COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER ANNEXES TO THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT
Date: 2011-12-12
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU financial instrument, EU programme, biodiversity, climate change, economic support, environmental protection

EUROPEAN COMMISSION 

Brussels, 12.12.2011 
SEC(2011) 1543 final 

Volume 2 of 2 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER 

ANNEXES TO THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT 

Accompanying the document 

Proposal for a Regulation  

on the establishment of a Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) 

{COM(2011) 874 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1541 final} 
{SEC(2011) 1542 final} 

 
 
 
 
  
 
Disclaimer:  These  annexes  commit  only  the  Commission's  services  involved  in  its 
preparation  and  do  not  prejudge  the  final  form  of  any  decision  to  be  taken  by  the 
Commission. 

1

 
 
TABLE OF CONTENT 

1.  List of Abbreviations  

2.  The LIFE Programme as per the Communication from the Commission  

on a Budget for Europe 2020, 29th June 2011 

3.  Summary of Stakeholders' consultations  

4.  Summary of conclusions and recommendations from the Ex-post evaluation 

of the LIFE Programme (1996-2006) and from the Mid-term evaluation of the 
implementation of the LIFE+ Regulation (2007-2009) 

5.  Scale of the environmental problem, underlying causes and benefits of action 

(externalities) 

6.  Examples illustrating the EU added value of the LIFE Programme  

7.  Assessment of the LIFE+ Regulation: data used to calculate the impacts of  

the baseline scenario 

8.  Full assessment of the zero option and of the expanded option 

9.  Calculation of externals costs  

10.  Objectives and Monitoring framework 

11.  Integrated Projects   

12.  References   

3 

7 

9 

46 

60 

82 

86 

117 

141 

151 

158 

173 

2

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1:  

LIST OF ABBREVIATIONS 

6EAP   

AEM 

6th Environment Action Programme 

Agri-environment Measure 

AMPs   

Annual Management Plans 

BAT 

BBOP   

BREF   

CAP 

CBA 

CBD 

CF 

CFP 

CIP 

Best Available Techniques 

Biodiversity Offsets Programme 

Best Available Techniques Reference Document 

Common Agricultural Policy 

Cost-benefit analysis 

Convention on Biological Diversity 

Cohesion Fund 

Common Fisheries Policy 

Competitiveness and Innovation Programme 

CITES  

Convention on international trade in endangered species 

CoE 

CoR 

CP 

DGs 

DMC   

DPSIR  

DRB    

EACI   

Council of Europe 

Committee of the Regions 

Cohesion Policy 

Directorates-General  

Domestic Material Consumption 

Driving Forces-Pressures-State-Impacts-Responses 

Danube River Basin 

Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation 

EAFRD 

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 

EC /EP / EU  European Commission / European Parliament / European Union 

EEA 

EFF 

EIB 

European Environment Agency 

European Fisheries Fund 

European Investment Bank 

ELENA 

European Local Energy Assistance Scheme 

EMS 

ENP 

ENRTP 

ENVI    
Safety 

EP 

Environmental Management System 

European Neighbourhood Policy 

Thematic programme for environment and sustainable management of 
natural resources including energy 

European Parliament Committee on the Environment, Public Health & Food 

European Parliament 

3

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
EPG 

Environment Policy Governance (LIFE+ strand) 

ERDF   

European Regional Development Fund 

ESF 

ETAP   

ETUC   

ETV 

EU 

EU12   

FDOs   

FP7 

FP8 

GDP 

GHG 

GIF 

GIS 

GVA 

European Social Fund 

Environmental Technologies Action Plan 

European Trade Union Confederation 

Environmental Technologies Verification 

European Union 

Group of countries which joined the EU from 2004 onwards 

Financial Desk Officers 

Seventh Framework Programme 

Eighth Framework Programme 

Gross Domestic Product 

Greenhouse gas 

Growth and Innovation Fund 

Geographic Information System 

Gross Value Added 

HSAP   

Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol 

IA 

IPs 

IPA 

ICPRD  

ICUN   

IMPEL 

INF 

IPPC 

ISG 

IUCN 

Impact Assessment 

Integrated Projects 

Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance 

International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River 

International Union for Conservation of Nature 

European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of 
Environmental Law 

Information and communication (LIFE+ strand) 

The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

Inter-Service Steering Group 

International Union for Conservation of Nature 

JASPERS 

Joint Assistance to Support Projects in European Regions 

JEREMIE 

Joint European Resources for Micro to medium Enterprises 

LFA 

Less Favoured Areas  

LRTAP 

Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution 

MDG 

Millennium Development Goals 

MAFF/MFF  Multi Annual Financial Framework 

4

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MTE 

MS 

N2K 

NAT 

NCP 

NGO 

NOx 

Mid-term evaluation 

Member State 

Natura2000 

Nature & Biodiversity (LIFE+ strand) 

National Contact Points 

Non-governmental Organisation 

Nitrogen Oxides 

OECD  

Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development 

PAFs 

PAN 

PES 

PM 

PPP 

PPPs 

R&D 

Prioritised Action Frameworks 

Pesticides Action Network 

Payments for Ecosystem Services 

Particulate Matter 

Polluter pays principle 

Public Private Partnerships 

Research and Development  

REACH 

Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical 
substances 

RSFF 

SDS 

SICAs  

SMEs   

SOER   

SOx 

TA 

TCY 

TDOs   

TEEB   

TFEU   

Risk Sharing Finance Facility  

Sustainable Development Strategy 

Specific International Cooperation Actions 

Small and Medium Enterprises 

State of the Environment Report  

Sulphur Oxides 

Technical assistance 

Third Countries 

Technical Desk Officers 

The Economics of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union 

UNECE 

United Nations Economic Commission for Europe 

UNEP   

United Nations Environment Programme 

VAT 

VOCs   

VOSL   

VOLY  

Value added tax 

Volatile Organic Compounds 

Value of a Statistical Life 

Value of Life Years 

5

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
WFD 

Water Framework Directive 

WTO   

World Trade Organisation 

WTP 

Willingness to pay  

YVIE   

Your Voice in Europe 

6

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 2:   THE  LIFE  PROGRAMME  AS  PER  THE  COMMUNICATION  FROM  THE 
COMMISSION ON A BUDGET FOR EUROPE 2020, 29TH JUNE 2011 

The  LIFE  programme  will  be  composed  of  two  sub-programmes:  an  Environment  sub-
programme  and  a  Climate  Action  sub-programme.  It  will  have  a  global  envelop  of  €3.2 
billion for the seven years with €2.4 billion (75%) for the Environment sub-programme and 
€800 million (25%) for the Climate Action sub-programme. 

1.  The Environment sub-programme 

It will be organised according to the following priorities:  

(a)  LIFE Biodiversity, while still focusing on Natura 2000 and on the development and 
sharing of best practices in relation to biodiversity, will also target wider biodiversity 
challenges  in  line  with  the  Europe  2020  biodiversity  strategy  target  to  maintain  and 
restore ecosystems and their services. 

(b) LIFE  Environment  will  focus  on  supporting 

implementation  of  EU 
environmental  policy  by  the  public  and  private  sectors  and  in  particular  the 
implementation  of  environmental  legislation  relevant  to  the  Europe  2020  resource 
efficiency  objectives  (such  as  the  Water  Framework  Directive  or  the  Waste 
Framework Directive).  

the 

(c)  LIFE  Governance  will  support  the  creation  of  platforms  for  the  exchange  of  best 
practices  for  improved  compliance  with  EU  environmental  policy  priorities  and 
enforcement,  policy  development  and  knowledge-based  decision-making  (e.g.,  wide 
dissemination  of  project  results),  with  an  emphasis  on  good  governance.  This  strand 
will also support environmental NGOs and promote awareness-raising, advocacy and 
dissemination  of  environmental  information,  as  these  are  inextricably  linked  to 
achieving good governance and full implementation and compliance.  

The instrument will focus on two types of project: new Integrated Projects, the number and 
financial  share  of  which  will  gradually  increase  over  the  lifetime  of  the  programme;  and 
"traditional"  projects.  Projects  will  continue  to  be  selected  for  their  EU  added  value  and 
potential for transfer of know-how. LIFE Integrated Projects are designed to demonstrate the 
sustainable implementation of environmental action plans relating to major EU environmental 
directives,  such  as  the  Habitats  Directive  or  the  Water  Framework  Directive.  A  structured 
cooperation  with  other  EU  funds  will  be  established  through  the  Common  Strategic 
Framework.  

2.  The Climate Action sub-programme 

It will, in particular, support efforts contributing to the following objectives:  

(a)  Mitigation:  Support  for  the  reduction  of  greenhouse  gas  emissions.  Actions  for 
setting  up  pilot  projects,  which  can  be  used  to  test  innovative  approaches  including 
through  support  to  SMEs,  to  improve  the  knowledge  base  and  to  facilitate  the 
implementation of the climate acquis.  

(b) Adaptation:  Support  to  efforts  leading  to  increased  resilience  to  climate  change. 
Actions  to  support  the  development  or  implementation  of  national/regional/local 
adaptation strategies. Actions enabling decision makers to effectively use knowledge 
and data about climate change impacts in particular for adaptation related planning.  

7

 
 
 
(c)  Governance  and  Awareness:  support  for  efforts  leading  to  increased  awareness, 
communication,  cooperation  and  dissemination  on  climate  mitigation  and  adaptation 
actions. Actions for awareness-raising amongst EU citizens and stakeholders including 
on behaviour changes. 

8

 
 
ANNEX 3:   SUMMARY OF THE STAKEHOLDERS' CONSULTATIONS  

Table of Contents 

1. 

Introduction   

1.1.  

Purpose of stakeholder consultation 

1.2. 

Interviews with the Commission  

1.3. 

GHK Survey of stakeholders 

1.4. 

GHK Survey of project beneficiaries 

1.5. 

EC Online Survey 

1.6. 

EC Workshop led by GHK 

1.7. 

The CoR survey 

2. 

Problem definition 

2.1 

2.2 

Physical environmental problems and challenges in the EU Member States 

Institutional drivers and underlying causes 

2.2.1  Unregulated environmental problems: Policy Development 

2.2.2 

Inadequate Policy Implementation 

11 

13 

13 

13 

14 

14 

14 

15 

15 

16 

16 

17 

18 

2.2.3 

Insufficient synergies and inadequate integration of the environment into policy  20 

2.2.4.   Lack of awareness and information sharing 

2.2.5 

Inadequate support for eco-innovation 

22 

23 

3 

The  rationale  for,  and  EU  added  value  of,  a  specific  instrument  for  the 
environment and climate action 

23 

3.1 

3.2 

3.3 

Justifications for an instrument for the environment 

EU added value of the existing instrument for the environment 

23 

24 

Rationale for an instrument for the environment to intervene in the five main problems 
identified 

26 

3.3.1  Policy development 

3.3.2  Policy implementation   

3.3.3 

Integration of environmental concerns into sectoral policies 

3.3.4  Awareness raising and information sharing 

3.3.5  Support for eco-innovation 

26 

26 

26 

27 

28 

9

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
29 

29 

29 

32 

33 

33 

35 

36 

36 

36 

37 

37 

38 

39 

40 

40 

41 

43 

4 

Objectives, Activities and Resources of a future instrument for the environment 

4.1 

4.2 

4.3 

Objectives 

Activities 

Resources 

5 

Thematic and territorial focus  

5.1 

5.2 

Thematic focus   

Territorial focus  

6 

Delivery Mechanisms and Management Options 

6.1. 

Delivery Mechanisms 

6.2 

6.3 

6.4 

6.5 

Action grants 

Operational grants 

Use of innovative instruments 

Integrated Projects 

6.6  Management approaches 

7 

The Options 

7.1 

7.2 

Brief overview of the options 

Feedback on the options  

8 

Summary of stakeholder consultations 

10

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
1. Introduction 

The  European  Parliament  made  several  contributions,  including  the  Böge  report  on  the 
Mid-Term  Review  of  the  2007-2013  Financial  Framework.1  This  report  calls  for  providing 
the Union with the means to fulfil its political ambitions in the area of fighting against climate 
change. It also stressed that the EP is ready to examine the possibility of creating a specific 
fund  for  that  purpose.  Moreover,  it  highlighted  the  need  to  climate  proof  "all  major 
programmes, 
transport  and  energy  networks,  and 
development programmes". The climate activities across the EU budget including LIFE+ are 
to be reinforced to reflect this new priority.  

including  agriculture,  cohesion, 

The  Council2  and  the  European  Parliament3  have  indicated  their  support  to  the 
continuation of the LIFE Programme. The Council Conclusions highlighted the importance of 
LIFE+ and the need to keep all its components. The European Parliament report on "Investing 
in  the  future:  a  new  Multiannual  Financial  Framework  for  a  competitive,  sustainable  and 
inclusive Europe"4 underlined that LIFE has been successfully implemented and has proven 
its  importance  in  safeguarding  biodiversity  and  protecting  the  environment  and  emphasises 
the  need  for  continuing  the  programme.  The  report  highlighted  the  need  to  continue  LIFE 
support especially to achieve biodiversity objectives. 

The European Economic Social Committee opinion5 and Committee of Regions opinion 
(CoR)6  also  show  strong  support  for  the  continuation  and  enhancement  of  LIFE.  The  CoR 
also requested additional funds under LIFE for biodiversity and climate action.7  

The impact assessment has been preceeded by the following public consultations in order to 
gather as many comments and suggestions as possible from individuals and bodies concerned: 

An  initial  stakeholder  consultation  was  carried  out  on  the  Commission's  behalf  by 
GHK8  from  October  2010  until  February  2011.  The  consultation  gathered  a  total  of  192 
stakeholder  responses, 
including  from  NGOs,  social  partners,  Member  States  and 
Commission officials. This includes: 

•  Commission  services:  11  interviews  with  Commission  officials,  including    in  DG 
Environment  and  DG  Climate  Action  (DG  CLIMA),  as  well  as  representatives  from 
DG  Agriculture  and  Rural  Development  (DG  AGRI),  DG  Regional  Policy  (DG 
REGIO), and DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE. (GHK Interviews). 

•  Stakeholders:  A  total  of  34  survey  responses  were  received:  16  from  NGOs,  6  from 
social partners and 12 from LIFE National Contact Points (NCP) (GHK Survey).  

1 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-
418.451+02+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN. 
2 Council Conclusions "Improving Environmental Policy Instruments", 17 January 2011. 
3 ENVI Committee Opinion for the Special committee on the policy challenges and budgetary resources for a 
sustainable European Union after 2013. 
4http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A7-2011-
0193+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN. 
5 EESC's Opinion LIFE+/Mid-term Review: http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.nat-opinions.18989 
6 CoR's Opinion on "The EU Life Programme. The way forward" . 
7 CoR’s Opinion on 30 June 2011 on Climate mainstreaming and the future EU budget. 
8 Hereinafter referred to as "GHK survey". 

11

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
•  Project  beneficiaries:  project  beneficiaries  were  also  surveyed  separately  on  the 

problem definition and 147 responses were received (GHK Survey). 

Surveys  aimed  to  obtain  quantitative  information  on  stakeholders'  perspectives  regarding 
environmental  and  climate  problems  facing  the  EU  and  the  potential  role  for  a  financial 
instrument dedicated to the environment and climate action. Also, LIFE project beneficiaries 
(147  responses)  were  consulted  to  obtain  information  on  the  administrative  burden  of  the 
programme, the quantitative estimates regarding impacts, and on their views on the problems. 
There was a general agreement that the most important problem is the lack of implementation 
of  EU  environmental  legislation  and  inadequate  integration  of  environment  into  other 
policies.  Responses  emphasised  the  need  for  a  specific  instrument  to  catalyse  and  leverage 
change.   

An  open  online  consultation  was  carried  out  on  'Your  Voice  in  Europe'9.  Around  1000 
responses  were  received  from  a  variety  of  stakeholders,  of  which  58%  had  never  received 
LIFE funding. Some 35% of respondents were organisations, 13% were competent authorities 
and 53% were private individuals. The main views are: 

•  84% of respondents consider that there is a need for a specific financial instrument for 

the environment and climate action with only 10% supporting discontinuation.   

•  Stakeholders  consider  all  LIFE  interventions  needed:  87.7%  respondents  support 
action  grants,  65.7%  support  operating  grants  for  NGOs  and  74.9%  procurement. 
81.6% of respondents support the role of LIFE in boosting eco-innovation and 78% in 
allowing EU-wide exchange of information and awareness raising.  

•  As  to  scope,  stakeholders  support  a  more  focused  instrument  (main  priorities 
mentioned  were  biodiversity,  adaptation  to  climate  change,  resource  use  and  waste, 
and climate mitigation), but priorities should be non-exclusive. 67.5% of respondents 
support carrying out activities outside the EU.  

•  When it comes to the budget, 54.6% of respondents indicated that the current budget is 
too  low  to  achieve  the  Programme's  objectives.  As  to  the  management,  68.1%  of 
respondents  supported  current  central  direct  management  by  the  Commission.  Only 
20%  of  respondents  showed  a  preference  for  other  management  modes,10  of  which 
shared management (7%) was preferred to an executive agency (3%). 

