COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Mid-term review of the LIFE+ Regulation  COM(2010) 516 final
Date: 2010-09-30
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, EU financial instrument, action programme, economic instrument for the environment, report, sustainable development

EN 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 30.9.2010 
SEC(2010) 1120 final 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

Mid-term review of the LIFE+ Regulation 

COM(2010) 516 final 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

Mid-term review of the LIFE+ Regulation 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
Commission Staff Working Paper  

1. 

CONSOLIDATED EXPENDITURE  

LIFE+ budget comprises two budget lines:  

LIFE+ multiannual programming legal base

2007 voted

2008 voted

2009 voted

LIFE+ administrative line (BA) Commission

LIFE + Operational

of which Commission 
 of which MS / projects (78 %)

Total LIFE + programme 

07 01 04 01 - administrative assistance

13,000 

226,620 
39,620 
187,000 

239,620 

13,000 

226,620 

17,850 

248,094 
40,594 
207,500 

17,150 

300,000 
50,000 
250,000 

265,944 

317,150 

17,850 

17,150 

248,094 

300,000 

6,71%
21,98%
78,02%

5,43%
21,96%
78,04%

07 03 07 - LIFE + operational
BA / Total
Commission share (incl BA) % (max 22) / total
MS / Projects  % (min 78) / total

5,41%
21,17%
78,83%  
During the reporting period the budget has been allocated according to the priorities set out in 
the  6th  Environmental  Action  Programme  as  specified  in  the  Annual  Management  Plans. 
Figures  1  and  2  below  show  the  distribution  of  LIFE+  expenditure  per  policy  area.  Data 
includes  expenditure  under  both  budget  lines  but  excluding  NGOs  operating  grants  and 
technical  assistance  contracts,  such  as  those  to  help  managing  LIFE+  action  grants. 
Expenditure  for  each  policy  area  includes  service  contracts  and  projects  financed  under  the 
action  grants  intervention.  Thematic  communication  activities  have  been  included  in  the 
category  "Compliance  and  Communication".  This  category  also  includes  projects  financed 
under the LIFE+ Information & Communication strand. Noise is included under the category 
Chemicals and Environment& Health.  

Figure 1: LIFE+ expenditure per policy area 
(2007-2009)

8%

5%

Figure 2: LIFE+ expenditure per policy area (2007-2009)

11%

5%

4%

4%

14%

49%

64,2

39,41

83,97

37,77

30,19

27,71

106,48

a
e
r
a
y
c

i
l

o
p

Compliance&Communication

Green economy

Waste 

Water

Air& Emissions

Chemicals and Env&Health

Climate change

Nature & soil

369,64

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

400

m illion EUR

Around  49%  of  the  budget  has  been  invested  in  nature  conservation  and  biodiversity, 
including forest and soil protection. 19% has been devoted to improve resource efficiency and 
environmental  quality,  and  greening  the  economy.  14%  of  the  budget  has  been  used  to 
address  climate  change  problems  and  8%  has  been  committed  to  ensure  compliance  with 
environmental  legislation  and  to  communication  activities.  The  increased  budget  for 
communication  compared  to  previous  programming  periods  shows  the  Commission's 
conviction regarding the relevance of communication for a successful environmental policy. 

As Table 1 below shows, the budget allocated per policy area during the reporting period has 
been relatively similar. 

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
 
        
         
    
      
        
   
       
         
    
      
       
  
      
        
   
        
         
    
      
        
   
 
 
Table 1: LIFE+ budget allocation per policy area/per year (million€) 

LIFE+ Budget
Policy area
Nature & soil

Nature& Bio

Forest & soil

Climate change
Chemicals and Env&Health
Air& Emissions
Water
Waste 
Green economy
Compliance&Communication

NGOs
Others (e.g., LIFE TA)

Public procurement (budgeted)

Total

2007
4,53
3,59

0,94
6,9
2,23
2,17
2,58
1,78
4,15
10,27

34,61
8,35
8,35

2008
4,38
3,19

1,19
6,48
3,33
2,62
2,82
1,8
2,16
13,46

37,05
8,65
9,34

2009
4,84
2,56

2,28
8,06
3,6
3,18
3,84
2,32
4,21
16,39

46,44
8,9
10,07

13,75
9,34

4,41
21,44
9,16
7,97
9,24
5,9
10,52
40,12

118,1
25,9
27,76

Action grants (actual)
2007
112,1
94,4

2008
112,71
107,31

2009
131,08
123,29

Total

17,7
23,1
3,18
3,19
6,09
24,38
4,15
7,9

5,4
25,88
6,82
4,78
10,92
25,57
10,9
9,91

7,79
36,06
8,55
14,25
11,52
28,12
13,84
6,27

355,89
325

30,89
85,04
18,55
22,22
28,53
78,07
28,89
24,08

184,09

207,49

249,69

641,27

TOTAL (million EUR)

51,31

55,04

65,41

171,76

184,09

207,49

249,69

641,27

When comparing the distribution of LIFE+ expenditure per policy area for each intervention 
(i.e., public procurement and action grants), the actions grants intervention is by far the largest 
contributor  to  nature  conservation  (Figures  3  &  4  below).  Expenditure  on  nature  represents 
12%  of  spending  under  the  public  procurement  in  the  reporting  period.  However  adding 
projects financed under LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity and projects on soil and forest under 
LIFE+ Environment& Governance, LIFE+ spending on Nature conservation represents 49% 
of budget.  

Figure 3: LIFE+ expenditure comparison including/excluding action grants 

Public procurement expendinture per policy area (2007-2009)

LIFE+ expenditure per policy area (2007-2009)

33%

12%

18%

9%

5%

8%

8%

7%

8%

5%

11%

5%

4%

4%

14%

49%

Nature & soil

Air& Emissions

Green economy

Climate change

Chemicals and Env&Health

Water

Waste 

Compliance&Communication

Nature & soil

Air& Emissions

Green economy

Climate change

Chemicals and Env&Health

Water

Waste 

Compliance&Communication

Figure 4: LIFE+ expenditure comparison including/excluding action grants 

Public procurement expenditure per policy area (2007-2009)

LIFE+ expenditure per policy area (2007-2009)

10,52

5,9

9,24

7,97

9,16

a
e
r
a
y
c
i
l

o
p

21,44

13,75

40,12

64,2

39,41

83,97

37,77

30,19

27,71

106,48

a
e
r
a

y
c
i
l

o
p

369,64

0

10

20

30

40

50

0

100

200

300

400

m illion EUR

million EUR

Nature & soil

Air& Emissions

Green economy

Climate change

Chemicals and Env&Health

Water

Waste 

Compliance&Communication

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
However,  once  LIFE+  projects  on  Nature  and  Biodiversity  are  excluded,  the  distribution  of 
spending  by  public  procurement  and  action  grants  per  policy  area  is  comparable  (Figures  5 
and 6). The exception is waste, where only 5% of procurement is spent on waste but 26% on 
the action grants.  

