n a g e m e nt .   …i t   is   h o p e d   t h at   su ch   f u n ds   w ill   b e   av a il a b l e   at   th e 
end of the projec t, to take over the management cost s on a long term basis.' – 8 p oints 
o u t o f 10 p ossib l e (g o o d );

' W hils t the ne e d for continuing invasive removal is re co gnis e d by the gover nm ent , no 
re s o urce s  to   d o  this   f o ll ow in g  o n   f ro m   th e   p roj e c t   are   co nf ir m e d .'   –   17  p o int s  o u t   o f 
25  (g o o d );

'ad ditio nal f un ds w ill b e re quire d af te r th e e n d of th e p roj e c t to maint ain th e co ns e r-
vation status of the habitats through recurring work to ensure recolonisation by exotic 
sp e ci e s .' – 22 p o int s  o u t  o f 25  (e xce ll e nt).

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
19

27.  

28.  

 The  s el ec tio n  c r iter ia  have  evolve d  followin g   th e   l egi slatio n  an d 
the exper ience acquired by the Commission. never theless, it was 
n o te d   t h at   t h e   eu ro p e a n   env i ro n m e nt   ag e n c y   (e e a )   a n d   t h e   eu-
ro p e a n  To p i c   Ce nt re   o n   b i o l o gi c a l   d i ve r s i t y   ( e TC )   h ave   n o t   b e e n 
direc tly involved in the definition of the selec tion criteria despite 
t h e i r   e x p e r t i s e   o n   t h e   na t u r a   2 0 0 0   n e t w o r k   a n d   o n   m o n i t o r i n g 
bio diversit y in e uro p e ( see p aragraph  39 ).

Lo nG   s eLe c t i o n   Pr o c e s s

 i n   p r i n c i p l e ,   t h e   r e v i s e d   s e l e c t i o n   p r o c e d u r e   s h o u l d   n o t   b e   a 
c l o s e d   p ro c e s s,   w h e re b y   a p p l i c a n t s   s e n d   i n   t h e i r   p ro p o s a l s   a n d 
u s u a l l y   r e c e i v e   a   r e p l y   o n l y   o n e   y e a r   l a t e r   ( s e e   A n n e x   I I) .   su c h 
l o n g   d e l a y s  –   a s   c o m p a r e d   w i t h   s o m e   s i x   m o n t h s   r e q u i r e d   f o r 
o t h e r   p ro j e c t s   f i n a n ce d   by   e u  f u n d s,   s u c h   a s   t h e   e a f r d  a n d   t h e 
eff – which are mostly imposed by inter institutional procedures, 
can  b e a sou rce of  major co nst raints  fo r  proj e c t im ple me nt at ion , 
as  k ey  p roj ec t  con dit ions  m ay  h ave  s ubs tanti a lly  ch an g ed   i n  th e 
mea nt ime. fo r inst ance, t he  purch ase of  the  lan d  i n t he  t arg ete d 
conser vation area may no longer be possible or the key stakehold-
e r s   n o   l o n g e r   a v a i l a b l e .   i n   t w o   a u d i t e d   p r o j e c t s   s u c h   i n c i d e n t s 
ser iously jeopardised the projec t launch. d espite the substantial 
effor t s  mad e  by  the  b en efic iar ies   and   th e  Com m iss i on ,   t hos e   i n-
cidents  we re o nl y p ar t ly remedie d.

i mP Le m e n t At i o n   o f   Pr o j e c t s

29.  

 in addressing whether the projec ts are properly implemented and 
monito red by t he Co mmissio n,  th e  audi t e xam in e d:

-  w het her t here is  adeq uate moni to r i ng  focus on  t he  progres s 

o f p ro jec t s and ou tp u ts;

-  whether monitoring covers the achievement of projec t results 

(o utco mes).

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
 
 
20

30.  

31.  

WeA Kn e s s e s   i n   m o n i to r i nG   Pr o j e c t   o u tPu t s   An d  
Lo nG -t e r m   r e s uL t s

 The Commission assigns a team of nature conser vation exper ts to 
monitor projec t implementation. once a projec t is approved, the 
monitors visit each projec t once a year to check progress.  on the 
basis  o f t he se vis its and th e be ne f ic i ar i es’ repo r t in g,  t h ey  for m u-
late their technical assessment of the progress of the projec t. The 
Co m m i s s i o n   d e c i d e s   o n   t h e   gra nt s   p ay m e nt s   fo r   t h e   p ro j e c t s   o n 
th e b as is  o f t he b eneficiar ies’ re por ts  a ls o t ak i n g i nto con s id era-
tion  th e monito r ’s  im pl eme ntat ion  re por ts.

 as conser vation exper ts, monitors can ensure that projec t imple -
mentation is professionally monitored and they have the potential 
t o   e n h a n c e   t h e   e xc h a n g e   o f   e x p e r i e n c e s   a n d   l e s s o n s   l e a r n e d   i n 
respect of similar issues between life projects.  however, the audit 
h i g h l i g h t e d   t h e   fo l l o w i n g   t y p e s   o f   s h o r t c o m i n g s   i n   1 4   p r o j e c t s 
out of the 35 visited due to the monitoring strategy and approach 
adop ted by the  Commis sion:

- 

- 

- 

- 

insufficient monitoring of projec t results (see paragraphs 32, 
34,  35,  36);

a cce p t a n ce   o f   p ro j e c t   c h a n g e s   i n   c a s e s   o f   s u b s t a nt i a l   m o d i-
fic at io ns to  t he grant agreem ent  ( se e paragra ph  3 3 );

de ficie nt  c heck ing  of the imple me ntat io n of d elaye d ac ti on s 
at  t he  end of  p ro jec ts  (s ee  paragraph  58 );  an d

insufficient check ing of the existence and content of manage -
me nt  co nt rac t s  (s ee p aragraph s  6 4  an d 6 7 ).

32.  

 The Commission requires beneficiaries to calculate their costs for 
e ve r y   a c t i o n   d e f i n e d   i n   t h e   g r a n t   a g re e m e n t   t o   s e r ve   a s   a   b a s i s 
fo r   s u b s e q u e n t   m o n i t o r i n g.   ho we ve r,   t h e s e   c o s t   c a t e g o r i e s   p e r 
a c t i o n   a re   n o t   u s e d   fo r   t h e   f i n a l   re p o r t i n g.  T h i s   m e a n s   t h a t   t h e 
Co m m i s s i o n   d o e s   n o t   m o n i to r   t h e   f i n a n c i a l   co s t   c ate g o r i e s   t h at 
would allow it to compare the costs per ac tion carried out during 
t h e   p r o j e c t   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   w i t h   t h o s e   e n v i s a g e d   i n   t h e   g r a n t 
agreements and additional clauses. accordingly, the Commission 
h a s   n o   b a s i s   o n   w h i c h   t o   c o m p a r e   a c t u a l   c o s t s   w i t h   t h o s e   t h a t 
were b u dg eted  in  the p ro p os al.

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
 
 
21

33.  

 T h e   a u d i t   i d e n t i f i e d   v a r i o u s   re a s o n s   w hy   s o m e   p ro j e c t s   d i d   n o t 
f u l l y   a c h i e ve   t h e i r   fo re s e e n   re s u l t s   ( o u t p u t s ) .   i n   fo u r   c a s e s,   t h e 
foreseen acquisition of land could not be realised and, therefore, 
the conser vation measures could not be implemented as planned. 
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   r e a c t e d   e i t h e r   b y   a c c e p t i n g   t h e   w i t h d r a w a l   o f 
th e  re l ated   investments  or  by  am e ndi n g  th e   grant  a gree me nt  by 
a l t e r i n g   t h e   i n i t i a l   o b j e c t i ve s.   al t h o u g h   n o t   c o n s i d e re d   t o   b e   a 
breach of the formal requirements, such amendments are only ac -
ceptable provided that the general objectives of the initial project 
p ro p o s a l   a re   n o t   s u b s t a nt i a l l y   a l te re d ;   h owe ve r,   i n   o n e   c a s e   a u -
dited the foreseen results of the projec t changed considerably as 
it was a lte red from wetl and s to raise d  bog  h abit ats  an d f ai le d to 
inte rco nne c t  existin g natu re protec te d s ite s ( s ee B ox   2).

b o x   2

in i t iA L   o b j e c t i v e s   n ot   Ac h i e v e d

a  l i f e  p ro j e c t ,   i nvo l v i n g   a n   e u  co nt r i b u t i o n   o f   2   m i l l i o n   e u ro,   i s   l o c ate d   i n   a n   s pa  d e s-
ignated   unde r  t he  birds   direc t ive.  i t  intende d  to  c reate  a  cont inuous   wetl an d  area  with 
integrated fen sec tions attrac ting a variet y of migrator y birds, primarily as a resting area. 
Th e   n e w   a re a   wo u l d   co n n e c t   e x i s t i n g   s u b s i te s.   fo r   t h i s   re a s o n   t h e   m a i n   m e a s u re   o f   t h e 
grant agreement was the purchase of land in three core subsites in order to inter link the 
existing state - owned parcels and to create the preconditions for implementing rehumidi-
ficat io n measu res. 

d u e   to   s t ro n g   o p p o s i t i o n   f ro m   l o c a l   f a r m e r s,   t h e   p ro j e c t   h a d   to   b e   a m e n d e d :   Zo n e   2   o f 
52 ha had to  b e drop p ed  an d o nly  8 0 , 5 h a ( 78  % ) i ns te ad  of  th e  plan n ed 1 03  ha  could be 
purchased in the other t wo zones. To compensate for the loss of sur face, another subsite 
aimin g at  the  res to ration of raise d  bog s  i nste ad  of  we tla nd s was   acce pted.

The final results of the projec t approved by the selec tion procedure show, however, that 
t h e   p ro j e c t   f a i l e d   a s   re g a rd s   t h e   a c h i e ve m e n t   o f   t h e   o r i g i n a l   o b j e c t i ve s   o f   re v i t a l i s i n g 
fens  and  wet l and s,  o n th e one h and, an d co nn e c t in g  t he  d if ferent  bi otope s on  t he ot her 
hand.  i ns tead,  measu res  o n  raised  bog s  were  c ar r ie d  o ut   t hat  st ill   in clud ed  s ome   of  the 
ta rge ted sp ec ies, b u t w ith a com pletely  n ew  s et   of  h abit at s  and  p roj e c t   s ites. 

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
 
22

34.  

35.  

 The audit revealed nine cases of costly investments in items with 
ver y limited utilit y or with no tangible impac t on the species and 
ha b itat s conser vatio n s t atu s ( see  Box   3) .   

 progress towards a more favourable conser vation status can only 
b e   a s s e s s e d   i f   t a r g e t e d   a n d   i n d i c a t i v e   s p e c i e s   a r e   m o n i t o r e d . 
The  b e ne ficiar y   is  n ot   onl y  req uire d  to  re por t  on   proj e c t s  physi-
c a l l y   c o m p l e t e d   b u t   a l s o   o n   c h a n g e s   i n   t h e   c o n s e r v a t i o n   s t a t u s 
of f ragil e spe cies  or  h ab it ats dur i ng  t h e proje c t i mple me nt ati on . 
howe ve r,   t h e   m o n i to r i n g   c a r r i e d   o u t   by   m a ny   b e n e f i c i a r i e s   co n-
cent rated  o n t he  meas urement of  proj ec t  out puts  (s ee  Box   4) .   

b o x   3

Ac t i o n   n ot   co s t - e f f e c t i v e

T h e   m a i n   o b j e c t i v e   o f   a   p r o j e c t   w a s   t o   r e d u c e   o r   t o   e l i m i n a t e   t h e   r i s k   o f   c o l l i s i o n   a n d 
of  el ec t roc u tio n  o f  b irds  w ith  t h e  e le c t r ic i t y   n et wor k .  on e  ac tion   vis ited  concer n ed  the 
d e v e l o p m e n t   o f   a   n e w   1 , 9   k m   u n d e r g r o u n d   m e d i u m   t e n s i o n   l i n e   t o   r e p l a c e   a   f o r m e r 
ove r h e a d   l i n e   at   t h e   co s t   o f   6 6   0 0 0   e u ro s.   h owe ve r,   t h e   ove r h e a d   l i n e   wa s   n o   l o n g e r   i n 
use as the sole customer had become bank rupt many years previously, and consequently 
th e b u ilding  w hic h t he cab l e supplie d wa s  no lon ge r  be in g  us ed.  Wi t h out  any gu arantee 
of  el ec t r icit y  b eing   u sed,  li fe  f un ding   s hould  not  h ave   f in an ced   t h e  re place me nt   of   the 
unus ed over head p ower l ines. 

b o x   4

in s u f f i c i e n t   m o n i to r i nG   o f   Pr o j e c t   r e s uL t s

a projec t receiving eu aid of more than 0,5 million euro, aimed at the rehumidification of 
a degraded bog, thereby restar ting the development of typical bog vegetation and fauna. 
The  m ain t hreat s are u su all y drain a ge  a nd e ut roph ic at ion  t hrough  fer t i li ser, wh ic h is ei-
th er t ransp or ted by w ind or by  poll ute d wate r  comin g f rom  th e sur roun di ng,  i nten sively 
exploited agricultural land. The monitoring of the water level, as foreseen and carried out 
during the projec t, ser ved only to measure whether the ac tion worked from the technical 
point   o f  view   and  su cceeded  in  i nc re asi n g  th e  water   le ve l.  Th is  p roj ec t   took   an   unusual 
approach by flooding the whole bog, the success of which was even called into question 
by   t h e   m o n i t o r i n g   te a m   o n   s e ve r a l   o c c a s i o n s.   howe ve r,   w h i l e   t h e   b e n e f i c i a r y   re p o r te d 
reg u l ar l y  o n  t he  inc reased  wate r   le ve ls  ac hie ved,  t he re   was  no   co lle c t i on   o f   dat a  on  the 
impac t of these changes on the indicative species, such as sphagnum, in order to provide 
evid ence   to   show   w hether  t he  obj ec ti ve  of  th e   pro jec t   i .e.   th e   deve lo pm e nt   o f  t argeted 
ra i s e d   b o g s,   h a d   b e e n   a c h i e ve d.  Th e   m o n i to r i n g   c a r r i e d   o u t ,   gi ve s   n o   i n d i c at i o n   o f   t h e 
res ul t s o f t he method emp loye d.   

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
 
23

f Lo o d i n G   o f   A   b o G   f o r   s P e c i e s   A n d   h A b i tAt   co n s e r vAt i o n   P u r P o s e s

S o urce: european Court of auditors.

36.  

 m o r e o v e r,   t h e   t e c h n i c a l   m o n i t o r i n g   d i d   n o t   a l w a y s   i n v o l v e   a n 
a d e q u a t e   l e ve l   o f   c h e c k s   o n   w h e t h e r   t h e   p ro j e c t s   f i n a n c e d   h a d 
achie ved t he ir  exp ec ted resu lts  (s e e B ox  5) .   

b o x   5

b r o K e n   d A m   n ot   i d e n t i f i e d   by   P r o j e c t   m o n i to r i n G

o n e   o f   t h e   p r o j e c t s   a u d i t e d   w i t h   a n   e u   f i n a n c i n g   o f   1   m i l l i o n   e u r o,   i n c l u d e d   t h e   c o n -
struc t io n  o f  dam s   to   humidify   a n  are a  of   peat   la nd.  Th ree   sma ll  dam s   of  s h eet   pi les  and 
o n e   b i g   d a m   w i t h   a   l e n g t h   o f   a b o u t   3 0 0   m e t re s   we re   f i n a n ce d   i n   o rd e r   to   h u m i d i f y   t h e 
d e t e r i o r a t e d   p e a t   l a ye r.   at   t h e   t i m e   o f   t h e   a u d i t   v i s i t ,   t h e   b i g   d a m   h a d   b e e n   b re a c h e d 
bec au se  of   th e  water  p ress ure,  a ccord in g   to  t he   be n e fi c iar y. Th e   proj e c t   tea m   h ad  tr ied 
to   re p a ir   i t   w i t h   a   wo o d e n  st ru c t ure  re in forci ng   t he   s he et   pi le s,  bu t   t he   re in fo rced   d am 
ha d  b ro ken  o nce  ag ain.  as  st ate d  by  th e   proje c t   te am ,  th e re  we re  p lan s  to  t r y  to  recon-
struc t the dam once again with national funds the following year. The broken dam shows 
that  t he  cor resp onding   ac tio n  of   t he   proj ec t   h as  not   at ta in ed   i t s  ob j ec t i ve. Th e  m onitor 
h a d   ve r i f i e d   t h e   e x i s t e n c e   o f   t h e   d a m   a f t e r   i t   w a s   b u i l t ,   b u t   s u b s e q u e n t   v i s i t s   h a d   n o t 
re p o r t e d   o n   i t s   c o l l a p s e   o r   i t s   a d ve r s e   e f fe c t   o n   t h e   re s t o r a t i o n   o f   t h e   h a b i t a t .   n e i t h e r 
t h e   f i n a l   te c h n i c a l   re p o r t   by   t h e   b e n e f i c i a r y   n o r   t h e   m o n i to r i n g   re p o r t   by   t h e   Co m m i s -
sion  ever  m ent io ned th is fac t.   

special report no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special report no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
24

o u tco m e   i n d i c Ato r s  to   b e   d e v eL oPe d

37.  

38.  

39.  

 T h e   p r e r e q u i s i t e   f o r   e f f e c t i v e   m o n i t o r i n g   i s   t h e   d e f i n i t i o n   o f   a 
s e t   o f   c l e a r   i n d i c ato r s   a n d   a s s e s s m e nt   c r i te r i a .  Th e   gra nt   a gre e -
ment   sho ul d  des cr ibe  the  key  ac t io ns   and  res ult s  to  b e  ass e ss ed 
in  res p ec t   o f  e ach   rel ated   ind ividual  pro jec t   o bjec t ive.   however, 
for 9 o ut  o f t he 35 aud ited p roje c ts,  th e se  ind i c ator s  an d c r ite r ia 
we re   e i t h e r   n o t   d e f i n e d   o r   we re   n o t   a l w ays   a s s e s s e d   d u r i n g   t h e 
monito r ing.

 as   i n d i c ate d   h e re a f te r   ( p a ra gra p h s   3 9   a n d   4 0 )   t h e   a u d i t   s h owe d 
that exper tise for defining useful indicators for the assessment of 
proj ec t   impa c t  is   avail ab l e  in  th e  european  environme nt   age nc y 
a n d   i n   t h e   e u r o p e a n  To p i c   Ce n t r e   o n   b i o l o g i c a l   d i v e r s i t y   b u t   i s 
not b e in g u sed by the Commiss i on  fo r  t h at  spe c if ic   pur po se.