More  targeted  consultations  have  been  carried  out  to  complement  the  stakeholder  survey: 
one organised with the LIFE Committee members and Member States' environmental attachés 
on 27 January 2010, and an ad-hoc stakeholder meeting11 with around 100 representatives 
on 28 January 2010 (e.g. NGOs, farmers association, business, and public authorities).  

In both cases, responses were consistent with the results of the online consultation with strong 
opposition  from  the  Member  States  to  discontinuing  LIFE  and  eco-innovation  activities 
funded under LIFE. Similarly, there was strong opposition to eliminating the traditional LIFE 
smaller  bottom-up  projects.  Support  for  an  increased  budget  was  very  strong  with  the 
exception of farmers associations that considered the current budget adequate. One Member 
State (UK) considered that a lower budget could be envisaged. Options were discussed during 

9 Hereinafter referred to as "YVIE". 
10 Options available were management by the European Commission, management by national authorities only, 
shared management between the European Commission and national authorities, and EU Executive Agency.  
11 Hereinafter referred to as "EC workshop". 

12

 
 
 
 
                                                 
both  meetings,  with  stakeholders  showing  a  preference  for  the  Strategic  and  Integrated 
Programming. 

A  specific  consultation  on  the  territorial  impacts  by  the  CoR  targeting  local  and  regional 
authorities received a total of 40 responses, mostly from Spain (11) and Italy (10). The main 
conclusions  were  similar  to  other  consultations  with  specific  support  to  Integrated  Projects, 
appreciating their high added value and considering them quite feasible.   

Additional discussions with the public led to the following recommendations:12  

•  On  Nature  and  Biodiversity  –  enlarged  territorial  scope,  more  programmatic 
approach to funding Natura 2000, more structured cooperation with other EU funds. 

•  On  the  “Environmental  Policy  and  Governance"  strand  -  increase  budget,  better 
exploitation  of  project  results,  clearer  identity  for  LIFE  Environment,  better 
coordination with other funds, 3 year prioritisation, removal of national allocations. 

In February 2011, Member States were informed via the European Climate Policy Group of 
the  results  of  the  consultations  which  showed  general  support  for  continuing  a  specific 
environment instrument, but to revise the instrument, including an increased focus on climate 
action. 

1.1.   Purpose of stakeholder consultation  

The  stakeholder  consultations  aimed  to  contribute  to  the  process  of  defining  problems, 
objectives and subsequent options.   

As can be seen from the below, considerable effort went into defining the problems and need 
for a future financial instrument for the environment as the basis for determining the rationale 
and agreed objectives. The results of this effort, in the form of  the developed options, were 
only  then  presented  at  the  stakeholder  workshop,  where  the  options  were  discussed  and 
developed further.  

1.2. 

Interviews with the Commission 

The interviews with Commission officials focused on qualitative discussions around: 

•  The type and scale of the environmental policy problems in the EU (including available 

evidence) and potential for EU added value  

•  The relative importance of particular problems and the drivers behind the problems  

•  What  responses  might  best  address  the  problems;  what  could/should  be  the  priorities, 

objectives and activities for an Instrument for the environment. 

1.3.  GHK Survey of stakeholders 

Surveys  of  NGOs,  NCPs  and  social  partners  aimed  to  obtain  quantitative  information  on 
stakeholder perspectives regarding the environmental policy problems facing the EU and the 
potential role for a financial instrument dedicated to the environment.  

12 Proceedings available at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/news/events/lifeconf_env/index.html. 

13

 
 
 
 
                                                 
A  total  of  34  surveys  were  received  in  response:  16  from  NGOs13,  6  from  social  partners14 
and 12 from NCPs.15 It is not possible to determine how many recipients the survey was sent 
to, as several were passed onto networks who distributed the survey to members.  

1.4.  GHK Survey of project beneficiaries 

This survey primarily served to gather data for the assessment of the baseline impacts, against 
which  the  options  would  then  be  assessed.  Project  beneficiaries  were  also  asked  questions 
about  their  opinion  on  the  nature  and  scale  of  the  problems  that  a  European  environmental 
instrument should seek to address. 

All project beneficiaries from the 2007, 2008, 2009 calls for proposals were surveyed (totally 
549 projects).  The responses received totalled 147 (a 30% response rate).  

1.5.  EC Online Survey  

In parallel to the GHK surveys described above, a separate survey was also conducted by the 
Commission’s  LIFE  Unit  in  “Your  Voice  in  Europe”.  The  purpose  of  this  survey  was  to 
gather views on the objectives, activities and support modalities of the instrument. 

The consultation was open to all organisations registered inside or outside the EU as well as 
to individual citizens. Stakeholders consulted as part of this survey covered a broad spectrum 
of sectors and included those who were not recipients of any LIFE funding as well as direct 
beneficiaries. Of these responses 53% were from private individuals, 35% from organisations 
and the remaining 13% from Competent Authorities in Member States. Roughly 10% of the 
responses were campaigns answers from Eurosceptics. Most responses originated from Italy 
(13%),  Germany  (13%),  France  (9%),  Belgium  (9%)  and  Spain  (8%).  Answers  were  also 
received from outside the EU. 

The survey included questions on the following areas: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

the need and the rationale for the LIFE instrument; 

the most effective design and management of the LIFE instrument;  

the most appropriate delivery mechanisms;  

relevant priorities for the LIFE instrument; 

the most effective ways to improve  integration and synergy;  

the most effective ways to improve the visibility of LIFE. 

1.6.  EC Workshop led by GHK 

Once  the  options  had  been  developed  on  the  basis  of  the  stakeholder  consultation,  a 
Workshop was held on 28 January 2011 where stakeholders were consulted on their views of 

13 Including AIFM, Bankwatch, EUCC, Euro Group for Animals, Europarc, FACE, FERN, FOE Europe, National Trust UK, 
Pan-Europe, WWF EPO, IFOAM, ECO standard, CCB and WECF. 
14  Including  BC  Europe,  GNM  (Romania),  IGOAT  (Portugal),  UEAPME  (European  Association  of  Craft,  Small  and 
Medium-sized Enterprises), SRDCP (Sustainable Development Research Centre) and Environment Agency (UK). 
15  These  included  responses  from  the  National  Contact  Points  of  Italy,  Germany,  Portugal,  Sweden,  Belgium,  Bulgaria, 
Czech Republic, Spain, Slovenia, Lithuania, Malta and Romania. 

14

 
 
                                                 
the revised problem definition, the rationale for an EU financial instrument, and the proposed 
options.  The  aim  was  to  present  and  gather  the  views  of  stakeholders  on  the  developed 
options for a future financial instrument for the environment and climate action. The options 
were presented to stakeholders in advance of the workshop in a ‘LIFE Options Consultation 
Paper’. 

The  workshop  was  attended  by  roughly  100  stakeholders,  comprised  of  NCPs  and  Member 
State  representatives,  NGOs  and  social  partners,  representatives  from  the  private  and  public 
sectors,  and  European  Commission  officials.  The  breakdown  of  the  stakeholder  types  of 
participants is shown in 0 below.  

Figure 1.1  

Half  of  the  workshop  participants  were  national  contact  points,  with  the  other  half  being 
composed of EC officials, NGOs and social partners 

8

21

EC officials

NGOs

National Contact Points

40

11

Social partners

1.7.  The CoR survey 

Source: GHK analysis, EC Workshop 

This  was  an  EC-led  survey  which  ran  after  the  GHK  stakeholder  workshop.  Its  aim  was  to 
gather the opinions of local and regional authorities (LRAs) on the important environmental 
problems, the weaknesses and limitations in implementing EU environmental policy, and the 
potential role for a future EU financial instrument for the environment.  

A total of 40 survey responses were submitted from 12 EU MS, mostly from Spain (11) and 
Italy (10).  

2. 

Problem definition  

The  initial  stage  of  research  sought  to  define  the  problems  to  be  addressed  by  a  specific 
instrument  for  the  environment.  To  initiate  the  stakeholder  consultation,  a  set  of  five 
environmental problems that could potentially form the basis for a specific instrument for the 
environment  was  devised.  This  was  subject  to  stakeholder  consultation  and  discussion  with 
Commission services. 

In light of these consultations the description of the five problems was revised and sought to 
clarify more particularly the distinction between: 

•  physical environmental problems; and 

• 

institutional drivers that lead to policy gaps and weaknesses that result in the continuation 
of the physical problems.  

15

 
 
 
2.1 

Physical environmental problems and challenges in the EU Member States 

Workshop participants were asked to rank the three most important environmental problems 
facing the EU. The weighted totals are shown in the graph below  (where  a problem ranked 
number 1 was given a weight of 10, number 2 was given a weight of 5, and a 3 was given a 
weight of 2). 

 Figure 2.1  

The  weighted  totals  of  the  rankings  given  by  stakeholders  to  the  environmental  problems 
facing  the  EU indicate  that  stakeholders believe  the  most  important  problems  are  nature  and 
biodiversity, climate change adaptation and resource use 

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Air pollution Chemicals

Climate
change
adaptation

Climate
change
mitigation

Freshwater
management

Land use Nature and
Biodiversity

Resource
use and
waste

Urban
environment

Source: GHK analysis, EC Workshop 

The results indicate that stakeholders believe the greatest environmental challenges facing the 
EU  are  that  of  nature  and  biodiversity,  climate  change  adaptation  and  resources  use  and 
waste.  Similar  findings  came  out  of  the  CoR  survey,  where  climate  change  adaptation  was 
identified as being highly significant by 69% of respondents, resource use and waste by 67% 
and  nature  and  biodiversity  by  42%.  The  two  surveys  differ  however,  in  that  nature  and 
biodiversity was seen as more important than climate change adaptation and resource use by 
workshop participants than responses from the CoR. 

Notably,  most  CoR  respondents  (54%  of  responses)  identified  a  weak  cause-and-effect 
relationship  between  their  local  environmental  problems  and  those  occurring  in  other 
countries;  two  thirds  of  the  remaining  respondents  believe  that  these  problems  are  to  some 
extent related (31% of responses), while only one third of them (15% of responses) consider 
that such a link exists to a great extent. 

2.2 

Institutional drivers and underlying causes 

The key institutional drivers identified during the options development are: 

•  Variable and inadequate levels of environmental protection through weaknesses in policy 

development;  

•  Variable and inadequate levels of environmental protection through weaknesses in policy 

implementation;  

16

 
 
 
• 

• 

• 

Inadequate  coordination,  and  inadequate  integration  of  the  environment  into  policy  and 
practice (including non EU countries);  

Inadequate sharing of information and awareness of EU environmental problems; 

Inadequate system of support for eco-innovation. 

In the following, stakeholder views are presented on each of these barriers, considering:  

•  Their importance; and 

•  Their underlying causes and barriers. 

The  extent  to  which  a  financial  instrument  dedicated  to  the  environment  should  be  used  to 
address these institutional problems is discussed in Section 0.  

2.2.1  Unregulated environmental problems: Policy Development  

2.2.1.1  Extent and importance of the problem 

Although most stakeholders (62%) from the GHK survey (including non-project stakeholders 
and  project-beneficiaries)  agreed  that  there  is  a  need  for  continued  policy  development,  the 
scope of the current  acquis was not identified as being one of  the  most  important  problems 
that needs addressing. In fact, the scope of the acquis was the problem that was considered 
second least important (with addressing international problems as the least important). Most 
GHK survey stakeholders (54%) also believed the problem is most likely to stay the same in 
terms of severity, with only 25% believing the problem will increase in severity.  

This  relative  lack  of  importance  attributed  to  the  scope  of  the  acquis  across  all  stakeholder 
consultations was largely a reflection of the fact that stakeholders could only identify a few 
areas which the current acquis does not address.  

Policy gaps were also identified by GHK survey respondents. For instance, in terms of broad 
policy  areas,  two-thirds  of  GHK  survey  respondents  identified  natural  resources  and  waste 
policy as having the biggest need for policy development. 45% of respondents also believed 
that  there  was  a  gap  in  the  development  of  policy  in  terms  of  climate  change.  There  was  a 
division of opinion in relation to biodiversity with half believing there is only a small, or no 
gap  at  all,  whilst  the  other  half  believed  there  is  either  a  very  big  or  big  gap  to  fill.  
Environment and health policy was thought to be the most comprehensive. 

17

 
 
 
 Figure 2.2    Policy development was only considered to be a significant problem by some stakeholders across 

the four environmental policy areas 

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Nature  / biodiversity

Climate change

Environment + health

Natural  resources + waste

3

3

4

5

13

14

10

16

13

13

3

16

9

1

1 - very big gap

2 - big gap

3 - small gap

4 - no gap

Source: GHK analysis, GHK Survey 

2.2.1.2  Underlying causes and barriers to the problem 

Results  from  the  EC  workshop  further  supported  these  findings.  However,  attendees  noted 
that a potential barrier to improving the scope of the acquis is the perceived lack of appetite 
for  new  legislation  and  legal  standards.  It  is  therefore,  likely  to  become  more  difficult  to 
regulate  future  environmental  challenges,  especially  in  the  current  economic  and  political 
climate. The perceived decline in support for the EU and its activities is also a potential issue.  

2.2.2 

Inadequate Policy Implementation  

2.2.2.1  Extent and importance of the problem 

The implementation of the acquis was consistently considered to be the most important issue 
to  address  across  all  stakeholders  consultations.  More  than  80%  of  the  GHK  stakeholder 
survey agreed that the inadequate implementation of policies is causing major environmental 
problems  to  persist,  and  55%  of  stakeholders  identified  inadequate  implementation  as  the 
most important environmental policy problem in the EU.  

On  the  other  hand,  respondents  to  the  CoR  questionnaire  felt  that  weaknesses  in  policy 
development and implementation was not the most important problem to address, however it 
was  still  rated  as  being  very  significant.  Respondents  most  often  rated  the  weaknesses  in 
policy  development  and  implementation  as  second  most  important  institutional  barrier  to 
addressing environmental problems.  

Policy  implementation  was  identified  by  GHK  survey  respondents  as  being  a  significant 
concern across all four environmental policy areas; more than 70% of respondents rating the 
gap in policy implementation as either very big, or big across all four policy areas. The gap 
was  thought  to  be  especially  big  in  terms  of  nature  and  biodiversity  policy;  almost  half 
believed  there  was  a  very  big  gap  in  policy  implementation  with  almost  all  the  remainder 
believing there was a big gap (see Figure below). 

18

 
 
 
Figure 2.3 

Stakeholders believed there were significant gaps in policy implementation across all four 
environmental policy areas  

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Nature / biodiversity

15

13

4

Climate change

11

14

3

2

Environment + health

Natural resources + waste

7

6

14

16

1

7

8

1 - very big gap

2 - big gap

3 - small gap

4 - no gap

Source: GHK analysis, GHK Survey 

In the case of nature and biodiversity, the management of the Natura 2000 network remains 
the biggest challenge as emphasised across all stakeholder groups. The issue of enforcement 
was also raised in the survey responses as a key barrier to the proper implementation of the 
acquis. The use of derogations and exemptions by Member States was also noted as being a 
potential contributing factor to the inadequate implementation .   

2.2.2.2  Underlying causes and barriers to the problem 

When  asked  to  consider  the  causes  of  continuing  environmental  problems  in  the  EU,  GHK 
survey  respondents  indicated  that  more  than  40%  of  the  cause  is  due  to  weaknesses  in  the 
current EU environmental policy and difficulties with its implementation. The remaining 60% 
was thought to be due to the broad range of demographic, economic and social pressures on 
the environment which indirectly implies weaknesses in the current policy.  

The  GHK  survey  highlighted  that  the  inadequate  implementation  of  the  acquis  was  largely 
seen as a problem of insufficient resources and differing competencies and understandings at 
Member State level. Similarly, results from the CoR survey showed that 40% of respondents 
felt  that  regional  level  improvements  in  the  implementation  of  EU  environmental 
policy/legislation  are  most  effective  in  addressing  the  identified  environmental  problems.  A 
further 24% believed that national responses also play a significant role. 

However,  a  few  GHK  survey  respondents  also  noted  that  the  implementation  of  the  acquis 
was  being  significantly  hampered  at  the  policy  level  by  the  lack  of  integration  of 
environmental concerns in the implementation other EU policies  

CoR  respondents  were  asked  to  consider  the  most  significant  barriers  to  improving  the 
implementation  of  the  acquis.  The  two  most  frequently  cited  in  response  were  the  ‘lack  of 
financial resources to adequately implement and enforce policy’ and ‘conflicting priorities.  

The ‘least significant’ issue in terms of implementing EU environmental policy/legislation for 
CoR respondents was the ‘lack of knowledge’: 46% of the respondents consider this issue as 
‘least  significant’  and  13%  as  ‘second  least  significant’.  Other  issues  mentioned  by 
respondents include the lack of technical and human resources, the lack of a relevant policy 
framework at the national and regional levels, as well as the lack of knowledge and awareness 
by the general public. 

GHK  survey  respondents  were  split  almost  equally  across  those  who  thought  the  problem 
would  improve  or  get  worse  to  2020,  whilst  most  (more  than  40%),  believed  the  problem 

19

 
 
 
would stay the same. Moreover, the current economic climate is likely to worsen the problem 
as the environment drops down on the agenda, in favour of other priorities. 

