COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Mid-term review of the LIFE+ Regulation
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 
COM(2010) 516 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

Mid-term review of the LIFE+ Regulation 

SEC(2010) 1120 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
  
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

Mid-term review of the LIFE+ Regulation 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
1. 

INTRODUCTION  

Launched  in  1992,  the  LIFE  Programme  is  one  of  the  spearheads  of  EU  environmental 
the  protection  of  the 
funding  and  has  financed  3115  projects  contributing  in  €2.2  billion  to 
environment.  The  latest  Financial  Instrument  for  the  Environment  (LIFE+)  was  adopted 
through Regulation (EC) No 614/2007 (the Regulation).1 

The  purpose  of  the  Regulation  is  to  contribute  to  the  implementation,  updating  and 
development of EU environmental policy and legislation thereby contributing to sustainable 
development  (Art.  1(2)).  Another  objective  is  to  contribute  to  communicating  and 
disseminating environmental issues throughout the EU. 

The  Regulation  applies  for  the  period  2007-2013  and  has  a  financial  envelope  of  €2.14 
billion. The European Parliament provided an additional allocation to increase the budget to 
€2.17 billion. Three types of interv entions are possible under LIFE+: 

•  Action grants, traditional LIFE Programme, representing 78% of the budget; 

•  Operating grants for NGOs, former NGO programme, representing 3% of the budget; 

•  Public procurement contracts for service provision, representing 19% of the budget. 

According to Art.15(2) of the Regulation, the Commission must submit a mid-term review to 
the  European  Parliament  and  the  LIFE+  Committee  no  later  than  30  September  2010.  The 
Commission  must  also  report  on  the  steps  taken  to  ensure  complementarity  with  other  EU 
financial instruments (Art. 9 of the Regulation). 

In preparing this review, the Commission contracted an external evaluation published in June 
2010 (henceforth "the evaluation").2 

Since the Regulation entered into force in June 2007 the first call for proposals could only be 
launched  in  October  2007  with  projects  starting  in  January  2009.  Limited  information  on 
results  is  thus  available.  The  conclusions  of  the  evaluation  should  be  considered  indicative 
and to be confirmed in the coming years.  

2. 

RESULTS & LESSONS LEARNED  

In the reporting period LIFE+ has served as an effective tool to implement the priorities set in 
the  6th  Environmental  Action  Programme  (6EAP).3  The  following  sections  analyse  the 
performance of each intervention.  

2.1. 

Simplification exercise  

LIFE+ consolidated almost all environmental expenditure4 by DG Environment into a single 
financial  instrument.  The  Regulation  also  brought  together  two  types  of  interventions,  i.e. 

1 
2 
3 

OJ L 149, 09.06.2007. 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/evaluation/index.htm#mte2010 
See Commission Staff Working Paper for more detailed information.  

EN 

3 

   EN 

 
                                                 
public  procurement  and  grants  to  increase  the  flexibility  in  choosing  one  or  the  other 
depending on the policy needs as set out in Annex II of the Regulation.  

The main benefit of the consolidation is the potential for improved strategic planning. The 
evaluation  recognises  the  efforts  to  enhance  synergies  between  action  grants  and  policy 
development/  update  while  identifying  room  for  improvement.  This  is  so  because  project 
results  are  obtained  after  3-5  years,  making  action  grants  better  suited  to  support  policy 
implementation than policy development. 

However,  some  drawbacks  have  been  identified  especially  for  Forest  Focus.  Although 
funding has been maintained under LIFE+, Forest Focus used to be based on a central indirect 
management mode, with national agencies being allocated a share of the financial support on 
a non-competitive basis. This is no longer the case. The evaluation recommends consultation 
with the Member States on this apparent weakness in LIFE+.  