Figure 5: Comparison of Spending by Policy Area between Public Procurement and 
Action Grants, 2008 

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

51%

28%

13%

13%

7%

8%

4%

3%

11%

9%

11%

6%

2%

1%

7%

6%

2%

3%

8%

6%

DG ENV Public Procurement % of 
Total (€27m) 2008

LIFE+ Action  Grants % of Total 
(€197m) 2008

Source: Mid-Term Evaluation of the Implementation of the LIFE+ Regulation (Final Report) 

GHK in association with Arcadis and VITO 

Figure 6: Comparison of Spending by Policy Area between Public Procurement and 
Action Grants, 2008 (excluding Nature) 

35%

30%

25%

20%

15%

10%

5%

0%

29%

27%

26%

8%

8%

6%

0%

0%

11%

11%

10%

12%

12%

9%

7%

7%

7%

4%

3%

3%

DG ENV Public Procurement % of Total 
(€26m) 2008

LIFE+ Action Grants % of Total (€96m) 
2008

Source: Mid-Term Evaluation of the Implementation of the LIFE+ Regulation (Final Report) 

GHK in association with Arcadis and VITO 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
2. 

ACTION GRANTS  

141 projects were funded in the 2007 call for proposals, 196 in 2008 and 210 in the 2009 call. 
The  programme  has  provided  co-finance  of  €642m  under  the  first  three  calls.  A  total 
investment of €797m in environmental  protection in 2007-2008 has been secured.1  

Figure 7: Comparative analysis of LIFE+ calls for proposals 2007-2009 

Proposals received 

2007 

707 

2008 

613 

2009 

615 

LIFE+ EU co-financing available 

187 Mio €

207.5 Mio €

250 Mio €

Rejected Admissibility & Eligibility (%) 

Rejected Financial Selection (%) 

Rejected Technical Selection (%) 

Rejected Award Phase (%) 

Number of projects in final short-list 

Overall success rate (%) 

17% 

12% 

16% 

67% 

143 

20% 

8% 

5% 

13% 

56% 

195 

32% 

4% 

4% 

6% 

54% 

210 

34% 

Compliance with National allocation 

73,32% 

76,84% 

73,49% 

In  these  three  calls,  projects  under  the  nature  and  biodiversity  component  represented  in 
average  51%  of  total  action  grants  budget.  The  obligation  to  allocate  at  least  50%  of  the 
budgetary resources of action grants to supporting nature and biodiversity was thus met.  

However,  the  financial  crisis  had  an  impact  on  the  calls  for  proposals.  Private  beneficiaries 
and NGOs found it more difficult to obtain co-financing and in several cases private entities 
withdrew their support. This problem was also observed in public applicants due to budgetary 
restrictions derived from the measures adopted to overcome the crisis. 

The  problems  identified  raise  concerns  regarding  the  adequacy  of  the  current  co-financing 
rate. The evaluation data suggests that current co-financing rate is preventing some applicants 
from  submitting  good  quality  proposals  with  overreaching  objectives  especially  in  certain 
Member  States  and  for  Biodiversity  and  Information  &  Communication  strands  (see  below 
for more details). 

1 

At the time of preparing this report, final information on projects total budget was not available.  

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
  
 
 
 
                                                 
LIFE+ 2007: projects financed
Programme Policy area
ENV
ENV
ENV
ENV
ENV
ENV
ENV
ENV
ENV
ENV
ENV
ENV
ENV Total

Air
Chemicals
Climate Change
Environment and Health
Forests
Innovation
Noise
Soil
Strategic Approaches
Urban Environment
Waste and Natural resources
Water

Awareness raising campaigns for the prevention of forest fires 
and/or training for forest fire agents
National or transnational communication or awareness raising 
campaigns related to nature protection or biodiversity matters
National or transnational communication or awareness raising 
campaigns related to the implementation, updating and 
development of EU environmental policy and legislation, except 
nature protection and biodiversity matters

LIFE + Biodiversity
LIFE + Nature

INF

INF

INF
INF Total

NAT
NAT
NAT total
TOTAL

LIFE+ 2008: projects financed

Programme Policy area
ENV
ENV
ENV
ENV
ENV
ENV
ENV
ENV
ENV
ENV
ENV
ENV
ENV Total

Air
Chemicals
Climate Change
Environment and Health
Forests
Innovation
Noise
Soil
Strategic Approaches
Urban Environment
Waste and Natural resources
Water

Awareness raising campaigns for the prevention of forest fires 
and/or training for forest fire agents
National or transnational communication or awareness raising 
campaigns related to nature protection or biodiversity matters
National or transnational communication or awareness raising 
campaigns related to the implementation, updating and 
development of EU environmental policy and legislation, except 
nature protection and biodiversity matters

LIFE + Biodiversity
LIFE + Nature

INF

INF

INF
INF Total

NAT
NAT
NAT total
TOTAL

LIFE+ 2009: projects financed

Programme Policy area
ENV
ENV
ENV
ENV
ENV
ENV
ENV
ENV
ENV
ENV
ENV
ENV
ENV Total

Air
Chemicals
Climate Change
Environment and Health
Forests
Innovation
Noise
Soil
Strategic Approaches
Urban Environment
Waste and Natural resources
Water

Awareness raising campaigns for the prevention of forest fires 
and/or training for forest fire agents
National or transnational communication or awareness raising 
campaigns related to nature protection or biodiversity matters
National or transnational communication or awareness raising 
campaigns related to the implementation, updating and 
development of EU environmental policy and legislation, except 
nature protection and biodiversity matters

LIFE + Biodiversity
LIFE + Nature

INF

INF

INF
INF Total

NAT
NAT
NAT total
TOTAL

n° of projects

Total budget

EC contribution

1
1
21
1
1
3
1
2
4
2
27
8
72

0

2

9
11

4
54
58
141

2.720.033
1.645.154
48.070.968
1.031.836
34.443.390
4.610.076
4.209.587
3.237.731
4.139.987
3.728.865
59.026.591
13.827.132
180.691.350

1.344.966
822.577
23.060.412
506.168
16.139.278
2.102.896
1.848.468
1.574.808
2.046.043
1.858.906
24.383.116
6.087.514
81.775.152

0

0

2.099.597

953.250

13.970.695
16.070.292

6.669.210
163.994.893
170.664.103
367.425.745

6.936.056
7.889.306

3.232.910
91.168.031
94.400.941
184.065.399

n° of projects

Total budget

EC contribution

2
5
26
2
3
7
2
3
6
3
26
14
99

4

8

5
17

8
72
80
196

5.455.289
6.903.271
53.803.260
5.187.585
4.178.657
8.779.539
2.393.541
6.841.569
13.798.073
5.855.953
72.625.911
23.787.075
209.609.723

2.693.386
3.305.719
25.878.047
2.500.033
2.067.469
4.217.834
1.022.008
3.335.543
6.680.491
2.088.933
25.567.135
10.916.409
90.273.007