2.2.3 

Insufficient synergies and inadequate integration of the environment into policy  

There is a distinction between integration, and creating synergies (mainstreaming). Integration 
of  environmental  concerns  into  sectoral  policies  is  seen  as  the  responsibility  of  individual 
policy  units.  Creating  synergies  on  the  other  hand,  has  less  to  do  with  policies  than  with 
improving  complementarities  between  actual  funding  instruments.  Stakeholders  tended  to 
focus  their  feedback  and  discussion  on  the  former  issue  (i.e.  integration  of  environmental 
concerns  into  sectoral  policies),  rather  than  on  improving  synergies  between  funding 
instruments as such (i.e. between, for instance, LIFE and the European Agricultural Fund for 
Rural  Development  (EAFRD).  The  latter  point  was,  however,  reflected  in  proposals 
(especially for Commission service interviews), for developing options for the future of LIFE, 
whereby LIFE could act as a test bed for pilot projects, which would then be mainstreamed 
through other funds. 

It  is  important  to  note  that  the  issue  of  integration  of  environmental  concerns  into  sectoral 
policies can be broken down into two key components:  

• 

• 

integration  in  principle:  the  integration  of  the  environment  concerns  into  sectoral 
objectives; and,  

integration  in  practice:  the  lack  of  implementation  of  integration  objectives  (i.e.  the 
lack of implementation of more sustainable concerns into sectoral policies).  

2.2.3.1 Extent and importance of the problem 

Consultation  of  Commission  services  suggest  that  whilst  some  progress  has  been  made  in 
improving  environmental  integration  within  sectoral  objectives  (and  to  a  lesser  extent  in 
practice), it remains a key issue across the policy areas and there is still significant room for 
improvement.   

In  fact,  respondents  to  the  CoR  questionnaire  most  often  rated  the  weaknesses  in  the 
integration  of  environmental  policy  considerations  into  other  policy  areas  as  the  most 
important  institutional  barrier  to  addressing  environmental  problems  (selected  as  most 
important weakness by 41% of the respondents and as second most important by 16% of the 
respondents). Moreover, weaknesses in the use of various EU funding instruments to support 
the environment was also felt to be  a significant problem, being selected as most important 
weakness by 15.5% of the respondents and as second most important by 22% of them. 

The  general  consensus  across  GHK  survey  stakeholders,  EC  workshop  attendees  and 
interviews  with  Commission  officials  was  that  the  problem  of  integration  is  one  of  its 
application,  not  the  principle.  Most  stakeholders  did  think  that  the  main  problem  lay  in  the 
implementation of the policies, rather than the definition of polices; instruments such as the 
Common  Agricultural  Policy  (CAP)  are  ‘greened’  in  principle,  but  this  does  not  always 
translate into their application.  

20

 
 
Figure 2.4.   The  clear  majority  of  workshop  participants  did  not  think  that  the  integration  of  environmental 

concerns into sectoral policies has been successful 

10

3

63

Good

Bad/Insufficient

Don’t Know

Source: GHK analysis, EC Workshop 

Overall,  the  impact  of  other  EU  policies  and  spending  instruments  was  seen  as  the  second 
most  important  environmental  policy  problem  by  GHK  survey  respondents  (after  the 
implementation  of  the  acquis),  especially  in  the  area  of  nature  and  biodiversity  policy  and 
natural  resources  and  waste.  Some  EC  workshop  participants  for  instance,  noted  that  the 
lack  of  coherence  in  funding  for  biodiversity  across  major  European  policy  instruments  (as 
well as weak political prioritisation in Member States), are the key factors in the low uptake 
of the wide range of funding opportunities for biodiversity.16  Indeed, integration was seen as 
a problem by most workshop participants, with 83% feeling that integration to date has been 
poor. 

The CAP was mentioned most often as the funding instrument in which integration in practice 
was  most  difficult.  Participants  to  the  workshop  perceived  the  CAP  as  ‘unsuccessful’  in 
integrating nature and biodiversity objectives into the instrument, and as counteracting other 
environmental policies. Areas outside Natura 2000 were felt to be particularly neglected, with 
CAP  funding  being  viewed  as  ‘patchy’  on  the  ground,  with  low  uptake  by  some  farmers.  
However,  in  its  mid-term  review  of  the  6th  Environment  Action  Programme  (6EAP) 
(COM(2007)  225)  the  Commission  expressed  a  different  view  from  above,  through 
recognising that, "in the agricultural sector, there have been fundamental reforms over the last 
15 years that have moved towards seeing farmers as stewards of nature". Specifically in the 
case  of  nature  and  biodiversity,  integration  was  seen  as  a  particularly  major  issue  by 
stakeholders, especially given that currently only 20% of financing needs for the Natura 2000 
network  are  being  met.  This  ‘gap’  in  financing  needs  highlights  the  importance  of  other 
instruments,  namely  rural  development  and  regional  funding,  and  the  role  they  can  play  in 
contributing towards filling the gap. Currently, although instruments such as the CAP and the 
European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF)  are  ‘proofed’  and  ‘greened’  (e.g.  explicitly 
mention  Natura  2000)  and  opportunities  to  finance  activities  relating  to  the  network  exist, 
uptake  remains  poor  in  practice.  This  lack  of  application  ‘on  the  ground’  is  most  likely 
associated  with  poor  administrative  and  absorption  capacity  in  the  Member  States,  and  the 
fact  that  for  example  in  agriculture,  less  strategic  planning  is  undertaken  for  nature  and 
biodiversity.  

16 Changing Perspectives: How the EU budget can shape a sustainable future (2010). Available from: 
http://www.eeb.org/EEB/?LinkServID=7819455B-C145-9353-9D77F0192D2A9BD2&showMeta=0. 

21

 
 
 
                                                 
2.2.3.2  Underlying causes and barriers 

Given  the  general  viewpoint  that  integration  is  an  issue  of  application,  it  is  perhaps 
unsurprising  that  many  stakeholders  in  the  GHK  survey,  in  the  workshop  and  in  the 
interviews  with  EC  officials,  noted  that  the  problem  of  integration  manifested  itself  at  a 
national,  Member  State  level  (once  the  policies  had  been  developed  and  environmental 
concerns integrated); there is a disconnect between what is happening at the EU policy level 
and  what  is  happening  in  practice  at  the  local  level.  This  is  possibly  due  to  the  degree  of 
flexibility  given  to  Member  States  to  utilise  the  funding  from  the  key  instruments  and/or 
because the instruments are regionally managed.  

Although most GHK survey stakeholders (46%) believed the problem would largely stay the 
same  until  2020,  almost  40%  thought  the  environmental  problems  caused  by  the  impact  of 
other EU policies was likely to increase.  

2.2.4.   Lack of awareness and information sharing   

2.2.4.1  Extent and importance of the problem 

The  need  to  improve  awareness  levels  and  to  increase  knowledge  sharing  was  most  often 
rated  as  having  middling  importance  by  GHK  survey  respondents.  Similarly,  CoR 
respondents  gave  a  lower  level  of  importance  to  the  inadequate  levels  of  awareness  of 
environmental problems by  policy-makers, with 22% ranking this weakness as second  most 
important  and  an  equal  percentage  as  third  most  important.  However,  Commission 
interviewees  believed  that  awareness  of  the  public  and  of  politicians  is  a  key  issue  which 
links  between  awareness  and  policy 
needs 
implementation. 

improved,  especially  given 

to  be 

the 

A lack of awareness and knowledge sharing was rated by GHK survey respondents as second 
most  important  in  the  policy  area  of  environment  and  health.  However  Commission 
interviewees considered that the problem was relevant to virtually all policy areas. Interviews 
with Commission services suggested that knowledge sharing was also seen as important in the 
case of waste policy and resource use, with a lack of knowledge transfer between national and 
local  levels,  whilst  in  the  case  of  the  Natura  2000  network,  the  lack  of  awareness  of  the 
benefits of the network is seen as a major barrier to progress.  

2.2.4.2  Underlying causes and barriers 

EC workshop participants also noted that raising awareness should not be seen as a standalone 
activity, but rather as an activity that is associated with all other activities. Several workshop 
attendees  noted  that  a  lack  of  awareness  impedes  the  implementation  of  policy.  Some  also 
thought  that  an  adequate  implementation  of  policy  would  also  lead  to  greater  awareness. 
Awareness is therefore considered a critical element to ensuring the adequate implementation 
of  policy.  As  such,  many  stakeholders  indicated  that  a  lack  of  awareness  is  an  underlying 
cause of other problems.  

Nonetheless,  a  few  GHK  survey  stakeholders  suggested  that  in  the  case  of  politicians 
(compared  to  the  public)  the  issue  is  one  of  increasing  political  will,  and  less  a  case  of 
increasing knowledge.  

22

 
 
2.2.5 

Inadequate support for eco-innovation  

2.2.5.1  Extent and importance of the problem 

Regarding  general  implementation  of  the  eco-innovation  issue,  all  stakeholders  recognised 
that  new  policy  and  technological  responses  are  required  to  address  continuing  and  future 
environmental problems, above all of the other drivers. Some workshop participants however, 
suggested  that  the  lack  of  support  for  eco-innovation  should  not  be  considered  as  a  driver 
(especially when interpreted strictly as supporting innovative eco-technologies). 

Respondents to the CoR survey rated the inadequate support for eco-innovation as one of the 
least  important  issues  to  address.  Views  in  the  case  of  the  GHK  survey  were  very  much 
divided about how important the need for eco-innovation is; roughly a third each thought it 
was  most  important,  of  middling  importance,  and  of  low  importance.  Almost  the  same  was 
found when GHK survey respondents were asked how the problem would change in severity 
by 2020, with roughly a third each saying it would decrease, stay the same, or increase.  

Eco-innovation was rated by survey respondents as by far the most important issue to address 
in the policy area of climate change.  

2.2.5.2  Underlying causes and barriers 

The underlying causes and barriers were not commented on by stakeholders.  

3 

The  rationale  for,  and  EU  added  value  of,  a  specific  instrument  for  the 
environment and climate action 

3.1 

Justifications for an instrument for the environment 

Several reasons were felt to be important justifications for having a dedicated instrument for 
the environment. The two most important reasons according to workshop participants are the 
transboundary and public asset nature of environmental assets (see 0) 

 Figure 3.1  Weighted  ratings  indicate  that  the  most  important  justifications  for  an  instrument  for  the 
environment  rated  by  workshop  participants  is  the  transboundary  and  public  goods  nature  of 
environmental assets  

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Burden sharing Transboundary Environmental

assets are
public goods

Prevent
Member States
gaining
competitive
advantage

Remedy
implementation
failures in
Member States

Improving
coordination
across Member
States

Sharing of good
practice and
innovative ideas

Other (Various)

Source: GHK analysis, EC Workshop 

23

 
 
 
However, viewpoints between different stakeholder groups did differ somewhat. For instance, 
social  partners  believed  the  most  important  reason  for  a  dedicated  instrument  for  the 
environment was for the sharing of good practice and innovative ideas, while for government 
officials, the most important reason was to remedy implementation failures in Member States. 
For  NGOs  and  NCPs,  both  felt  that  the  most  important  justification  was  the  public  asset 
nature  of  environmental  assets,  although  NGOs  also  felt  that  implementation  failures  in 
Member States was almost equally as important. 

In the case of CoR respondents, who were asked a similar question, the rationale for EU level 
action that were considered highly valid by stakeholders (50% of respondents) was that  ‘EU 
action  is  required  to  remedy  failures  in  Member  States  in  the  transposition,  implementation 
and  enforcement  of  EU  environmental  policy’  was  considered  highly  valid  by  50%  of  the 
respondents.  ‘Improved  coordination  of  policy  efforts  across  Member  States  (MS)    in 
(central/regional level) in order to better integrate environmental policies in sectoral policies’, 
was placed in the top two validity levels by 85% of the respondents. A similar indication was 
given  by  77.5%  of  the  respondents  about  ‘burden  sharing  at  EU  level  to  increase  the 
effectiveness  of  MS  policy  in  meeting  EU  objectives’.  Moreover,  40%  of  the  respondents 
considered  highly  valid  the  following  arguments:  ‘Environmental  problems  are  often  trans-
boundary across MS borders and require EU level responses’ and  ‘environmental assets are 
public goods and require EU action to ensure adequate provision’.  

3.2 

EU added value of the existing instrument for the environment 

Stakeholders  believe  the  LIFE  instrument  is  a  valuable  programme  and  should  definitely 
continue into the future. Results from the YVIE survey were also clear on this point – almost 
80% of respondents believed to a great extent that there is a need for a specific instrument for 
the environment. Moreover, 98% of workshop participants also felt that a specific instrument 
for  the  environment  was  necessary  in  order  to  meet  environmental  challenges.  However, 
whilst  virtually  all  participants  felt  that  there  is  a  clear  need,  some  noted  that  it  will  not  be 
sufficient  to  address  environmental  problems  unless  the  integration  of  environmental 
considerations into other funding instruments is improved and the resources available to it are 
significantly increased. 

The  overwhelming  consensus  across  all  stakeholders  consulted  is  that  the  most  important 
focus for LIFE should be the implementation of the acquis. Its role in implementing policies 
for  nature  and  biodiversity  (e.g.  the  Natura  2000  network)  was  seen  as  being  particularly 
important, given the absence of any other financial instrument specifically focused on nature 
protection.  The  promotion  of  awareness  and  knowledge  sharing  was  seen  as  a  particularly 
important  activity.  GHK  survey  respondents  stated    that  other  relevant  areas  of  activity  for 
LIFE+  were  the  funding  of  innovative  means  of  addressing  future  challenges  as  well  as 
addressing  the  impact  that  other  EU  policies  and  spending  instruments  can  have  on  the 
environment.  

24

 
 
Figure 3.2  

The existing LIFE instrument was thought to be most effective (first figure) and most relevant 
(second figure) in the case of the acquis’ implementation, with its role in awareness raising and 
knowledge sharing also being especially significant 

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Implementation of the acquis

Scope of the acquis

Future challenges & innovation

9

9

25

9

11

17

Impact of other EU policies & spending instruments

7

17

Awareness & knowledge sharing

20

10

5

5

2

1 - highly relevant

2- somewhat relevant

3 - not relevant

Source: GHK analysis, GHK Survey 

Survey respondents were also asked to allocate resources across the different policy problems, 
and  consequently  spread  the  resources  across  all  the  policy  problems,  although  most  of  the 
resources (38%) were thought to be best allocated to the implementation of the environmental 
acquis.  This  provides  further  indication  that  the  focus  of  a  future  instrument  for  the 
environment should be on improving the implementation of the acquis. 

There was a clear preference for the instrument to focus a significant portion of its resources 
on the implementation of the acquis (see figure below). GKH survey respondents thought that 
after the implementation of the acquis, almost equal portions of resources should be spent on 
awareness  raising  and  knowledge  sharing,  and  addressing  the  impact  that  other  EU  policies 
and  spending  instruments  can  have  on  the  environment.  Respondents  thought  that  the  least 
amount of resources should be spent on addressing the impacts of international pressures on 
the  EU  (see  Figure  below).  Thus,  despite  the  current  resource  limitations,  none  of  the 
stakeholders believed the instrument should be restricted to addressing just one type of policy 
problem or activity.  

Figure 3.3.    GHK  survey  stakeholders  believed,  on  average,  that  38%  of  the  resources  of  LIFE  should  be 

spent on addressing the inadequacies of the acquis’ implementation 

7%

19%

14%

Implementation of the acquis

Scope of the acquis

38%

Future challenges & innovation

Impact of other EU policies & 
spending instruments 

Awareness & knowledge sharing

12%

10%

International pressures

Source: GHK analysis, GHK Survey 

25

 
 
 
 
  
3.3 

Rationale  for  an  instrument  for  the  environment  to  intervene  in  the  five  main 
problems identified 

3.3.1 

Policy development  

Although the need for further policy development was not thought to be as great relative to 
other  environmental  policy  issues,  almost  70%  of  GHK  survey  stakeholders  believed  there 
was substantial added value from EU level action. The transboundary nature of environmental 
problems was by far the most commonly cited rationale by GHK survey respondents for EU 
intervention in policy development. 

Whether a dedicated financial instrument for the environment is the best means to address this 
problem  however  is  not  so  clear.  For  instance,  participants  in  the  EC  workshop  expressed 
reservations  as  to  whether  an  instrument  for  the  environment  should  address  weaknesses  in 
the development of EU policy. 

3.3.2 

Policy implementation 

Although the implementation of the acquis was largely seen as a problem at the Member State 
level, virtually all GHK survey stakeholders believed there was substantial added value from 
EU  level  action  to  improve  the  implementation  of  environmental  legislation,  with  all 
respondents believing there was a need for financial intervention to address the problem.  The 
most  common  rationales  given  for  doing  so  was  the  transboundary  nature  of  environmental 
problems and the regulatory failures in Member States.  

90% of GHK survey respondents indicated that there was substantial EU added value for EU 
level action to improve policy implementation, with 97% believing that there is a rational for 
EU financial intervention. Enhancing the capacity of Member States to implement policy was 
ranked as the most important role for a specific instrument for the environment.  