The evaluation also examined the impact of Art.1(2) of the Regulation which states that all 
activities financed must be for the benefit of the Member States. A strict interpretation of this 
provision prevents financing activities outside the EU creating several trade-offs. For action 
grants, it decreases the potential to finance projects dealing with transboundary environmental 
problems  beyond  the  EU.  For  NGO  support,  it  has  a  negative  impact  on  the  international 
dimension  of  their  work,  e.g.  capacity  building  of  members.  For  public  procurement,  it 
reduces  the  capacity  to  carry  out  communication  activities,  such  as  international  events, 
outside the EU. 

2.2. 

Action Grants  

Action grants are the successor of LIFE III but the Regulation introduced changes: it added 
Biodiversity to the Nature strand and broadened the scope of the Environment strand to align 
with the 6EAP priorities. The Third Country strand was removed and its activities integrated 
into  other  instruments.  A  new  component,  Information  &  Communication,  was  created  to 
better communicate environmental themes.  

LIFE+ Strands 

Nature  &  Biodiversity:  projects  contributing  to  implementing  the  Birds  and  Habitats 
Directives and the Communication on "Halting the loss of biodiversity by 2010". 

Environment  &  Governance:  innovative  or  demonstration  projects  relating  to  EU 
environmental objectives.  

Information  &  Communication:  communication  &  awareness  raising  campaigns  on  EU 
environmental policy and forest fires. 

The co-financing rate is 50% of eligible costs but the maximum co-financing rate in Nature 
projects may be up to 75% if targeting priority habitats or species.  

547  projects  were  funded  in  the  reporting  period.  Projects  under  the  Nature  &  Biodiversity 
strand represented around 51% of the action grants budget, meeting the obligation to allocate 

4 

LIFE,  Sustainable  Urban  Development  and  NGOs  Programmes,  Forest  Focus  and  DG  Environment 
budget lines without a legal basis 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
                                                                                                                                                         
at least 50% of the action grants budgetary resources to nature and biodiversity.  

While the traditional LIFE strands (i.e. LIFE Nature and LIFE Environment) continue to play 
a  central  role,  the  two  new  strands  had  a  slow  start.  This  is  normal,  since  potential 
beneficiaries  need  to  become  familiar  with  the  new  selection  procedures,  rules  and 
requirements.  The  financial  crisis  also  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.  

As  to  projects  financed  per  Member  State,  the  Regulation  introduced  indicative  national 
allocations  to  promote  a  proportionate  distribution  of  projects  throughout  the  EU.  National 
allocations  have  improved  the  geographical  distribution  of  projects,  but  not  substantially. 
Italy,  Spain  and  Germany  remain  the  Member  States  receiving  more  LIFE+  funding.  New 
Member States have in general a lower rate of success. An external study identified several 
underlying  causes  such  as  active  support  to  applicants  by  national  authorities  or  access  to 
matching funds.  

The evaluation hints that national allocations may lead to selecting projects of lower quality, 
which  would  have  an  impact  on  the  effectiveness  of  the  programme  to  provide  EU  added 
value.  

EU added value 

The  evaluation  concludes  that  LIFE+  continues  to  be  relevant  as  is  the  only  EU  financial 
instrument  specifically  focused  on  the  environment:  "The  Programme  becomes  even  more 
needed given the failure to meet EU biodiversity targets and the need to enhance and invest in 
natural capital and green economy".  

The Programme achieves added value by improving the implementation of EU environmental 
policy  at  national,  regional  or  local  levels  and  by  providing  EU-wide  exchange  of 
information. The inclusion of new themes and strands has furthered its relevance and capacity 
to  create  EU  added  value.  Beneficiaries  as  well  as  Member  States  consider  that  the 
Programme  should  be  continued  as  crucial  for  the  implementation  of  EU  environmental 
policy. LIFE+ is widely accepted by all stakeholders.  

The  evaluation  concludes  that  current  selection,  management,  and  monitoring  systems  are 
effective, efficient and well designed to achieve EU added value.  