 T h e   e u r o p e a n   To p i c   C e n t r e   a s s i s t s   t h e   e u r o p e a n   en v i r o n m e n t 
ag e n c y   by   p rov i d i n g   s c i e nt i f i c   a n d   te c h n i c a l   s u p p o r t   fo r   t h e   e s-
tablishment of the natura 2000 net wor k . This includes the devel -
o p m e n t   o f   g u i d a n c e   t o   s u p p o r t   r e p o r t i n g   o n   t h e   c o n s e r v a t i o n 
s t a t u s   o f   s p e c i e s   a n d   h a b i t a t s   u n d e r   ar t i c l e   1 7   o f   t h e   ha b i t a t ' s 
di r e c t i v e ,   t h e   m a n a g e m e n t   o f   r e f e r e n c e   d a t a b a s e s   (e u n i s  a n d 
natura 2000 database) and contributions to the  eea’s repor ts and 
work ing papers. The e TC is now developing indicators to contr ib -
u t e   t o   t h e   e v a l u a t i o n   o f   t h e   s i t u a t i o n   o f   b i o d i ve r s i t y   i n   e u ro p e, 
carried out within the scope of the ac tion plan entitled streamlin-
ing  e u rop ea n 2 01 0 biodivers it y  i n dicator s (s ebi 20 10 ). 

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
 
 
25

40.  

 The  firs t  re po r t s  fro m  th e  m em ber  st ates  prepared  in  t he  frame -
wo r k   o f   t h e   a b ove   m e nt i o n e d   ar t i c l e   1 7   we re   p re s e nte d   i n   ju n e 
2007. The information provided by those repor ts was verified and 
c h e c k e d   b y   t h e   e TC .   T h e   r e p o r t s   p r o v i d e   f o r   t h e   c l a s s i f i c a t i o n 
o f   t h e   d e g r e e   o f   t h r e a t   f o r   p a r t i c u l a r   s p e c i e s   a n d   h a b i t a t s   i n   a 
p a r t i c u l a r   r e g i o n   a n d   a t   e u  l e ve l.   ho we ve r,   t h e r e   i s   n o t   y e t   a ny 
practical implementation of this valuable indicator in the manage -
ment   p ro cess  of   li fe  p ro jec ts,  or   in  the   updating   of  th e  re le vant 
environmental legislation. one tool considered by the e TC, in or-
d e r   to   p rov i d e   a n a l y t i c a l   i n d i c ato r s   w h i c h   wo u l d   h e l p   i n   t h e   a s-
sessment/evaluation of the sustainability of a nature conser vation 
method/ac tion, is the eionet database of designated sites for the 
natura 2000 net wor k .  however, this database includes only basic 
infor m at io n  on   t he  l o cat io n  a nd  ch arac te r is tic s   o f  t he   s ites.  s ebi 
201 0  indic ato rs  are  in  t he  cou rse  of   be in g   f in al ise d,   yet   n o  cle a r 
indication has been provided on how they could be implemented 
in prac tice, nam ely  in  o rder to all ow for  t h e e val uati on of  t h e e f-
fec t ivene ss o f biodivers it y co ns er vat ion  ac t io ns.

d i s s e m i nA t i o n   o f   r e s uL t s

41.  

 i n   e x a m i n i n g   w h e t h e r   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   a s s u re d   a n   e f fe c t i ve   d i s-
s e m i n a t i o n   o f   p r o j e c t   r e s u l t s   a n d   l e s s o n s   l e a r n t ,   t h e   a u d i t   a s-
sess ed:

-  whether the Commission facilitates k nowledge transfer relat-
ed to lessons learnt and best prac tices to potential interested 
exp er t s at  t he  e uro p ean  le vel; an d

-  w h e t h e r   t h e   e s t a b l i s h e d   s t a n d a r d s   f o r   t h e   c o m m u n i c a t i o n 
to o ls  and ac t iv it ies  of the life-nat ure   proj e c ts  a re  ade quate 
for d iss eminat ing  p ro jec t  out put  a n d res ult s.

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
 
26

d i s s e m i nA t i o n   Ac t i v i t i e s   r eQu i r e   i mPr o v e m e n t

42.  

 T h e   l i f e   i i i   r e g u l a t i o n 1 7  s t a t e s   t h a t   ' [ … ]   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   s h a l l 
ensure that the results of all funded projec ts are disseminated to 
t h e   g e n e r a l   p u b l i c   a n d   s h a l l   f u r t h e r   d e m o n s t r a te   h ow   t h e   s k i l l s 
and  exp er ie nce gained may b e  repro duced  e lse wh ere.'  Th e  l ife+ 
re g u l a t i o n 1 8  a d d e d   a   n e w   c o m p o n e n t ,   s p e c i f i c a l l y   re l a t e d   t o   i n-
for mat ion and Co mmu nic ation (s e e  paragraph  2 ) . 

17  article 9 of regulation (eC) 

no 1655/2000, as amended by 

regulation (eC) no 1682/2004.

18  article 4 of regulation (eC) 

no 614/2007.

43.  

 Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   h a s   u n d e r t a k e n   a   n u m b e r   o f   a c t i v i t i e s   to   m a k e 
l i f e  k n o w n   a n d   t o   d i s s e m i n a t e   i n f o r m a t i o n   o n   t h e   p r o j e c t s   f i-
na nced. The  com munication  ac t iv it ie s a nd  tools  in clude :

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

a website containing a significant amount of infor mation, in-
cluding news, funding, publications, toolk its for beneficiaries 
fo r   t h e   p r o j e c t   m a n a g e m e n t   a n d   c o m m u n i c a t i o n   a c t i v i t i e s, 
li fe p ro jec t  datab ase,  and l ife by  countr y  and  by  t he me ;

a   l i f e  p ro j e c t   d a t a b a s e ,   w h i c h   i s   c u r re n t l y   t h e   m o s t   v i s i t e d 
s e c t i o n   o f   t h e   w e b s i t e ,   i n c l u d i n g   a   s u m m a r y   o f   e a c h   l i f e 
p ro j e c t   w i t h   a   s e c t i o n   i n t e n d e d   fo r   p u b l i s h i n g   a   l i n k   t o   t h e 
p r o j e c t   w e b s i t e,   a   la y m a n ' s   r e p o r t ,   a   v i d e o   a n d   a d d i t i o n a l 
do cu m ent at ion  on  the p roje c t ;   

p r i n t e d   p u b l i c a t i o n s ,   s u c h   a s   'l i f e  fo c u s '   w i t h   t w o   a n n u a l 
issues, an annual compilation of new projec ts selec ted and a 
natura 2000 newsletter issued twice a year in  english,  french, 
g er ma n, i t al ian and sp ani sh ;   

an el ec t ro nic  n ews  al er t distr ibute d m onth l y to an  e x te n si ve 
mail in g l ist;   

o r g a n i s a t i o n   o f   a n d   p a r t i c i p a t i o n   i n   m e e t i n g s   a n d   p u b l i c 
eve nt s to  p resent li f e in var ious m ember  states ; and,

-  m e d i a   a c t i o n s ,   s u c h   a s   t h e   a n n u a l   p r e s e n t a t i o n   o f   n e w 

p ro jec t s.

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
 
27

44.  

45.  

46.  

 moreover, the projec t beneficiaries are required to publish a dedi-
c a t e d   w e b s i t e   o r   a   s u b s i t e ,   s u b m i t   a u d i o v i s u a l   m a t e r i a l   t o   t h e 
Co m m i s s i o n ,   a c k n ow l e d g e   e u  s u p p o r t   i n   t h e i r   co m m u n i c a t i o n s, 
e re c t   a n d   m a i nt a i n   n o t i ce   b o a rd s   a n d   s u b m i t   a   l ay m a n’s   r e p o r t 
at t he  pro jec t  cl os ure.

19  The Commission contracted 

an external evaluation of the 

relevance and impact of the life 

communication activities for the 

period 2000-2007, which was 

finalised in august 2008. The projects 

surveyed for the evaluation were 

selected predominantly from among 

good practice projects in terms of 

content or communication practices.

 Cur rently, the Commission’s communication ac tivities focus pr in-
c i p a l l y   o n   m a k i n g   t h e   l i f e  i n s t r u m e n t   k n ow n   i n   g e n e r a l   a n d   o n 
pro mo t in g  a  numb er  o f  s elec ted  e xam ples   of   l ife  projec ts,  both 
at the level of the life website and in its printed publications. The 
requirement for the projec t beneficiar ies to publish their projec t 
o u t p u t s   i s   v i a   a   p ro j e c t   we b s i te   a n d   a   lay m a n’s   r e p o r t .  Th e re   i s 
no requirement to disseminate lessons learnt or detailed technical 
infor mation and, in prac tice, this k nowledge is rarely made avail-
a b l e.   di f f i c u l t i e s   o r   f a i l u re s   w i t h   t e c h n i q u e s   a n d   d e m o n s t r a t i ve 
a p p r o a c h e s   u s e d   m a y   t h u s   b e   r e p e a t e d   a c r o s s   e u r o p e   w i t h o u t 
k n o w l e d g e   o f   t h e   l e s s o n s   a l re a d y   l e a r n t   i n   c o m p a r a b l e   c i rc u m-
stance s.  fun ds  and  time  wo uld   be  was te d  i f  a cc um ulate d  k n ow l-
edg e and expe r ience o n p rac tices  i s n ot  system ati cally  colle c ted 
an d acces sibl e fo r b o th fail u res an d  bes t  prac ti ce s.

 i n   a d d i t i o n ,   t h e   c u r re n t   co m m u n i c a t i o n   to o l s   –   s u c h   a s   t h e   l i f e 
website and database, life  focus, projec t websites – do not gen-
e r a l l y   p rov i d e   t h e   l e ve l   o f   te c h n i c a l / s c i e n t i f i c   d e t a i l   t h a t   wo u l d 
be necessar y to make the acquired k nowledge and exper ience on 
methods and techniques used systematically available to potential 
u s e r s.  Th e   d i s s e m i n at i o n   m ate r i a l   re l at i n g   to   t h e   p ro j e c t s   e x a m-
ined   is  mo stl y  o f  a  g eneral   natu re   an d  n ot   t arg ete d  at   ex per ts.  a 
sur vey per formed by external evaluators 19 revealed a lack of detail 
t o   b e   a   g e n e r a l   i s s u e   a n d   w a s   c o n s i d e r e d   a   p a r t i c u l a r   p r o b l e m 
w i t h   t h e   l i f e   d a t a b a s e   b y   6 6   %   o f   i t s   u s e r s.  T h i s   w a s   c o n f i r m e d 
dur ing  th e on-t he - sp ot  visits ( se e B ox  6) .

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
 
 
28

47.  

48.  

 fur th er m ore,  a  nu mb er  of  li fe-nat ure   proj ec ts   finan ce  the   co m-
pilation of best prac tice management guidance manuals or other 
technic al/s cientific p ub lic at ions in  t he  nat ion al lang uag e, base d 
on  ex ten sive  res earc h wor k . however, thes e man uals are no t s ys-
t e m a t i c a l l y   m a d e   a v a i l a b l e   o n   t h e   p r o j e c t   w e b s i t e   o r   t h e   l i f e 
d a t a b a s e   o r   t r a n s l a t e d .   a s   s u c h ,   t h e   a d d e d   v a l u e   a n d   e x p e r t 
k n o w l e d g e   g a i n e d   i s   n o t   s y s t e m a t i c a l l y   e x p l o i t e d   t o   a c h i e v e   a 
mul tip l ier effec t .

20  mid-term evaluation of the 

implementation of the life financial 

instrument (july 2003), pages 12 

and 14.

 pro jec t   be ne ficiar ies   and  t heir  e xpe r ts   ne t wor k   wit h  o t he r s  wit h 
va r y i n g   d e gre e s   o f   s u cce s s.   acco rd i n g   to   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n’s   m i d -
t e r m   e v a l u a t i o n   o f   t h e   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   o f   l i f e  i n   2 0 0 3 ,   m o s t 
s t a k e h o l d e r s   s u r ve ye d   c o n s i d e re d   t h e   l a c k   o f   e u  l e ve l   n e t wo r k -
i n g   a s   b e i n g   a m o n g   t h e   k e y   b a r r i e r s   f o r   t r a n s n a t i o n a l   d e b a t e s 
o n   l i f e  i s s u e s 2 0.   d e s p i te   t h e   e x i s t i n g   n e t wo r k s   o f   s c i e n t i s t s   a n d 
specialised organisations, projec t beneficiar ies and their exper ts 
und er l ined  th e  im p o r t a nce  o f   e u   level  net wor k ing   a nd  th e  n ee d 
to overco me any b ar r iers.

b o x   6

co s t   e f f e c t i v e   An d   e f f i c i e n t   –   b u t   n ot   d i s s e m i nA t e d

m ost of the beneficiar ies audited had made significant effor ts to implement the projec ts 
in a  co st- e ffe c tive manner.

on e   p ro j e c t ,   w h i c h   i s   s i t u ate d   i n   a   h i g h l y   u r b a n i s e d   a re a   w i t h   a   l o t   o f   re c re at i o n a l   u s e, 
n e e d e d   t o   k e e p   t h e   l o c a l   p o p u l a t i o n   i n fo r m e d   a b o u t   t h e   p ro g re s s   o f   t h e   c o n s e r v a t i o n 
m e a s u r e s   i m p l e m e n t e d .   To   a v o i d   t h e   p r o d u c t i o n   o f   u p d a t e d   i n f o r m a t i o n   p a n e l s ,   t h e 
pro jec t   be ne fic iar ies  p u rc hased   a  s i te   i nfor mati on   pan e l  w he re  t hey   n oted   down   up -to -
date info r mat io n ab out  p ro jec t  progre ss. Th e i n for mat ion  on  t he pan el could b e d eleted 
an d u pd ated to  p rovide details on  proje c t  progres s.

The same project used material from other project works to create a natural viewing point, 
t h e re by   s av i n g   m o n e y   w h i c h   wo u l d   o t h e r w i s e   h ave   b e e n   u s e d   to   t ra n s p o r t   a n d   d e p o s i t 
the  mater ial  el sew here and to b ui ld  in s te ad  an  ex pen s ive  obs er vat i on  tower. 

another projec t developed a ver y cost- efficient method to regulate water levels by using 
simp l e el b ow  pip es  instead  of th e  cos tl y  tradi ti onal  bar rag es.

su ch te chniqu es were commu n icated  to ot h er  nation a l proje c t s,  b ut  were n ot  des cr ib ed 
on t he  webs ite  n o r sp read to a wi de r  public. 

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
 
29

49.  

50.  

Kn o W Le dGe  t r An s f e r   r eQu i r e s   r e v i s e d   co m m u n i-
c At i o n   s tAn d Ar d s

 The communication standards 21 established by the Commission for 
t h e   d i s s e m i n a t i o n   o f   p ro j e c t   re s u l t s   c a n   b e   i m p ro ve d   t o   e n s u re 
t h at   t h e   p ro j e c t   o u t p u t   a n d   re s u l t s   a re   a d e q u ate l y   a cce s s i b l e   to 
a c h i e v e   a   w i d e r   k n o w l e d g e   t r a n s fe r.   i n   p r a c t i c e   i t   i s   l e f t   t o   t h e 
discretion of each projec t beneficiar y to deal with the dissemina -
tion ac tivities as they consider appropriate. as a consequence, the 
e m p h a s i s   o n   co m m u n i c a t i o n   i n   te r m s   o f   vo l u m e,   t a rg e t   gro u p s, 
p r o fe s s i o n a l i s m   a n d   p r o j e c t   m a n a g e m e n t   a t t e n t i o n   d i f fe r s   s i g-
nific antl y be t we en p rojec t s of te n o nly  rea c hin g t he  re gion al and 
natio nal  l evels.

21  standard administrative 

provisions, articles 11, 16 and 18 

(2000-2006), article 13 (2007).

 si n ce   l i f e  i i i  r e g u l at i o n   (eC )   no   1 6 5 5 / 2 0 0 0 ,   i t   i s   co m p u l s o r y   fo r 
a l l   l i f e   n a t u r e   p r o j e c t   b e n e f i c i a r i e s   t o   c r e a t e   a n d   m a i n t a i n   a 
p ro j e c t   we b s i te   u nt i l   p ro j e c t   c l o s u re,   t h e   m a i nte n a n ce   o f   w h i c h 
has subsequently been ex tended until five years af ter the closure 
b y   r e g u l a t i o n   (eC )   no   6 1 4 / 2 0 0 7   o n   l i f e+ .   ho w e v e r,   t h e   c h o i c e 
gi ve n   to   t h e   p ro j e c t   b e n e f i c i a r i e s   to   i n c l u d e   t h e   p ro j e c t- re l ate d 
information on webpages of their own website considerably limits 
the effec tiveness of this tool. i t is of ten difficult to access or even 
d i s t i n g u i s h   t h e   p r o j e c t - r e l a t e d   i n fo r m a t i o n   w h e n   i t   i s   m e r e l y   a 
sec tion on a major website run by a local communit y, regional or 
natio na l aut ho r it y o r a majo r n go . 

51.  

 m o s t   o f   t h e   b e n e f i c i a r i e s   v i s i te d   h a d   d e ve l o p e d   co m m u n i c at i o n 
a c t i v i t i e s   a n d   to o l s   a i m i n g   at   h e l p i n g   t h e m   to   o b t a i n   t h e   a gre e -
m e nt   a n d   a c t i ve   i nvo l ve m e nt   o f   t h e   l o c a l   p o p u l at i o n   a n d   s t a k e -
h o l d e r s.  T h e s e   i n c l u d e   m e d i a   a c t i o n s ,   p u b l i c a t i o n   o f   b r o c h u r e s 
and  d isp lay mater ial s,  org anisati on  o f  m e eti n gs  a n d con fe re nces 
for  var ie d  t arg et   grou p s  and  th e  c re at ion   o f  a  proj e c t  we bsi te  o r 
sub site  fo r disseminating p ro je c t- re lated  i n for mat io n.