More  than  80%  of  respondents  to  the  “Your  Voice  in  Europe”  survey  also  noted  that  EU 
financial  assistance  for  the  implementation  of  the  environmental  acquis  is  relevant  or  very 
relevant  as  a  justification  for  a  specific  instrument  for  the  environment.  70%  also  believed 
that  supporting  and  improving  implementation  was  either  very  important  or  important  for  a 
future financial instrument for the environment. 

3.3.3 

Integration of environmental concerns into sectoral policies 

Improving  the  integration  of  environmental  concerns  into  other  policies  is  considered 
imperative by all groups of stakeholders because of:  

• 

• 

• 

the cross-cutting nature of the environment and biodiversity;  

the negative impacts on the environment and biodiversity of other policies; and 

the fact that direct funding for the environment is severely constrained, and so financing 
for  the  environmental  acquis  is  highly  dependent  on  other  policies  and  funding 
instruments.  

Most (almost 75%) of GHK survey respondents thought the added value of EU level action to 
improve  the  impact  of  other  EU  policies  on  the  environment  was  substantial.  The  most 
popular rationales given for doing so was the fact that environmental assets are public goods, 

26

 
 
requiring EU action to ensure their adequate provision, and the need to mitigate the possible 
adverse  impacts  on  competitiveness.  75%  of  stakeholders  thought  the  problem  merited 
financial expenditure at the EU level. 

With  regard  to  synergies  between  different  funding  instruments,  YVIE  results  showed  that 
most  respondents  agreed  (more  than  80%)  that  a  structured  cooperation  between  the  future 
EU  financial  instruments  for  the  environment  and  other  EU  funding  instruments  should  be 
established. This was by far the preferred option for enhancing synergies between LIFE and 
other EU programmes.  

A further popular suggestion was to use the future instrument for the environment to develop 
a project pipe-line, funding exemplar initiatives to demonstrate feasibility and disseminating 
results  as  the  basis  of  subsequent  mainstream  funding  other  EU  instruments  (65%  of  GHK 
stakeholder  survey  respondents  agreed  or  strongly  agreed  that  this  would  improve 
complementarity).  A  significant  number  of  respondents  to  the  YVIE  also  believed  that  this 
approach would be a good means to improving complementarities between different funding 
instruments (see figure below) 

Figure 3.4 

The most popular suggestion for improving complementarities between funding instruments was 
for structured cooperation to be established between the financial instruments 

Each funding instrument should finance different
objectives and types of projects

165

364

180

114

Instrument for the environment to act as a
project pipeline, laying the groundwork for…

226

365

130

114

Structured cooperation between financial
instruments

432

301

58

80

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Strongly agree

Agree

Disagree

Strongly disagree

Source: GHK analysis, YVIE Survey 

3.3.4  Awareness raising and information sharing   

Slightly more than half of the GHK survey respondents believed there was substantial added 
value for EU level action to improve awareness levels (with the other half believing there was 
at least some added value). The majority of respondents (almost 90%) also believed there was 
a rationale for EU level expenditure to do so, because of the need to share good practice and 
innovative  ideas,  and  to  support  burden  sharing.  In  the  case  of  the  YVIE  survey,  a 
considerable number of respondents felt that it was very important for a future instrument for 
the environment to contribute to awareness raising and information activities (being given a 
rating  of  5  or  4  by  64%  of  respondents).  However,  some  workshop  participants  felt  that 
awareness had already been sufficiently mainstreamed, and that other instruments  and  other 
stakeholders are already addressing this issue.  

27

 
 
 
Figure 3.5 

Most  YVIE  respondents  felt  it  was  important  for  a  future  instrument  for  the  environment  to 
contribute towards awareness raising and information sharing was an important  

85

50

65

128

258

5 - very important

326

4

3

2

1

0 - not at all important

Source: GHK analysis, YVIE Survey 

3.3.5 

Support for eco-innovation  

Almost  60%  of  survey  respondents  believed  there  is  substantial  EU  added  value  from 
supporting  eco-innovation  (with  77%  agreeing  that  this  should  include  financial  support), 
with the key justification being the need for knowledge sharing.  

In  the  case  of  the  YVIE  survey,  a  considerable  number  of  respondents  felt  that  it  was  very 
important for a future instrument for the environment to contribute to awareness raising and 
information activities (being given a rating of 5 or 4 by 68% of respondents). 

However, although thought to be an important issue in addressing environmental problems in 
general,  only  a  third  of  GHK  survey  respondents  felt  that  a  specific  instrument  for  the 
environment  should  address  the  needs  of  eco-innovation  given  the  presence  of  other 
instruments in this field, particularly that of the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme 
(the CIP) and the Seventh Framework Programme. More than 60% of survey respondents felt 
that addressing eco-innovation is only somewhat relevant for an instrument dedicated to the 
environment.   

Figure 3.6 

Most YVIE respondents felt it was important for a future instrument for the environment to 
boost innovative actions for the environment  

92

5 - very important

39

37

122

270

352

4

3

2

1

0 - not at all important

Source: GHK analysis, YVIE Survey 

28

 
 
 
 
4 

Objectives, Activities and Resources of a future instrument for the environment 

4.1 

Objectives 

The stakeholder workshop considered suggested objectives. These were largely accepted. As 
with  the  GHK  survey,  the  most  important  objective  for  a  specific  instrument  for  the 
environment was felt to be the implementation of the acquis (see 0). 

However,  there  was  some  concern  that  a  specific  objective  relating  to  EU  international 
commitments  might  lead  to  an  instrument  that  gave  insufficient  weight  to  issues  of  more 
immediate concern and which would provide clearer EU added value. 

Figure 4.1 

Workshop  participants  indicated  that  the  most  important  objective  for  an  instrument  for  the 
environment is to improve the implementation of the environmental acquis (weighted scores) 

4.2 

Activities 

Source: GHK analysis, EC Workshop 

Workshop participants were asked to rate potential activities that a future instrument for the 
environment could undertake. By far the most important activities rated by participants were 
the management of the Natura 2000 network, and the demonstration of good practice through 
pilot projects. 

The demonstration and sharing of best practice was rated the most important objective for an 
instrument for the environment by respondents to the YVIE survey, although only marginally. 

Some  stakeholders  also  suggested  that  LIFE  should  fund  bottom-up  projects,  as  well  as 
projects  programmed  at  national  level  within  a  national  framework  to  develop  innovative 
approaches that provide new solutions to the key problems. 

29

 
 
 
 
Figure 4.2 

Weighted ratings by workshop participants indicate that the management of the Natura 2000 
network  and  the  demonstration  of  good  practice  are  the  key  activities  perceived  by 
stakeholders for an instrument for the environment 

600

500

400

300

200

100

0

Raise
awareness

Pilot and
demonstrate
good practice

Increase in the
exchange of
knowledge and
experience

Promote
innovation in
techniques

Strengthen the
role of
environmental
NGOs

Management of
the Natura 2000
Network

Research and
investigate
improvements
in
environmental
policy

Source: GHK analysis, EC Workshop 

Figure 4.3 

Demonstration  and  sharing  of  best  practice  was  most  often  given  the  highest  ratings  when 
YVIE respondents were asked what role a future instrument for the environment should play 

Source: GHK analysis, YVIE Survey 

CoR  respondents  were  also  asked  to  consider  what  activities  would  be  most  effective  in 
improving environmental policy and its implementation. In contrast to the results found in the 
GHK and YVIE survey, the most frequently selected activities was the “raising awareness of 
the environmental problems and the need for solutions amongst different actors” (selected as 
most  effective  by  28%  of  the  respondents  and  as  second  most  effective  by  34.5%  of  the 
respondents)  and  “promoting  innovation  in  techniques  (including  monitoring)  that  enable 
improved environmental management especially by competent authorities” (selected as ‘most 
effective’ by 25% of the respondents and second most effective by 16% of the respondents). 

The demonstration of good practice (selected as ‘most effective’ by 22% of the respondents 
and as second most effective by 19% of the respondents) and investment in the management 

30

 
 
 
 
 
 
of the Natura 2000 network (selected as most effective by 19% of the respondents and as third 
most  effective  by  an  equal  percentage  of  respondents),  whilst  also  popular  choices,  were 
considered slightly less important than those activities mentioned above. 

The  least  effective  of  the  activities  were  considered  to  be  ‘to  research  and  investigate 
improvements  in  environmental  policy  and  expanding  the  knowledge  base  for  policy’,  ‘to 
strengthen the role of environmental NGOs’ and ‘to accelerate learning through an increase in 
the  exchange  of  knowledge  and  experience  between  competent  authorities  responsible  for 
environmental policy implementation’. 

Figure 4.4 

CoR respondents most often selected the need to raise awareness of environmental problems 
and  solutions,  and  the  promotion  of  innovation  as  the  key  activities  to  improve  the 
implementation of environmental policy 

Source: CoR Report: ‘Assessment of Territorial Impacts of the EU LIFE+ Instrument’ – results from the 
Committee of the Regions survey 

YVIE respondents were also asked what activities they thought would most act to increase the 
visibility  of  the  results  of  LIFE+  funded  projects  and  encourage  their  replication  at  a  larger 
scale.  Most  respondents  thought  this  was  best  done  through  encouraging  projects  to 
communicate  more  on  their  results.  However,  more  thematic  events,  and  the  creation  of 
networks  and  clusters  of  projects  within  the  same  environmental  field  and/or  which  have 
similar objectives was also thought to be useful. 

31

 
 
 
Figure 4.5 

YVIE respondents believed that the communication of project results was most often selected 
as the activity which would increase the visibility and replicability of LIFE+ project results 

62

134

159

548

Encouraging projects to communicate more on their
results
Organising more thematic events

Creating networks / clusters of similar projects

245

Increasing the importance of transnational projects

Favouring projects with more beneficiaries

482

484

Other

Dont know

4.3 

Resources 

Source: GHK analysis, YVIE Survey 

Although  stakeholders  identified  opportunities  for  improvement,  they  also  noted  that  a  key 
factor limiting the effectiveness of LIFE+ has been its limited resources.  

Results from the YVIE survey indicate that the clear majority of respondents (68%) thought 
that a future instrument for the environment should have an annual budget that is higher than 
the current annual budget of LIFE+.  Only the least number of respondents (15%) believed the 
budget should be decreased. 

Figure 4.6  

The  majority  of  respondents  to  the  YVIE  survey  believed  that  the  budget  for  a  future 
instrument for the environment should be increased 

Source: GHK analysis, YVIE Survey 

The result was even more unequivocal in the case of the GHK survey, where 90% of survey 
respondents believed that LIFE+ was under-resourced and should have access to considerably 
more  funding.  Whilst  many  did  not  think  there  would,  realistically,  be  a  very  significant 
increase,  most  nonetheless  considered  that  significantly  more  resources  were  required. 
Similarly with EC workshop participants, the sentiment was one of, “the more the better”, as 
long as there was a commensurate increase in capacity to manage the funds.  

Most  survey  respondents,  and  42%  of  EC  workshop  participants,  believed  that  resources  of 
€500  million  to  €1  billion  a  year  would  be  more
  appropriate  (see  figure  below)  than  the 
current €0.3 billion. The majority of the remaining workshop participants (33%) voted for an 
increase in resources to €1 – 5 billion a year.  

32

 
 
 
 
Figure 4.7 

The  preference  of  stakeholders  consulted  by  GHK,  (an  almost  identical  proportion  of  those 
consulted in the survey and in the workshop), was to increase the resources available to LIFE+ 
to  levels of  between €500  million  and €1  billion  a  year (about 40%),  while  the  second most 
popular option was to increase resources to €1 million and €5 billion a year (about 30%) 

Source: GHK analysis, GHK Survey and EC Workshop 

5 

Thematic and territorial focus  

5.1 

Thematic focus 

None  of  the  GHK  survey  stakeholders  believed  the  instrument  should  be  restricted  to 
addressing  just  one  type  of  policy  problem  or  activity.  The  clear  majority  of  EC  workshop 
participants  (75%)  were  also  clear  that  a  thematic  focus  was  not  required,  with  a  need  to 
address the whole of the acquis. Some noted that excluding certain themes at different times 
might  compromise  the  continuity  in  the  support  provided  to  particular  themes  and  hence 
quality of work delivered. There was a resounding view that all the themes are interlinked and 
there is a lot of interaction between them, making it difficult to separate out ‘more important’ 
themes.  

Similarly,  respondents  to  the  CoR  survey  indicated  that  more  than  three  quarters  of  the 
respondents  (76%)  do  not  agree  with  narrowing  the  focus  of  the  future  instrument  to  a 
specific  area/objective  (Chart  20).  Those  who  are  in  favour  of  a  more  focused  LIFE 
instrument, specify climate change (42% of responses), the management of the Natura 2000 
Network (33% of responses) and the Habitats and Birds directives (17% of responses) as the 
most pertinent objectives/areas.  

The results from the YVIE survey, however, show that roughly 60% of respondents felt that 
the  Commission  should  set  a  number  of  environmental  thematic  issues  to  be  addressed  in 
priority.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  YVIE  survey  was  asking  respondents  whether  certain 
environmental  fields  should  be  prioritised;  this  does  not  necessarily  mean  that  other 
environmental fields would be completely excluded. Therefore the YVIE results and the GHK 
survey  results  are  not  necessarily  contradictory,  given  that  the  GHK  survey  was  asking 
respondents to consider whether a future instrument should be completely limited to certain 
environmental policy areas. This latter option was clearly much less desirable.  

Indeed,  whilst  many  stakeholders  noted  that  a  focus  on  nature  and  biodiversity  in  a  future 
instrument  would  be  useful  (especially  given  that  no  other  instruments  directly  supports 
nature  protection  and  biodiversity  as  an  explicit  objective),  other  activities  which  are  not 
explicitly  related  to  nature  protection  (e.g.  water  resources)  should  not  be  excluded  from 
being potentially funded (see 0). 

33

 
 
 
A similar result was found in the YVIE survey, where nature and biodiversity was thought to 
be  the  most  relevant  environmental  policy  area  for  an  instrument  for  the  environment,  but 
other environmental fields (e.g. water, climate change, marine, etc.) were also believed to be 
particularly relevant. 

Overall  then,  it  seems  that  stakeholders  are  not  necessarily  adverse  to  having  a  focused 
instrument, but they are adverse to having an instrument which focuses only on one type of 
activity or policy area to the exclusion of all others (such as nature protection). Stakeholders 
felt that priorities, if set, should be non-exclusive, to avoid deterring good ideas and projects 
but ensuring the weight of the programme addresses the main objectives. 

Figure 5.1 

Weighted  responses  from  workshop  participants  indicated  that  the  clear  majority  felt  that  a 
focus  on  nature  and  biodiversity  was  most  important,  although  other  environmental  policy 
areas remain relevant  

Source: GHK analysis, EC Workshop 

34

 
 
 
Figure 5.2 

YVIE  results  indicate  that  the  most  relevant  environmental  policy  area  for  an  instrument  for 
the  environment  is  nature  and  biodiversity,  although  other  environmental  policy  areas  also 
remain important 

5.2 

Territorial focus  

Source: GHK analysis, YVIE Survey 

The territorial focus could better be considered in the design of the future instrument. Several 
Commission interviewees stated that it was regrettable that the Third Country component was 
removed  from  LIFE,  as  they  felt  these  projects had  been  effective  in  the  past.  Stakeholders 
across all the consultations generally supported the potential for a specific instrument for the 
environment to fund activities outside the EU, as long as it provided EU benefits. 

Almost  70%  of  respondents  to  the  “Your  Voice  in  Europe”  survey  agreed  that  a  specific 
instrument should allow for the possibility of some activities to be carried out outside the EU. 
Of  those  who  responded  in  the  affirmative,  most  (almost  40%)  thought  that  external  action 
should  only  be  carried  out  where  there  is  a  clear  contribution  to  achieving  an  EU  policy 
objective.  Other  justifications  given  for  external  action  were  in  the  case  of  countries  which 
aim  at  becoming  members  of  the  EU  in  the  future  ('candidate  countries'  and  'potential 
candidates') and in the case of countries neighbouring the EU. 

Similarly,  workshop  participants  considered  that  the  primary  focus  for  activities  outside  the 
EU should be on issues with neighbouring countries, rather than international commitments. 
Funding activities outside the EU would help with awareness raising and knowledge sharing 
as there is often a significant need for joint action.  

For  transnational  projects,  the  current  minimum  share  of  LIFE+  funds  allocated  (15%)  is 
viewed as reasonable by the majority of stakeholders consulted. In fact, the current instrument 
spends 30% of the budget on transnational activities. 

35

 
 
 
However, 39% of respondents to the CoR survey believe that the new LIFE instrument should 
address  EU  countries  only.  Nonetheless,  36%  consider  that  it  should  ideally  include  ‘minor 
allowances  for  third  countries  involvement’.  The  few  arguments  raised  by  the  respondents 
regarding this matter suggest that involvement of countries outside the EU should be allowed 
if required by the project, or more specifically, whenever there is a clear contribution towards 
achieving specific EU policy objectives and/or promoting solutions to shared problems. 

Overall,  these  results  are  not  entirely  surprising,  in  light  of  the  fact  that  most  stakeholders 
believed that burden sharing and the transboundary nature of environmental problems is the 
second  most  important  rationale  for  a  specific  instrument  for  the  environment  to  exist  (EC  
workshop  participants),  and  the  most  important  rationale  by  YVIE  survey  respondents. 
survey). 