3.953.173

1.680.102

9.052.641

4.484.937

7.589.831
20.595.645

11.676.288
188.788.667
200.464.955
430.670.323

3.748.795
9.913.834

5.671.535
101.641.722
107.313.257
207.500.098

n° of projects

Total budget

EC contribution

6
3
30
4
2
8
3
3
7
9
29
13
117

1

5

4
10

12
71
83
210

0

0

0
516.337.507

6.724.337
2.302.214
36.063.802
4.774.368
2.970.684
6.136.835
1.478.681
4.815.072
7.702.626
7.532.716
28.124.077
11.520.010
120.145.422

750.188

2.909.369

2.614.249
6.273.806

14.869.045
108.421.214
123.290.259
249.709.487

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
Public  authorities  and  development  agencies  were  the  most  common  group  of  beneficiaries 
for  all  three  LIFE+  components  (42%  of  lead  beneficiaries).  As  for  the  remaining  types  of 
beneficiaries,  universities  and  research  institutions  represent  22%  of  the  lead  beneficiaries 
closely followed by NGOs (19%) and by enterprises and professional organisations (17%). In 
Nature and Biodiversity, public authorities and NGOs led 84% of the projects financed (with 
public  authorities  representing  51%  of  lead  beneficiaries  and  NGOs  33%).  In  Environment 
and Governance the distribution was more even between universities, enterprises and public 
authorities. NGOs were also very active in running Information projects. 

Figure 8: Lead beneficiaries in LIFE+ projects per strand (2007-2008) 

12%

5%

19%

22%

Public authorities and 
development agencies

42%

Universities/Research 
institutions

NGO-foundations

Enterprises (including public 
enterprises)

Professional organisations 
(e.g. The Shannon Regional 
Fisheries Board)

Figure 9: Lead beneficiaries in LIFE+ projects per strand (2007-2008) 

3

45

14

4

71

100%

90%

80%

70%

60%

50%

40%

30%

20%

10%

0%

12

13

52

36

58

1

8

7

1

11

Nature and 
Biodiversity

Environment 
Policy and 
Governance

Information and 
Communication

Professional organisations

NGO-f oundations

Universities/Research  institutions

Enterprises

Public authorities and 
development agencies

Source: Mid-Term Evaluation of the Implementation of the LIFE+ Regulation (Final Report) 
GHK in association with Arcadis and VITO 

National  allocations  are  a  remnant  of  the  first  proposal  submitted  by  the  Commission.  The 
aim  was  to  ensure  a  proportionate  distribution  of  projects  throughout  the  EU  in  a 
decentralised management system. This aim is still valid in the current Regulation based on 
centralised  management  mode.  In  the  reporting  period  the  geographical  distribution  of 
projects  has  improved  but  not  substantially.  Italy,  Spain  and  Germany  remain  the  main 
countries  receiving  LIFE+  funding.  The  total  amounts  awarded  to  beneficiaries  in  these  3 
Member  States  totalled  €98  million  in  2008,  accoun ting  for  almost  half  of  the  total  LIFE+ 
budgetary  resources.  Beneficiaries  in  new  Member  States  have  in  general  a  lower  rate  of 
success.  A  study  carried  out  by  Arcadis  consultants identified  several  underlying  causes  for 
differentiated rates of success: active support to applicants by national authorities or access to 
matching funds. In old Member States, low success rates are mainly related to the number of 
applications submitted. The higher the number of applications, the higher the probability that 
more  quality  proposals  are  submitted,  and  thus  the  higher  the  probability  of  being  funded. 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
However,  EU  added  value  partially  derives  from  the  quality  of  the  projects  funded. 
Compliance with national allocations should not lead to finance projects of lower quality. For 
these  reasons,  the  Commission  is  actively  working  to  disseminate  good  practice  to  increase 
success  rate  in  these  Member  States  through  improved  communication  efforts.  These 
increased efforts include promoting better quality proposals in those Member States of lower 
programme uptake.  

Figure 10: Use of National Allocations per Member States (2007-2009) 

DE

ES

IT

FR

UK

PL

RO

SE

FI

GR

NL

PT

HU

DK

SI

BG

BE

CZ

AT

EE

IE

SK

LT

LV

MT

LU

CY

   National allocation used

   National allocation not used

   National allocation exceeded

0

20.000.000

40.000.000

60.000.000

80.000.000

100.000.000

120.000.000

Source: LIFE+ Unit 

In  2008,  the  actual  amounts  awarded  to  Member  States  appeared  to  match  the  indicative 
national  financial  allocations.  Italy,  Spain  and  Germany  were  found  to  receive  the  highest 
amounts of funding beyond the indicative national allocations. In fact, the amount awarded to 
beneficiaries  in  Italy  (€36  million)  was  found  to   be  twice  as  much  as  their  corresponding 
indicative  national  allocation  (€18  million).  With   Member  States  that  received  less  funding 
than  the  indicative  national  allocations,  the  differences  between  the  actual  amounts  and  the 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
indicative allocations were more subtle, with the biggest gap being in the UK (approximately 
€5 million). 

Figure 11: Use of national allocations per Member State (2007-2009) 

Natl. allocation 
2007 - 2009 (€)

Total per 
country (€)

Use rate 
(%)

CY

LU

MT

LV

LT

SK

IE

EE

AT

CZ

BE

BG

SI

DK

HU

PT

NL

GR

FI

SE

RO

PL

UK

FR

IT

ES

DE

6.800.000

7.048.826

7.408.583

8.250.000

8.877.508

9.852.778

10.152.657

10.684.546

12.104.329

12.795.390

13.307.173

13.883.843

13.895.697

15.835.566

16.118.146

18.058.081

20.679.431

21.920.880

23.093.635

26.504.715

28.072.385

30.550.646

51.292.230

56.417.161

56.761.810

69.076.505

75.057.475

3.778.521

3.349.860

229.106

3.860.958

5.889.332

56%

48%

3%

47%

66%

10.121.593

103%

4.206.014

4.180.265

41%

39%

22.226.271

184%

3.755.661

29%

30.932.183

232%

7.784.648

8.174.266

14.788.181

11.457.822

13.181.959

19.064.401

56%

59%

93%

71%

73%

92%

36.888.840

168%

22.838.827

99%

42.722.183

161%

7.261.029

22.613.014

27.544.407

38.307.062

26%

74%

54%

68%

108.314.302

104.399.312

191%

151%

64.206.692

86%

644.499.998

642.076.706

Source: LIFE+ Unit 

Expected outcomes and results per theme 

LIFE+  introduced  the  obligation  to  develop  Programme  indicators.  The  Commission  has 
already  developed  output  indicators  for  projects  selected,  but  result  indicators  are  yet  to  be 
developed. This is so partly because of the difficulties to identify indicators for Environment 
and  Information  projects  and  partly  because  indicators  are  an  additional  and  complex 
requirement for beneficiaries. In addition, results are often visible only years after the projects 
end.  In  any  case,  it  is  still  early  to  measure  the  results  of  projects  financed  in  the  reporting 
period since they only started in 2009.  
However,  on  the  basis  of  provisional  data  provided  by  beneficiaries,2  some  information  on 
expected outcomes is already available to assess the effectiveness of the Programme.  

LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity continues significantly contributing to the implementation 
of nature and biodiversity policies throughout the EU. Projects financed in the first two calls 

2 

Beneficiaries  submit  outputs  indicators  at  the  time  of  the  inception  reports.  The  Commission  is  still 
validating those and thus data could not be aggregated for the purposes of this Communication 

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
 
                                                 
for  proposals  will  invest  around  €91  million  in  concrete  conservation  activities  and  will 
produce  around  190  plans  (40%  are  management  plans  for  Natura2000  sites).  Projects 
financed under 2008 calls for proposals will acquire 5.600 ha of land that will be dedicated to 
nature conservation for €14 million. A further €2.5  million will be invested in removing alien 
species from 84.000 ha. 50 sites will be newly created or enlarged implying 1.720,5 ha more 
to be added to the Natura2000 network.  

Table 2: Preparatory actions under LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity projects (2008) 

Types of preparatory actions

Plans of project measures
Action plans
Management plans
Guidelines
Inventories & Studies
Ex ante  monitoring
Ex post  monitoring

No. of 
preparatory 
actions (NAT)
160
96
61
19
140
86
86

No. of 
preparatory 
actions (BIO)
3
7
2
5
10
3
2

Applying  the  estimates  from  the  ex-post  evaluation  of  LIFE  Programme,  LIFE+  will  target 
about  9%  of  the  terrestrial  Natura  2000  network.  The  marine  environment  increasingly 
occupies a prominent place in Nature projects with the possibility to finance the inventorying 
for  new  Natura  2000  marine  sites.  For  example,  a  2007  Spanish  project  is  inventorying  10 
new Natura 2000 sites; a further 2.5 million ha are thus covered by LIFE+ projects. So far 298 
species  are  targeted  by  the  projects  financed.  Important  recipients  continue  to  be  large 
carnivores such as the wolf, the bear or the Iberian lynx, and priority birds such as the lesser 
spotted eagle and the red kite. 

Table 3: Concrete conservation actions under LIFE+ Nature projects (2008) 

Deliverable

No. of 
concrete 
actions

No. of N2000 
sites involved

Surface 
involved 
(ha)

Budgeted cost 
(€)

Natura 2000 site creation
Natura 2000 site restoration/improvement
Reintroduction
Ex situ  conservation
Removal of alien species

22
468
31
16
27

50
274

1720,5
494684,9

2749317
51857337

84226,56

2603548

As for the Biodiversity strand, only 24 projects have been selected for funding in 2007-2009 
calls.  However,  the success  rate of biodiversity projects has gone from 13% in 2007 call to 
38% in 2009 call showing a significant positive trend, especially after the changes introduced 
to the Guide for applicants which provided more examples.  

Table 4: Concrete conservation actions under LIFE+ Biodiversity projects (2008) 

Deliverable

Enlargement of habitats
Site restoration/improvement
Conservation actions
Reintroduction
Ex situ  conservation
Removal of alien species

No. of 
concrete 
actions

Surface 
involved 
(ha)

Budgeted cost 
(€)

6
6
1
7
7

136
16,8

51
412

802123
478422

69880
266809

The Biodiversity component has the potential to fund activities that cannot be funded under 
any other programme since it covers a larger spectrum of activities well beyond the network 
of  areas  covered  by  the  two  nature  Directives.  These  needs  must  be  taken  into  due 
consideration  (e.g.  green  infrastructures  not  connecting  Natura  2000  sites,  ecosystems 
services outside Natura 2000, species not covered by the Nature directives, IAS, etc).  

EN 

11 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
While  the  "market"  for  nature  conservation  is  defined  and  steadily  growing,  the  one  for 
biodiversity is not only wider, but also less consolidated, indicating more a need for a catalyst 
financial instrument to support and guide its growth. 

The requirements under the current Biodiversity strand are stricter than for the Nature strand 
which makes it more difficult for applicants to submit successful proposals. In addition, the 
current co-financing rate may not provide incentives to those who could submit applications 
under  the  component  due  to  difficulties  to  find  matching  funds.  This  is  the  case  for  NGOs, 
Universities  or  even  the  private  sector.  As  the  evaluation  shows,  some  applicants  prefer  to 
submit applications for the Nature strand because of the possibility to request, under certain 
conditions, a higher co-financing rate. 

There  is  need  to  better  identify  and  engage  new  applicants  from  the  broader  biodiversity 
community including the private sector and encourage them to submit applications.  

LIFE+ supporting Nature and the wider Biodiversity 

LIFE+ significantly contributes to the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directive as 
well as to the preservation of the wider Biodiversity. The following projects are examples of 
how LIFE+ contributes to the protection of EU natural heritage.  

Nature 

LIFE07 NAT/E/00732- INDEMARES (budget €15.4 million; 50% EU co-financing rate): The main objective of 
this project is the protection and sustainable use of biodiversity in the Spanish seas through the implementation 
of  the  Natura  2000  network.  The  project  will  carry  out  the  necessary  studies  are  carried  out  to  complete  the 
identification of the most representative marine areas around Spain. It also proposes to add at least 10 sites to the 
marine Natura 2000 network. The results will support any future revision of the Birds and Habitats Directives’ 
annexes  and  will  contribute  to  the  implementation  and  reinforcement  of  the  marine  international  conventions 
applied  in  Spain  –  OSPAR  and  the  Barcelona  Convention.  The  project  involves  all  relevant  stakeholders, 
including the administrations concerned, NGOs, and fishermen. 

LIFE07 NAT/AT/00012- Traisen (budget €12.8; EU co-financing 41.25%). This project coordinated by Verbund 
Austria Hydro Power AG aims at restoring the river dynamics and large-scale flooding areas, and creates free 
passage for fish and other water species by linking numerous floodplain waters to the new main river. The river 
was  a  heavily  modified  water  body  following  the  construction  of  the  hydropower  plant,  Altenwörth,  in  1976. 
This is one of the numerous projects financed by LIFE that have increased the ecological value of the Danube 
river  and  its  neighbouring  habitats  and  floodplains  by  restoring  sections  to  their  natural  conditions  and 
demonstrating how future management can proceed. LIFE projects have restored several hundred kilometres of 
floodplain maximising the ecosystems services provided by the river.  

LIFE09 NAT/PL/00260- Biomass use for Aquatic Warbler (budget €3.7 million; EU co-financing 74.07%). The 
objective of the project is to link the production of biomass as a renewable energy source, with the large-scale 
mechanised management of aquatic warbler habitat. The aim is to demonstrate that conservation management of 
this  habitat  can  also  be  economically  viable.  The  project  will  be  implemented  in  six  project  sites,  all  special 
protection areas (SPAs) according to the Birds Directive.  