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
 
 
30

52.  

 The professional quality of these projec t websites also varied con-
siderably in prac tice, ranging from a simple webpage presenting a 
few photographs, up to a state - of-the ar t interac tive site. as there 
was no minimum web content requirement until 2007 22, there was 
n o   g u a ra nte e   t h at   t h e   k e y   p ro j e c t   d o c u m e nt at i o n   i s   m a d e   ava i l-
a b l e   o n   t h e   p ro j e c t   we b s i te s,   a s   wa s   t h e   c a s e   i n   ove r   h a l f   o f   t h e 
we b s i t e s   o f   t h e   3 5   p ro j e c t s   v i s i t e d   o n - t h e - s p o t   ( s e e   B ox   7) .   fo r 
i n s t a n ce,   fo r   f i ve   o u t   o f   t h e   s i x   p ro j e c t s   a u d i te d   i n   g e r m a ny   d e -
ta ile d info r mat ion on the o utputs  an d  re s ults  was  n ot acces si ble 
on  t he p roj ec t  web sites. 

22  minimum requirements 'project 

activities, progress and results' were 

introduced by article 13.4 of the 2007 

Common provisions.

53.  

 o v e r a l l ,   t h e   t r a n s f e r   o f   p r o j e c t   r e s u l t s ,   i n   t e r m s   o f   k n o w l e d g e 
gained during the projec t c ycle, is highly dependent on the com-
munication initiatives car r ied out at the projec t level, which var y 
a lot , a nd do n ot  al ways inc l u de  rel evant k ey  i nfor mati on . 

b o x   7

P o o r   d i s s e m i nA t i o n   o f  t h e   Pr o j e c t   r e s uL t s 

one projec t audited having an eu contribution of more than 1 million euro had among its 
s p e c i f i c   o b j e c t i ve s :   to   p ro m o te   g o o d   p ra c t i ce   fo r   t h e   m a n a g e m e nt   o f   a c t i ve   ra i s e d   b o g 
habitats through demonstration to other similar projec ts both in the countr y and in other 
relevant m ember states and through hosting a website; to promote good prac tice for the 
management of this habitat on other sites; and to raise awareness nationally, regionally, 
and  w ithin lo cal  co mmunities ab out  th e  i nter nat ion al  impor t an ce  of  a c t ive rais ed  bogs.

The   diss eminat ion   ac tivities   of  th e  be ne f ic i ar y  con sis ted   of  t h e  p rodu c t ion   of   a  n umb er 
of fac t sheets, a conference organised for other site managers to disseminate the projec t 
res ul t s and the  b est p rac tice ga i ne d and a numbe r  of  loc a l open  d ays  to a var i ed pub lic. 
The projec t website was launched in 2002 and went offline in 2003, just before the projec t 
c l o s u re.  T h e   l i f e  d a t a b a s e   d o e s   n o t   c o n t a i n   a ny   i n fo r m a t i o n   re l a t e d   t o   t h i s   p ro j e c t .   i n 
s h o r t ,   t h e   w i d e r   k n o w l e d g e   t r a n s f e r   e n v i s a g e d   w a s   n o t   a t t a i n e d   s i n c e   t h e   i d e n t i f i e d 
g o o d   p r a c t i c e s   a n d   e x p e r i e n c e   g a i n e d   t h ro u g h   t h e   p ro j e c t   h a ve   n o t   b e e n   s u c c e s s f u l l y 
diss em inate d. 

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
 
31

Lo nG -t e r m   mAnAGe m e n t   o f   Pr o j e c t   r e s uL t s

54.  

i n t his re g ard, t he au dit examin ed:

- 

- 

w het her t he Co mmissio n car r ies  out th e  fol low- up of  proje c t 
res ul t s;  and

w het her cons er vation meas ures  a re safe g uarde d be yon d  th e 
p ro jec t  end.

55.  

56.  

57.  

A f t e r - L i f e   f o L L o W - u P   W o u L d   c o n t r i b u t e   t o  
s u s tAi nAb iLi t y

 fo l l ow- u p   o f   p ro j e c t s   by   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   a f te r   t h e i r   co m p l e t i o n 
wo u l d   e n c o u r a g e   s u s t a i n a b i l i t y.   b e c a u s e   o f   t h e   i n h e re n t   n a t u re 
o f   c o n s e r v a t i o n   m e a s u r e s ,   r e s u l t s   a r e   v e r y   o f t e n   o n l y   a t t a i n e d 
a n d   v i s i b l e   a f te r   a   ce r t a i n   l a p s e   o f   t i m e.   i t   t a k e s   t i m e   to   re s to re 
plant species and habitats after per forming extensive inter vention 
m e a s u re s   s u c h   a s,   fo r   e x a m p l e,   t h e   l o g g i n g   o f   t re e s   a n d   b u s h e s 
i n   o r d e r   t o   t u r n   a   m o n o c u l t u r a l   c o n i fe r o u s   fo r e s t   b a c k   i n t o   t h e 
n u t r i e n t- p o o r   m o o r   l a n d s   i t   u s e d   to   b e.   si m i l a r l y,   b i rd s   m ay   n o t 
imm ediatel y breed in a res tored  we t lan d.

 pa r t i c u l a r l y   i n   t h e   c a s e   o f   h a b i t a t s   t h a t   re q u i re   re c u r re n t   c a re  – 
s u c h   a s   d r y   g r a s s l a n d s ,   h e a t h   l a n d   o r   r a i s e d   b o g s   t h a t   m i g h t 
 o t h e r w i s e   o v e r g r o w   o r   b e   q u i c k l y   j e o p a r d i s e d   b y   i nv a s i v e   v e g-
e t a t i o n   –   t h e   r i s k   i s   h i g h   t h a t   l i f e - f i n a n ce d   i nve s t m e n t s   d o   n o t 
ult imatel y  s ucce ed  if  by   t he  end   o f   t he   proj e c t  th e   n ece ss ar y   o r-
ganisational and financial struc tures are not in place to maintain 
th em. 

 a s   a   c o n s e q u e n c e ,   t h e   e x p e c t e d   r e s u l t s   i n d i c a t e d   i n   t h e   g r a n t 
a g r e e m e n t   w i l l ,   i n   c e r t a i n   c a s e s ,   o n l y   b e   v i s i b l e   w e l l   a f t e r   t h e 
p r o j e c t   c l o s u r e .   ho w e v e r,   a f t e r   t h e   f i n a l   p a y m e n t   t h e   C o m m i s-
sion’s ser vices do not necessarily remain in contac t with the ben-
eficiaries or monitor the projec ts and, as a result, the Commission 
does  n ot  k now  t he res ul ts  and lon g- te r m  i mpac t  of  cons e r vat io n 
mea su res fu nde d by  li fe-nature. 

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
 
 
 
32

d r y   G r A s s L A n d  W i t h  W i L d   o r c h i d s   c L e A r e d   f r o m   s c r u b s . 
r e c u r r e n t   c A r e   i s   c r u c i A L  to 
Av o i d   o v e r G r o W i n G   A n d   i n vA s i v e  v e G e tAt i o n

S o urce: european Court of auditors.

58.  

59.  

 i n some cases, the last check by the monitors is per formed before 
all  invest me nt s  and   p l anned  ac ti on s  h ave  be en   comple te d.   eve n 
tho u gh   s ome   of   th ese  ac t ion s  m ay   n ot   i ncur   e xpen d iture   or   m ay 
only be finalised af ter the projec t closure 23, their implementation 
m a y   b e   a n   i m p o r t a n t   c o n d i t i o n   t o   e n s u r e   t h e   c o n t i n u i t y   o f   t h e 
proj ec t  resu lt s.

23  for instance, the closure of 

extensive management contracts 

will only take place after the life 

actions have been implemented, but 

they do fi nally ensure the use of land 

for the specifi c nature conservation 

objectives.

 i n   2 0 0 5 ,   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   i nt ro d u ce d   a n   'af te r- l i f e   co n s e r vat i o n 
plan' as a contrac tu al  ob l igation  for  all ne w l i fe - n ature  proj ec t s 
i n   w h i c h   t h e   b e n e f i c i a r y   h a s   t o   o u t l i n e   f u r t h e r   o b j e c t i v e s   a n d , 
above al l, d etail  its  p l ans  fo r secur i n g fur t he r  s ource s of fun di ng 
for s us taining t he manag em ent of th e proje c t  be yond l ife  f un d -
i n g.   as   s u c h ,   t h e   e s t a b l i s h m e nt   o f   af te r- l i f e   co n s e r vat i o n   p l a n s 
c a n   b e   a   g o o d   s t a r t i n g   p o i n t   a n d   a   u s e f u l   c o n t r i b u t i o n   t o   t h e 
sus t ainabil it y  o f  t he  p rojec t  res ults.   howe ver,   th e  pl ans   may   n o t 
be effec tive in ensuring sustainabilit y since their implementation 
is neit her co mpu l so r y  no r ver ifie d by  t h e Com mi ss ion  se r vi ce s. 

special report no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special report no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
 
33

co n s e r vAt i o n m eAs u r e s  n ot sAf eGu Ar d e d  b e yo n d 
Pr o j e c t   e n d

60.  

 ke y   c o n d i t i o n s   fo r   t h e   l o n g - t e r m   s u s t a i n a b i l i t y   o f   c o n s e r v a t i o n 
meas ures rel ate  to  p ro jec t des ign  an d ne e d to be  d eal t wi th  well 
before projec t closure by the Commission’s ser vices. They may be 
def ined as fol l ows:

24  paragraph 64: 'due to the 

limited number and extent of the 

checks carried out for these two 

directives, only a very low number of 

infringements was detected in 2005 

- 

- 

- 

t he  grant  agreem ents   co mmit  th e   be ne f ic iar i e s /par tn er s   be -
yo nd  the  p roj ec t c l os ure;

and 2006. for example, in finland, 

france, greece and slovenia not a 

t he u se o f l and an d du rab le go ods  allocated  to  th e  proje c t  is 
re s e r ve d   fo r   t h e   co r re s p o n d i n g   co n s e r vat i o n   p u r p o s e s   fo r   a 
reas on ab le  pe r iod  of  t ime ;

rec ur rent  manag ement  contrac ts,  par t ne r s h ips  an d  a r ran g e -
m e n t s   f o r   c o o p e r a t i o n   e s t a b l i s h e d   b y   t h e   b e n e f i c i a r y   a r e 
l ike ly  to  co nt inue b eyon d th e  proje c t e nd ; 

single infringement was detected in 

11 633 cross compliance checks for 

the birds directive and 14 896 checks 

for the habitats directive.'  

(http://www.eca.europa.eu)

-  man ag eme nt   pl ans,   draw n  up  dur in g  th e   l ife  proj ec t  imple -
me nt at io n  p er io d  are  ap proved  by   th e   co mpete nt   publ ic   au-
t ho r it ies.

61.  

62.  

 b e n e f i c i a r i e s   a re   n e i t h e r   o b l i g e d   by   t h e   l e gi s l at i o n   n o r   by   o t h e r 
effec tive means obliged to sustain the financed measures. This is 
the case even when beneficiaries are public entities or the projec t 
is  ca r r ied  o u t  wit hin  a  nat u ra  200 0   site,  thus  cont r ibu ti ng   to  th e 
fulf il ment  o f t he general  co nse r vati on o blig ati ons  of  t h e re spe c -
tive m em b er st ate.

 The reg u lator y requ irem ent s for  f in an ci ng  l ife-nat ure  cons er va-
tion  p roj ec t s rel at in g to th e bird s and  habitat s  direc t ives cle ar ly 
m a k e   t h e   m e m b e r   st a t e s   r e s p o n s i b l e   fo r   p r e v e n t i n g   t h e   d e g r a-
datio n o f the  co ns er vat io n st atu s of s pe c i fi c s peci es.  i n  prac tice, 
h owe ve r,   t h i s   ove ra l l   re s p o n s i b i l i t y   d o e s   n o t   o b l i g e   t h e   m e m b e r 
st a te s   to   a l l o c a te   t h e   o rg a n i s a t i o n a l   a n d   f i n a n c i a l   re s o u rce s   re -
q u i re d   fo r   t h e   i n d i v i d u a l   p ro j e c t s   f i n a n c e d   t h ro u g h   t h e   l i f e  i n-
s t r u m e n t .   m o r e o v e r,   w e a k n e s s e s   a f f e c t i n g   t h e   e n f o r c e m e n t   o f 
these direc tives have been the subjec t of recent obser vations by 
t h e   C o u r t :   t h e   c h e c k s   c a r r i e d   o u t   fo r   c r o s s - c o m p l i a n c e   f a r m i n g 
obligations were low in number and qualit y (see the Cour t ’s spe -
cial r ep o r t  8/ 2008 'is  cro ss  co mplian ce  an  e f fec t ive pol ic y ?' 24) .

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
 
 
34

63.  

 Contrar y to the conditions relating to the other eu funds, such as 
eafrd, beneficiaries are not legally obliged to ensure the durabil-
i t y   o f   t h e   p ro j e c t s’  a c t i v i t i e s   fo r   a   m i n i m u m   p e r i o d 2 5,   e ve n   w h e n 
s u b s t a n t i a l   l i f e  f u n d s   we re   u s e d   to   f i n a n ce   l a n d   p u rc h a s e s   a n d 
t h e   a cq u i s i t i o n   o f   d u ra b l e   g o o d s.   i n   fo u r   p ro j e c t s,   t h e   p u rc h a s e 
of land was not appropr iately safeguarded by an effec tive nature 
conse r vat ion  cl aus e in  t he l and  regis te r s, al th oug h t hi s is a le g al 
requirement for life financing 26. moreover, five of the projec ts' in-
vestments audited were carried out on third par t y proper t y with-
out any contrac tual safeguarding of the continuit y of the related 
conse r vatio n meas ures. 

25  article 72 of Council 

regulation (eC) no 1698/2005 of 

20 september 2005 on support 

for rural development by the 

european agricultural fund for rural 

development (eafrd)  

(oj l 277, 21.10.2005, p. 1).

26  for three of these projects in 

germany, the conservation clause 

was registered in favour of the 

corresponding Land without binding 

conditions on the future use of the 

land for nature conservation.

b o x   8

no   e f f e c t i v e   s t r u c t u r e   s e t   uP  to   e n s u r e   s u s tAi nAb iLi t y   o f 
r e s uL t s

The  b en eficiar y  of   one  p roj ec t  audi ted   e u  finan c ing  amountin g  to  0,5   mi llio n  e uro,  had 
established the following agreements and arrangements to guarantee the long-term main-
ten ance  o f t he  t arget  hab itat :

• 

• 

s tew ardship  a g re e m e nt s w i th  la n d ow n e r s f o r  m aint ainin g  m e a d ow s  an d k a r s t  p o n ds , 
si g n e d  in 20 05  f o r a p e r i o d o f  f i ve ye ar s;

inclusion of the landowners who had par ticipated in the project in the agri-environmental 
p ro g r amm e, t arg e tin g th e p roj e c t  ha b i t at  f o r  th e  p e r i o d  o f  f i ve   ye ar s;

•  a n   a g r e e m e n t   t o   s e l l   h a y   p r o d u c e d   b y   t h e   l a n d o w n e r s   t o   a   s t u d   f a r m ,   i n   o r d e r   t o 

guar ante e th e  re m ov al  o f th e  g r ass;

• 

l e a s e   a g r e e m e nt   w i t h   a n   a g r a r i a n   co m m u n i t y   f o r   a n   e x h i b i t i o n   r o o m   f o r   a   p e r i o d   o f 
f i ve  ye ar s .

however, monitor ing of the implementation of the stewardship agreements is done only 
on   no n-fo r m al  b as is,   sin ce  the   be ne f ic iar y  ( a  univer s it y)   is   no   lo nge r  re pre sente d  in  the 
area and the projec t managers are no longer employed by the beneficiar y. The inspec tors 
of the national super vision scheme check the implementation of the agr i- environmental 
s c h e m e,   y e t   t h e   o b j e c t i v e s   s e t   a r e   o f   g e n e r a l   n a t u r e   a n d   n o t   a l w a y s   a p p l i c a b l e   t o   t h e 
specificit y of the targeted habitat in the life projec t. an agreement bet ween landowners 
a n d   a   s t u d   f a r m   t o   p u rc h a s e   t h e   m ow n   h ay   w a s   n e ve r   p u t   i n to   p r a c t i c e.  Th e   e x h i b i t i o n 
roo m st il l  ho u ses th e exh ib itio n a bout  t he  ' k ar st  e dge ' ( roc k y prom ontor y)  an d t h e  k a rst 
pon ds,  b ut  is  n ot op en to  t he g en eral public.   

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
35

64.  

65.  

 a s   o b s e r ve d   d u r i n g   t h e   o n - t h e - s p o t   a u d i t s,   i t   i s   s o m e t i m e s   d i f -
f i c u l t   t o   r a i s e   f u n d s   f o r   t h e   c o n t i n u a t i o n   a n d   f o l l o w - u p   o f   t h e 
c o n s e r v a t i o n   m e a s u r e s .   T h e   a u d i t   f o u n d   6   c a s e s   a m o n g   t h e   1 8 
clos ed  l ife-n at ure  p roj ec ts  audi ted   in   wh i ch  t h e  m anag e r s  we re 
unable to secure the necessar y funds to sustain the projec t during 
the   year  fol low in g  its   c l os ure.  m ore ove r,   in   on e  c ase   th e   fa r me r s 
i nvo l ve d   i n   t h e   p ro j e c t   s t ate d   t h e i r   i nte nt i o n   to   d i s co nt i n u e   t h e 
a c t i o n s   f i n a n ce d   o n ce   t h e   p ay m e n t s   ce a s e   a s   t h e y   h ave   n o   e co -
nom ic incentive to  contin ue t he  de si re d ac t iv it ie s  (s ee  B ox   8).

 one aspect highlighted is the inability of small ngos to ensure the 
con ser vatio n o f the p ro jec t result s d ue  to a lac k of  own  f in an c ia l 
re s o u rce s.   i n   o n e   c a s e,   i t   wa s   fo u n d   t h at   t h e   o n l y   s o u rce   o f   re v -
e n u e   w a s   t h e   l i f e   gra nt   ( i n c l u d i n g   t h e   co m p l e m e nt a r y   n at i o n a l 
financial contribution) and, in another case revenue was basically 
lim ited to p ub l ic grants to  o ngoi ng  proje c t s.  Th i s m ean s t h at t h e 
r isk s  to t he p ro jec t  are ver y  h igh  on ce  e u f in an c in g  ce as es.

m A n AG e m e n t   P L A n s   A r e   i m P o r tA n t   A s  t h e y   o r G A n i s e   A n d 
co m m i t  t h e   Au t h o r i t i e s ,  e n s u r i n G  t h At  t h e   P r o j e c t   r e s u Lt s   A r e 
L A s t i n G

special report no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special report no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

S o urce: european Court of auditors.