6 

Delivery Mechanisms and Management Options  

6.1. 

Delivery Mechanisms  

In general, the existing suite of mechanisms used in the current LIFE+ instrument was seen by 
stakeholders  as  being  adequate.  Respondents  to  “Your  Voice  in  Europe”  noted  that  action 
grants were, by far, the most important activity, followed by public procurement of services.  
Procurement of services (e.g. studies, technical assistance) was only somewhat thought to be 
more  relevant  than  the  operational  grants  given  to  NGOs.  There  was  considerable  more 
uncertainty about the use of innovative instruments (e.g. provision of interest rate subsidies, 
subsidised loans, venture capital, micro-credit). 

In the case of the CoR survey, the most effective mechanisms to be used in the future LIFE 
instrument are considered to be ‘action grants (transnational projects, integrated and technical 
assistance)’, followed by ‘operational grants’, (42% and 23% of responses, respectively). The 
other  two  mechanisms  listed  in  the  questionnaire  (‘public  procurement’  and  innovative 
instruments) received less than one fifth of responses (19% and 16% respectively). 

Figure 6.1 

YVIE results indicate that respondents believe that the most relevant delivery mechanism for 
an instrument for the environment is nature action grants 

6.2 

Action grants  

Source: GHK analysis, YVIE Survey 

Despite the support given by stakeholders to the need for, and importance of, action grants (as 
indicated in figure 6.1), stakeholders did raise some issues with the current co-financing rate 
for  action  grants,  with  65%  of  YVIE  respondents  noting  that  the  current  50%  rate  is  not 
appropriate. Some workshop participants, for instance, felt that the current co-financing rate is 
regressive,  and  discriminates  against  poorer  Member  States.  It  was  suggested  that 

36

 
 
 
differentiated co-financing rates, would be beneficial, with higher co-financing rates for those 
Member  States  who  find  it  difficult  to  submit  project  applications  or  absorb  funding.  The 
number  of  quality  projects  being  financed  may  also  be  lower,  as  some  project  beneficiaries 
are unable to secure sufficient match funding to be eligible for LIFE funding.  

Overall,  there  was  a  general  agreement  among  workshop  participants  that  the  EU  should 
contribute a maximum of 75% of the total project budget to ensure that beneficiaries maintain 
ownership of their projects.  

6.3 

Operational grants 

Although  operational  grants  received  less  support  in  the  YVIE  survey  than  public 
procurement or action grants, workshop participants nonetheless noted that strengthening the 
role of environmental NGOs was a very important activity, given their importance in linking 
inputs  from  the  general  public  to  policy  development,  in  raising  awareness  and  sharing 
knowledge, as well as ensuring that the views of civil society are represented at a policy level. 

When  asked  whether  the  current  co-financing  rate  of  70%  for  NGO  operating  grants  is 
appropriate,  most  stakeholders  (52%)  believed  it  was.    However,  several  respondents  also 
believed it was too high, although an almost similar amount was not sure (see figure below). 
When  asked  further  whether  this  operational  funding  should  be  gradually  decreased  over 
consecutive  years,  there  was  an  even  split  between  respondents  who  thought  it  should,  and 
respondents who thought it should not (38% each way). 

A  clearer  response  was  given  to  the  question  of  whether  a  future  instrument  for  the 
environment  should  prioritise  the  funding  of  certain  types  of  NGOs;  in  this  case,  46% 
believed this approach should be adopted, whilst a third believed it should not.  

The type of NGOs that were most often chosen as being prioritised, are the NGOs that work 
on  the  implementation  of  EU  policy.  Other  preferred  means  of  prioritisation  were  NGOs 
which are involved in shaping EU policy, and those which have large geographical coverage.  
Respondents  were  less  likely  to  indicate  that  prioritisation  should  be  given  to  those  NGOs 
which work on specific topics and new NGO networks.  

Figure 6.2 

YVIE results  indicate  that  most  stakeholders  believed  the current  co-financing rate  for NGO 
operating grants (70%) to be appropriate 

184

189

68

470

Too high

Appropriate

Too low

Dont know

Source: GHK analysis, YVIE Survey 

6.4 

Use of innovative instruments 

The  use  of  innovative  instruments  (e.g.  loans)  had  the  least  support.  For  instance,  many 
workshop  participants  believed  that  loans  are  not  likely  to  be  appropriate  for  nature  and 
biodiversity  projects,  which  are  better  served  by  grants.  However,  loans  could  be  more 

37

 
 
 
feasible for EPG-type demonstration projects that are close to market (although the potential 
for overlaps with the CIP would need to be carefully managed).  

6.5 

Integrated Projects 

Views were somewhat divided on the benefits of integrated projects (IPs). Some thought they 
have the potential to increase complementarity and policy interaction, especially respondents 
to  the  YVIE  survey,  where  55%  thought  that  IPs  should  be  encouraged.  Fewer  respondents 
felt that IPs are suited to the management of the Natura 2000 network (42%), and a significant 
number  of  respondents  were  not  sure  (41%).  Slightly  more  respondents  (50%)  thought  IPs 
were right, however, for other sectors. Again though, many were unclear about the nature and 
benefits of IPs (38%). 

In  the  case  of  the  CoR  survey,  85%  of  the  respondents  liked  the idea  of  IPs,  as  opposed  to 
only  10%  who  disagreed  with  that  concept;  5%  of  respondents  did  not  express  an  opinion. 
Respondents  have  underlined  the  suitability  of  IPs  when  searching  for  local  solutions  to 
regional  or  national  environmental  problems.  They  also  claim  that  IPs  are  appropriate  to 
enhance  coordination  in  environmental  issues  especially  when  involving  international 
cooperation;  can  help  promote  coordination  between  sectoral  policies and  between  different 
territorial areas; and allow the optimisation of resources. On the other hand, respondents have 
commented  that  the  necessary  staff  capacity  to  support  IPs  is  missing  at  the  local  level,  as 
well as that integration in projects can be both a desirable aspect and a burden (as sometimes 
it  is  important  to  have  the  option  to  address  only  environmental  issues  in  a  project). 
Moreover, those who are against IPs, argue that in practice, such projects are too complex and 
fail to achieve high quality standards.  

About  three  quarters  of  the  respondents  consider  IPs  quite  feasible,  while  21%  finds  those 
projects very feasible; only 5% believe that such projects are not feasible (Chart 15). As one 
of  the  respondents  commented,  IPs  offer  the  advantage  of  a  comprehensive  solution  to  the 
problem at regional level, but at the same time require quality coordination of activities and 
increased financing. In addition, respondents raised concerns over the increased coordination 
requirements  between  the  different  agencies  governing  IPs,  calling  for  consensus  at  a  high 
governance  level.  The  need  to  simplify  financial  reporting  procedures  was  also  mentioned, 
along  with  comments  on  the  difficulties  faced  by  public  bodies  lacking  resources  to  co-
finance IPs.  

At  the  same  time,  respondents  highlighted  the  potential  of  IPs  to  maximise  synergies  and 
value  for  money,  as  well  as  to  create  opportunities  for  the  implementation  of  large-scale 
actions, bringing together both a large number of experts/technicians and adequate funds. 

Many  participants  at  the  workshop  believed  IPs  would  be  difficult  to  operationalise  in 
practice. Some issues that were raised included the potential difficulties in fulfilling eligibility 
requirements, possible difficulties in managing projects and actually coordinating the project 
across  the  different  funding  instruments  involved  given  the  very  different  management  and 
organisational  cultures.  The  perceived  clash  between  the  programmatic  approach  in  other 
instruments  and  the  project  approach  in  LIFE  was  a  key  reason  for  why  stakeholders  were 
sceptical of the potential for integrated projects to be successful in practice. It was noted that 
IPs are likely to be more feasible for nature and biodiversity projects as the future instrument 
would be able to ‘activate’ other funds and gather diverse sectoral policies.  

However, CoR respondents suggested that IPs could most realistically and effectively be used 
their 
to  address  a  wide  variety  of  environmental  problems/challenges  met  within 

38

 
 
region/municipality,  notably:  ‘freshwater  management’  (21.5%  of  responses);  ‘nature  and 
biodiversity’  (18%  of  responses);  ‘resource  use  and  waste’  (14%  of  responses);  as  well  as 
‘urban  environment’,  ‘air  pollution’  and  ‘land  use’  (each  counting  for  9%  of  responses).  In 
addition,  a  total  of  14%  of  the  related  responses  concerned  climate  change  issues  (either 
adaptation or mitigation). 

About half of the CoR respondents (47%) were not certain if their municipality/region would 
be  interested  in  applying  for  an  integrated  project  in  the  next  programme  period;  as  few 
respondents commented, such a decision remains subject to their capacity and availability of 
resources.  45%  of  the  respondents  anticipate  such  an  action  in  the  future,  while  only  8%  is 
negative in that respect. 

6.6 

Management approaches 

An interesting discussion was had between workshop participants regarding the most suitable 
management  approach.  The  overall  conclusion  was  the  best  management  approach  varies 
depending on the size of the budget. With the current budget however, the significant majority 
(81%)  agreed  that  the  current  direct  centralised  management  approach  is  best  (see  0). 
Although  there  was  significantly  more  variation  in  response  to  the  YVIE  survey,  a  clear 
majority  (almost  70%)  of  respondents  also  wanted  to  see  the  current  central  management 
approach continue.  

YVIE  respondents  who  felt  that  a  management  system  other  than  the  current  centralised 
approach was more appropriate, varied in what they believed was the best alternative. Slightly 
more  than  a  third  of  those  (34%)  believed  that  shared  management  between  the  European 
Commission  and  national  authorities  was  best.    Slightly  less  than  a  third  of  those  (29%) 
believed that the management of a future instrument for the environment should  be  entirely 
left  to  national  authorities.  The  least  popular  approach  for  YVIE  respondents  was  an 
European Executive Agency.  

Figure 6.3 

The  clear  majority  of  workshop  participants  and  YVIE  respondents  felt  that  a  centralised 
management system would continue to be the most appropriate management approach 

YVIE results

614

27

62

53

38

107

GHK workshop

52

3

2

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

Centralised management

Executive Agency

Decentralised / Shared between EC and national authorities

Management by national authorities only

Other

Don’t know

Source: GHK analysis, YVIE Survey and EC Workshop 

The direct centralised approach was seen as the preferred approach for a number of reasons:  

• 

the Commission has gained a wealth of experience in managing the instrument and seems 
to have delivered it competently to date;  

39

 
 
 
•  management by the Commission enables a good oversight of the programme, making the 

creation of synergies with other instruments easier; and,  

• 

it is the best approach for maintaining the linkage between what happens on the ground 
and  policy  development,  which  participants  feared  would  be  lost  through  a  European 
Executive Agency approach.  

Although some workshop participants recognised the benefits (e.g. potential cost savings) of 
having  an  Executive  Agency  managing  the  future  instrument,  very  few  felt  that  these  were 
significant  enough  given  the  effort  and  time  that  would  be  required  to  change  the  current 
system, especially when the current system is established and is working quite well.  

Decentralising the management of a specific instrument for the environment was only seen as 
a feasible alternative if the budget was to significantly increase (and if the subsequent increase 
in resources would outstrip the capacity of the Unit to manage the increase). 

7 

The Options  

7.1 

Brief overview of the options 

The  options  that  have  been  developed  were  only  discussed  in  depth  with  workshop 
participants,  as  the  options  were  only  developed  after,  and  on  the  basis  of,  the  initial 
stakeholder consultation (surveys). 

The five options which had been identified for a future specific financial instrument for the 
environment for the period 2014-2020, partly reflecting the terms of reference, and partly the 
underlying problem and related intervention logic, are given in the Box below. These are the 
five options which were discussed and developed in the workshop: 

Instrument option 1:  Zero Option – no LIFE financial instrument (other than the continuation of the ‘common pot’ for 
policy development and review) 

Instrument option 2:   Baseline Option – continuation of the current LIFE+ Regulation and related delivery mechanisms 
(‘Common pot’, Action Grants, Operating Grants) 

Instrument  option  3:    Strategic  Programming  Option  –  combining  a  stronger  strategic  planning  framework  with 
‘bottom-up’ delivery that includes but also expands current delivery mechanisms 

Instrument option 4:  Restricted Activities Option – focusing on a smaller number of activities linked most closely with 
the development and implementation of the environmental acquis 

Instrument  option  5:    Restricted  Thematic  (Biodiversity  and  Climate  Action)  Option  –  focusing  on  the  two  major 
global and EU environmental problems and the development and implementation of policy responses 

It should also be noted that the options consider an instrument for the environment including 
climate change, recognising the creation of a separate Directorate-General (DG).  

All  options  assume  that  other  EU  financial  instruments  continue  to  operate  in  the  next 
programme period, as they operate within the current programme. 

Table  7.1  below  provides  a  brief  comparison  of  the  instrument  options,  highlighting  key 
differences.  

40

 
 
Table 7.1 

Quick comparative overview of policy options (with key differences highlighted) 

Features 

Zero Option 

Baseline  

Strategic 
Programming  

Restricted 
Activity  

Restricted 
(Biodiversity 
Climate)  

Theme 
+ 

Strategic planning  None 

Catalytic value 

None 

Thematic focus 

None 

Limited 

Limited 

None 

Activities 

‘Common Pot’ 

All 

Extensive 

Extensive 

None 

All 

Delivery 
mechanisms 

Public 
procurement only 

Only 
mechanisms 

existing 

Expanded 
Additional 

Extensive 

Extensive 

Extensive 

Extensive (in themes) 

None 

Biodiversity + Climate 

Restricted 

All 

+ 

As  required  to 
reflect 
activities 

Expanded + Additional 

7.2 

Feedback on the options  

Overall participants reacted positively to the options proposed. It was clear however that the 
most popular option was Option 3 (Strategic Programming), with almost 60% of participants 
voting  for  that  option  over  the  others.  This  option  was  also  consistently  the  most  popular 
across all stakeholder types.   

Figure 7.2. 

The  most  popular  option  amongst  Workshop  participants,  across  all  stakeholder  types,  was 
Option 3 (Strategic Programming)  

Source: GHK analysis, EC Workshop 

Discussions made it clear that there were, in particular, two key aspects to be considered: the 
future  budget  and  the  fact  that  most  participants  saw  the  current  LIFE  instrument  as  being 
generally  effective  and  fit  for  purpose  (although  there  are  some  areas  where  improvements 
could be made). Consequently, the general sense was that participants did not want to stray 
too  far  from  the  current  instrument  and  participants  were  keenly  aware  of  budgetary 
constraints which might affect whether certain options are realistic or not.  

Some  felt  that  the  current  wide  thematic  scope  was  also  a  clear  advantage,  by  providing 
flexibility, where projects can reflect needs as they arise. Moreover, some participants felt that 
setting a strict thematic focus could reduce the quality of projects, in which good ideas are not 
accepted as they do not “fit” the priorities. Other participants however felt that without a clear 
focus, an instrument for the environment risks being ‘aimless’. Several participants noted that 
having priorities could increase the EU added value of an instrument such as LIFE. Overall, 

41

 
 
  
 
the general consensus was that strategic priorities would be useful, so long as they are non-
exclusive.  

This  strategic  programming  was  the  key  element  that  stakeholders  appreciated  in  Option  3. 
For instance, survey respondents were asked to rank 9 potential aspects for LIFE in order of 
importance; improving the strategic management of LIFE was rated the most important most 
often.  Option  3  was  also  the  most  popular  of  the  5  options  presented,  with  58%  of  the 
participants voting for this option as their preferred choice. Nonetheless, several participants 
noted that the emphasis on integrated projects to improve complementarities between funding 
instruments may be an unrealistic expectation. 

42

 
 
 
8 

Summary of stakeholder consultations  

The importance of the institutional barriers 

•  The implementation of the acquis was considered to be the most important issue to 
address;  stakeholders  across 
identify 
inadequate  implementation  as  the  most  important  environmental  policy 
problem  in  the  EU.  The  majority  of  stakeholders  agreed  the  inadequate 
implementation of policies is causing major environmental problems to persist. 

the  various  consultations 

tended 

to 

•  Although  most  stakeholders  agreed 

is  a  need  for  continued 
environmental  policy  development,  the  scope  of  the  EU  acquis  was  not 
considered an important issue. The existence of, and need to fill, policy gaps in 
certain areas was emphasised.  

there 

that 

•  Stakeholders  recognised  that  the  integration  of  environmental  and  climate 
concerns  into  other  EU  policies  was  a  problem.  Consultation  of  Commission 
services indicated that some progress has been made in improving environmental 
integration but it remains a key issue across policy areas.  

•  Stakeholders  believe  that  awareness  of  the  public  and  of  politicians  is  a  key 
issue  (although  less  important  than  that  of  policy  implementation  and 
integration),  especially  given 
links  between  awareness  and  policy 
implementation.  

the 

The rationale for intervention in the institutional barriers 

•  The  value  of,  and  need  for,  a  future  instrument  for  the  environment  and 
climate  action  was  recognised  across  all  the  various  consultations  that  were 
conducted and considered; stakeholders believe the LIFE instrument is a valuable 
programme  and  should  definitely  continue 
in  order  for 
environmental challenges to be met. There was also a clear view that there is also a 
clear rationale for this role to be a financial one. 

the  future 

into 

•  The majority of respondents indicated that there was substantial EU added value 
for  EU  level  action  to  improve  policy  implementation,  with  stakeholders  also 
believing  that  there  is  a  rational  for  EU  financial  intervention.  Enhancing  the 
capacity of Member States to implement policy was most often ranks as the most 
important role for a specific instrument for the environment. 