The Regulation defines added value for Nature & Biodiversity as the implementation of EU 
legislation in itself. The evaluation shows that LIFE+ is an effective instrument to achieve EU 
objectives  for  nature  and  biodiversity.  Many  applicants  consider  it  as  a  key  funding 
mechanism for promoting and implementing nature conservation throughout the EU since its 
primary  objective  is  protecting  nature,  whereas  in  other  programmes  this  objective  is 
ancillary.  The  catalyst  effect  of  LIFE+  projects  improves  the  implementation  of  nature 
policies in the Member States.  

LIFE+ helps adopting management plans, restoring valuable habitats, recovering emblematic 
species and developing the Natura2000 network. It also helps creating collaborative platforms 
that  enhance  partnerships  thereby  facilitating  the  transfer  of  best  practice  between 
stakeholders  and  decision-makers.  The  Biodiversity  strand  provides  the  opportunity  to  be  a 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
major instrument  to  specifically finance the  implementation  of the  Biodiversity  Action Plan 
with  a  focus  on  the  conservation  of  biodiversity  at  large.  Combating  invasive  alien  species, 
promoting green infrastructure, or the role of agriculture in preserving biodiversity have been 
so  far  the  main  contributions  of  biodiversity  projects.  However,  the  strand  still  needs  to 
deploy  all  its  potential:  despite  receiving  many  applications  only  24  projects  have  been 
selected for funding but the success rate of biodiversity projects has gone from 13% in 2007 
call to 38% in 2009 call. The requirements under this component are stricter which partially 
explains  the  low  rate  of  success.  The  biodiversity  market  is  also  wider  than  nature  and  less 
consolidated requiring more efforts to publicise the strand.  

The  evaluation  recommends  increased  flexibility  and  enhancing  efforts  to  attract  the  wider 
biodiversity  community.  For  the  next  programming  period  the  evaluation  recommends 
aligning  biodiversity  with  the  nature  requirements  and  increasing  the  co-financing  rate  to 
increase the number and quality of applications.  

For  Environment  &  Governance,  LIFE+  offers  opportunities  for  funding  in  areas  that  are 
not covered by other funds (noise, air, chemicals, strategic approaches). Added value is linked 
to a project's replication potential that will improve the implementation of EU policies. This 
wider  impact  was  assessed  as  medium  or  high  when  evaluating  EU  added  value  in  the 
selection process.  

Waste  &  natural  resources,  climate  change  and  water  represent  71%  of  all  funded  projects 
under  this  strand.  However,  in  the  2008  and  2009  calls  a  positive  trend  in  the  number  of 
applications and projects selected for new themes is observed. 

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. Many BATs 
and BREFs have been developed with LIFE co-financing.  

It  also  represents  a  significant  support  for  eco-innovation  for  both  the  private  and  public 
sectors:  an  increasing  percentage  of  projects  (around  two  thirds)  deal  with  innovative 
management or business methods. 

It  is  also  an  effective  instrument  to  exchange  best  practices  and  promote  learning  between 
new  and  old  Member  States,  since  it  offers  an  excellent  platform  for  transnational  projects 
where companies join and share experiences.  

However, the Regulation has not resolved a main problem identified in the ex-post evaluation 
of the Programme: lack of strong strategic focus on environmental policy priorities under the 
strand.  Annex  II  of  the  Regulation  does  not  allow  setting  very  specific  priorities  thus 
potentially limiting the ability to generate impacts beyond the individual project and to assess 
results at thematic level. 

The  evaluation  recommends  more  prioritisation  and  focus  under  each  theme.  For  the  next 
programming  period,  it  suggests  establishing  annual  focus  areas  or  focusing  on  EU  policy 
interests that are more likely to be met by the Programme and secure the greatest value.  