Biodiversity 

LIFE07  NAT/IT/00450  CENT.OLI.MED  (budget €1.5; EU  co-financing  48.39%) High  Nature Value  Farmland 
(HNVF)  plays  a  crucial  role  in  the  protection  of  biodiversity.  In  the  Mediterranean  region,  HNVF  includes 
Ancient Olive Groves (AOGs). These are extensive crops – less than 50 trees per ha - that constitute one element 
in  a  mosaic  of  semi-natural  and  cultivated  areas.  The AOGs  are  typically  intersected  by  small-scale  structural 
elements  or  landscape  features  such  as  Mediterranean  scrub,  dry  stone  walls  or  woodland  strips.  The  project 
ultimately aims to enhance biodiversity in Ancient Olive Groves (AOGs). It seeks to gain recognition of AOGs 
as HNVF and to implement actions to halt the loss of biodiversity in these habitats. 
LIFE08  NAT/E/00064  CUBOMED  (budget  €1.7  million;  EU  co-financing  48.33%).  Spanish  marine  habitats 
have  been  adversely  affected  by  increased  populations  of  the  predatory  jellyfish  Carybdea  marsupialis.  The 
reasons behind unusual population growth patterns in C. marsupialis remain unknown, but these seem to follow 
a similar pattern of behaviour to other invasive species that can take advantage of environmental stresses caused 

EN 

12 

   EN 

 
by human activity. The economic impacts in the tourism in Spain but also in other parts of the Mediterranean are 
obvious  if  this  species  expand.  The  main  objective  of  this  project  is  to  gain  sufficient  understanding  about  C. 
marsupialis blooms to help develop measures capable of mitigating against negative impacts from the jellyfish 
on Mediterranean marine ecosystems in Europe. 

LIFE09 NAT/FR/00584 BioDIVine (budget €1.8 million; EU co-financing 49.18%): Grape vines provide habitats 
with unlimited food supply and few natural enemies. This  makes them an ideal breeding ground for pests. As 
restrictions  on  phytosanitary  products  increase,  environmentally-sensitive  biological  pest  control  methods  are 
growing  in  importance.  The aim  of  this  LIFE  Biodiversity  project focuses  on demonstrating  the  benefits  from 
strengthening landscape structures as a means to restore and conserve biodiversity in cultivated vineyards. This 
will be achieved by assessing biodiversity-friendly actions in different European biotopes. Complementary semi-
natural spaces will be created in vineyards from seven test sites in three countries (Portugal, Spain and France) 
covering Atlantic, Mediterranean and Continental regions. The agronomic benefits of using arthropods and fungi 
biodiversity  for  viticulture  will  be  tested.  Results  will  inform  the  design  of  a  landscape  and  ecological  action 
plan intended to effectively combine wine production and biodiversity conservation actions. 

For  LIFE+  Environment  and  Governance,  the  themes  waste  &  natural  resources,  climate 
change and water represent 71% of all funded projects under this strand. Climate change has 
attracted  a  significantly  higher  number  of  projects  compared  to  LIFEIII.  This  reflects  the 
focus given to climate change in the calls for proposals. The addition of new themes has not 
led  to  a  substantially  different  distribution  of  projects  per  area  compared  to  previous 
programmes. However, in the 2008 and 2009 calls a positive trend in number of applications 
and  projects  selected  for  those  themes  can  be  observed.  For  example,  in  2007  no  projects 
focused on chemicals were funded but in 2008, five projects were selected for funding. As in 
the case of biodiversity, there is a need to attract new applicants to the programme that may 
be unaware of LIFE funding opportunities in a particular area.  

Table 5: Overview of Environment Projects Funded under LIFE II- LIFE III Extension 
(1996-2006) and Environment & Governance Funded under LIFE+ (2007-2008) 

LIFE II - LIFE III extension 
(1996-2006)

LIFE+ (2007-2008)

Number of 
Projects

Committed 
Amount (€m)

Number of 
Projects

Committed Amount 
(€m)

Air 
Water 
Natural resources & 
waste
Strategic approaches 
Urban environment
Climate change 
Chemicals
Soil 
Forests 
Innovation
Noise
Environment and 
health
Total
Average per year

93
250

312
189
69
39
17
92
15

1076
98

52
145

184
103
35
33
10
49
6

616
56

3
22

54
10
5
47
6
5
4
10
3

3
172
86

4
18

53
9
4
51
4
5
18
7
3

3
180
90

s
e
m
e
h
t

’

g
n
i
t
s
i
x
e
-
e
r
P

‘

s
e
m
e
h
t

w
e
N

Source:  GHK  analysis  for  previous  periods  based  on  COWI  (2009)  and  on  LIFE  Unit  data  for  the  current 
programme. The ex-post evaluation classified projects funded by previous LIFE programmes (1996-2006) under 
9  themes  as  defined  in  the  LIFE+  Regulation.  These  themes  were  air,  water,  natural  resources  and  waste, 
strategic approaches, urban environment, climate change, soil, forests and chemicals. 

Note: The innovation theme should be distinguished from the innovative criterion used in project appraisal (note: 
all ENV projects in LIFE III were innovative and all Environment and Governance projects in LIFE+ have to be 

EN 

13 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
either innovative or demonstrative). The innovation theme aims to assist implementation of the Environmental 
Technologies Action Plan (ETAP) (Regulation (EC) No 614/2007) 

Figure 12: Average number of Environment projects funded under LIFE II- LIFE III 
extension (1996-2006) and Environment & Governance projects funded under LIFE+ 
(2007-2008) 

28

27

24

23

17

11

4

8

6

8

3

3

2

1

2

5

3

2

LIFE II  -
LIFE III 
extension 
(1996-
2006)

LIFE + 
(2007-
2008)

30

25

20

15

10

5

0

r
a
e
y

r
e
p

d
e
t
c
e
l
e
s

s
t
c
e
j

o
r
p
f
o

r
e
b
m
u
n

e
g
a
r
e
v
A

Source: Mid-Term Evaluation of the Implementation of the LIFE+ Regulation (Final Report) 

GHK in association with Arcadis and VITO 

Environment  projects  represent  a  significant  support  for  eco-innovation.  Projects  financed 
under  LIFE+  are  expected  to  develop  new  technologies,  methodologies,  approaches,  tools, 
processes  and  products  that  will  improve  the  effective  implementation  of  EU  policies. 
However,  the  multi-thematic  composition  implies  that  relatively  few  projects  are  financed 
under each theme making it difficult to validly assess results at thematic level.  

In this context it should be also noted that the protocol agreed between LIFE+ Environment 
and Governance and CIP eco-innovation to manage submissions and steer the applicants to 
the most suitable instrument envisages that LIFE+ will tend to fund projects orientated to the 
public sector while CIP eco-innovation will concentrate more on market replication projects, 
presented by private undertakings and notably SMEs. 

Some  information  is  available  for  the  main  three  themes  mentioned  above.  27  new 
technologies,  85  methodologies  and  approaches  and  10  process  and  products  will  be 
developed  in  the  next  years.  Waste  concentrates  on  developing  new  technologies  whereas 
climate  change  and  water  focus  on  new  methodologies,  approaches  and  tools.  Waste  is  the 
most  innovative  theme  in  terms  of  creating  and  developing  new  products  and  process.  The 
wider  impact  due  to  possible  replication  is  difficult  to  assess  at  this  stage  although  when 
evaluating EU added value during the selection process it was assessed medium or high.  