•  Policy development  was  cited  as  important  by  the  majority  of  stakeholders  who 
believed there was substantial added value from EU level action although a third 
believed  there  was  no  added  value  for  financial  expenditure  at  the  EU  level  on 
policy development. 

•  The majority of stakeholders thought that the added value of EU level action 
to  improve  the  impact  of  other  EU  policies  on  the  environment  was 
substantial,  the  rationale  being  that  environmental  assets  are  public  goods, 
requiring EU action to ensure their adequate provision. 

•  Stakeholders  also  recognised  the  added  value  for  EU  level  action  to  improve 

awareness levels. 

•  Although 

the 

issue  of  eco-innovation  was  recognised  as 

important, 
stakeholders generally believed there was less added value for EU level action 
from a specific instrument for the environment in these areas. For instance, in 
the case of eco-innovation, stakeholders did not feel that eco-innovation should not 
be the focus of the instrument as other instruments such as CIP exist to fulfil this 
aspect. 

43

 
 
Objectives and resources for a future instrument for the environment 

•  The consensus across all stakeholders is that the most important focus for LIFE 
should be the implementation of the acquis. Its role in implementing policies for 
nature  and  biodiversity  (e.g.  the  Natura  2000  network)  was  seen  as  particularly 
important, given the absence of any other financial instrument specifically focused 
on nature protection.  

•  Another particularly important role for a future instrument for the environment, as 

seen by stakeholders, was the demonstration and sharing of best practice. 

•  Stakeholders  noted  that  a  key  factor  limiting  the  effectiveness  of  LIFE+  has 
been  its  limited  resources;  as  such  the  clear  majority  thought  these  resources 
should be increased. The general view was that the budget should be increased to 
levels  of  between  €500  million  and  €1  b
illion  a  year  (about  40%),  although  a 
significant  portion  of  stakeholders  also  thought  that  the  budget  should  be  further 
increased to between €1 milli on and €5 billion a year.  

Design and delivery of a future instrument for the environment 

• 

• 

In  terms  of  thematic  focus  stakeholders  are  not  averse  to  having  a  focused 
instrument,  but  they  are  averse  to  having  an  instrument  which  focuses  only  on 
one type of activity or policy area to the exclusion of all others. 
In  terms  of  territorial  focus,  stakeholders  supported  the  potential  for  a  specific 
instrument  for  the  environment  to  fund  activities  outside  the  EU,  as  long  as  it 
provided EU benefits. 

•  Regarding delivery of the instrument respondents noted that action grants were, 
by far, the most important activity, followed by public procurement of services. 
Overall there was a general agreement that the EU should contribute a maximum 
of 75% of the total project budget to ensure that beneficiaries maintain ownership 
of their projects. Strengthening the role of environmental NGOs was also noted as 
a very important activity. 

•  The use of innovative instruments (e.g. loans) had little support. For instance, 
many workshop participants believed that loans are not likely to be appropriate for 
nature and biodiversity projects, which are better served by grants. 

•  Views  were  somewhat  divided  on  the  benefits  of  integrated  projects.  Some 
thought they have the potential to increase complementarity and policy interaction. 
However, others believed they would be difficult to operationalise in practice. 

•  The  majority  of  respondents  agreed 

the  current  direct  centralised 
management  approach  is  most  appropriate,  although  some  other  stakeholders 
believed  that  other  management  options,  such  as  a  shared  management  between 
the European Commission and national authorities, should be considered. 

that 

Options for a future instrument for the environment and climate action 

•  The  options  that  were  developed  were  only  discussed  in  depth  with  workshop 
participants,  as  the  options  were  only  developed  after,  and  on  the  basis  of,  the 
initial stakeholder consultation. 

•  Option  3,  strategic  programming,  was  the  most  popular  option  amongst 
workshop  participants  (see  figure  below).  This  option  was  also  consistently  the 
most popular across all stakeholder types.   

•  This option was thought to include the most positive aspects of the current baseline 
situation including centralised management, the broad eligibility of activities, and 
the support given to NGOs. At the same time participants felt that options 3 had 
the most scope to allow for additional improvements to be introduced. 

44

 
 
The most popular option amongst Workshop participants, across all stakeholder 

types, was Option 3 (Strategic Programming)  

Source: GHK analysis, EC Workshop 

The response statistics for the 'Consultation on a future EU financial instrument for the 
environment  (continuation  of  LIFE+)'  conducted  by  the  Commission  online  on  'Your 
Voice in Europe' and the conclusions of the CoR 'Assessment of territorial impacts on 
the EU LIFE+ instrument' can be found at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/about/beyond2013.htm  

45

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4:  Summary  of  conclusions  and  recommendations  from  the  Ex-post 
evaluation  of  the  LIFE  Programme  (1996-2006)  and  from  the  Mid-term 
evaluation of the implementation of the LIFE+ Regulation (2007-2009) 

EX-POST EVALUATION OF THE LIFE PROGRAMME (1996-2006) 

Background: 

The  ex-post  evaluation  was  commissioned  in  July  2008  by  the  European  Commission 
Directorate General Environment and carried out by COWI. It covered projects co-financed by 
the  LIFE  Programme  initiated  during  the  period  1996-2006.  This  period,  comprising  three 
generations of the LIFE Programme, saw the co-financing of a total of 2026 projects of which 
1076  were  under  the  Environment  component,  771  under  the  Nature  component  and  179 
under  the  Third  Countries  component.  The  total  commitments  made  from  the  LIFE 
Programme amounted to EUR 1315 million. 

The  overall  objective  of  the  evaluation  was  to  assess  the  relevance  and  impact  of  activities 
and  projects  financed  under  the  LIFE  Programme.  The  ex-post  evaluation  focused  on 
assessing the effect of the LIFE Programme through evaluating results and impacts of LIFE 
projects  implemented  under  the  three  components.  The  results  and  impacts  have  been 
assessed  according  to  four  main  evaluation  criteria:  effectiveness  (i.e.  the  extent  to  which 
planned objectives have been reached, and the extent to which LIFE Programme management 
contributed to the effectiveness of LIFE projects); efficiency (i.e. the extent to which results 
were  achieved  at  a  reasonable  cost,  and  the  extent  to  which  LIFE  Programme  management 
contributed to the efficiency of LIFE projects); sustainability (i.e. the extent to which positive 
impacts have continued or are likely to continue; and utility (i.e. the extent to which impacts 
address key environmental needs and priorities in the EU and for the stakeholders concerned). 

Conclusions of the evaluation: 

LIFE Programme managed effectively and efficiently  

The main conclusion in respect to the analysis of programme management was that the LIFE 
Programme  was  managed  effectively  and  efficiently  by  the  LIFE  Unit  in  DG  Environment. 
Through  high  demands  to  project  design,  rigorous  procedures  and  a  close  follow-up  the 
projects selected were typically well designed and provided with the necessary assistance to 
support  an  effective  and  efficient  implementation  process.  Some  areas  for  further 
improvement  were  identified.  Selection  of  projects  was  a  slow  process  with  cumbersome 
application  procedures  which  could  benefit  from  further  optimisation  and  outsourcing  of 
tasks, and there was some scope to further enhance transparency and clarify award criteria in 
the  selection  process.  Concerning  the  monitoring  of  the  programme  and  projects,  the  set-up 
was less effective concerning the strategic management of the programme. Although managed 
in accordance with the objectives set out in the respective LIFE Regulations, little interest was 
shown  on  the  part  of  the  LIFE  Unit  and  DG  Environment  as  a  whole  to  further  target  the 
programme  to  specific  policies.  While  the  monitoring  of  the  individual  projects  was  very 
detailed, there was no reporting on how the LIFE instrument was performing at programme 
level. 

46

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LIFE  Nature  component  –  a  successful  instrument  targeted  at  the  Birds  and  Habitats 
Directives  

The specific objectives guiding LIFE Nature were relatively clear focusing on implementation 
of the Habitats and Birds Directives. Effectiveness was assessed as high as the projects clearly 
made a significant contribution to the implementation of these Directives in the Community. 
The projects were estimated to have covered 8-9% of all Natura 2000 sites and a significant 
share of the habitats and species listed in the Annexes to the Birds and Habitats Directives. 
Considering the relatively limited budget of approximately EUR 70 million per year, this is 
considered  a  significant  achievement.  The  LIFE  projects  played  a  very  important  role  in 
increasing the general level of awareness concerning biodiversity, Natura 2000 and the related 
policies  and  regulatory  requirements  among  national,  regional  and  local  authorities.  Also, 
through  the  LIFE  projects,  capacity  to  implement  and  manage  the  interventions  required  to 
implement  the  Birds  and  Habitats  Directives  was  built  up  –  both  within  relevant  authorities 
and NGOs. This affected in a positive direction the general implementation of the Directives 
within  the  individual  Member  States.  LIFE  Nature  thus  made  a  significant  contribution 
towards  addressing  the  challenges  related  to  nature  conservation  in  the  Community  and 
reaching  the  objectives  of  the  Biodiversity  Action  Plan.  The  utility  of  LIFE  Nature  was 
therefore  assessed  as  high.  However,  the  evaluation  also  showed  room  for  continued 
development  of  the  LIFE  Nature  instrument  to  respond  to  developments  in  biodiversity 
policies and the future challenges of nature conservation in the EU. The level of sustainability 
was assessed as high. Projects requiring less intensive follow-up and recurrent funding were 
by nature more sustainable. Other key factors explaining the high level of sustainability were 
well-designed  projects,  attention  to  building  the  necessary  management  and  monitoring 
capacity  to  continue  activities  after  project  completion  and  ability  of  the  projects  to  secure 
recurrent  funding  after  project  completion.  Competing  interests  from  agriculture  and  (to  a 
lesser  extent)  forestry  posed  a  significant  threat  to  sustainability.  The  challenges  to  ensure 
project  sustainability  were  more  significant  in  the  cases  where  the  projects  involved  private 
land as opposed to public land already designated for conservation. In these cases, a number 
of projects have been successful in preparing the ground for continued management through 
agri-environmental  measures  under  the  Guarantee  section  of  the  European  Agricultural 
Guidance and Guarantee Fund. 

LIFE Environment component – less impact at European level but with good local results  

LIFE Environment differed from LIFE Nature with a diffuse programming strategy that did 
not couple specific environmental priorities with selection criteria. Since it was the objective 
of the LIFE programme to fund environmental projects and since this evaluation documents 
that eligible projects were selected and subsequently effectively  implemented, a satisfactory 
relation between results and objectives can be noted. The innovation 'content' was generally 
found  to  be  highest  in  technology  projects  undertaken  by  private  enterprises  (and  research 
institutions).  A  significant  part  of  the  projects,  especially  those  of  the  management  type, 
seemed  not  to  be  genuinely  innovative  but  rather  adaptations  or  optimisations  of  existing 
systems,  approaches  and  methods  to  a  particular  geographic  setting  or  other  specific 
conditions. On the average probably more than 50 % of the LIFE Environment projects were 
continued,  fully  or  partially,  at  the  site  or  in  the  organisation  where  they  were  executed. 
Considering the innovative nature of many projects, this was assessed as a satisfactory level 
of  sustainability.  The  direct  or  immediate  environmental  results  and  impacts  were  generally 
small  and  typically  restricted  to  the  project  area/site  itself,  which  in  most  cases  were  quite 
local.  The  bottom-up  programming  strategy  did  not  ensure  that  the  most  important/urgent 
environmental  problems  from  a  Community  perspective  were  addressed.  The  wider  impact 

47

 
 
 
 
 
 
arising  from  the  possible  replication  of  the  projects  was  uncertain,  but  probably  only 
occurring  in  approximately  10-20  per  cent  of  the  projects.  Many  projects  were  found  to 
demonstrate  technical  feasibility  and  a  number  even  additionally  to  be  considered 
economically  viable.  However,  the  demonstration  potential  was  often  not  fully  released  or 
exploited because the necessary dissemination of activities and results did not take place or at 
least only to a limited extent. 

Third countries component – positive local impacts but lack of sustainability  

Overall,  the  LIFE  TCY  projects  led  to  positive  local  impacts  in  terms  of  improvement  of 
capacities  and  environmental  performances  of  beneficiaries.  It  was  a  useful  instrument  for 
transfer  of  knowledge  and  experience,  awareness  raising  and  highlighting  environmental 
issues at policy level. At national level, the impact of LIFE TCY projects was more visible in 
Cyprus, Malta and Candidate Countries in terms of approximation of legislation. In the other 
countries,  the  global  impact  of  LIFE  TCY  was  more  limited  due  to  the  small  proportion  of 
LIFE projects in relation to the size of the particular country; the divergence of fields covered, 
and, largely, due to insufficient involvement of national authorities. The overall effectiveness 
and efficiency of the  TCY projects  clearly improved over time as a result of the significant 
improvement  to  the  selection  and  monitoring  system.  In  general,  the  TCY  projects 
successfully  achieved  their  objectives  in  a  cost  effective  manner.  However,  lack  of 
sustainability  was  the  largest  gap  in  TCY  projects.  Although  there  were  positive 
developments, particularly in Candidate Countries, many projects did not generate long term 
effects  either  due  to  insufficient  dissemination  of  information  or  lack  of  ownership  by  the 
national authority. 

Efficiency difficult to evaluate but assessed as reasonable  

Since  the  LIFE  Programme  'produced'  not  easily  measurable  'products'  as  environmental 
improvements,  innovation  and  capacity-building,  a  precise  cost-effectiveness  assessment 
could  not  be  given.  The  evaluation  constructed  comparisons  when  possible  and  compiled 
qualitative  cost-benefit  assessments,  on  the  basis  of  which  efficiency  was  assessed  as 
reasonable. 

Recommendations from the evaluation: 

A set of 13 key recommendations has been formulated on the basis of the analysis:   

Strategic management and programming: 

1.  Clarify  the  role  and  objectives  of  the  LIFE  Programme  in  relation  to  implementation  of 
EU  environmental  policy  and  creation  of  European  added      value  -  Set  targets  and 
indicators for the Programme to determine the degree of success. The LIFE Unit should 
increase co-ordination with Policy Units e.g., through a steering committee for the LIFE 
programme. The LIFE Unit could also be reorganised into thematic desks. The role of the 
LIFE  programme  is  unclear  and  having  a  unit  dedicated  to  project  management  has 
improved  streamlining  and  efficiency  but  it  has  become  removed  from  the  policy 
development function.  

2.  Implement  regular  monitoring  and  reporting  on  the  performance  at  programme  level  - 
Systems  for  regular  monitoring  and  performance  should  be  developed  on  the  basis  of 
objectives and indicators. A uniform set of indicators should be applied across all projects 
and a regular annual status report on programme performance could be produced. Current 

48

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
monitoring  and  reporting  systems  were  focused  on  the  project  level  -  monitoring  of 
programme performance is irregular (external evaluations) and lack of knowledge existed 
about programme performance against objectives. 

3.  Develop support systems to improve the basis for strategic management, i.e., database on 
Nature  projects  linked  to  database  on  Natura  2000  -  The  systems  containing  the  project 
level  information  should  be  developed  to  provide  information  on  project  objectives  and 
achievements  in  line  with  the  indicators  for  the  Programme.  For  LIFE  Nature  it  was 
recommended  that  a  geographical  database  should  be  developed,  comparable  with  the 
Natura 2000 database to see how far LIFE projects were supporting the implementation of 
Natura  2000.  The  organisation  of  the  LIFE  Unit  as  a  functional,  project  management 
secretariat  was  not  effective  concerning  the  strategic  management  of  the  programme  as 
little  interest  was  shown  on  the  part  of  the  LIFE  Unit  and  DG  Environment  to  further 
target the programme to specific policies. 

Co-ordination, dissemination, partnerships 

4.  Promote  active  knowledge  sharing  at  European  level,  e.g.  through  thematic  workshops 
and  seminars  -  Organise  thematic  conferences  for  knowledge  sharing  and  to  involve 
increased  numbers  of  stakeholders  to  promote  general  awareness  of  LIFE.  Co-ordinate 
events  with  policy  units  to  create  synergy.  The  ex-post  evaluation  discovered  a  need  to 
focus  more  on  dissemination  and  knowledge  sharing  to  exploit  the  learning  and 
replication potential of the LIFE projects. 

5.  Target dissemination efforts to reach the right audience through a strategic communicative 
effort  in  individual  projects  and  at  programme  level  -  Ensure  considerations  of  key 
messages, target groups and communication channels were high by urging beneficiaries to 
think  along  the  lines  of  communication  strategy.  Projects  which  found  appropriate 
communication channels to reach target group saw the most positive results in regards to 
dissemination and replication. 