 
 
36

66.  

67.  

 32 projec ts audited include the preparation of management plans 
( s e e   A n n e x   I I I) .   su c h   m a n a g e m e n t   p l a n s   a r e   i m p o r t a n t   a s   t h e y 
organise and commit the author ities to ensur ing that the projec t 
re s u l t s   a re   l a s t i n g.   i f   a p p ro ve d   by   t h e   m e m b e r   st a t e,   t h e y   c o m-
m i t   n a t i o n a l   a u t h o r i t i e s   t o   a l l o c a t i n g   t h e   s i t e s   c o n c e r n e d   t o   a 
p e r m a n e n t   s t r u c t u r e   ( o r g a n i s a t i o n a l   a n d   f i n a n c i a l )   r e s p o n s i b l e 
for as su r ing  co nt inu it y of the proj e c ts’ re sul ts. Th es e pl an s h ave, 
however, generally not been approved, and with the phasing out 
o f   t h e   l i f e  f u n d i n g   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   h a s   n o t   s y s t e m a t i c a l l y   fo l-
lowed  up  their imp l ementation. 

 T h e   m e m b e r   s t a t e s   h a v e   n o t   a p p r o v e d   t h e   m a n a g e m e n t   p l a n s 
f o r   a l l   t h e   r e l e v a n t   p r o j e c t   s i t e s   ( e . g .   f i v e   p r o j e c t s   i n   b e l g i u m 
a n d   fo u r   p r o j e c t s   i n   s l o v e n i a ) .   a s   a   c o n s e q u e n c e,   a n   i m p o r t a n t 
b a s i s   fo r   t h e   o n - g o i n g   m a n a g e m e n t   o f   t h e   s i t e s   c o n c e r n e d   h a s 
n o t   b e e n   e s t a b l i s h e d.   fi n a l l y,   b e n e f i c i a r i e s   f a c e d   d i f f i c u l t i e s   i n 
s e e k i n g   co - f i n a n c i n g   fo r   o n - g o in g   m a n a g e m e nt   co nt ra c t s   u n de r 
agr i- e nviro nment al  measu res  ( s ee B ox   9) .

b o x 9

no   f i nAn c i nG   As s u r e d   Af t e r  t h e   Pr o j e c t   e n d

one of the main objec tives of a projec t audited which received more than 1 million euro 
of eu contribution, was to develop an integrated management approach for the targeted 
natura 2000 site, with the establishment of agreements with farmers to implement various 
t ype s o f manag ement measu res to prote c t  th e t arg e ted  s pe c ie s. Th e ex per i en ces gained 
would then be used to define agri- environmental measures to protect the targeted species 
and to define agri- environmental measures to be used for similar cases. agreements were 
re a c h e d   w i t h   f a r m e r s   a n d   f i n a n c i a l   co m p e n s a t i o n   w a s   a l l o c a te d   fo r   t h e   p ro j e c t   p e r i o d. 
however, no infor mation was available in respec t of the concrete development of subse -
q u e nt   a gr i - e nv i ro n m e nt a l   m e a s u re s   by   l o c a l   f a r m e r s.   Co n s e q u e nt l y,   t h e re   i s   n o   re a s o n-
able g u arantee  that  t he res ul ts  ach ie ved  by  t h e proj ec t wi ll be cont i n ued,  i nc lud ing t he 
diss em inat io n o f the les s ons  lear n ed  a n d,  th e refo re,  in for m ati on   on  i t s  ef fec t iveness. 

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
 
ConClusions  and 
reC ommendaTions

37

68.  

69.  

70.  

71.  

72.  

 l i f e-na t u r e   g r a n t s   c o n t r i b u t e   t o   t h e   b i o d i v e r s i t y   c o n s e r v a t i o n 
e f fo r t   b y   e n h a n c i n g   t h e   e u  m e m b e r   st a t e s’  a c t i o n s   a n d   b y   s u p -
por t ing   t he  co mmitment  o f  many   c it ize ns  an d  t he ir   as soci ati on s 
in f avo ur of t he  p res er vat io n of  s pe ci es  a n d h abit at s.

 life-nature is complex: projects deal with many different realities, 
a re   p ro m o te d   by   va r i o u s   t y p e s   o f   b e n e f i c i a r i e s   a n d   s h o u l d   h ave 
a   s u s t a i n a b l e   i m p a c t   o n   s p e c i f i c   s p e c i e s   a n d   h a b i t at s,   i n c l u d i n g 
through the dissemination of the results achieved and the lessons 
lea r ne d.

 since  t he firs t li f e ins t ru ment  was  i nt rod uce d i n  19 92 ,  t h e  Com-
m i s s i o n   h a s   p ro gre s s i ve l y   d e ve l o p e d   a n d   i m p rove d   i t s   m a n a g e -
m e n t   a n d   co n t ro l   s ys t e m s,   i n t e r   a l i a  t a k i n g   i n to   a cco u n t   t h e   re -
sults of the Cour t ’s previous audits. however, the audit concluded 
that measures financed by life-nature are not, as yet, sufficiently 
safe gu arded  b eyo nd  p ro jec t com ple ti on  ( paragraph s  18  to  2 0) . 

seLe c t i o n   Pr o c e d u r e 

 T h e   s u s t a i n a b i l i t y - r e l a t e d   c r i t e r i a   a d o p t e d   f o r   t h e   s e l e c t i o n   o f 
lif e-natu re  p ro jec t s   b ecom e  l ess   re le va nt   w ith   l ife+ .  m oreover, 
since subcriter ia are not weighted it is not clear how projec ts are 
p e n a l i s e d   w h e n   t h e y   d o   n o t   s a t i s f y   o n e   o r   m o re   o f   t h e   re l e v a n t 
sub cr iter ia  (p aragrap hs 22 to 26 ). 

 The au dit  cou l d no t find any  evi de nce of  t he  e xpe r t contr ibuti on 
by the european environment  agenc y or the european Topic Cen-
t re   o n   bi o l o g i c a l   di ve r s i t y   t o   t h e   d e s i g n   o f   t h e   s e l e c t i o n   m o d e l 
adopted (or to any other aspec t of life projec t management) de -
spite the fac t that the life instrument absorbs 70 % of the budget 
man ag ed by dg e nv (p aragraph  2 7 ) . 

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
 
 
 
 
38

73.  

 The  Co mmiss io n  co nt rac ts   ex ter n al   e valuator s  for   th e  in de pe nd-
ent technical assessment of the projec t proposals received. how -
eve r,  the  p r io r itis ation  mod el   us ed   (cr iter i a,   subcr i ter i a,  we ig ht -
ing, scales, etc.) is not sufficiently detailed or transparent for the 
i nte re s te d   p u b l i c.   on   t h e   o t h e r   h a n d,   t h e   l e n g t hy   d e c i s i o n - m a k -
ing   pro ces s  for  grant  award s  som eti me s  af fec ts   t he   fe asi bili t y   of 
projec t implementation and undermines stakeholder involvement 
(paragrap h 28) .

27  special report no 11/2003, 

recommendation after paragraph 89.

re c o m m e n d At i o n   1

(i)  The Commission should review its selec tion model on the basis 
o f   a n   o p i n i o n   b y   a   p a n e l   o f   e x p e r t s,   i n c l u d i n g   a   c o n t r i b u t i o n 
from the european environm ent   agen c y  o r  th e europ ean  To p ic 
Centre on biological  diversit y, validate it and make it available 
to a ll interested par ties. 

(ii)  The model should prioritise life-nature project proposals which 
can give assurance as to the continuity of results. in this respec t 
t h e   C o u r t   s t r e s s e s   t h a t   i t   r e c o m m e n d s   t h a t   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n 
should examine whether it would be expedient to separate the 
management of the ‘nature’ and ‘enviro nm ent ’ strands,  i n vi ew 
o f   t h e i r   i n t r i n s i c   d i f f e r e n c e s ,   t h u s   f a v o u r i n g   t h e i r   l o n g   t e r m 
mana ge me nt 27.

(iii) po s s i b l e   w a y s   o f   s h o r t e n i n g   t h e   s e l e c t i o n   p r o c e d u r e   s h o u l d 
a l s o   b e   c o n s i d e r e d ,   n a m e l y   b y   t a k i n g   i n t o   a c c o u n t   s o l u t i o n s 
inspired by othe r grant schem es,  f in anced  f ro m  t h e eu bu dget 
a n d   by   re v i e w i n g   t h e   i n te r i n s t i t u t i o n a l   p ro ce e d i n g s   c u r re n t l y 
in force.

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
39

74.  

75.  

imP Le m e n t At i o n   o f   Pr o j e c t s

 T h e   o n - t h e - s p o t   v i s i t s   t o   3 5   p r o j e c t s   s h o w e d   t h a t   m o s t   o f   t h e 
foreseen investments had been implemented and were contribut-
ing to the improvement of the species’ and habitats’ conser vation 
status in natura 2000 sites.  however, several weak nesses affec ting 
th e p ro jec t  re sul ts  were ident ifi e d. Cer t ain  inve st ment s f i na nced 
h a d   re l a t i ve l y   l i m i t e d   i m p a c t   o n   t h e   t a rg e t e d   s p e c i e s   a n d   h a b i-
tat s,  eit her  t ak ing into accou nt  th ei r  e xce ssi ve  co st  or  due to th e 
h i g h   p ro b a b i l i t y   o f   t h e m   q u i c k l y   l o s i n g   i m p a c t   a f te r   co m p l e t i o n 
u n l e s s   n e c e s s a r y   m a i n t e n a n c e   w o r k   w a s   c a r r i e d   o u t .   m o r e o v e r, 
the conditions relevant for ensur ing the continuit y of the projec t 
res ul t s have no t  al ways b een ade quatel y  s afe guarde d.

 The project monitoring per formed by external nature conser vation 
exper ts focuses on check ing and repor ting on projec t progress in 
relation to the foreseen investments and actions. The achievement 
o f   t h e   s p e c i f i c   c o n s e r v a t i o n   o b j e c t i ve s   –   s u c h   a s   i m p rove m e n t s 
in the conser vation status of targeted species or habitats – is not 
a d e q u a t e l y   m o n i t o r e d .   T h e   p r o j e c t   p r o m o t e r s   a r e   n o t   r e q u i r e d 
t o   m o n i t o r   t h e   i m p a c t   o f   t h e   m e a s u r e s   o n   t h e   t a r g e t e d   s p e c i e s 
o r   h a b i t a t s .   a s   a   c o n s e q u e n c e ,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   i s   u s u a l l y   w e l l 
i n fo r m e d   o n   t h e   p ro g re s s   o f   t h e   i n d i v i d u a l   p ro j e c t   i nve s t m e n t s 
exec ute d b ut  it  does  not  disp ose  of  in for mati on  o n t he  e x tent to 
which targeted projec t results were in fac t achieved and on their 
impac t. moreover, effec tive monitoring requires a set of appropri-
a te   i n d i c a to r s   a n d   c r i te r i a   t o   b e   e s t a b l i s h e d   by   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n 
on   the   bas is   o f  exp er tise  available,   for   ins tan ce,   in   th e   european 
env i ro n m e nt   ag e n c y   a n d   eu ro p e a n  To p i c   Ce nt re   ( p a ra gra p h s   3 0 
to 40).

re c o m m e n d At i o n   2

(i)  T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   s h o u l d   t a k e   t h e   n e c e s s a r y   i n i t i a t i v e s   t o   i m -
prove   projec t  monitor ing  i n  resp e c t   o f   t he   re su lt s  ac h i eve d  as 
well as on the safeguards established on the use given to life-
f u n d e d   i nve s t m e n t s   a n d   t h e   re a l i t y   o f   t h e   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   o f 
the  manageme nt  contrac ts and  pla ns.

(ii)  appropriate indicators and criteria should be developed by the 
Co m m i s s i o n   fo r   m o n i t o r i n g   p r o j e c t   o u t c o m e s   o n   t h e   b a s i s   o f 
t h e   e x p e r t i s e   a v a i l a b l e   n a m e l y   i n   t h e   e u r o p e a n   env i r o n m e n t 
agenc y and i n the e uropean  Top ic  Cent re.

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
 
40

di s s e m i nA t i o n   o f   r e s uL t s

76.  

 some linguistic difficulties still have to be overcome and there is a 
need for improved minimum quality standards for the information 
to be disseminated on the projec ts’ websites. The dg  environment 
life projec ts database does not allow for easy and wide access to 
l e s s o n s   l e a r n e d,   a n d   t h e   i n fo r m at i o n   o n   te c h n i c a l   a n d   s c i e nt i f i c 
matters is ge neral l y not  p rovide d for  th e pote nt ial  e xpe r t  public 
(paragraph s 42  to  53 ).

re c o m m e n d At i o n   3

(i)  T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   s h o u l d   r e v i e w   i t s   c o m m u n i c a t i o n   s t r a t e g y, 
a c t i v i t i e s   a n d   to o l s,   b e a r i n g   i n   m i n d   t h a t   p a r t i c u l a r   a t te n t i o n 
s h o u l d   b e   p a i d   t o   t h e   d i s s e m i n a t i o n   t o   i n t e r e s t e d   e x p e r t s   o f 
relevant i nfor mation and les so n s le ar n e d.  Th e im provem e nt  o f 
t h e   s e a r c h   p o s s i b i l i t i e s   o f f e r e d   t o   a c c e s s   i n f o r m a t i o n   o n   t h e 
life databa se should also b e co nsid e re d. 

(ii)  moreover, the beneficiaries should be required to provide more 
technical details on the methods used, lessons learnt and iden-
tif ied best prac tices to ensure wi de r  d is se m i nat i o n .

Lo nG- t e r m   mAnAGe m e n t   o f   Pr o j e c t   r e s uL t s

77.  

 life-nature projec ts have contr ibuted considerably to the imple -
m e n t a t i o n   o f   t h e   n a t u ra   2 0 0 0   n e t wo r k .   h owe ve r,   a p a r t   f ro m   re -
questing the drafting of an after-life conser vation plan at projec t 
closure, the Commission has paid little attention to life projec ts 
o n ce   t h e y   a re   c l o s e d,   a n d   b e n e f i c i a r i e s   a n d   p a r t n e r s   a re   n o t   l e -
gally or by other effec tive means obliged to assure the continua -
tion  o f t he  p ro jec t res ul ts.  The sus tai nabi l it y  of  th e  cons er vati on 
measures financed by life-nature is not safeguarded beyond the 
p ro j e c t   e n d,   a n d   t h u s   t h e   i m p a c t   o f   t h e   e u  f u n d i n g   m ay   q u i c k l y 
diminish, as no technical ex-post checks take place and the Com-
m i s s i o n   h a s   n o   fo l l ow - u p   s c h e m e   o r   a ny   re a c t i ve   i n s t r u m e nt   fo r 
ens ur ing  that  the res ult s  are not  los t ( para graph s  5 5  to  6 7) .

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
 
41

re c o m m e n d At i o n   4

(i)  The grant agreements should commit beneficiaries — and, if ap-
propriate, the national co -financers — to sustaining the projec t 
results for a minimum per iod af ter the projec t closure. Compli-
ance with the corresponding contrac tual obligations should be 
enforced through appropr iate p en alt i es  and  recove r i e s.

(ii)  T h e   i n t r o d u c t i o n   o f   a   f o l l o w - u p   s c h e m e   f o r   t h e   ' a f t e r -l i f e  
 f u n d i n g '   s h o u l d   b e   c o n s i d e r e d   b y   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n ,   a n d   m a y 
require a change  in  the legal f ram e wo r k . 

This  r ep o r t  was   ado p ted  by  the  Cour t   of   auditor s  at  its  meeting 
in l u xem b ourg  of 2  jul y  20 09 .

For  th e  Cour t o f  Audito rs

vítor  m an ue l da silva Ca lde ira 
Presi den t

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

42

An n e x i

P r o j e c t s   Au d i t e d   o n - t h e - sPot

Project No

MS

Project Name

Acronym

Beneficiary

LIFE00 NAT/B/007148

LIFE02/ NAT/B/008593

LIFE03/NAT/B/000024

LIFE05 NAT/B/000090

LIFE00 NAT/B/007156

BE

BE

BE

BE

BE

LIFE03/NAT/B000019

BE

Actions for Birds of Reedbeds in Bassin 
de la Haine

Haine

Natagora/RNOB asbl

Restoration and sustainable manage-
ment of upper Meuse dry Grasslands

Haute Meuse

Ardenne & Gaume asbl

Integrated restoration of natural habitats 
on military areas in Natura 2000

Militaire Gebieden

Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Aminal 
(afdeling Natuur) 

Restoration of the lowland river system 
'Grote Nete'

Action Plan for conservation and 
restoration of three woods in the Flemish 
Ardennes

Rehabilitation of peat and wet habitats 
on the Saint-Hubert Plateau 

Grote Nete

Natuurpunkt Beheer v.z.w.