Table 5: Expected outputs for 2007-2008 funded projects in terms of eco-innovation 

2007 call 

Total 

2008 call 

Total 

Output 

Technologies 
Methodologies/approaches/tools  17 
Processes/products 

0 

TOTAL  

21 

Climate 
change 
4 

Waste Water

8 
13 
6 

27 

0 
7 
0 

7 

12 
37 
6 

55 

Climate 
change 
5 
20 
1 

26 

Waste  Water

8 
16 
3 

27 

2 
12 
0 

14 

15 
48 
4 

67 

EN 

14 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
  
LIFE+ supporting Environmental policy implementation and development  

LIFE+ Environment & Governance provides a positive stimulus for supporting the transition 
to  more  sustainable  production  bridging  the  gap  between  research  and  the  development  of 
large-scale  commercial  application.  It  is  an  effective  tool  to  support  key  sectors  to  obtain  a 
competitive advantage by adopting more resource efficient and greener production processes. 

LIFE07  ENV/E/000787  Recyship  (budget  €3.4  million;  EU  co-financing  50%):  a  ship  reaches  the  end  of  it 
working life after 20-30 years and is sold as scrap and dismantled to recover the steel. Almost 90% can be reused 
as high quality steel. The remaining 10% contains high quantities of dangerous waste. In the 1970s, ships were 
dismantled  in  European  ports.  Greater  environmental  regulation  and  higher  security  and  health  standards, 
increased  the  costs  and  the  industry  moved  its  operations  to  cheaper  countries  (e.g.  Bangladesh,  India,  China, 
Turkey).  The  main  objective  of  the  project  is  to  develop  a  technically  and  economically  feasible,  safe  and 
environmentally sound methodology for the dismantling and decontamination of end-of-life vessels and develop 
a  pilot  test  in  a  shipyard  in  the  southwest  of  Europe,  where  the  prototype  will  be  validated.  The  project  will 
assess EU and national legislation and will propose a regulation for end-of-life ships management. 

LIFE07  ENV/FIN/07  VACCIA  (budget  3.1;  EU  co-financing  48.98%):  Climate  change  provides  a  major 
challenge for the sustainable management of key ecosystem goods and services, including biodiversity, forests, 
water and agricultural production. Despite increasing efforts to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, results 
from global circulation models show that major changes in the current climate cannot be avoided. The VACCIA 
project  aims  to  derive  realistic  climate  change  scenarios  for  specific  sites  to  enable  impact  and  vulnerability 
assessments and suggest the most appropriate adaptation measures. 

LIFE08  ENV/IT/000435  ANTARES  (budget  €1.1;  EU  co-financing  50%):  REACH  has  introduced  stricter 
European legislation on the handling, use and disposal of new chemicals. This aims to address the problem of 
chemical  compounds  ending  up  in  the  environment,  but  it  also  increases  the  cost  to  producers,  who  must 
demonstrate that a chemical is safe for the environment and human health. It has been estimated that at least 30 
000  new  chemicals  will  be  introduced  in  the  coming  years  in  Europe.  This  project  aims  to  show  which  non-
testing  methods  (NTM)  can  be  used  to  demonstrate  compliance  with  REACH  legislation  and  under  what 
conditions. It seeks to bridge the gap of knowledge on which methods can be used in practice to avoid animal 
testing. The project will carry out a preparatory survey of all current methods for assessing compliance with the 
REACH legislation. This will help identify the exact criteria that the NTMs must meet. It will also evaluate the 
available experimental data for the eco-toxicological, toxicological and environmental endpoints for REACH. 

LIFE09  ENV/BE/00410  DEMOCOPHESII  (budget  3.4;  EU  co-financing  49.87%):  Human  Biological 
Monitoring (HBM) has long been used in the medical surveillance of workers. Currently it is increasingly used 
as  a  tool  in  environmental  research  and  in health  policy  development.  The  European  Environment  and Health 
Strategy, launched in June 2003 by the European Commission as the SCALE initiative, paid particular attention 
to  the  potential  of  HBM.  The  main  objective  of  this  project  is  to  demonstrate  the  feasibility  of  a  harmonised 
approach to HBM in the EU by implementing a pilot study in 16 Member States and sharing the expertise with 
five additional countries, which will be adhoc members of this project. The work will be guided by the external 
team,  COPHES  (COnsortium  to  Perform  Human  biomonitoring  on  a  European  Scale),  which  will  prepare 
guidelines and protocols for all tasks, train beneficiaries, deliver preparatory materials and evaluate the process 
within the framework of an FP7 Concerted Action that started in December 2009. 

LIFE09 ENV/E/000441 AGROCLIMATICA (budget €1.6; EU co-financing 50 %): The Intergovernmental Panel 
on  Climate  Change  has  estimated  that  agriculture  is  directly  responsible  for  20%  of  global  greenhouse  gas 
(GHG) emissions. In Europe, this figure is around 9% of total GHG emissions. Key sources of GHG emissions 
in  agriculture  are  fertiliser  production  and  machinery.  The  ACCIÓN  AGROCLIMÁTICA  project  aims  to  de-
velop a tool for carrying out energy and GHG audits on farms, and for identifying the most suitable crops and 
best  practices  for  mitigation  and  adaptation  to  climate  change.  It  seeks  to  provide  a  methodology  that  will  be 
widely accepted by the EU-27 farming sector and applicable to most of the different agricultural systems. 

The  growing  significance  of  eco-innovation  is  evident  with  an  increasing  percentage  of 
projects dealing with innovative management or business methods introduced both by public 
entities  and  the  private  sector.  Around  two  thirds  of  projects  funded  under  LIFE+ 
Environment and Governance are eco-innovation projects.  

EN 

15 

   EN 

 
 
Figure 13: Total project funding under LIFE III and LIFE+ for Environment & 
Governance and Eco-innovation (‘broad’ and ‘strict) 

90000000

80000000

70000000

60000000

50000000

40000000

30000000

20000000

10000000

0

Total of EU contributions (all projects, 
in €)

Total of EU contributions (broad eco-
innov projects, in €)

Total of EU contributions (STRICT eco-
innov projects, in €)

2000

2002

2003

2004

2005

2006

2007

2008

Source: GHK analysis. Mid-Term Evaluation (Final Report) 

In these two calls, some projects will also significantly contribute to develop environmental 
legislation in the area of waste by testing methods to manage new waste streams such as ship 
dismantling, fiber glass or biowaste.  

38  projects  have  been  financed  under  LIFE+  Information  in  the  reporting  period.  A 
significant  number  of  projects  were  rejected  in  the  2007  call  for  not  being  sufficiently 
ambitious or without clear environmental goals.  

Figure 14: INF projects submitted and selected 2007 and 2008 

The Guide for applicants was modified to provide more examples of types of projects to be 
financed  under  this  component.  As  a  consequence  overall  quality  of  projects  improved  but 
results  remain  low  as  compared  to  the  other  LIFE+  components.  The  evaluation  shows  that 
the  co-financing  rate  may  not  provide  enough  incentives  to  submit  applications  under  the 
strand.  It  seems  that  finding  matching  funds  is  difficult  for  communication  campaigns  and 
projects  had  to  downscale  project  objectives  to  meet  co-funding  requirements  thus  focusing 
more on local or regional campaigns with some exceptions.  