6.  Build  capacities  of  potential  LIFE  beneficiaries  to  increase  number  and  quality  of 
applications  -  Broaden  the  client-base  of  the  LIFE  Programme  to  ensure  a  sufficient 
number  and  quality  of  applications.  Consider  less  experience  organisations  for  LIFE 
Nature  to  increase  number  of  organisations  capable  of  managing  conservation  actions. 
The LIFE Unit should be proactive in building relations through national focal point and 
arrange information meetings, training seminars, etc. 

7.  Involve Member States in dissemination and capacity building activities - The Unit should 
be more proactive in engaging the national focal points to play a key role as access points 
to  potential  beneficiaries,  marketing  the  LIFE  Programme  and  providing  guidance  to 
applicants. This would contribute to a more uniform approach among the Member States 
to guiding potential applicants.  

Procedures for selection and monitoring 

8.  Further  improve  application  guidance  and  application  forms,  e.g.,  by  simplifying  and 
digitalising  application  forms  -  The  guidance  to  applicants  should  be  improved  and 
application forms simplified and digitalised. This would also minimise the time required 
for  assessing  the  applications.  Eliminating  the  approval  procedure  of  final  projects  by 
Member States (the LIFE Committee) would reduce the length of the selection period.  

49

 
 
9.  Outsource  the  receipt,  eligibility  check,  selection  and  award  phases  of  the  selection 
procedure - Outsource the entire process from receipt of applications to the award phase. 
The calculation of administrative costs compared to commitments made indicated a slight 
annual increase in the period 2002-2006.  

10. Further clarify criteria for selection and scoring system - The evaluation guide should be 
clarified  with  regard  to  the  evaluation  of  the  award  criteria  in  order  to  ensure  equal 
treatment of the applications. Ambiguities were identified in the definition of criteria, e.g. 
guides  to  applicants  mentioned  priorities  which  were  not  reflected  in  the  criteria,  there 
was a lack of clarity in how the sub-criteria/questions mentioned under each criteria are to 
be weighted. 

11. Further  clarify  tasks  of  the  monitoring  team  -  A  broader  dialogue  with  the  monitoring 
team should be initiated, e.g. focus more on common training seminars, conferences, etc.  
This dialogue should clarify tasks and quality criteria for the evaluation of project reports 
to avoid duplication of tasks. It was noted that dialogue is to a large extent decentralised to 
the individual TDO/FDO and monitoring expert in connection with specific countries. 

12. Apply a prioritised approach to individual project monitoring based on risk assessment - A 
more strategic approach focusing on visits to high-risk projects and replacing some visits 
with cross-project (thematic) conferences/workshops to reach a larger number of projects 
and  still  achieve  similar  benefits  for  each  project.  Visits  to  projects  and  face-to-face 
contact  with  beneficiaries  were  found  to  be  important  parts  of  the  effective  monitoring 
system in place. 

13. Optimise  document  flow  and  clarify  the  role  of  the  verifier  in  the  Unit  -  Prepare  the 
signatories  when  receiving  the  evaluation  from  the  beneficiaries.  The  system  for 
verification should also be clarified so that unnecessary time used on verification can be 
eliminated. 

50

 
 
MID-TERM EVALUATION OF THE LIFE+ PROGRAMME (2007-2009) 

Background: 

The  Mid-Term  Evaluation  (MTE)  has  been  commissioned  to  GHK,  in  association  with 
Arcadis  and  VITO  to  advise  on  the  progress  to-date  of  the  activities  undertaken  under  the 
LIFE+ Regulation (the Regulation), introduced in 2007, examining the relevance, economy, 
the 
effectiveness,  efficiency,  consistency,  distributional  effects  and  acceptability  of 
Regulation.  

Main findings from the evaluation: 

LIFE+ Regulation  

Simplification  

The  adoption  of  the  strategic  planning  and  financial  budgeting  procedures  has  been 
implemented  effectively  in  so  far  as  it  regularised  previous  activities,  with  little  need  to 
change operating practices.  

regards 

involvement 

third  country 

As 
in  environment  policy  development  and 
implementation,  alternative  instruments  are  available  through  the  international  assistance 
managed by DG RELEX and DG AIDCO. Although these instruments are designed, at least 
in  part,  to  support  similar  objectives,  they  are  heavily  subscribed  and  applicants  that  might 
have secured funding under the previous LIFE programme would not necessarily be funded 
by these instruments.  

Article 1(2) of the LIFE+ Regulation and the Financial Perspectives has been interpreted as 
implying  that  all  activities  financed  under  the  instrument  must  be  for  the  benefit  of  the  EU 
and  its  Member  States.  This  has  led  to  several  trade-offs  in  the  functioning  of  the  three 
interventions. For action grants, nature projects requiring the co-operation of third countries to 
protect certain species that have trans-boundary patterns have been particularly affected.  

Annex  II  of  the  Regulation  defines  the  priorities  of  the  Regulation.  This  represents  a  high 
level summary of the 6EAP. However as a result, the Action Grant Programme is constrained 
from introducing further definition and detail of the needs and priorities, and can not reflect 
changes  in  these  priorities  through  time.  As  a  result,  the  calls  for  proposals  are  less  well 
defined  than  in  previous  programmes  and  can  not  focus  on  or  target  specific  needs.  The 
resulting projects, whilst consistent with 6EAP in general, are not necessarily targeted at the 
most important issues.  

Consolidation  

The  Regulation  consolidated  three  previous  programmes:  Forest  Focus  (FF),  Sustainable 
Urban Development (SUD) and NGOs. For Forest Focus, comparison of previous and current 
objectives  and  activities  suggests  that  there  may  be  a  loss  of  effectiveness  as  a  result.  For 
Sustainable Urban Development, there has been a change in the nature of beneficiary and type 
of  activity,  with  less  involvement  of  public  authorities  in  networking  activity.  The 
consolidation of these two programmes has led to some savings of staff time. However, it led 
to  increased  costs  for  those  beneficiaries  that  would  have  previously  used  the  closed 
programmes because of the greater effort of application.  

51

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
LIFE+ Programme of Action Grants  

Changes and additions to Components  

The LIFE Programme first started in 1992 and has been continually assessed to be an essential 
intervention through successive programmes. The conclusions of the recent ex-post evaluation 
of the previous activity confirmed the relevance and added value of the LIFE Programme. The 
MTE  has  assessed  the  Programme  to  have  a  continuing  relevance  based  on  the  well 
documented  needs  of  environment  policy  and  its  implementation  combined  with  the 
recognition in the Regulation that EU added value derives at least in part from the bottom-up 
approach.  

Three  major  changes  were  made  to  the  Action  Grants  Programme:  the  introduction  of  the 
biodiversity  theme  with  the  Nature  component;  the  revision  and  expansion  of  themes  under 
Environment  Policy  &  Governance  (EPG)  and  the  introduction  of  Information  and 
Communication Projects (INF). These changes have the potential to significantly increase the 
capacity of the Programme to contribute to EU policy and the generation of EU added value. 
However, this  capacity  is not  being  fully utilised, because the number of projects under the 
new  components  and  themes  (biodiversity,  new  EPG  themes  and  INF)  is  as  yet  too  small. 
Moreover; in all three cases the projects that have been funded lack a degree of programme 
level  coherence,  i.e.,  the  ability  to  generate  outcomes  and  impacts  beyond  the  individual 
project level. 

The Nature theme has remained the same as in previous Programmes, with the improvement 
in  LIFE+  of  a  formal  recognition  that  projects  must  represent  'Best  Practice‘,  with  the 
objectives of supporting the Natura 2000 network and the implementation of the 'Birds‘ and 
'Habitats‘ Directives. LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity is seen as a key funding mechanisms for 
promoting and implementing nature and biodiversity objectives across all regions in the EU.  

Impact of the Operational Approach on EU Added Value  

National allocations and priorities  

The  Regulation  introduced  the  allocation  of  Programme  funding  by  MS  based  on  specified 
criteria  in  the  Regulation,  and  the  opportunity  for  MS  to  indicate  national  priorities  for  the 
programme.  The  project  appraisal  process  seeks  to  take  into  account  national  needs  and 
priorities as only one of the four criteria concerned with EU added value. The limited demand 
for  the  programme  in  some  MS  has  allowed  funding  to  be  transferred  to  those  MS  where 
demand exceeds the national allocation. Where all national allocations are taken up, the risk is 
that  the  weaker  projects  as  identified  by  appraisal  are  funded  in-line  with  the  national 
allocation, at the expense of stronger projects elsewhere. This risk of reduced EU added value 
is increased, firstly because the population based allocation criteria are a limited proxy of EU 
policy  needs  and  affects  EPG  projects  particularly;  and  secondly  because  of  the  general 
failure by MS to specify national priorities. The change has therefore the strong potential to 
limit the capacity of the Programme to deliver EU added value. 

52

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Project selection and programme coherence  

The programme  has selected  and contracted  with 338 projects under the first two calls; and 
provided co-finance of €392m. This has been  matched by funding form project beneficiaries 
of €405m, a total investment  of €797m. Details are summar ised in the Table below. 

Table 1: Projects selected and funded by component (2007 and 2008) 

Programme 

Nature & 
Biodiversity  
Environment 
Policy & 
Governance  
Information & 
Communication  
Total  

Number 
of 
Project 
Applicati
ons 
491 

613 

216 

1,320 

Number 
of 
Projects 
Selected 

138 

171 

28 

337 

EC 
funding 
(€m) 

Total 
investme
nt (€m) 

201 

172 

17 

390 

371 

390 

37 

798 

The  overall  project  selection  process  works  well.  However,  the  change  in  the  appraisal 
process compared to LIFE III has the potential to reduce programme capacity to deliver EU 
added value. The revised process has reduced the transparency and consistency of assessment 
and the assessment of EU added value because of the lack of specificity of criteria. However, 
of more strategic importance is the risk that even within themes, the projects lack coherence 
as a programme, addressing a wide range of issues and approaches and limiting the scope for 
effective multipliers.  

Project and Programme monitoring  

The  general  process  and  operation  of  the  monitoring  system  works  well,  with  developed 
procedures supported by  fully  defined and well executed technical assistance. However, the 
agreed adoption of the proposed LIFE+ monitoring and evaluation system for the definition 
and  measurement  of  results  and  outcomes  at  project  level,  and  as  the  basis  for  aggregation 
across  the  Programme,  has  not  been  fully  implemented.  Projects  have  complied  with  new 
requirements to define output indicators, but in the main, have yet to define result indicators.  

Programme Management  

There  has  been  considerable  effort  over  this  and  previous  LIFE  programmes  to  better 
integrate  the  Action  Grant  activity  more  centrally  within  the  policy  development  and 
implementation processes with the DG. However, despite improvement, there continues to be 
a perceived lack of integration of the Programme within DG Environment. This results from: 
a lack of understanding of the role of the instrument; variable utility of the instrument across 
different  policy  units;  the  limited  scope  to  translate  specific  policy  needs  and  priorities  into 
calls for project proposals; and a weaker multiplier effect in the case of EPG projects through 
insufficient  learning  and  exchange  and  testing  of  transferability,  reducing  the  lessons  and 
advice to policy makers.  

53

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Complementarity  

The  risks  of  double-funding  have  pre-occupied  existing  guidance,  despite  which  some 
National Contact Points (NCPs) and applicants still remain confused. This guidance, together 
with  the  appraisal  process,  focuses  on  safeguarding  against  the  risk  of  double-funding.  The 
importance of complementarity is also recognised as an explicit criterion in project appraisal.  

However, the focus on risk management has tended to dominate over a focus on building and 
enhancing linkages and synergies with other programmes and financial instruments, and has 
led  to  some  conservatism  about  developing  linkages.  Building  these  linkages  with  other 
programmes is especially difficult where, unlike LIFE, they are implemented through shared 
management  arrangements.  The  most  obvious  area  where  activity  has  helped  build  and 
support  linkages  is  with  the  CIP  Programme  to  support  eco-innovation  through  its  market 
replication strand.  

Overview of Findings on Action Grants  

LIFE  began  in  1992  and  to  date  LIFE  has  co-financed  over  3,000  projects  across  the  EU, 
contributing  approximately  €2.2  billion  to  the  protection  of  the  environment.  The  current 
phase  of  the  programme,  LIFE+,  runs  from  2007-2013  and  has  a  budget  of  €2.1  billion. 
LIFE+  covers  both  the  operational  expenditure of  DG  Environment  and  the  co-financing  of 
projects.  According  to  Article  6  of  the  LIFE+  Regulation,  at  least  78%  of  the  LIFE+ 
budgetary resources must be used for project action grants (i.e. LIFE+ projects). 

The MTE has highlighted that the main impact of the simplification process is the adoption of 
Annex  II  based  on  6EAP  as  the  general  statement of  needs  and  priorities  and  the  failure  of 
national allocations and priorities to provide any further guidance to applicants. The MTE has 
also emphasised that the three major changes in the components is considered to be positive 
and increases the capacity of the Programme to deliver EU added value. Currently, the level 
of funding awarded in all the new areas is insufficient to make any major difference at this 
time, partly because of a lack of information to potential beneficiaries not previously familiar 
with  the  Programme,  and  the  lack  of  specification  of  needs  and  priorities  that  applicants 
should address. This is in turn reflected in the request for illustrations of 'exemplar‘ projects to 
help guide applications.  

The  primary  issue  for  the  Programme  is  therefore  the  scope  to  create  the  impact  from  the 
programme that is more than just the sum of the individual projects.  

NGO Operating Grants  

Types of NGO Activities  

The allocation of operational funding by the NGOs seems to be balanced over the following 
types  of  activities:  policy  implementation,  policy  development  and  internal  and  external 
capacity  building.  Policy  development  is  clearly  more  important  for  Brussels  based  NGOs, 
while  internal  capacity  building  and  enlargement  is  more  important  for  EU12  based  NGOs. 
Press releases, participation in conferences and written submissions to the Commission are the 
most observed activities in the field of policy development and implementation. However, the 
quantitative indicators on these activity levels do not provide much information on the quality 
of  the  work  performed.  Staff  training  is  the  major  instrument  applied  for  organisational 
development and capacity building.  

54

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Topics of NGO Activity  

The NGOs cover all topics of the Sixth Environmental Action Programme. However, amongst 
the  topics  listed  in  Annex  II  of  the  LIFE+  Regulation,  barely  any  NGOs  cover  noise, 
innovation or soil. Out of 50 applications, 30 NGOs have been funded in the last two years, 
representing a broad range of NGOs. They represent generally an equitable distribution over 
the regions and the topics. Grants range from relatively small amounts (such as approximately 
1/10 of the overall budget). Although it is 
€30,000) to very large amounts (almost €1m - or 
acknowledged that large NGOs that undertake a wide range of activities should receive a 'fair 
share‘,  smaller,  more  sectoral  organisations  should  also  receive  adequate  levels  of  funding. 
Increasing the budget for NGOs would ensure that the size of the grant reflects the evolving 
environmental  agenda,  and  would  allow  NGOs  to  attract  and  retain  better  qualified  staff. 
There  appears  to  be  a  logical  link  between  the  size  and  experience  of  an  NGO  and  the 
probability that it receives a grant. Indeed, the larger a NGO, the more likely it is to submit a 
good  application  (good  paper,  clear  mission,  clear  description  of  deliverables).  In  general, 
there  is  no  apparent  objection  to  the  NGO  operating  grants  intervention,  with  most 
suggestions relating to improvements in procedural or administrative concerns, rather than the 
underlying rationale for the existence of the intervention itself.  

Public Procurement  

Technical Assistance  

The review of the performance of the technical assistance provided to the LIFE+ Programme 
indicated that the work was well organised and delivered to good standard.  

Communications  

DG ENV general communication activities are funded under the LIFE Regulation. The review 
of  these  activities  suggests  that  communication  is  focused  on  the  6th  Environmental  Action 
Plan  priorities.  The  review  of  the  outputs,  and  where  available  success  indicators  and 
outcomes, suggests that the non LIFE communication activities meet the objectives set out for 
these  activities.  As  regard  LIFE  related  communication,  the  LIFE  Units  have  undertaken  a 
range of new information and communication activities and have improved existing activities. 
Furthermore,  the  LIFE  Units  have  worked  to  ensure  a  more  proactive  involvement  of  the 
NCPs.  The  review,  however,  also  suggests  that  activities  in  the  main  have  reached  an 
audience  already  aware  of  LIFE  and  to  a  large  extent  also,  audiences  already  involved  in 
LIFE  in  some  form.  There  is  therefore  a  need  to  consider  how  communication  activities 
undertaken can be better targeted at the 'non LIFE community'.  

Service Contracts  

The  expenditure  of  DG  ENV  is  linked  appropriately  to  the  objectives  and  priorities  of  the 
Commission  and  DG  ENV‘s  work  programmes.  The  majority  of  the  public  procurement 
contracts are studies or forms of technical assistance which feed directly into implementation 
of different EU environmental policies, ranging from the Birds and Habitats Directives to the 
Emissions  Trading  Scheme.  Contracts  do  appear  to  be  consistent  with  the  priorities  of  the 
Units  within  DG  ENV.  Furthermore,  the  performance  of  contractors  appears  to  be  either 
satisfactory, or at times, exceeds the expectations of the managing desk officer. However, the 
feedback mechanisms within the DG for commenting on the quality of contractors appear to 
be rather informal and weak.  