8.1.2005

30.9.2010

3 120 940

1 560 470

3 Bossen Vlaamse 
Ardennen

Saint Hubert Plateau

World Wide Fund for Nature

1.10.2001

11.4.2007

Closed

2 837 738

1 126 582

Unité de la Gestion Cynégétique du Massif Fores-
tier de St-Hubert asbl, C/O Cantonnement de la 
Division Nature et forêt 

1.9.2003

31.8.2007

Open

2 127 540

1 063 770

50 %

LIFE00 NAT/D/007038

LIFE05 NAT/D/000057

LIFE00 NAT/D/007042

LIFE00 NAT/D/007039

LIFE00 NAT/D/007058

DE

DE

DE

DE

DE

Restoration project 'Galenbecker See' for 
priority species

Galenbecker See

Staatliches Amt für Umwelt und Natur Uecker-
münde

Optimisation of the pSCI 'Lippe flood 
plain between Hamm and Hangfort'

Lippe-Aue

Stadt Hamm, Umweltamt

Optimisation of the SPA 'Düsterdieker 
Niederung'

SPA Duesterdieker 
Niederung

Biologisches Station Kreis Steinfurt e.V.

LIFE-Project 'Grindenschwarzwald'

Grindenschwarzwald

Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe

Regeneration and preservation of dry 
grassland in Germany

Trockenrasen Saar

Naturlandstiftung Saar

LIFE00 NAT/D/007043

DE

'Hohes Moor' peat bog

Hohes Moor Nieder-
sachsen

Niedersächsisches Umweltministerium

LIFE00 NAT/E/007304

LIFE03 NAT/E/000046

LIFE03 NAT/E/000050

LIFE00 NAT/E/007348

LIFE05 NAT/E/000067

LIFE00 NAT/E/007339

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

Improvement of the management of the 
SCI and SPA 'Cabo de Gata-Níjar'

Cabo de Gata

Consejería de Medio Ambiente de la Junta de 
Andalucía

Conservation of houbara bustard 
Chlamydotis undulata fuertaventurae in 
the SPAs of the Canary Island

Hubara Canarias

Sociedad Española de Ornitologia (SEO/BirdLife) 

1.6.2003

31.5.2007

Decommitment 

2 630 899

1 973 174

Conservation of the Spanish Imperial 
Eagle, Black Vulture, Black Stork

CBD 2003

Fundación CBDHábitat para la Conservación de la 
Biodiversidad y su Hábitat

Management of the SPA-SCI 'La Serena y 
Sierras periféricas'

ZEPA La Serena

Consejería de Agricultura y Medio Ambiente — 
Dir. Gral de Medio Ambiente

Conservation and restoration of 'Aiako 
Harria' SCI (ES2120016)

LIFE AIAKO HARRIA

Direción General de Montes y Medio Natural.
Departamento para el Desarrollo del Medio Rural

Model of restoration of dunes habitats in 
'L'Albufera de Valencia'

Dunas Albufera

Ayuntamiento de Valencia — Concejalía de 
Devesa y Albufera y Alcaldías de Barrio

NGO

NGO

Public

NGO

NGO

NGO

Public

Public

Public

Public

NGO

Public

Public

NGO

Public

Public

Public

Public

Status 

beneficiary

Start date

End date

Status at 30.6.2008

1.7.2001

31.12.2007

Total cost 

(euro)

1 740 715

LIFE grant 

(euro)

870 358

1.9.2002

31.3.2007

1 934 717

967 359

1.9.2003

31.12.2008

15 322 373

6 555 658

Closed

Closed

Open

Open

running

Closed

Closed

Total DE

Closed

running

Open

Closed

Open

Closed

1.5.2001

31.12.2007

Total BE

Open

27 084 023

5 780 907

12 144 197

4 046 635

8.1.2005

28.2.2010

Open

5 514 593

2 757 297

1.7.2001

30.4.2007

Decommitment 

4 534 432

2 267 216

1.1.2001

1.4.2001

31.12.2005

31.3.2006

1 786 914

1 433 218

1.4.2001

31.3.2006

Closed

1 288 500

893 457

842 732

644 250

1.7.2001

30.6.2005

20 338 564

4 303 086

11 451 587

3 012 160

1.9.2003

1.9.2007

3 286 882

1 972 129

1.5.2001

31.8.2005

1 853 176

1 297 223

1.10.2005

30.9.2009

2 260 318

1 130 159

1.1.2001

30.6.2004

1 951 482

975 741

Total ES

16 285 843

10 360 586

%

50 %

50 %

43 %

50 %

40 %

70 %

50 %

50 %

50 %

59 %

50 %

70 %

75 %

60 %

70 %

50 %

50 %

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

Project No

MS

Project Name

Acronym

Beneficiary

LIFE00 NAT/B/007148

BE

Actions for Birds of Reedbeds in Bassin 

Haine

Natagora/RNOB asbl

de la Haine

'Grote Nete'

Ardennes

LIFE02/ NAT/B/008593

BE

Restoration and sustainable manage-

Haute Meuse

Ardenne & Gaume asbl

ment of upper Meuse dry Grasslands

LIFE03/NAT/B/000024

BE

Integrated restoration of natural habitats 

Militaire Gebieden

Ministerie van de Vlaamse Gemeenschap, Aminal 

on military areas in Natura 2000

(afdeling Natuur) 

LIFE05 NAT/B/000090

BE

Restoration of the lowland river system 

Grote Nete

Natuurpunkt Beheer v.z.w.

LIFE00 NAT/B/007156

BE

Action Plan for conservation and 

3 Bossen Vlaamse 

World Wide Fund for Nature

restoration of three woods in the Flemish 

Ardennen

LIFE03/NAT/B000019

BE

Rehabilitation of peat and wet habitats 

Saint Hubert Plateau

Unité de la Gestion Cynégétique du Massif Fores-

on the Saint-Hubert Plateau 

tier de St-Hubert asbl, C/O Cantonnement de la 

Division Nature et forêt 

LIFE00 NAT/D/007038

DE

Restoration project 'Galenbecker See' for 

Galenbecker See

Staatliches Amt für Umwelt und Natur Uecker-

priority species

münde

LIFE05 NAT/D/000057

DE

Optimisation of the pSCI 'Lippe flood 

Lippe-Aue

Stadt Hamm, Umweltamt

plain between Hamm and Hangfort'

LIFE00 NAT/D/007042

DE

Optimisation of the SPA 'Düsterdieker 

SPA Duesterdieker 

Biologisches Station Kreis Steinfurt e.V.

Niederung'

Niederung

LIFE00 NAT/D/007039

LIFE-Project 'Grindenschwarzwald'

Grindenschwarzwald

Regierungspräsidium Karlsruhe

LIFE00 NAT/D/007058

Regeneration and preservation of dry 

Trockenrasen Saar

Naturlandstiftung Saar

grassland in Germany

LIFE00 NAT/D/007043

DE

'Hohes Moor' peat bog

Hohes Moor Nieder-

Niedersächsisches Umweltministerium

sachsen

LIFE00 NAT/E/007304

Improvement of the management of the 

Cabo de Gata

Consejería de Medio Ambiente de la Junta de 

SCI and SPA 'Cabo de Gata-Níjar'

Andalucía

LIFE03 NAT/E/000046

Conservation of houbara bustard 

Hubara Canarias

Sociedad Española de Ornitologia (SEO/BirdLife) 

Chlamydotis undulata fuertaventurae in 

the SPAs of the Canary Island

LIFE03 NAT/E/000050

Conservation of the Spanish Imperial 

CBD 2003

Fundación CBDHábitat para la Conservación de la 

Eagle, Black Vulture, Black Stork

Biodiversidad y su Hábitat

LIFE00 NAT/E/007348

Management of the SPA-SCI 'La Serena y 

ZEPA La Serena

Consejería de Agricultura y Medio Ambiente — 

LIFE05 NAT/E/000067

Conservation and restoration of 'Aiako 

LIFE AIAKO HARRIA

Direción General de Montes y Medio Natural.

LIFE00 NAT/E/007339

Model of restoration of dunes habitats in 

Dunas Albufera

Ayuntamiento de Valencia — Concejalía de 

Dir. Gral de Medio Ambiente

Departamento para el Desarrollo del Medio Rural

Devesa y Albufera y Alcaldías de Barrio

Sierras periféricas'

Harria' SCI (ES2120016)

'L'Albufera de Valencia'

DE

DE

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

ES

Status 
beneficiary

Start date

End date

Status at 30.6.2008

1.7.2001

31.12.2007

1.9.2002

31.3.2007

1.9.2003

31.12.2008

8.1.2005

30.9.2010

Closed

Closed

Open

Open

43

Total cost 
(euro)

1 740 715

LIFE grant 
(euro)

870 358

1 934 717

967 359

15 322 373

6 555 658

3 120 940

1 560 470

%

50 %

50 %

43 %

50 %

40 %

1.10.2001

11.4.2007

Closed

2 837 738

1 126 582

1.9.2003

31.8.2007

Open

2 127 540

1 063 770

50 %

1.5.2001

31.12.2007

Total BE

Open

27 084 023

5 780 907

12 144 197

4 046 635

8.1.2005

28.2.2010

Open

5 514 593

2 757 297

1.7.2001

30.4.2007

1.1.2001

1.4.2001

31.12.2005

31.3.2006

1.4.2001

31.3.2006

1.7.2001

30.6.2005

1.6.2003

31.5.2007

1.9.2003

1.9.2007

1.5.2001

31.8.2005

1.10.2005

30.9.2009

1.1.2001

30.6.2004

Decommitment 
running

4 534 432

2 267 216

Closed

Closed

Closed

Total DE

Closed

1 786 914

1 433 218

1 288 500

20 338 564

4 303 086

893 457

842 732

644 250

11 451 587

3 012 160

Decommitment 
running

2 630 899

1 973 174

Open

Closed

Open

Closed

3 286 882

1 972 129

1 853 176

1 297 223

2 260 318

1 130 159

1 951 482

975 741

Total ES

16 285 843

10 360 586

70 %

50 %

50 %

50 %

59 %

50 %

70 %

75 %

60 %

70 %

50 %

50 %

NGO

NGO

Public

NGO

NGO

NGO

Public

Public

Public

Public

NGO

Public

Public

NGO

Public

Public

Public

Public

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

44

Project No

MS

Project Name

Acronym

Beneficiary

LIFE00 NAT/IT/007142

LIFE04 NAT/IT/000190

LIFE00 NAT/IT/007228

LIFE00 NAT/IT/007281

LIFE05 NAT/IT/000009

IT

IT

IT

IT

IT

Improvement of the habitats of birds and 
restoration of electrical plants 

Po ENEL

Consorzio Parco Regionale Delta del Po

1.7.2001

31.12.2006

Conservation actions in Natura 2000 sites 
managed by the State Forest Service

Corpo Forestale

Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali - Cor-
po forestale dello Stato - Ufficio per la Biodiversità

Conservation of Abies nebrodensis 
(Lojac) Mattei in situ and ex situ

Nebrodensis

Ente Parco Delle Madonie

NEMOS project - improvement of Alpine 
wetland areas

Nemos

Provincia autonoma di Trento - Servizio Parchi e 
Foreste Demaniali

Safeguard of the threatened raptors of 
the Matera Province

RAPACI LUCANI

Provincia di Matera

LIFE04 NAT/SI/000240

SI

Natura 2000 in Slovenia - management 
models and information system

NATSLOMPIS

Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature 
Conservation

LIFE03 NAT/SLO/000077

SI

Establishing long-term protection of Crex 
crex in Slovenia

Crex Slovenia

DOPPS BirdLife Slovenia

LIFE02 NAT/SLO/008587

SI

Conservation of endangered habitats / 
species in the future Karst Park

Karst park

Univerza na Primorskem, Znastevno-raziskovalno 
sredisce-Koper

LIFE03 NAT/SLO/000076

SI

Conservation of endangered species and 
habitats in the Secovlje salt-pans Park

Secovlje

Soline, Pridelava soli d.o.o.

LIFE00 NAT/SLO/007231

LIFE00 NAT/SLO/007223

SI

SI

Peatbogs in Triglav National Park

Triglav

Triglavski Narodni Park

Management plan and urgent actions for 
Veternik and Oslica high dry meadows

Dry meadows

Kozjanski Regional Park

LIFE02 NAT/UK/008527

UK

LIFE02 NAT/UK/008541

UK

LIFE04 NAT/GB/000250

UK

LIFE00 NAT/UK/007079

UK

LIFE00 NAT/UK/007071

UK

Developing a strategic network of SPA 
reedbeds for Botaurus stellaris

Urgent Conservation Management for 
Scottish Capercaillie

Conservation of Atlantic salmon in 
Scotland

Combatting urban pressures degrading 
European heathlands in Dorset

Improving the management of Salisbury 
Plain Natura 2000 sites

Bittern

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

3.2.2002

30.6.2006

Capercaillie

Caledonian Partnership, Highland Birchwoods

1.2.2002

31.1.2007

7 355 440

3 677 720

CASS

Scottish Natural Heritage

1.2.2004

31.7.2008

4 695 816

2 347 908

Dorset heaths

Dorset County Council, Planning Division

1.7.2001

30.6.2005

Decommitment 

3 819 840

1 909 920

Salisbury Plain

English Nature

1.4.2001

30.9.2005

3 482 722

1 741 361

LIFE00 NAT/UK/007078

UK

Restoration of Scottish raised bogs

Scottish raised bogs

Scottish Wildlife Trust

1.1.2001

1.1.2004

2 139 263

27 977 579

1 458 977

15 026 585

Grand Total

107 914 961

57 475 679

Status 

beneficiary

Start date

End date

Status at 30.6.2008

Total cost 

(euro)

5 637 965

LIFE grant 

(euro)

2 198 806

1.4.2004

30.6.2009

2 505 297

1 252 649

1.9.2001

31.8.2005

Closed

1 161 535

871 151

1.1.2002

30.9.2004

1.10.2005

30.9.2009

1.1.2005

31.12.2007

1.10.2002

30.9.2005

1.9.2003

1.9.2006

15.6.2001

1.1.2001

30.11.2003

31.12.2003

1.1.2004

31.3.2007

Decommitment 

1 626 422

866 062

11 797 281

1 686 077

809 024

476 930

714 440

470 200

275 000

796 947

649 546

5 769 099

843 039

606 768

357 698

357 220

352 650

206 250

4 431 671

6 484 498

2 723 625

3 890 699

Public

Public

Public

Public

Public

Public

NGO

Public

Private

Public

NGO

NGO

Private

Public

Public

Public

NGO

Open

Open

Closed

Open

Total IT

Open

running

Closed

Closed

Closed

Closed

Total SI

Closed

Open

Open

running

Closed

Closed

Total UK

%

39 %

50 %

75 %

49 %

75 %

50 %

75 %

75 %

50 %

75 %

75 %

60 %

50 %

50 %

50 %

50 %

68 %

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

IT

IT

IT

IT

IT

SI

SI

wetland areas

the Matera Province

crex in Slovenia

Project No

MS

Project Name

Acronym

Beneficiary

LIFE00 NAT/IT/007142

Improvement of the habitats of birds and 

Po ENEL

Consorzio Parco Regionale Delta del Po

restoration of electrical plants 

LIFE04 NAT/IT/000190

Conservation actions in Natura 2000 sites 

Corpo Forestale

Ministero delle Politiche Agricole e Forestali - Cor-

managed by the State Forest Service

po forestale dello Stato - Ufficio per la Biodiversità

LIFE00 NAT/IT/007228

Conservation of Abies nebrodensis 

Nebrodensis

Ente Parco Delle Madonie

(Lojac) Mattei in situ and ex situ

LIFE00 NAT/IT/007281

NEMOS project - improvement of Alpine 

Nemos

Provincia autonoma di Trento - Servizio Parchi e 

Foreste Demaniali

LIFE05 NAT/IT/000009

Safeguard of the threatened raptors of 

RAPACI LUCANI

Provincia di Matera

LIFE04 NAT/SI/000240

SI

Natura 2000 in Slovenia - management 

NATSLOMPIS

Institute of the Republic of Slovenia for Nature 

models and information system

Conservation

LIFE03 NAT/SLO/000077

SI

Establishing long-term protection of Crex 

Crex Slovenia

DOPPS BirdLife Slovenia

LIFE02 NAT/SLO/008587

SI

Conservation of endangered habitats / 

Karst park

Univerza na Primorskem, Znastevno-raziskovalno 

species in the future Karst Park

sredisce-Koper

LIFE03 NAT/SLO/000076

SI

Conservation of endangered species and 

Secovlje

Soline, Pridelava soli d.o.o.

habitats in the Secovlje salt-pans Park

LIFE00 NAT/SLO/007231

Peatbogs in Triglav National Park

Triglav

Triglavski Narodni Park

LIFE00 NAT/SLO/007223

Management plan and urgent actions for 

Dry meadows

Kozjanski Regional Park

Veternik and Oslica high dry meadows

LIFE02 NAT/UK/008527

UK

Developing a strategic network of SPA 

Bittern

Royal Society for the Protection of Birds

LIFE02 NAT/UK/008541

UK

Urgent Conservation Management for 

Capercaillie

Caledonian Partnership, Highland Birchwoods

LIFE04 NAT/GB/000250

UK

Conservation of Atlantic salmon in 

CASS

Scottish Natural Heritage

LIFE00 NAT/UK/007079

UK

Combatting urban pressures degrading 

Dorset heaths

Dorset County Council, Planning Division

reedbeds for Botaurus stellaris

Scottish Capercaillie

Scotland

European heathlands in Dorset

Plain Natura 2000 sites

LIFE00 NAT/UK/007071

UK

Improving the management of Salisbury 

Salisbury Plain

English Nature

LIFE00 NAT/UK/007078

UK

Restoration of Scottish raised bogs

Scottish raised bogs

Scottish Wildlife Trust

45

Total cost 
(euro)

5 637 965

LIFE grant 
(euro)