EN 

16 

   EN 

 
 
 
Figure 15: INF Themes 2007 and 2008 

Source: monitoring files LIFE ENV projects – GHK calculations 

The projects financed cover a wide range of themes, from climate change or sustainable olive 
oil  production.  They  also  target  very  diverse  audiences,  from  the  general  public  to 
professional  stakeholders  or  public  authorities.  Most  projects  focus  on  local  or  regional 
problems. However, some projects e.g. French project on the European Waste Week will have 
more significant impacts at EU level. More efforts are needed to better define this component. 
The evaluation also recommends increasing the co-financing rate. 

LIFE+ supporting awareness and communication campaigns  

LIFE+ Information & Communication the strand offers a unique opportunity to overcome this 
barrier and widely promote environmental themes. The introduction of the strand is perceived 
both at EU and national level as one of the elements that added the greatest contribution to EU 
added  value  in  the  new  Regulation.  The  strand  has  the  potential  of  financing  EU-wide 
communication campaigns that will contribute to reducing environmental problems in the EU. 

LIFE07 INF/FR/000185 European Week for Waste Reduction (budget €2.1 million; co-financing 50%): On 21 
December 2005, the European Commission, in applying the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme 
(2002 – 2012), presented the following: 

-  A  communication  to  the  European  Council,  the  European  Parliament,  the  European  Economic  and  Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  Regions  entitled  “Taking  sustainable  use  of  resources  forward:  a  thematic 
strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste”; 

-  A  proposal  for  a  European  Parliament  and  EU  Council  Directive  on  waste,  which  became  Directive 
2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on waste. 

The  main  objective  of  the  European  Week  of  Waste  Reduction  (EWWR)  project  is  to  reduce  the  amount  of 
municipal  waste  generated  in  Europe  by  involving  all  the  players  concerned  in  awareness  programmes.  The 
project will be an awareness campaign to mobilize European society on the problems of waste. It will build on 
the experience of French waste reduction campaigns (which were launched in 2004 within the framework of a 
national plan for prevention of waste production) and aims to sensitise and mobilise Europeans on the need to 
reduce  the  amount  of  waste  that  everyone  produces  daily.  The  project,  managed  by  ADEME,  Agence  de 
l'Environnement  et  de  la  Maîtrise  de  l'Energie,  includes  as  partners  main  waste  management  authorities  in 
partners in Belgium, Spain and Portugal. 

EN 

17 

   EN 

 
 
 
Table 6: INF project target audiences 

INF project target audiences  

Broader public  

Professional stakeholders 

Policy makers 
/authorities/other 

G
e
n
e
r
a
l
p
u
b
l
i
c

c
h
i
l
d
r
e
n
/
s
c
h
o
o
l
s

15 

6 

Y
o
u
t
h

2 

P
a
r
e
n
t
s

a
n
d
f
a
m

i
l
i
e
s

2 

54
% 

21
% 

7% 

7% 

t
e
a
c
h
e
r
s

3 

11
% 

V
i
s
i
t
o
r
s
o
f
n
a
t
u
r
a
l

p
a
r
k

r
u
r
a
l

r
e
s
i
d
e
n
t
s

o
r
n
a
m
e
n
t
a
l
h
o
r
t
i
c
u
l
t
u
r
e

p
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l
s

1 

1 

1 

t
r
a
p
p
e
r
s

1 

L
a
n
d
/
f
o
r
e
s
t

o
w
n
e
r
s

2 

F
a
r
m
e
r
s

2 

N
a
t
u
r
a
2
0
0
0

s
i
t
e
m
a
n
a
g
e
r
s

L
a
w
e
n
f
o
r
c
e
m
e
n
t

a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
i
e
s

l
o
c
a
l
/
r
e
g
i
o
n
a
l

a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
i
e
s

/
d
e
c
i
s
i
o
n
m
a
k
e
r
s

n
a
t
i
o
n
a
l

a
u
t
h
o
r
i
t
i
e
s

l
o
c
a
l
p
r
o
d
u
c
e
r
s

b
u
s
i
n
e
s
s
e
s

P
r
o
f
e
s
s
i
o
n
a
l

o
r
g
.

3 

3 

2 

1 

1 

7 

3 

N
G
O
s

1 

4% 

4% 

4% 

4% 

7% 

7% 

11
% 

11
% 

7% 

4% 

4% 

25
% 

11
% 

4% 

Source: monitoring files LIFE ENV projects – GHK calculations 

Complementarity 

LIFE+  should  not  finance  activities  that  could  be  financed  by  other  EU  funds  (Art.9  of  the 
Regulation).  This strict  obligation would require a clear separation line between LIFE+  and 
other funds. The evaluation recognises the efforts to ensure complementarity. The application 
forms require information on actions included in the proposal that could be financed by other 
support programmes. Applicants must explain why they consider that those actions do not fall 
within the main scope of alternative EU instruments and must declare that actions listed in the 
proposal do not and will not receive aid from any other EU instruments.  

The Commission coordinates to identify projects that may be financed by other EU funds. A 
protocol  to  manage  submissions  under  the  Competitiveness  &  Innovation  Framework 
Programme (CIP) and LIFE+ Environment & Governance was developed to identify the most 
suitable  instrument  for  a  given  activity.  Other  measures  include  an  agreement  that  Member 
States will provide additional guidance to potential applicants.  

The evaluation shows that complementarity is improved where:  

1. LIFE+ projects build on FP7 activity.  

2. A broad base of activity in LIFE+ is retained from which to support further policy value.  

3.  The  policy  benefits  to  environment  (and  6EAP)  are  fed  into  other  Programmes.  For 
example,  in  many  cases  agri-environmental  measures  are  tested  in  LIFE  projects  and 
afterwards they are incorporated into the rural development programmes.  

4. Ensure that the policy needs of CIP, SF, EAFRD, etc are reflected where possible in calls 
and appraisal criteria.  

5. Ensure beneficiaries are aware of joint funding in larger projects, where different elements 
might be funded as discrete projects with different funding sources.  

6.  There  is  a  step  change  in  levels  of  communication  between  actors  in  the  various  policy 
fields at EC, MS, regional / local and beneficiary levels.  

EN 

18 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The  Commission  focuses  on  avoiding  double-funding  but  has  tried  a  more  positive  attitude 
towards  complementarity  by  granting  additional  points  to  projects  demonstrating  synergies 
with other funds  or  showing  an  integrated approach in the use of different funds.  However, 
building  and  enhancing  synergies  with  other  programmes  is  a  more  challenging  task  when 
those are decentralised or in shared management with national, regional or local authorities. 
Also, applicants tend to select the fund they are more familiar with. 
More efforts are needed to improve synergies between 7th Research Framework Programme, 
LIFE+ Environment, CIP, EAFRD, Structural and Cohesion Funds to accompany innovative 
ideas from creation, testing & demonstration to commercialisation and wide diffusion.  