For  LIFE+  Information,  the  evaluation  shows  that  financing  information  and  awareness 
raising campaigns is very difficult at national and local level. Thus, the strand offers a unique 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
opportunity  to  overcome  this  barrier  and  widely  promote  environmental  themes.  However, 
only 38 projects have been selected for funding so far. A significant number of projects were 
rejected in the 2007 call for not being sufficiently ambitious or lacking clear environmental 
goals. The Guide for applicants was modified to provide more examples of types of projects 
suitable under this strand. As a result overall quality of projects improved, but results remain 
low as compared to the other strands. Also, projects financed cover a wide range of themes 
and  target  very  diverse  audiences  focusing  on  local  or  regional  problems  limiting  their  EU 
added value. However, some projects have more significant impact at EU level.  

The  evaluation  recommends  better  defining  this  strand  to  better  guide  applicants  and  to 
improve the quality of applications. For the next programming period it suggests increasing 
the co-financing rate to allow for broader campaigns and higher number of applications. 

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  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. The rationale is the role of DG Environment in over-seeing 
market replication activity, advice on calls through the Executive Agency for Competitiveness 
and Innovation, and close links between LIFE+ and CIP objectives.  

The  evaluation  highlights  the  challenges  of  the  integrated  approach  to  allocate  sufficient 
financial resources to environmental needs. Recent studies on financing Natura 2000 suggest 
that  there  is  still  room  for  improving  the  uptake  of  funds  under  various  EU  instruments  to 
satisfy  the  financial  needs  of  the  network.  LIFE+  could  be  used  to  enhance  uptake  by 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
adopting a positive attitude towards complementarity by effectively promoting the integrated 
use of different EU funds.  

The  evaluation  carried  out  a  preliminary  assessment  of  the  impact  of  stopping  LIFE  Third 
Countries. Further analysis is needed but the evaluation concludes that LIFE TCY was simple 
and  flexible  and  that  alternative  instruments  will  not  always  fund  applicants  or  types  of 
projects that may have secured funding under previous LIFE programmes. These instruments 
provide  funding  as  part  of  a  much  larger  development  agenda  diluting  the  focus  of 
environmental priorities creating a possible thematic and geographical gap on funding. On the 
other  hand,  the  2009  external  review  of  the  ENRTP  (the  thematic  programme  for  the 
environment and sustainable management of natural resources) concluded that ENRTP allows 
to implement EU environmental policy on global level". 

2.3. 

NGOs operating grants 

The  aim  of  this  intervention  is  to  enable  environmental  NGOs  with  a  European  vocation  to 
contribute  to  a  balanced  stakeholder  involvement  in  the  EU  policy  process.  The  evaluation 
confirmed the continued relevance of the intervention. 

30 NGOs were selected in 2007, 33 in 2008 and 32 in 2009. These organisations represent a 
wide  spectrum  of  environmental  NGOs  in  terms  of  size,  focus  and  geographical  coverage. 
The  majority  of  NGOs  funded  are  located  in  or  close  to  Brussels,  since  they  are  actively 
involved  in  the  policy  process  and  need  access  to  EU  institutions.  However,  member 
organisations from all EU countries and beyond are represented through their networks.  

The  evaluation  showed  that  all  6EAP  priorities  are  covered  with  a  good  balance  between 
policy development, policy implementation and capacity building. It also concluded that the 
NGOs  selected  make  a  necessary  contribution  to  EU  policy.  Some  procedural  and 
administrative  aspects  may  be  improved,  e.g.  the  timing  of  the  annual  selection  decision 
allows contracts to be signed only several months after the start of the funding year.  

The evaluation recommends a shift in the timeframe of the selection procedure or a change to 
multiannual  framework  partnership  agreements  to  address  liquidity  problems  and  improve 
cost efficiency. Recital 12 of the Regulation gives the minimum requirement of activities in at 
least three European countries for an NGO to be eligible. For the next programming period, 
the evaluation suggests increasing this number to feed into the policy process the necessary 
networking and field experience. 

2.4. 

Support for policy development and implementation  

The  Commission  uses  public  procurement  to  complete  studies  and  evaluations,  to  hold 
meetings, workshops and seminars or to develop and maintain computer systems (e.g. LIFE 
website  or  the  Natura2000  information  system).  This  intervention  is  also  used  to  assist  the 
Commission  with  information,  publication  and  dissemination  activities  central  to  its 
objectives. 