2 198 806

2 505 297

1 252 649

Status 
beneficiary

Start date

End date

Status at 30.6.2008

1.7.2001

31.12.2006

1.4.2004

30.6.2009

Open

Open

1.9.2001

31.8.2005

Closed

1 161 535

871 151

1.1.2002

30.9.2004

1.10.2005

30.9.2009

1.1.2005

31.12.2007

1.1.2004

31.3.2007

1.10.2002

30.9.2005

1.9.2003

1.9.2006

15.6.2001

1.1.2001

30.11.2003

31.12.2003

3.2.2002

30.6.2006

1.2.2002

31.1.2007

1.2.2004

31.7.2008

1.7.2001

30.6.2005

Closed

Open

Total IT

Open

Decommitment 
running

Closed

Closed

Closed

Closed

Total SI

Closed

Open

Open

Decommitment 
running

1 626 422

866 062

11 797 281

1 686 077

809 024

476 930

714 440

470 200

275 000

796 947

649 546

5 769 099

843 039

606 768

357 698

357 220

352 650

206 250

4 431 671

6 484 498

2 723 625

3 890 699

7 355 440

3 677 720

4 695 816

2 347 908

3 819 840

1 909 920

1.4.2001

30.9.2005

Closed

3 482 722

1 741 361

1.1.2001

1.1.2004

Closed

Total UK

2 139 263

27 977 579

1 458 977

15 026 585

Grand Total

107 914 961

57 475 679

Public

Public

Public

Public

Public

Public

NGO

Public

Private

Public

NGO

NGO

Private

Public

Public

Public

NGO

%

39 %

50 %

75 %

49 %

75 %

50 %

75 %

75 %

50 %

75 %

75 %

60 %

50 %

50 %

50 %

50 %

68 %

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

46

An n e x i i

c A Le n d Ar   o f  t h e   Li f e +  e vA LuAt i o n   An d   s eLe c t i o n 
Pr o c e d u r e

End date

Duration

Activity 

2007

Start date 

30.11.2007 

15.1.2008 

Deadline for sending LIFE+ proposals to the Member States 

Deadline for the Member States to forward LIFE+ proposals to 
the European Commission

Commission receiving, encoding and making eligibility check of 
proposals, including possible requests for missing information 
and time for receiving answers 

Information to unsuccessful beneficiaries (re. ineligible proposals) 

Evaluation of eligible proposals with the assistance of external 
experts 

Revision of proposals and preparation of the final 'short and 
reserve' list of proposals to be submitted to the LIFE+ Committee 

Commission Inter service consultation 

Commission sends draft selection list to the LIFE+ Committee

LIFE+ Committee meeting to decide upon the list of projects 
accepted for co-financing 

Documents are sent to the European Parliament to apply its 'Droit 
de regard', after the summer holidays 

Commission award decision

Commission sends draft grant agreements to beneficiaries 

Beneficiaries have up to 30 days to respond 

Commission signs grant agreements and sends them back to 
beneficiaries 

Earliest possible starting date of the projects

15.1.2008 

15.2.2008 

1 month 

16.2.2008 

16.2.2008 

20.2.2008 

30.4.2008 

5 days 

2,5 months

1.5.2008 

31.7.2008 

3 months 

1.5.2008 

1.8.2008 

15.8.2008 

31.7.2008 

15.8.2008 

31.8.2008 

3 months 

2 weeks

1 day 

1.9.2008 

15.10.2008 

1,5 months

31.10.2008 

30.11.2008 

31.12.2008 

2 weeks 

1 month 

1 month 

15.10.2008 

15.10.2008 

1.11.2008 

1.12.2008 

1.1.2009 

Date or period

21.11.2008

5.1.2009

2008

Activity

Deadline for applicants to send proposals to Member State authorities

Deadline for the Member States to forward proposals to the European Commission

January to July 2009

Admissibility, exclusion and eligibility, evaluation and revision of the proposals

31.12.2009

1.1.2010

Deadline for signing grant agreements

Earliest possible starting date for the 2008 projects

S o urce: life+ nature and biodiversity: guidelines for applicants 2007 and 2008.

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

47

An n e x i i i

m AnAGe m e n t   P L An s

ac c o rd i n g   t o   a r t i c l e   6   o f   t h e   h a b i t a t s   d i re c t i ve,   m e m b e r   s t a t e s 
s h a l l   e s t a b l i s h   t h e   n e c e s s a r y   c o n s e r v a t i o n   m e a s u r e s   i nv o l v i n g, 
if  n eed   b e,   ap pro p r iate  manage me nt   plan s  s pe c i fi call y  de si gn ed 
for the sites or integrated into other development plans, and ap -
propriate statutor y, administrative or contrac tual measures. These 
measures are implemented through the natura 2000 network , tak -
ing  into  acco unt eco nomic, s oc ial  an d c ult ural  requirem ents  and 
regional  and lo c al ch arac ter is tic s.

a m anag ement p l an s ho uld  cont ain  t he  followin g  e le me nt s:

•  p o l i c y   s t a t e m e n t   w i t h   r e f e r e n c e   t o   a r t i c l e   6   o f   t h e   h a b i t a t s 

d ire c ti ve;

• 

• 

• 

• 

si te d e s cr ip ti o n , in clu d in g a  his to r i c al  lan d  us e an al y sis;

s t a te m e nt   o f   o b j e c t i ve s ,   i n c l u d i n g   l o n g - te r m   a n d   s h o r t- te r m 
g o a ls;

s t a t e m e n t   o f   t h e   co n s t r a i n t s ,   i n c l u d i n g   i d e n t i f i c a t i o n   o f   t h e 
a c to r s invo l ve d;

re a lis ti c   lis t   o f   a c ti o ns  to   im p l e m e nt  w i th  tim e  s ch e dul e s  an d 
f inan cial p la nnin g;

•  a d e t ail e d co nsu l t ati o n p ro ce ss;

•  m o ni to r in g an d  ev alu ati o n .

recital (6) of the life+ regulation ((eC)  no 614/2007) stresses the finan-
cial limitations to the instrument for the management of  natura 2000 
sites, stating that 'arrangements should be established to ensure ad-
equate financing for the natura 2000 network, including Community co-
financing. since the aim of this regulation is to finance only best-practice 
or demonstration projects related to the management of natura 2000 
sites, the Commission and member states should ensure that sufficient 
funds are made available through other instruments for the management 
of the network, the annual cost of which was estimated in 2004 to be 
around 6 100 million euro'.

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

reply of The 
Commission

executive summAry

i.
life is the  eu’s financial instrument dedi-
c ate d   s p e c i f i c a l l y   to   s u p p o r t i n g   e nv i ro n-
m e nt a l   a n d   n at u re   co n s e r vat i o n   p ro j e c t s 
t h r o u g h o u t   t h e   e u.   i t   h a s   e x i s t e d   s i n c e 
1 99 2.

Th e   c u r re nt   i n s t r u m e nt ,   l i f e+ ,   cove r s   t h e 
period from 1 januar y 2007 to 31  december 
2 0 1 3 1  a n d   p ro v i d e s   s o m e   1 . 7   b i l l i o n   e u ro 
a s   co - f i n a n c i n g   fo r   e nv i ro n m e nt   p ro j e c t s. 
at least 50 % of this sum must be allocated 
to projec ts suppor ting the conser vation of 
nature and biodiversit y.

l i f e +   c o - f i n a n c e s   a c t i o n s   i n   t h r e e   m a i n 
a r e a s   o r   c o m p o n e n t s :   l i f e +   n a t u r e   a n d 
biodiversit y ;  life+  environment and  g ov-
e r n a n c e ;   l i f e +   i n fo r m a t i o n   a n d   Co m m u -
n icat ion.

T h e   s p e c i f i c   o b j e c t i v e   o f   l i f e - n a t u r e   i s 
t o   c o n t r i b u t e   t o   t h e   i m p l e m e n t a t i o n   o f 
C o m m u n i t y   n a t u r e   p r o t e c t i o n   l e g i s l a-
t i o n :   t h e   'bi r d s '   di r e c t i v e   ( 7 9 / 4 0 9 /e eC ) , 
t h e   ' h a b i t a t s '   d i re c t i ve   ( 9 2 / 4 3 / e e C ) ,   a n d 
t h e   e s t a b l i s h m e n t   o f   t h e   ' n a t u r a   2 0 0 0 ' 
n e t w o r k .   i n   i t s   l a t e s t   fo r m ,   l i f e+   na t u r e 
and biodiversit y, it also co -finances inno -
vative or demonstration projects that con-
tribute to implementing the objec tives of 
the Commission Communication on “halt -
in g th e los s of biodivers it y by  2 0 1 0 –  an d 
 beyon d ”.

1  The legal basis for life+ is regulation (eC) no 614/2007 of 

the european parliament and of the Council of 23 may 2007, 

published in the official journal of the european union l 149 of 

9 june 2007.

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

49

reply of The 
Commission

al t h o u g h   l i f e  i s   i n d e e d   t h e   m o s t   i m p o r -
tant european funding instrument specifi-
cally dedicated to the environment, other 
C o m m u n i t y   f u n d s   s u c h   a s   t h e   s t r u c t u r a l 
funds or the eafrd (european agricultural 
fu n d   f o r   r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t )   p r o v i d e   a 
ve r y   i m p o r t a n t   f i n a n c i a l   c o n t r i b u t i o n   t o 
th e pro tec tio n o f th e environm e nt .

iii. 
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h e   C o u r t ' s 
o b s e r v a t i o n   t h a t   s i n c e   t h e   l i f e  i n s t r u-
ment star ted in 1992, it has progressively 
i m p r o v e d   i t s   m a n a g e m e n t   a n d   c o n t r o l 
system s, ack now l edgin g that  it has  t ak en 
into account the result of the Cour t's pre -
vious au dits.

v i. 
The Commission takes note of the Cour t's 
positive and construc tive appraisal of the 
l i f e  p ro gra m m e   i n   f avo u r   o f   n at u re   co n-
ser vatio n.

T h e   Co m m i s s i o n   d o e s   i t s   o u t m o s t   t o   e n-
s u r e   t h a t   o n l y   a p p r o p r i a t e l y   d e s i g n e d 
p ro j e c t   p ro p o s a l s   a re   a p p ro ve d   a n d   t h a t 
they  are  im ple m ented  as  p l anne d.  i t  als o 
checks on the adequac y of the applicants' 
orga n isatio nal  and financ ial s tru c tu re s.

The Commission agrees with the Cour t 
th at  t he  len gth   of  th e  award  gra nti ng 
p r o c e s s   i s   l a r g e l y   d u e   t o   t h e   i n t e r i n-
s t i t u t i o n a l   p ro c e d u re s   e s t a b l i s h e d   i n 
th e life+  r eg ulation.

( b)   gr e a t e r   a t t e n t i o n   i s   b e i n g   g i v e n   t o 
m o n i t o r i n g   p r o j e c t   r e s u l t s   a n d   t h e i r 
s u s t a i n a b i l i t y,   a s   w e l l   a s   t o   m a n a g e -
m e n t   p l a n s   s i n c e   l i f e+   c a m e   i n t o   e f-
f e c t .   r e q u i r e m e n t s   o n   t h e s e   a s p e c t s 
are now stric ter and clearer, as reflec t -
e d   i n   t h e   a p p l i c a t i o n   f o r m s   a n d   t h e 
related g uide lin es issued.

( c)  The Commission has gradually strength-
e n e d   t h e   re q u i re m e nt s   o n   d i s s e m i n a -
t i o n   f o r   p r o j e c t   b e n e f i c i a r i e s ,   a n d , 
f o r   i t s   p a r t ,   h a s   b e e n   i m p r o v i n g   t h e 
q u a n t i t y   a n d   q u a l i t y   o f   t h e   i n f o r m a-
t i o n   a v a i l a b l e   o n   t h e   l i f e   w e b s i t e . 
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a g r e e s   t h a t   t h e r e   i s 
p o t e n t i a l   t o   f u r t h e r   i m p r o v e   t h e   d i s-
sem in at ion of proj ec t results.

( d)  T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   i s   c u r r e n t l y   s e t t i n g 
up  mech anisms  for   c ar r y ing  o ut   m ore 
s y s t e m a t i c   e x - p o s t   v i s i t s   f r o m   2 0 0 9 
to asses s sustain abilit y and is p la c ing 
greater  emphasis on in dicators.

v ii. 
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   a gre e s   t h at   t h e re   i s   s t i l l 
r o o m   f o r   p r o g r e s s   i n   e n s u r i n g   t h a t   t h e 
c o n s e r v a t i o n   m e a s u r e s   c o - f i n a n c e d   b y 
t h e   e u   a re   s u s t a i n e d   a f t e r   t h e   c l o s u re   o f 
t h e   p r o j e c t s,   b u i l d i n g   o n   t h e   s i g n i f i c a n t 
improvement s al ready made.

viii. 
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   i s   c u r r e n t l y   a d d r e s s i n g 
t h e   i s s u e s   o f   s u s t a i n a b i l i t y,   k n o w l e d g e 
dissemination and projec t follow-up, inter 
ali a by  sett in g up a mechan ism fo r  c a r r y -
i n g   o u t   m o re   s ys te m at i c   e x- p o s t   v i s i t s   to 
projec t s from 20 09 .

(a)  W h i l e   a c k n o w l e d g i n g   t h a t   t h e   l i f e+ 
e v a l u a t i o n   g u i d e l i n e s   d o   n o t   c o n-
t a i n   a s   m a n y   d e t a i l e d   q u e s t i o n s   o n 
s u s t a i n a b i l i t y   ( t h e r e   i s   n o w   a   s i n g l e 
s e l e c t i o n   p r o c e s s   fo r   t h e   t h re e   l i f e+ 
c o m p o n e n t s ,   w i t h   a l l   p r o j e c t s   c o m -
p e t i n g   w i t h   e a c h   o t h e r   a n d   b e i n g   a s-
sessed equally) the Commission would 
h i g h l i g h t   t h a t   s u s t a i n a b i l i t y   r e m a i n s 
an impor tant component of the selec -
tion  and award cr iter ia.

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

 
50

reply of The 
Commission

introduction

observAtions

5. 
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   u n d e r l i n e s   t h a t   l i f e +  
nature and biodiversity is primarily meant 
to be a catalyst for nature conser vation in 
the eu, suppor ting step - change best prac-
tice or demo nst rat ion meas ures.

7. 
s i n c e   1 9 9 2 ,   l i f e   h a s   c o - f i n a n c e d   s o m e 
2 , 7 5 0   p r o j e c t s .   a r o u n d   7 0 0   p r o j e c t   p r o -
p o s a l s   a r e   r e c e i v e d   a n d   e v a l u a t e d   e v e r y 
year  for t he thre e comp o nent s o f l ife+.

10. 
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   i s   c u r r e n t l y   s e t t i n g   u p 
mechanisms for carr ying out more system-
atic ex-p o st  vis its  to  asses s  su st ai nabi li t y 
f r o m   2 0 0 9 .   gr e a t e r   e m p h a s i s   g r a d u a l l y 
being  p laced   on   mon ito r ing  and   eval uat-
ing projec t results, with life+ containing 
s t r i c t e r   a n d   c l e a r e r   r e q u i r e m e n t s   i n   t h i s 
regard.

Audit scoPe And APPro Ach

15 . 
l i f e+   i s   m e a n t   t o   c a r r y   o u t   s t e p - c h a n g e 
best prac tice or demonstration measures. 
The primar y responsibility for the sustain-
a b l e   n at u re   co n s e r vat i o n   a s   l a i d   d ow n   i n 
ar ticle 6 of the habitats directive lies with 
th e m e mb er states.

al t h o u g h   l i f e  i s   i n d e e d   t h e   m o s t   i m p o r -
tant european funding instrument specifi-
cally dedicated to the environment, other 
C o m m u n i t y   f u n d s   s u c h   a s   t h e   s t r u c t u r a l 
funds or the eafrd (european agricultural 
fu n d   f o r   r u r a l   d e v e l o p m e n t )   p r o v i d e   a 
ve r y   i m p o r t a n t   f i n a n c i a l   c o n t r i b u t i o n   t o 
th e pro tec tio n o f th e environm e nt.

1 9. 
s o m e   o f   t h e   s h o r t c o m i n g s   i d e n t i f i e d   i n 
 Table 1 for individual projec ts are beyond 
t h e   C o m m i s s i o n ’s   c o n t r o l .   f o r   c e r t a i n , 
t h e   re s p o n s i b i l i t y   l i e s   w i t h   t h e   b e n e f i c i-
ar y   ( e. g.  loc al  population   not  ade quatel y 
i n f o r m e d ) ,   w h i l e   o t h e r s   a r e   c a u s e d   b y 
f a c t o r s   b e y o n d   t h e   b e n e f i c i a r y ’s   c o n t r o l 
(e.g. increase in land prices, demographic 
pressure) .

2 5. 
The Commission ack nowledges that a cer-
tain level of discretion is left to the evalu -
ators  rega rd in g  sustainabilit y   aspe c ts   i n-
cluded under the 'conser vation benefit' or 
' c o n t r i b u t i o n   t o   o b j e c t i v e s '   c r i t e r i a ,   b u t 
points out that the evaluation methodolo -
gy used, whereby each projec t is assessed 
by   t wo   i n d e p e n d e nt   e va l u ato r s   —   w i t h   a 
third evaluation carried out where signifi -
c ant disc repan c y  occurs  — min imi se s t he 
r i s k   o f   t h i s   d i s c re t i o n   we i g h i n g   s u b s t a n-
tially  on th e selec tion outcom e.

2 6. 
The Commission is fully committed to en-
sur ing that sustainabilit y cr iter ia — as all 
o t h e r   c r i t e r i a   —   a r e   e v a l u a t e d   i n   a   c o n-
sistent an d trans parent mann er.

T h e   Co m m i s s i o n   a c k n o w l e d g e s   t h a t   s u s -
t a i n a b i l i t y   c r i te r i a   h ave   b e co m e   l e s s   v i s -
ible in  l ife+ compared to  l ife  iii, n amely 
fo r   t h e   re a s o n s   p o i nte d   o u t   by   t h e   Co u r t 
( in  order   to  allow  the   propos als   from   t he 
t h re e   l i f e+   co m p o n e n t s   to   b e   e v a l u a te d 
according to the same criteria and to com-
p e t e   w i t h   o n e   a n o t h e r ) .  Th e   Co m m i s s i o n 
w i l l   t h e r e f o r e   c o n s i d e r   p o s s i b l e   o p t i o n s 
for increasing the visibilit y of sustainabil -
it y a s a cr iter ion  for  evaluat ion .