The  evaluation  recommends  combining  the  Eco-innovation  component  of  CIP  and  LIFE+ 
Environment  &  Governance  for  the  next  programming  period  to  create  a  single  eco-
innovation funding mechanism. Protocols and guidelines to better link the different funds are 
also recommended.  

3. 

NGOS OPERATING GRANTS 

30 NGOs were selected in 2007, 33 in 2008 and 32 in 2009.  

Output indicators were introduced during the evaluation period. However, the results of NGO 
activities  are  difficult  to  measure  in  a  quantitative  way  since  they  relate  mainly  to  policy 
contribution,  by  nature  qualitative.  Quantitative  output  indicators  can  only  provide  limited 
information  for  monitoring  the  outcome.  Nevertheless,  across  all  beneficiaries  activities  in 
policy  development  and  implementation,  including  awareness  raising  and  organisational 
development were reported. Commonly reported activities include for instance publication of 
press  releases,  organisation  of  and  participation  in  conferences,  and  written  submissions  to 
EU  institutions.  NGOs  also  reported  on  awareness  raising  activities,  including  education  on 
EU policy implementation and development.  

During the evaluation, beneficiaries were also asked to estimate the distribution of activities 
and  funds  across  main  activity  areas.  The  results  show  that  most  resources  are  devoted  to 
policy development and implementation followed by capacity building of members.  

Table 7: NGOs expenditure per area of intervention 

Environment policy development 

4.519.729 euro 

Implementation 

Capacity  building  of  members  and 
partners 

4.704.192 euro 

2.810.383 euro 

Environmental Education 

1.639.228 euro 

Enlargement and Third Countries 

1.319.172 euro 

Internal Capacity Building 

1.703.103 euro 

27,1% 

28,2% 

16,8% 

9,8% 

7,9% 

10,2% 

EN 

19 

   EN 

 
Figure 16: NGOs expenditure per area of intervention 

operational funding in 2007-2008

10%

27%

10%

8%

17%

28%

Environment policy development
Environmental Education

Implementation
Enlargement and Third Countries

Capacity building of members and partners
Internal Capacity Building

Source: Arcadis calculations (Mid-term evaluation- Final Report) 

All topics of the 6EAP are covered with a good balance between policy development, policy 
implementation and internal and external capacity building.  

Topic 

operational fund 2007-2008 (€) 

% 

Agriculture 

wood, forestry 

Fishery 

Tourism 

nature and biodiversity 

energy and climate 

Water 

industrial pollution 

Waste 

Transport 

Chemicals 

sustainable economy 

sustainable development 

1.011.094,68

651.167,93

290.285,15

961.389,46

3.107.961,24

2.295.281,04

1.335.164,69

475.643,17

726.178,57

491.624,00

1.090.290,72

6,06 

3,90 

1,74 

5,76 

18,62 

13,75 

8,00 

2,85 

4,35 

2,94 

6,53 

2.331.413,01

13,96 

EN 

20 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
Topic 

Soil 

GMO 

Air 

Health 

Standardisation 

legal issues 

operational fund 2007-2008 (€) 

174.372,70

174.204,22

599.236,26

450.156,17

180.000,00

350.344,00

% 

1,04 

1,04 

3,59 

2,70 

1,08 

2,10 

Source: Arcadis calculations (Mid-term evaluation- Final Report) 

Figure 17: NGOs expenditure per policy area 

distribution of operational funding over policy themes

1%

1%

1%

2%

2%

3%

3%

3%

4%

4%

4%

6%

6%

19%

14%

7%

8%

14%

nature and biodiversity

sustainable economy
sustainable development
energy and climate

water

chemicals

agriculture

tourism

waste

wood, forestry

air

transport

industrial pollution

health

legal issues

fishery

standardisation

soil

GMO

Figure 18: NGOs expenditure per policy area 

EN 

21 

   EN 

 
 
distribution of operational funding over policy themes (2)

14%

30%

27%

29%

nature and open space

sustainable economy

pollution

energy and climate

4. 

SUPPORT FOR POLICY DEVELOPMENT AND IMPLEMENTATION  

In  2007-2009,  DG  Environment  concluded  around  200  contracts/year  to  help  implementing 
the priorities laid down in the 6EAP. The budget allocation per policy area in this reporting 
period was very similar for each year (Figure 19). 

Figure 19: Public procurement expenditure per policy area/per year 

Public procurement expenditure per policy area (2007)

Public procurem ent expenditure per policy area (2008)

Public procurem ent expendinture per policy area (2009)

13%

12%

10%

31%

Nature & soil

Climate change

Chemicals and Env&Health

Air& Emissions

Water

Waste 

20%

36%

17%

36%

17%

8%

Green economy

Compliance&Communication

12%

6%

6%

5%

7%

6%

5%

8%

9%

7%

9%

7%

5%

8%

NB: 

Compliance  &  communication  includes  contracts  to  support  the  Commission  in  ensuring  compliance  and 
enforcement  of  environmental  policy  as  well  as  communication  activities  contracted  by  the  specialised 
communication units and by thematic units (e.g., EMAS brochures, climate change); 

Nature & soil includes contracts to support policy implementation and development in the area of soil, forests, 
nature and biodiversity. It also includes specific contracts on international affairs focused on nature conservation 
issues (e.g., wild trade).  

Chemicals  and  Env&  health  includes  contracts  to  support  implementation  and  development  of  REACH, 
biocides, pesticides, GMOs, environment and health, and noise; 

Air & emissions includes contracts to support policy implementation and development in the areas of transport, 
air quality and industrial emissions (e.g., IPPC);  

Technical assistance for LIFE+ units (around 8-10 million) has not been included.  

EN 

22 

   EN 

 
 
LIFE+ Budget
Policy area
Nature & soil

(budgeted)

Nature& Bio

Forest & soil

Climate change
Chemicals and Env&Health
Air& Emissions
Water
Waste 
Green economy
Compliance&Communication

NGOs
Others (e.g., LIFE TA)

Total

Public procurement
2007
4,53
3,59

2008
4,38
3,19

0,94
6,9
2,23
2,17
2,58
1,78
4,15
10,27

34,61
8,35
8,35

1,19
6,48
3,33
2,62
2,82
1,8
2,16
13,46

37,05
8,65
9,34

2009
4,84
2,56

2,28
8,06
3,6
3,18
3,84
2,32
4,21
16,39

46,44
8,9
10,07

13,75
9,34

4,41
21,44
9,16
7,97
9,24
5,9
10,52
40,12

118,1
25,9
27,76

TOTAL (million EUR)

51,31

55,04

65,41

171,76

NB: LIFE+ budget includes both budget lines. 

33%  of  resources  were  dedicated  to  compliance  and  communication  activities.  The  specific 
policy area with the largest share of public procurement expenditure (average 18%) is climate 
change. The remainder of public procurement is fairly spread across the other policy fields.  

EN 

23 

   EN