The  evaluation  shows  that  public  procurement  is  based  on  well-established  satisfactory 
procedures.  These  procedures  ensure  that  funding  is  appropriately  linked  to  the  priorities 
outlined  in  the  Commission  work  programme  with  activities  feeding  directly  into 
implementation  of  EU  environmental  policies.  The  evaluation  also  concludes  that  the 
procurement of such services is crucial to the Commission.  

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
The  evaluation  recommends  enhancing  feedback  mechanisms  on  the  quality  of  the  service 
provided by external contractors and to encourage the use of multiannual contracts. 

3. 

THE WAY FORWARD  

3.1. 

Actions for the remaining financing period 

The Commission has taken note of the recommendations made in the consultants' report and 
is  taking  the  necessary  steps  to  overcome  most  pressing  issues  identified.  Several  major 
recommendations  e.g.  national  allocations  or  co-financing  rate  cannot  be  implemented 
without  amending  the  Regulation  but  they  will  be  taken  into  account  when  designing  any 
future  instrument.  The  actions  proposed  here  can  be  implemented  within  the  current 
framework.  

The Commission has: 

•  Organised  workshops  for  potential  applicants  after  each  call  for  proposal  to  increase  the 

number and quality of applications. 

•  Substantially revised the Guide for applicants for the 2010 call for action grants including 
more examples and flexible approaches, also for obtaining higher co-financing rates within 
the  limits  of  the  Regulation.  Indicative  lists  of  favoured  focus  areas  were  set  for  each 
theme under LIFE+ Environment & Governance reflecting the policy priorities in the 2010 
work programme. These modifications also aim at improving uptake in LIFE+ strands with 
lower rates of success.  

•  Shortened the selection procedure without reducing the quality of the project selection. 

•  Improved  the  mechanisms  for  carrying  out  more  systematic  ex-post  visits  to  assess 

sustainability. 

•  Improved  its  efforts  to  support  National  Contact  Points  and  Member  States  with  lower 
uptake. The Commission organised in 2010 a two-day training session to enhance their role 
in  project  selection,  management  and  follow-up.  The  Commission  has  also  developed 
guidelines on communication activities for National Contact Points. 

The Commission will continue: 

•  Its efforts to better integrate action grants into policy development and implementation.  

•  Reinforcing  and  improving  dissemination  activities  and  increasing  efforts  to  attract  non-
traditional LIFE applicants especially for Biodiversity and new themes under Environment 
&  Governance.  This  includes  publishing  more  tailored  thematic  brochures  to  show  how 
LIFE+ projects address environmental issues; organising thematic conferences to exchange 
experience  and  disseminate  project  results;  improving  the  quantity  and  quality  of  the 
information available on the LIFE website.  

•  Encouraging more networking, inter alia by organising regional and EU-wide meetings of 
projects  to  share  experience  and  technical  knowledge.  Networking  has  become  an 
obligation for projects. A discussion forum for LIFE+ projects has been set up.  

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
•  Exploring  the  possibility  to  develop  result  indicators  similar  to  those  adopted  under  the 

CIP.  

•  Exploring  new  ways  to  improve  synergies  and  complementarity  with  other  funds. 
Protocols  with  other  programmes  could  be  adopted.  Ways  to  improve  communication 
among  the  various  Commission  services  and  with  competent  authorities  as  well  as 
development of guidelines will be explored.  

•  For  the  NGO  funding  programme,  exploring  stronger  focus  on  yearly  priorities,  and 
possibilities for introducing external assessment and multi-annual framework partnerships. 
The  Commission  will  also  review  indicators  for  monitoring  NGOs  operational  activities 
and  will  in  particular  asses  the  effectiveness  of  the  current  system  to  contribute  to  better 
environmental  governance  by  broadening  stakeholder  involvement  in  policy  consultation 
and implementation. 