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

51

reply of The 
Commission

The  diffe re nce  in  th e  len gth  of  t he   s el ec -
t i o n   p ro ce s s   w i t h   t h e   e a f r d   a n d   t h e   e f f 
is explained by the different management 
and implementing mechanisms for the lat-
te r.   i n   t h e   c a s e   o f   e a f r d   t h e   p r i n c i p l e   o f 
'shared management' gives member states 
substantial responsibilities. This approach 
a l l ows   m e m b e r   s t ate s   to   m a k e   t h e   s e l e c -
tion  of th e proj ec ts.

T h e   Co m m i s s i o n   a g re e s   t h a t   t h e   l e n g t hy 
s e l e c t i o n   p r o c e d u r e   c a n   b e   a   s o u r c e   o f 
c o n s t r a i n t s   f o r   s o m e   p r o j e c t s .   l i f e +   h a s 
sought  to  addre ss  th is  issue  by   i nt rod uc -
ing an inception repor t allowing both the 
beneficiar y and the Commission to re - ex-
amine whether appropriate conditions for 
impleme nt ation s till  exist.

3 3. 
i n   e x c e p t i o n a l   c a s e s   s o m e   l i f e   p r o j e c t s 
run, during their implementation, into de -
velopments beyond the Commission’s and 
the beneficiar y ’s control, which may mean 
t h a t   t h e y   d o   n o t   a c h i e v e   a l l   t h e   r e s u l t s 
expec ted.

b ox 3
The par t cofinanced by the eC for this ac -
t i o n   a m o u n te d   to   2 5   7 4 0   e u ro.  W h e n   t h e 
bur ied  power  line  was  in stalled,  th e  be n-
e f i c i a r y   w a s   c o n f i d e n t   t h a t   i t   w o u l d   b e 
used  to  s upply  power   to  an  exper im e nt al 
ic tyogenic centre. unfor tunately, the nec -
ess ar y   per m is sion   for  th is  centre   was   no t 
granted  by   th e  competent   aut hor it y   dur -
in g th e life projec t.

b ox 1
T h e r e   a r e   s o m e   u n c e r t a i n t i e s   b e fo r e   t h e 
b e gi n n i n g   o f   p ro j e c t s   re g a rd i n g   s u s t a i n-
a b i l i t y,   a n d   t h e   s e l e c t i o n   e v a l u a t o r s   a r e 
r i g h t   t o   p o i n t   t h e m   o u t .   ho w e v e r,   t h i s 
should not necessarily entail heav y penal-
ties  in  p o ints.  fo r  e xamp le,  fe w   f inancers 
w i l l   g i ve   a   f i r m   c o m m i t m e n t   t o   c o n t i n u e 
f u n d i n g   a c t i o n s   e v e n   b e fo r e   t h e   p r o j e c t 
star ts.

m any projec ts funded by life will require 
m a i n t e n a n c e   i n   o r d e r   t o   c o n t i n u e   t h e 
e nv i ro n m e n t a l   b e n e f i t s   a c h i e ve d.   no t   f i-
nancing such projec ts would considerably 
re s t r i c t   t h e   n u m b e r   o f   h a b i t a t s   a n d   s p e -
c i e s   w h i c h   co u l d   b e n e f i t   f ro m   l i f e  f u n d-
i n g   c o m p a r e d   t o   t h o s e   t a r g e t e d   b y   t h e 
direc tive s.

27. 
The wor k car r ied out by the european en-
vironment agenc y and the european Top -
i c   Ce n t re   o n   b i o l o gi c a l   d i ve r s i t y   i s   t a k e n 
i nto   a cco u nt   a s   i t   b e co m e s   ava i l a b l e   a n d 
wh ere  rel eva nt  fo r d efining  sel e c ti on c r i-
ter ia for the life programme. This wor k is 
followed cl o sel y by the Commis si on.

28 . 
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   s h a r e s   t h e   C o u r t ' s   c o n-
c e r n s   r e g a r d i n g   t h e   l e n g t h   o f   t h e   s e l e c -
t i o n   p r o c e s s ,   a n d   a g r e e s   w i t h   t h e   C o u r t 
t h a t   t h i s   i s   m o s t l y   d e t e r m i n e d   b y   t h e 
r e q u i r e m e n t s   s p e c i f i e d   i n   t h e   b a s i c   a c t 
adopte d  by  the  eu rop ea n  par l ia me nt   an d 
t h e   C o u n c i l .   T h e   i n t e r i n s t i t u t i o n a l   r e -
q u i re m e n t s   i n c l u d e   a   p e r i o d   fo r   m e m b e r 
s t a t e s   t o   m a k e   c o m m e n t s   o n   p r o p o s a l s 
( 6  we e k s ) ,   c o n s u l t a t i o n   o f   t h e   l i f e  Co m-
mit tee   (2  we eks   n otice  req uired );   t he   eu-
ropean parliament's right of scrutiny right 
(8 weeks); and the Commission award de -
c i s i o n   ( 3   w e e k s ) .   T h e   C o m m i s s i o n ' s   o w n 
s e l e c t i o n   wo r k ,   f ro m   t h e   s t a r t   o f   t h e   e l i-
g i b i l i t y   p h a s e   u n t i l   a   d r a f t   s e l e c t i o n   l i s t 
is  sent  to   t he  li fe+  Com mittee,  t akes,  on 
average, 24 we e ks.

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

52

reply of The 
Commission

35. 
requirements for monitoring progress to -
wards a more favourable conser vation sta -
t u s   h a v e   b e e n   g r a d u a l l y   r e i n fo r c e d   o v e r 
t h e   p e r i o d   a u d i t e d   a n d   t h e r e a f t e r.   T h e 
l i f e+   g u i d e l i n e s   a n d   a p p l i c a t i o n   f o r m s 
specify that all life+  nature and  biodiver -
sit y projec ts must include separate moni-
to r i n g   a c t i o n s   to   m e a s u re   a n d   d o c u m e nt 
the effec tiveness of the projec t ac tions as 
compared with the initial situation, objec -
tives a nd exp ec ted  res ul ts.

3 8.–4 0. 
The Commission is in regular contac t with 
t h e   e u r o p e a n   e n v i r o n m e n t   a g e n c y   a n d 
t h e   e u r o p e a n  To p i c   Ce n t r e   o n   b i o l o g i c a l 
d i v e r s i t y.   T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a g r e e s   w i t h 
the Cour t that some of the indicators cur -
re n t l y   b e i n g   d e ve l o p e d   b y   t h e   e u ro p e a n 
e n v i r o n m e n t   a g e n c y   a n d   t h e   e u r o p e a n 
To p i c   Ce nt re   m ay   b e   u s e f u l   fo r   t h e   l i f e+ 
p r o g r a m m e ,   a n d   i n t e n d s   t o   t a k e   t h e m 
i n t o   a c c o u n t   w h e n   a v a i l a b l e   a n d   w h e r e 
releva nt .

36. 
Th e   te c h n i c a l   m o n i to r i n g   i s   o rg a n i s e d   s o 
a s   t o   c h e c k   b o t h   t h e   o v e r a l l   o b j e c t i v e s 
and the various detailed objec tives of the 
different ac tions bearing in mind feasibil-
it y and  eff ic ie nc y co ns id eration s.

b ox 5
The  Cou r t   is  r ight  in  p o int ing   out  t hat   as 
a   r e s u l t   o f   t h e   d a m   b r e a k i n g ,   t h e   c o r r e -
s p o n d i n g   s u b - a c t i o n   o f   t h e   p r o j e c t   d i d 
n o t   f u l l y   a t t a i n   i t s   o b j e c t i v e .   n e v e r t h e -
l e s s ,   i t   s h o u l d   b e   n o t e d   t h a t   t h i s   a c t i o n 
repres ented a s mal l p ro p or tio n of  th e  to -
ta l proje c t b u dget.

o v e r a l l ,   t h i s   h i g h l y   s u c c e s s f u l   p r o j e c t 
largely exceeded its key conser vation ob -
jec tive s w it hin  the p l anned b ud g et .

37. 
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   s h a re s   t h e   Co u r t ' s   o p i n-
ion on the impor tance of outcome indica-
t o r s   t o   m e a s u r e   p r o j e c t   p e r f o r m a n c e .   i n 
m o s t   c a s e s,   l i f e   n a t u re   p ro j e c t s   c o n t a i n 
i n d i c a t o r s   a n d   a s s e s s m e n t   c r i t e r i a .   T h e 
C o m m i s s i o n   i s   a l r e a d y   r e i n f o r c i n g   t h i s 
aspec t.

4 3. 
The in depen dent evaluation of l ife  com-
m u n i c a t i o n   i n   t h e   p e r i o d   2 0 0 0 – 2 0 0 7   r e -
f e r r e d   t o   b y   t h e   C o u r t   i n   p a r a g r a p h   4 6 
c o n c l u d e d   t h a t   t h e   c o m m u n i c a t i o n   a c -
t i v i t i e s   c a r r i e d   o u t   by   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   i n 
co n n e c t i o n   w i t h   t h e   l i f e  p ro gra m m e   a re 
perceived as useful and effective. They are 
c o n s t a n t l y   b e i n g   i m p r o v e d ,   a c t i n g,   i n t e r 
ali a, on t he fin dings  of th is evaluati on .

4 5. 
T h e   Co m m i s s i o n   a c c e p t s   t h a t   m o re   wo r k 
c o u l d   b e   d o n e   t o   d i s s e m i n a t e   d e t a i l e d 
t e c h n i c a l   i n fo r m a t i o n .   i t   i s   a l r e a d y   c o m-
mitted to this, building on significant im-
p r o v e m e n t s   a l r e a d y   m a d e   i n   p a s t   y e a r s 
i n   d i s s e m i n a t i n g   r e s u l t s ,   s u c h   a s   t h e   o r -
gan isat ion  of  th e  e u-wide  n at ure  days   in 
2 00 8.

p r o j e c t   b e n e f i c i a r i e s   d o   d i s s e m i n a t e 
t h e i r   t e c h n i c a l   f i n d i n g s   w i d e l y,   t h r o u g h 
wor ksh ops and  con feren ces org an is ed  by 
th emse lves  or   by   ot her  projec ts,  th roug h 
th eir  person al contac ts.

i n   d i s s e m i n a t i n g   t h e   r e s u l t s   o f   l i f e 
p r o j e c t s ,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   h a s   c h o s e n   t o 
f o c u s   i t s   l i m i t e d   r e s o u r c e s   o n   t h o s e   r e -
sults  th at  could  most  usefully   be   applie d 
b y   o t h e r   s t a k e h o l d e r s ,   i . e .   p r o j e c t s   t h a t 
h a v e   s u c c e s s f u l l y   c a r r i e d   o u t   t h e i r   c o n-
ser vat ion  wor k .

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

53

reply of The 
Commission

4 8.
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a g r e e s   t h a t   e u - l e v e l 
n et wor k in g should be f ur t her de velo ped. 
s i g n i f i c a n t   i n t e r n a t i o n a l   n e t w o r k i n g   i s 
already  tak in g place  as par t  o f  many  l ife  
p r o j e c t s   o r   l i n k e d   t o   t h e m .   i t   s h o u l d   b e 
n o t e d   t h a t   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   o r g a n i s e d   a 
meeting on the exchange of best prac tice 
tech n ique s from l ife-nature proj ec ts, in-
vo l v i n g   ove r   2 0 0   p a r t i c i p a nt s,   i n   nove m-
b e r   2 0 0 8 .   fu r t h e r   l i f e   e u - l e ve l   m e e t i n g s 
are plan ned.

4 9. 
The Commission  acce pts t hat  th e e mph a-
sis proj ec t s put on comm unic at io n var ie s 
from projec t to projec t. never theless, the 
Co m m i s s i o n   wo u l d   l i k e   to   p o i n t   o u t   t h a t 
s i n c e   2 0 0 7   a l l   l i f e   p r o j e c t s   a r e   r e q u i r e d 
to   m e e t   m i n i m u m   s t a n d a rd s,   w h i c h   h ave 
b e e n   g r a d u a l l y   r a i s e d ,   a n d   t o   u n d e r t a k e 
co m m u n i c at i o n   a c t i v i t i e s   ( n o t i ce   b o a rd s, 
w e b s i t e s ,   l a y m a n ' s   r e p o r t s ,   e t c . ) .   m o s t 
projec t s go well beyond these  s tan d ards.

Cu r re n t   r e q u i r e m e n t s   i n   t h i s   re s p e c t   a re 
much stric ter and clearer for new projec ts 
th an  for  the  proje c ts audited.

5 0.
T h e   C o u r t   i s   r i g h t   i n   p o i n t i n g   o u t   t h a t , 
in  some c ases, it is easier  to acce s s  i nfor-
m at i o n   w h e n   i t   i s   ava i l a b l e   o n   d e d i c ate d 
w e b s i t e s   f o r   l i f e  p r o j e c t s ,   a s   o p p o s e d 
t o   p r o j e c t   i n fo r m a t i o n   e m b e d d e d   i n   t h e 
beneficiar y's general website. however, in 
s o m e   c a s e s,   i n c l u d i n g   i t   i n   a   l a rg e r   we b -
s i te   ( s u c h   a s   t h a t   o f   a   p u b l i c   a d m i n i s t r a-
t i o n   o r   a   l a r g e   n g o )   m a y   r e s u l t   i n   m o r e 
p e o p l e   k n ow i n g   a b o u t   t h e   l i f e   p ro j e c t s. 
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w i l l   e x a m i n e   t h e   f e a s i-
b i l i t y   o f   o t h e r   o p t i o n s ,   s u c h   a s   r e q u e s t -
i n g   t h a t   b e n e f i c i a r i e s '   g e n e r a l   w e b s i t e s 
in clude a link to a dedicate d webs i te.

46. 
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   i s   c u r r e n t l y   e n g a g e d   i n 
ef for t s   to   b e t ter   e x p l o i t  a nd   i m prove   the 
l i f e  w e b s i t e   a n d   d a t a b a s e ,   a n d   i s   c o n-
s t a n t l y   a d d i n g   n e w   i n f o r m a t i o n   a n d   i n-
for mat ion categ or ies to  it.

l i k e w i s e,   p ro j e c t   b e n e f i c i a r i e s   a re   b e i n g 
asked to make mo re detail ed infor mati on 
ava i l a b l e.   si n ce   2 0 0 9   t h e y   h ave   b e e n   e n-
courag ed  to   po st   t heir  final   tec h ni cal   re -
por t s o n the  p ro jec t ' s web site (exc lu din g 
s e n s i t i ve   i n fo r m at i o n ,   e. g.   e x a c t   l o c at i o n 
of rare s pec ies) .

b ox 6
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   n o t e s ,   c o n c e r n i n g   o n e 
of  th e  p roje c t s  ment ion ed  in  b ox  6   ( cos t-
e f f i c i e n t   m e t h o d   f o r   r e g u l a t i n g   w a t e r 
l e ve l s )   t h a t   t h e   t e c h n i q u e   w a s   a l s o   p u b -
l i c i s e d   a t   t w o   i n t e r n a t i o n a l   c o n f e r e n c e s 
t h a t   t o o k   p l a c e   i n   s e p t e m b e r   2 0 0 6   a n d 
m arch  2007.

47 . 
The  Commiss io n  agrees  t hat  no t   all   ma n-
u a l s   d e v e l o p e d   b y   p r o j e c t s   h a v e   b e e n 
m a d e   a v a i l a b l e ,   w h i l e   p o i n t i n g   o u t   t h a t 
s i n c e   2 0 0 7   i t   h a s   s t a r t e d   s y s t e m a t i c a l l y 
a d d i n g   t h e   o n e s   p r o d u c e d   b y   o n g o i n g 
p ro j e c t s.   i n   a d d i t i o n ,   a   s p e c i f i c   o n l i n e   l i-
brar y of technical documents produced by 
l i f e   p ro j e c t s   i s   c u r re nt l y   b e i n g   p re p a re d 
a n d   w i l l   b e   m a d e   a v a i l a b l e   v i a   t h e   l i f e  
website.

Concerning translation of such documents 
i nto   o t h e r   l a n g u a g e s,   a l t h o u g h   a c k n ow l-
edging that this would be ideal in terms of 
i n fo r m a t i o n   d i s s e m i n a t i o n ,   t h e   Co m m i s-
sion is of the opinion that it would not be 
m a n a g e a b l e,   a f fo rd a b l e   o r   co s t- e f fe c t i ve 
to provide information in all languages in 
a t imel y fa shio n.

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

54

reply of The 
Commission

6 2. 
l ife-nature's  main  objec t ive  h as  be en   to 
contribute to the implementation of Com-
m u n i t y   p o l i c y   a n d   l e g i s l a t i o n   o n   n a t u r e 
a n d   b i o d i ve r s i t y,   i n   p a r t i c u l a r   d i re c t i ve s 
79/409/eeC and 92/43/eeC, and to suppor t 
the fur ther development and implementa-
t i o n   o f   t h e   n a t u r a   2 0 0 0   n e t w o r k .   a s   t h e 
C o u r t   p o i n t s   o u t ,   t h e   d i r e c t i v e s   c l e a r l y 
m a k e   t h e   m e m b e r   st a t e s   re s p o n s i b l e   fo r 
p r e v e n t i n g   t h e   d e g r a d a t i o n   o f   t h e   c o n-
s e r v a t i o n   s t a t u s   o f   s p e c i f i c   h a b i t a t s   a n d 
spec ies.

Th e   l i f e  c o m m o n   p rov i s i o n s   i n c l u d e   t h e 
o b l i g a t i o n ,   f o r   t h e   p r o j e c t   b e n e f i c i a r y, 
to   i n fo r m   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n   o f   a ny   a c t i v i t y 
b y   t h i rd   p a r t i e s   w h i c h   i s   l i k e l y   t o   h a ve   a 
n e g a t i v e   i m p a c t   o n   t h e   s i t e s   o r   s p e c i e s 
targ ete d. This  has   led,  in  some  in st ances, 
to  in fr in gement   c ases  and  to  proje c t  c lo -
sures.

C r o s s   c o m p l i a n c e   i s   a   c o n t r o l   a n d   s a n c -
t i o n   s y s t e m   w h i c h   a d d s   t o,   b u t   d o e s   n o t 
r e p l a c e ,   t h e   e n f o r c e m e n t   m e c h a n i s m s 
f o r e s e e n   b y   t h e   r e l e v a n t   e n v i r o n m e n t a l 
legislation .