3.2. 

The future of LIFE+  

According  to  Art.15(3)  of  the  Regulation,  the  Commission  shall  submit,  if  appropriate,  a 
proposal  for  the  further  development  of  a  financial  instrument  exclusively  in  the 
environmental field to apply from 2014 onwards.  The Commission is already undertaking a 
series  of  studies  to  analyse  effective  ways  to  address  current  and  emerging  environmental 
problems.  

At  this  stage,  the  first  and  main  conclusion  of  the  mid-term  evaluation  is  that  a  specific 
instrument  for  the  environment,  i.e.  LIFE  is  relevant  and  needed  as  is  creating  EU  added 
value for EU environmental policy development and implementation. However, more work is 
required to identify environmental financial needs and the main obstacles to finance those in 
order to define alternatives for environmental spending for the next programming period.  

The evaluation highlighted the importance of providing an adequate framework for financing 
Natura2000  and  biodiversity.  The  European  Council  is  committed  to  the  long  term 
biodiversity 2050 vision and the 2020 target set out in the Council's conclusions of 15 March 
2010.  Now  that  the  network  has  been  established,  the  focus  should  move  to  active 
conservation  and  restoration  leading  to  a  significant  increase  in  the  cost  incurred  by  public 
and  private  managers  of  the  network.  At  the  same  time  to  deliver  the  new  EU  biodiversity 
vision, the need for further investments will have to be taken into account.  

Any future instrument should also consider whether more focus such as annual focus areas or 
EU policy priorities is needed in the current LIFE+ Environment & Governance to increase its 
added value. Delivery mechanisms other than action grants should be explored to define the 
most  effective  EU  intervention  to  address  business  and  public  sector  needs.  These  other 
mechanisms could be, as suggested by the evaluation, direct investment, investment funding 
to  lever  private  sector  funds,  loans  guarantees,  equity  as  well  as  the  blending  of  grants  and 
other  financial  instruments.  Similarly,  the  Commission  will  assess  the  effectiveness  of 
retaining  two  separate  instruments  (e.g.,  CIP  and  LIFE+  Environment  &  Governance)  to 
finance innovative ideas for the environment, and whether other specific funds (e.g. a climate 
specific instrument) may be required 

Funding  for  EU  environmental  NGOs  should  be  reviewed  to  more  effectively  support  their 
role  in  implementing  EU  environmental  legislation  and  in  building  the  knowledge  base  for 
environmental policy, and to promote new entrants and new networks.  

EN 

10 

   EN 

 
The  external  dimension  of  environmental  policy  will  also  be  considered  based  on  the 
evaluation  conclusions.  Further  analysis  will  be  carried  out  with  a  view  of  enhancing  the 
effectiveness  and  impact  of  the  instruments  which  may  be  used  to  cover  the  external 
dimension of environmental policy and propose the most appropriate options in this context.  

The Commission will start in September 2010 an impact assessment of possible options for 
the review of the Regulation. It will build on the studies regarding the intensified integration 
of environmental concerns in EU support instruments and evaluations of LIFE, and will take 
into account the evaluations of other EU funds.  

The  impact  assessment  will  deal  with  the  fundamental  question  of  the  best  processes  for 
financing  environmental  needs.  The  aim  is  to  identify  those  environmental  areas  with 
financing  needs for which  a specific  EU instrument  for  the  environment  would  be  the  most 
effective  way  of  tackling  environmental  problems  and  those  where  environmental  funding 
through instruments other than LIFE may be more appropriate. At the end of this process the 
Commission expects to have enough  information to determine  the  most effective design for 
environmental  funding  (instrument,  focus,  scope,  budgetary  allocation)  to  maximise  EU 
added value. 

The results of the impact assessment will be available by the third quarter of 2011 and will 
form the basis, if relevant, of a Commission proposal for a new financial instrument for the 
environment. 

EN 

11 

   EN