6 3. 
Co n c e r n i n g   l a n d   p u rc h a s e   w i t h i n   a   l i f e-
nature projec t, beneficiar ies must ensure 
t h a t   t h e   s a l e s   c o n t r a c t   a n d / o r   e n t r y   i n 
the land register include a guarantee that 
the land is assigned definitively to nature 
cons er vation pur pos es.

d u r a b l e   g o o d s   a c q u i r e d   i n   t h e   c o n t e x t 
o f   l i f e-na t u r e   p r o j e c t s   m u s t   a l s o   b e   a s-
s i g n e d   i n d e f i n i t e l y   t o   n a t u r e   c o n s e r v a-
tion .

52. 
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a g r e e s   t h a t   t h e   q u a l i t y 
of projec t websites was quite var iable for 
older  p roje c t s. The  Commis s io n  h as  be e n 
p ay i n g   gre ate r   at te nt i o n   to   t h i s   i s s u e   fo r 
s e v e r a l   y e a r s   n o w,   a n d   h a s   i n t r o d u c e d 
m i n i m u m   co nte nt s   re q u i re m e nt s   to g e t h-
e r   w i t h   t h e   o b l i g a t i o n   t o   h a v e   t h e   w e b -
s i te s   f re q u e nt l y   u p d ate d   a n d   m a i nt a i n e d 
for at l eas t five year s af ter  t he e nd o f th e 
projec t .

57. 
a mechanism for more systematic ex-post 
t e c h n i c a l   m i s s i o n s   i s   c u r re n t l y   b e i n g   s e t 
up an d s ho u ld  op erate f rom 200 9 .

58. 
The projec t's final repor t has to repor t on 
a l l   a c t i o n s .   i n   c a s e   o f   d o u b t ,   a d d i t i o n a l 
visits m ay be  car r ied out.

h o we v e r,   fo l l o w i n g   t h e   Co u r t ' s   o b s e r v a -
t i o n ,   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w i l l   r e c o n s i d e r   i n-
s t r u c t i o n s   g i ve n   t o   m o n i t o r s   fo r   t h e   l a s t 
visit.

60. 
projec t beneficiaries are already bound by 
s o m e   o b l i g a t i o n s   r e g a r d i n g   c o n t r o l   a n d 
audit, do cu mentatio n,  land p urc has e a n d 
d u r a b l e   g o o d   a s s i g n m e n t ,   m a n a g e m e n t 
plan s  a nd we bs ite maintenance.

an y   a d d i t i o n a l   p o s t - c o n t r a c t u a l   o b l i g a-
t i o n s   wo u l d   re q u i re   a   c h a n g e   i n   t h e   c u r -
r e n t   l i f e  r e g u l a t i o n   a n d   w o u l d   g i v e   r i s e 
t o   s e v e r a l   p r a c t i c a l   d i f f i c u l t i e s ,   b o t h   fo r 
the projec t beneficiaries and for the Com-
mis sio n itse lf.

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

64. 
T h e   Co m m i s s i o n   a g r e e s   w i t h   t h e   Co u r t ' s 
obser vatio n  that  it  is   so met imes   dif f ic ult 
to  rais e  f unds  for  the  co nt inu ati o n  of  t he 
conser vation measures. at the same time, 
t h e   m e c h a n i s m s   t o   f i n a n c e   a n d   m a n a g e 
t h e   n a t u r a   2 0 0 0   n e t w o r k   i n   t h e   m e m b e r 
states are now much more advanced than 
in the early years of life, and information 
o n   a c c e s s   t o   t h e s e   m e c h a n i s m s   i s   n o w 
m o r e   w i d e s p r e a d   ( e . g .   gu i d a n c e   ha n d-
book on financing natura 2000 developed 
by W Wf fo r the  Commis s ion ).

65. 
T h e   s t r i c t e r   f i n a n c i a l   a n d   s e l e c t i o n   c r i -
t e r i a   a p p l i e d   i n   t h e   s e l e c t i o n   p r o c e s s 
since 2006 ensure that only organisations 
w i t h   a   s u s t a i n a b l e   a n d   s o u n d   f i n a n c i a l 
backgroun d are sel ec ted for  co - fi n an cin g 
of projec t s.

66 . 
T h e   Co m m i s s i o n   s h a r e s   t h e   C o u r t ' s   v i e w 
t h a t   m a n a g e m e n t   p l a n s,   w h e n   e n d o r s e d 
a n d   i m p l e m e n t e d ,   c o n s t i t u t e   o n e   o f   t h e 
m a i n   g u a ra nte e s   fo r   t h e   s u s t a i n a b i l i t y   o f 
p ro j e c t   re s u l t s,   a n d   fo r   t h i s   re a s o n   i t   i n-
sist s  on t heir e ndo rsem ent.

The new Common provisions and the new 
guidelines for applicants to life+ include 
m o r e   s t r i n g e n t   r e q u i r e m e n t s ,   w h e r e b y 
c o s t s   r e l a t i n g   t o   m a n a g e m e n t   p l a n s,   a c -
t i o n   p l a n s   a n d   s i m i l a r   p l a n s ,   d r a f t e d   o r 
modified in the context of a life+ projec t, 
will be ineligible if the related plan is not 
l e g a l l y   e n d o r s e d   a n d   d o e s   n o t   b e c o m e 
operat io nal b efo re t he p rojec t e nd  date.

55

reply of The 
Commission

concLusions And  
recommendAtions

7 0. 
The Commission shares the Cour t ’s goal of 
l o n g - te r m   s u s t a i n a b i l i t y   o f   l i f e  p ro j e c t s. 
The life programme already contains pro -
vision s wh ereby lan d purch ased an d dur-
able g oods acquired must  be  in d ef in ite ly 
assigned to nature conser vation ac tivities 
b e yo n d   t h e   e n d   o f   t h e   p ro j e c t .   howe ve r, 
there are legal issues and implementation 
con straints con cer ning  lon g-ter m  follow-
u p   to   b e   ove rco m e   b o t h   fo r   t h e   Co m m i s-
sion  and  t he grant ben eficiar ies.

7 1. 
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   a g re e s   t h a t   s u s t a i n a b i l-
i t y- re l ate d   c r i te r i a   h ave   b e co m e   l e s s   v i s-
i b l e   i n   l i f e +   co m p a re d   w i t h   l i f e   i i i .  Th i s 
is because there is now a single selec tion 
p ro ce s s   fo r   t h e   t h re e   l i f e +   c o m p o n e n t s, 
w i t h   a l l   p r o j e c t s   c o m p e t i n g   w i t h   e a c h 
oth er  and being  assess ed  eq ually.

su s t a i n a b i l i t y   i s   a s s e s s e d   a t   t h e   t e c h n i-
c a l   s e l e c t i o n   s t a g e   ( q u e s t i o n   1 b. 2 ,   w h i c h 
 q u e r i e s   s u s t a i n a b i l i t y   a t   t h e   s e l e c t i o n 
p h a s e ) .   T h e   a w a r d   c r i t e r i a   ' c o n t r i b u t i o n 
t o   t h e   g e n e r a l   o b j e c t i v e s   o f   l i f e + '   a n d 
' c o m p l e m e n t a r i t y   a n d   o p t i m a l   u s e   o f   e u 
f u n d i n g '   a l s o   n e e d   t o   b e   t a k e n   i n t o   a c -
count  when  con sider in g sustain abi li t y.

7 2. 
The wor k car r ied out by the european en-
vironment agenc y and the european Top -
i c   Ce nt re   o n   b i o l o gi c a l   d i ve r s i t y   i s   t a k e n 
i nto   a cco u nt   a s   i t   b e co m e s   ava i l a b l e   a n d 
whe re relevant for  de fin ing  se lec ti on c r i-
ter ia or other management aspec ts of the 
l i f e  p r o g r a m m e .   T h e   w o r k   o f   t h e s e   t w o 
e n t i t i e s   i s   f o l l o w e d   c l o s e l y   b y   t h e   C o m-
miss ion .

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

56

reply of The 
Commission

7 5.
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   co n s i d e r s   t h at   a s   a   g e n-
e r a l   r u l e ,   t h e   p r o j e c t   m o n i t o r i n g   p e r -
f o r m e d   b y   e x t e r n a l   n a t u r e   c o n s e r v a t i o n 
e x p e r t s   i n c l u d e s   a d e q u ate   m o n i to r i n g   o f 
th e ach ievement of s pec ific con se r vati on 
o b j e c t i v e s .   p r o j e c t   b e n e f i c i a r i e s   a r e   r e -
quired to monitor the impac t of measures 
on t he  targeted spec ies and  habit at s.

m ost life-nature projec ts include indica-
tors allowing the attainment of set object-
ives to be  ver ifie d.

T h e   m o n i t o r i n g   re q u i re m e n t s   h a ve   b e e n 
gradually reinforced, and are now str ic ter 
an d c leare r under  life+.

recommen dat io n  2
(i) 
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h e   C o u r t ' s 
r e c o m m e n d a t i o n   o n   i m p r o v i n g   p r o j e c t 
m o n i t o r i n g,   b u i l d i n g   o n   t h e   e l e m e n t s   o f 
t h e   c u r re n t   a p p ro a c h ,   w h i c h   a l re a d y   p r i-
o r i t i s e s   m o n i t o r i n g   o f   r e s u l t s   a c h i e v e d , 
sustainabilit y of life-funded investments 
and adoption and implementation of man-
age ment plans.

(ii) 
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   i s   w i l l i n g   t o   t a k e   o n 
b o a r d   t h e   e x p e r t i s e   o f   t h e   e e a  a n d   t h e 
e TC   c o n c e r n i n g   m o n i t o r i n g   c r i t e r i a   a s   i t 
becomes available and where  re levant.

73. 
T h e   a p p l i c a t i o n   p a c k a g e   p u b l i s h e d   w i t h 
t h e   y e a r l y   c a l l s   f o r   p r o p o s a l s   i n c l u d e s 
g u i d e l i n e s   f o r   e a c h   l i f e+   c o m p o n e n t , 
to g e t h e r   w i t h   a n   e va l u at i o n   g u i d e   w h i c h 
explains to the public the criteria and pro -
ce d u re s   u s e d   fo r   t h e   e v a l u a t i o n   o f   l i f e+ 
proposal s.

Th e   l e n g t hy   d e c i s i o n - m a k i n g   p ro ce s s   fo r 
gra nt   awa rd s,   w h i c h   i s   m a i n l y   d u e   to   t h e 
unavoidable interinstitutional procedures, 
may affec t the feasibility of projec t imple -
mentation in some cases. The Commission 
has soug ht to  add res s t his is s ue  by  int ro -
ducing in life+ an inception repor t allow -
ing both the beneficiar y and the Commis-
s i o n   t o   r e - e x a m i n e   w h e t h e r   a p p r o p r i a t e 
condit io ns  fo r imp l ementat io n sti ll e xis t.

recom m endat ion 1
(i-ii) 
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w i l l   c o n s i d e r   w a y s   t o 
m a k e   t h e   s u s t a i n a b i l i t y   c r i t e r i o n   m o r e 
v i s i b l e   f o r   t h e   na t u r e   a n d   bi o d i v e r s i t y 
compo nent .

(iii) 
The Commiss io n  is  ready to  exam in e pos-
s i b l e   w a y s   o f   s h o r t e n i n g   t h e   s e l e c t i o n 
p r o c e d u r e ,   w h i l e   p o i n t i n g   o u t   t h a t   t h e 
margin for doing so is ver y small because 
of inter inst it u tio nal  co nst raint s.

74. 
l i f e+   na t u re   i s   m e a n t   t o   c a r r y   o u t   s t e p -
c h a n g e   b e s t   p r a c t i c e   o r   d e m o n s t r a t i o n 
m e a s u re s.  T h e   p r i m a r y   re s p o n s i b i l i t y   fo r 
t h e   s u s t a i n a b l e   n a t u r e   c o n s e r v a t i o n   a s 
la id down in ar t icl e 6 o f t he  hab itats  dir -
ec tive  lie s with  the m em be r st ates.

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

57

reply of The 
Commission

The  Commission  is   c ur rently   set t in g   up  a 
mechanism for carr ying out more system-
at ic ex-post v is its  to assess  sust ain abilit y 
from 2 00 9 .

reco mmend at ion  4
(i) 
The Commission shares the Cour t ’s goal of 
l o n g - te r m   s u s t a i n a b i l i t y   o f   l i f e  p ro j e c t s. 
The life programme already contains pro -
v i s i o n s   w h e re b y   l a n d   p u rc h a s e d   a n d   d u-
rable goods acquired must be indefinitely 
assigned to nature conser vation ac tivities 
b e yo n d   t h e   e n d   o f   t h e   p ro j e c t .   howe ve r, 
there are legal issues and implementation 
c o n s t r a i n t s   t h a t   w o u l d   h a v e   t o   b e   o v e r -
c o m e ,   b o t h   f o r   t h e   C o m m i s s i o n   a n d   t h e 
grant beneficiaries, concerning long-term 
fo l l ow- u p.   n e ve r t h e l e s s,   t h e   Co m m i s s i o n 
w i l l  e x a m in e   to  w h i c h   e x te nt   t h is   re co m-
men dat ion  can  be put  into prac ti ce.

76. 
Th e   Co m m i s s i o n   i s   gra d u a l l y   b ro a d e n i n g 
t h e   n u m b e r   o f   l a n g u a g e s   u s e d   i n   l i f e+ 
m a n a g e m e n t   a n d   c o m m u n i c a t i o n .   ho w -
e v e r,   t h e r e   a r e   s i g n i f i c a n t   c o s t / b e n e f i t 
and  time   imp licat ions   in  moving   toward s 
u s i n g   a l l   l a n g u a g e s   i n   a l l   d i s s e m i n a t i o n , 
w h i c h   w o u l d   m a k e   i t   t o o   c o s t l y   a n d   i m-
pra c tic al.

T h e   Co m m i s s i o n   h a s   g r a d u a l l y   s t r e n g t h-
e n e d   re q u i re m e n t s   co n ce r n i n g   m i n i m u m 
contents and quality standards for projec t 
website s.

The life website and its projec t database 
are be in g co ns t ant l y imp roved.

recom m endat ion 3
T h e   C o m m i s s i o n   w e l c o m e s   t h e   C o u r t ' s 
recommendations on disseminating more 
t e c h n i c a l   i n fo r m a t i o n   a n d   o n   i t s   p r o j e c t 
d at a b a s e,   n o t i n g   t h at   i t   h a s   s i gn i f i c a nt l y 
i m p r o v e d   i t s   c o m m u n i c a t i o n   s t r a t e g y   i n 
th e past  and w ill  co ntinu e to do  s o.

77. 
su s t a i n a b i l i t y   o f   p r o j e c t s   i s   b u i l t ,   i n t e r 
alia, into the project design and examined 
dur ing the selec tion process. projec ts se -
l e c te d   a re   i nte n d e d   to   b e   t h o s e   w i t h   t h e 
g r e a t e s t   c h a n c e   o f   b e i n g   s u s t a i n a b l e 
( a m o n g   o t h e r   c r i t e r i a ) .  T h e   p r o j e c t   b e n -
e f i c i a r i e s   t h e m s e l ve s   a l s o   h a ve   a n   i n t e r -
e s t   i n   t h e   s u s t a i n a b i l i t y   o f   re s u l t s.  T h e re 
is st ill ro o m fo r p ro gres s  in ens ur in g th at 
t h e   c o n s e r v a t i o n   m e a s u r e s   c o - f i n a n c e d 
by   t h e   e u  a re   s u s t a i n e d   a f te r   t h e   c l o s u re 
o f   t h e   p r o j e c t s .   ne v e r t h e l e s s ,   t h e   a b o v e 
mentioned fac tors should ensure that sus-
ta inab il it y w ill  b e safegu ard ed.

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

special r eport no 11/2009 - The sustainability and the Commission's management of the life-nature projects

european Court of auditors

special report no 11/2009 

the sustainability and the commission’s management of the Life-nature projects

luxembourg: publications office of the european union

2009 — 60 pp. — 21 x 29,7 cm

isbn 978-92-9207-431-9 

doi 10.2865/70702

How to obtain EU publications

Publications for sale:

•	

•	

•	

via	EU	Bookshop	(http://bookshop.europa.eu);

from	your	bookseller	by	quoting	the	title,	publisher	and/or	ISBN	number;

	by	contacting	one	of	our	sales	agents	directly.	You	can	obtain	their	contact		details	on	the	Internet	
(http://bookshop.europa.eu)	or	by	sending	a	fax		to	+352	2929-42758.

Free publications:

•	

•	

via	EU	Bookshop	(http://bookshop.europa.eu);

	at	the	European	Commission’s	representations	or	delegations.	You	can	obtain	their	contact	details	
on	the	Internet	(http://ec.europa.eu)	or	by	sending	a	fax	to	+352	2929-42758.

IN THIS REPORT THE EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS ANALYSES THE 

COMMISSION’S MANAGEMENT OF LIFENATURE PROJECTS IN TERMS 

OF THE SUSTAINABILITY OF THEIR RESULTS. THE REPORT PROVIDES 

DETAILS ON THE FOUR MAIN PHASES OF A PROJECT CYCLE WHICH 

I N C LU D E  T H E  S E L E C T I O N  P R O C E D U R E,  I M P L E M E N TAT I O N  A N D 

MONITORING OF PROJECTS, DISSEMINATION OF RESULTS AND LONG

TERM MANAGEMENT OF PROJEC T RESULTS. THE AUDIT INVOLVED 

ONTHESPOT VISITS TO 35 PROJEC TS IN SIX MEMBER STATES AND 

LED TO  RECOMMENDATIONS  FOR  EACH  PHASE TO  ENHANCE THE 

SUSTAINABILITY OF FUTURE LIFENATURE PROJECTS.

EUROPEAN COURT OF AUDITORS

Q
J

A
B

0
9

0
1
1

E
N


C

EUROPEAN 
COURT OF AUDITORS

4
3
8
0

1
3
8
1
N
S
S

I

9
0
0
2

1
1
o
N

t
r
o
p
e
R

l

a
i
c
e
p
S

THE SUSTAINABILITY AND THE 
COMMISSION’S MANAGEMENT
OF THE LIFENATURE PROJECTS

EN