55

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Summary of Findings Against the Main Evaluation Criteria  

Evaluation 
Criteria 

Overall 
Regulation 

Action Grants 

Relevance  

Economy  

Effectiveness  

Efficiency  

Consistency  

Allocative / 
Distributional  

Acceptability  

Clear rationale  
Unique focus 
on 
environment 
policy  

Adoption of 
Financial 
Perspectives 
largely 
regularises 
previous 
activities  

Overall impact 
is marginal 
given that it 
largely 
regularises 
previous 
activities  

Consolidation 
has generated 
staff cost 
savings of 
around 10%.  

Reduced risk 
of duplication, 
but little effect 
on improving 
complementari
ty  

Limited effect 
on the 
distribution of 
resources  

Broad 
character of 
Annex II 
reduces focus 
on key issues  

Clear rationale, 
especially in 
relation to 
policy 
implementatio
n  

Project 
evaluation, 
selection and 
monitoring 
processes are 
largely 
effective in 
allocating 
resources  
Capacity for 
further EU 
added value 
provided by 
changes. Some 
key issues to 
address have 
been identified 
Savings on TA 
in comparison 
with previous 
Programme  
Significant 
increase in 
project size  

Strong effort to 
avoid double-
funding; and to 
increase 
complementari
ty especially 
with CIP  

Possible future 
issue with 
national 
allocations if 
demand is high 
Well 
accepted 
by  stakeholders 
(projects 
and 
NCPs).  Issue  of 
EC integration  

56

NGO 
Operating 
Grants 
Continuing 
relevance of 
NGO activity 
and 
contribution to 
EU policy 
dialogue  
Some concern 
over the 
transparency 
and 
administrative 
burden  

NGO 
programme is 
largely 
unaffected by 
the change in 
Regulation.  

Administrative 
costs are 
largely 
unchanged  
Some loss of 
efficiency 
from 
ineligibility of 
members‘ 
interests  
Programme 
and NGO 
awareness 
raising 
complementar
y. Some scope 
to improve 
linkages 
between 
NGOs.  
Limited effect 
on the 
distribution of 
resources  

NGOs and 
Commission 
stakeholders 
accept the 
programme  

Public 
Procurement 

Clear rationale, 
especially in 
relation to policy 
development  

The ABB process 
under the 
Financial 
Perspectives 
allows effective 
allocation of 
resources  

Technical 
assistance 
procured is 
effective  
Service contracts 
effective 

Public 
procurement 
process designed 
to provide best 
value. Process 
governed by 
standard 
ASP/AMP 
procedure  

Some use of 
project results in 
service contracts  
Limited scope for 
increased 
flexibility in 
choice of 
instrument.  

Reflects the 
planning process, 
governed by 
Commission 
procedure  
Process is well 
understood and 
accepted  

 
 
 
 
 
Recommendations from the Mid-Term Evaluation: 

Relevance of the Instrument and Generating EU Added Value 

The  MTE  confirms  the  relevance  of  the  three  interventions  funded  under  the  LIFE+ 
Regulation.  In  the  case  of  public  procurement,  this  derives  from  the  planned  use  of 
procurement to meet agreed policy needs through the standard Commission procedures.  NGO 
Operating Grants continue to be relevant given the continuing importance of transparent and 
open dialogue on EU policy needs and priorities. In the case of Action Grants, the MTE has 
assessed the Programme to have a continuing relevance based on the well documented needs 
of EU environment policy and its implementation and the EU added value derived from the 
bottom-up project based approach. 

Therefore, the major issue is not whether the Regulation is relevant and provides EU added 
value,  but  how  to  best  maximise  this  through  careful  design  and  operation  of  the  three 
interventions.  In  this  context,  it  is  clear  from  the  MTE  that  the  changes  made  in  the 
Regulation  to  the  Action  Grants  Programme  has  the  biggest  influence,  not  least  because  it 
accounts  for  78%  of  the  resources.  In  the  case  of  Action  Grants,  the  Regulation  has  not 
increased  EU  added  value  as  expected;  and  does  not  provide  any  significant  improvement 
compared to the previous LIFE III Programme.  

The lack of improved added value stems in large part from the weakness of Annex II and the 
system of national allocations and priorities to provide the necessary framework for a focused 
and targeted statement of needs and priorities. Since these are defined by the Regulation, there 
is a difficulty of establishing the specific needs and priorities without being seen to go beyond 
the  Regulation.  This  is  a  particular  problem  for  EPG  projects  where  there  is  a  danger  that, 
although good projects are funded, because of the lack of targeted activity, together they lack 
coherence and have limited multiplier effect. 

The  continuing  importance  of  the  underlying  rationale  for  the  Regulation  and  the  LIFE+ 
Programme  argues  for  action  to  remedy  this  weakness  by  changes  in  the  methods  of 
implementation, under the terms of the existing Regulation. 

Changes to the Regulation – Possible Strategic Directions 

At the time of conclusion of the MTE (Spring 2010), attention was turning to the plans to be 
made for the strategic priorities in DG Environment with the end of the 6EAP plan period in 
2012 and the next programming period starting in 2014 to 2020. More widely, attention was 
turning  to  the  new  financial  perspectives  to  frame  the  next  programming  period.  There  is 
therefore  considerable  uncertainty  over  the  context  for  discussion  over  the  successor  to  the 
LIFE+ Regulation. 

At the same time, the decisions on the re-allocation of responsibilities for climate change and 
GMOs/pesticides  to  other  DGs  from  DG  Environment  means  that  to  the  extent  that  the 
Regulation governs DG Environment activity, it increases uncertainty over the framing of the 
future financial instrument.  

In  terms  of  the  next  programme  period,  there  seem  to  be  three  basic  options:  either  make 
changes  to  the  Regulation  per  se,  revert  back  to  a  more  formal  separation  of  the  Grant 
programmes  under  a  new  Regulation,  governed  by  its  own  specific  strategic  framework,  or 
recognise Action Grants as one of a number of funding instruments, and allow policy units to 
define and be responsible depending on policy needs, again under a new Regulation. 

57

 
 
 
 
 
 
Changes to the drafting of the Regulation 

The major change would be the removal of Annex II (and national allocations and priorities) 
to be replaced by an annual work programme specifying the particular needs and priorities to 
be addressed by the Programme and setting a detailed framework for the calls for proposals. 
The  work  programme  would  seek  to  focus  on  selected  policy  needs  and  would  target 
particular  MS,  sectors,  technologies,  prospective  beneficiaries  depending  on  the  EU 
significance and character of the problem. The Annual Framework would be drawn up, as part 
of the Annual Management Plan, between the policy units and the LIFE units. 

Other changes could include provisions for: 

1.  A more explicit understanding of EU added value. 

2.  A more explicit distinction between policy development and implementation – and the 

particular focus of the grants programme and public procurement. 

3.  A greater emphasis on mutual learning and shared exchange, testing of transferability, 
and  trans-national  co-operation  as  the  basis  of  stronger  multipliers  and  increased  EU 
value. The minimum indicative of 15% to be allocated to transnational activity would be 
increased  substantially  given  the  contribution  of  transboundary  activity  to  EU  added 
value 

4. 

Partnerships  with  third  country  partners  where  co-operation  is  needed  and  where 
alternative instruments can be shown to be ineffective. 

5.  Differentiated intervention rates by type of beneficiary to encourage especially smaller 

authorities, institutes and NGOs. 

6.  Removing  the  innovative  /  demonstrative  requirement  of  the  biodiversity  theme  to  aid 

the selection of higher quality projects. 

In addition, the opportunity would be taken to combine CIP and LIFE+ Environment Policy 
and Governance activity on eco-innovation into a single eco-innovation funding mechanism 
under shared management using the market replication management as the model. This would 
also allow scope to introduce leveraged funding instruments.  

Drafting a New Regulation – Stand alone Programme 

The rationale and policy need for the Regulation is unlikely to change and by implication a 
new  Regulation  would  address  the  same  objectives  (of  development  and  implementation  of 
EU environment policy). However, the Programme would by design be directed to supporting 
policy implementation in the MS, rather than policy development. The new Regulation would 
stipulate  the  need  and  specific  funding  for  a  Programme,  operating  within  its  own  strategic 
framework. 

The strategic framework would need to be based on extensive consultation with EC and MS. 
The strategic framework would provide the detailed basis for the programme (missing at the 
present time) and would place the emphasis firmly on improving the MS implementation of 
existing  or  revised  environmental  legislation  where  it  responds  to  major  legal,  economic  or 
environmental problems caused by inadequate implementation. Transnational activity would 
be expected to be strongly supported. 

58

 
 
The  Framework  could  consider  adopting  aspects  of  the  Open  Method  of  Co-ordination 
(OMC)  approaches  for  the  operation  of  the  Programme  (for  example,  agreed  indicators, 
benchmarks, reporting and structured Peer Learning Activities), making it more explicit that 
the programme is primarily targeted at supporting MS needs in achieving the more effective 
and efficient implementation of environmental legislation. 

The specific responsibilities of MS for engaging with the Programme would be defined based 
on  clearly  specified  environmental  needs  and  problems  with  implementation.  The  need  and 
approach  to  the  animation  of  potential  beneficiaries  around  key  issues  should  be  discussed 
explicitly  and  made  a  formal  requirement.  The  State  of  the  Environment  report  could  help 
identify  those  needs.  MS  would  be  required  to  develop  specific  priority  programmes  as 
requested under Article 8 of Habitats Directive.  

Drafting a New Regulation – No Specific Programme 

The rationale and policy need for the Regulation is unlikely to change and by implication a 
new  Regulation  would  address  the  same  objectives  (of  development  and  implementation  of 
EU environment policy). 

The new Regulation should allow a flexible response to the specific nature of the needs and 
priorities  as  they  arise.  The  specific  roles  and  responsibilities  of  MS  in  defining  needs  and 
priorities would need to be explicitly defined. The response however, would be framed by the 
policy  units  as  a  standard  part  of  the  Commission’s  work  programme  and  making  use  of 
whichever financial instrument is best suited. In other words there is no formal action grant 
programme.  

The  form  of  funding  instrument  would  be  dependent  on  the  purpose  and  the  types  of 
intervention  required.  The  new  Regulation  would  define  the  appropriate  suite  of  funding 
instruments but allow the relevant choice and mix of instruments dependant on specific goals. 
There would be no earmarked money for any one of the financial instruments - only a single 
reference  budget;  bids  to  use  the  reference  budget  would  be  made  as  part  of  the  standard 
strategic  and  annual  planning.  This  will  provide  flexibility  to  adjust  to  changes  in  priorities 
and require explicit justifications for the choice of instrument. 

The  logic  would  suggest  that  there  would  not  be  an  Action  Grants  Programme  as  such  but 
rather that Action Grants would be one of the delivery mechanisms to be used as defined by 
the needs of policy units. Some central co-ordination would be required but the activity would 
be the responsibility of the policy units. 

The  full  version  of  the  report  'Ex-post  Evaluation  of  Projects  and  Activities  Financed 
under the LIFE Programme', Final Report, July 2009 by COWI can be found at:  
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/evaluation/index.htm#
expost  

The full version of the report 'Mid-term Evaluation of the Implementation of the LIFE+ 
Regulation',  Final  Report,  April  2010  by  GHK  in  association  with  Arcadis  and  VITO 
can be found at:  
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/evaluation/index.htm#
mte2010 

59

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 5:   SCALE  OF  THE  ENVIRONMENTAL  PROBLEM,  UNDERLYING  CAUSES  AND 

BENEFITS OF ACTION (EXTERNALITIES) 

1.  The environment and climate problems 

When analysing the need for a specific instrument for the environment and climate action, as 
well  as  its  design  and  focus,  an  identification  of  existing  and  emerging  environmental  and 
climate  problems  is  needed  to  clarify  the  drivers  and  the  underlying  causes  that  should  be 
addressed by a specific instrument or thematic areas for action.  

The problems that have been identified are as follows:17 

•  The  2010  assessment  of  Europe's  environment18  as  well  as  the  2009  Environmental 
Policy  Review19  show  that,  although  considerable  progress  has  been  made  in  single 
thematic  areas,  halting  the  loss  of  biodiversity  and  improving  resource  efficiency 
along with climate change and environment and health related concerns remain key 
challenges  for  the  EU  in  its  path  to  "prosper  in  a  low-carbon,  resources  constrained 
world  while  preventing  environmental  degradation,  biodiversity  loss  and  unsustainable 
use of resources."  

•  There are new and emerging threats and challenges in the EU  posed by changes to 
the economic and technological landscape, including new materials and substances placed 
on  the  market  in  the  future  that  could  pose  a  threat  to  the  environment  (e.g.,  some 
nanomaterials).  Similarly,  changes  to  economic  activity  and  demography  in  the  future 
will change the type and magnitude of pressures placed on the environment and climate. 
On  the  other  hand  projected  climate  change  impacts  pose  a  significant  threat  to  the 
economy. This in turn generates an increasing need for new approaches.  

•  The burden from global and non-EU problems is increasing. The EU is contributing 
to environmental pressures in other regions of the world and at the same time the impacts 
of  activities  elsewhere  are  increasingly  affecting  the  EU.  Examples  of  EU  pressures 
include  over-fishing,  or  climate  change  while  POPs  originating  in  other  regions  are 
affecting  the  EU.    In  some  cases,  for  action  to  be  effective  within  the  EU,  investment 
outside the EU may be required, e.g. migratory species, international river basins, marine 
environment.  

•  Difficulty in decoupling economic activity from the natural resources/environmental 
impact  is  an  extension  of  environmental  challenges  which  is  explicitly  defined  to 
recognise the established need for decoupling.  

17 Combined Impact Assessment and Ex-Ante Evaluation of the Review of the LIFE+ Regulation (GHK).   
18 EEA, The European Environment State and outlook 2010 available at  http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer.  
19 SEC(2010) 975 final.  

60

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
2.  Scale of the environmental problems 

2.1 

Approach to the assessment 

The  assessment  is  concerned  with  establishing  the  broad  orders  of  magnitude  of  the 
environmental  costs  associated  with  pollution  and  the  use  of  natural  resources.  These 
environmental costs, expressed as far as possible in monetary terms, reflect the external costs 
of  economic  and  social  activity  on  the  environment;  and  which  fail  to  be  reflected  in  the 
prices and therefore decisions of producers and consumers. 

The  intention  of  the  assessment  is  only  to  provide  a  broad  contextual  estimate  of  the 
approximate overall scale of the environmental problem in the EU. The assessment is based 
on  the  availability  of  existing  literature  to  quantify  and  value  these  external  costs.  There  is 
considerable  uncertainty  in  the  valuation  of  at  least  some  of  these  external  costs,  and  the 
assessment seeks to provide the approximate order of magnitude of the problem, rather than 
offer a precise calculation of the scale of the problem.  

There  are  a  number  of  studies  currently  under  way  (for  example  with  respect  to  climate 
change  and  resource  efficiency)  that  are  examining  and  updating  existing  estimates  of 
environmental  externalities.  The  analysis  should  therefore  be  understood  as  a  work  in 
progress and not a definitive statement.   

Because  there  are  significant  inter-linkages  between  environmental  problems  (for  example 
climate  change  affects  biodiversity,  air  pollution  can  cause  water  pollution  from 
acidification),  there  is  considerable  risk  of  double-counting  these  external  costs  from  a 
‘bottom-up  analysis’  of  individual  problems.  A  conservative  assessment  was  adopted, 
omitting impacts where there is a risk that is reflected in part at least in another impact. This 
is compared to available ‘top-down’ or aggregate assessments of external costs. 

in 

the  State  of 

impacts  (reflected  most  recently 

The methodologies employed in the literature to quantify and value environmental impacts is 
by  now  well  developed.  In  essence,  these  methodologies  seek  to  quantify  the  physical 
environmental 
the  Environment 
assessment20) and then to establish the costs of damage (damage costs) to various ‘receptors’ 
such  as  adverse  human  health  effects,  damage  to  agriculture,  forestry,  buildings  and 
infrastructure,  biodiversity  loss,  and  adverse  impacts  on  recreation  and  tourism.  These 
impacts can be monetised by reference to the loss in market value (e.g. of  crops, timber or 
tourism)  and,  in  the  absence  of  markets,  estimates  of  the  willingness  of  society  to  pay  to 
avoid  these  impacts  using  revealed  or  stated  preference  techniques.  In  some  cases,  where 
environmental objectives and standards have been set, the expenditure to comply (compliance 
costs or environmental expenditure) provides a proxy of the minimum estimate of the value 
of the environmental impact. For example, the cost of improving water quality by removing 
the subset of pollutants from wastewater can be a reasonable proxy for the economic cost of 
the pollution to water. The presence of pollution creates an economic cost. 

A major determinant of the economic value of environmental impacts is the scale and impact 
on  human  health.  In  some  cases  where  the  literature  reports  health  impacts  but  has  not 

20 State of the Environment (SOER) Assessment, European Environment Agency (2010): 
http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer.  

61

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
provided  a  monetary  value,  the  assessment  has  followed  IA  Guidelines21  to  estimate  the 
economic cost. These advise that the Value of a Statistical Life (VOSL) should be taken as 
between  €1-2  million  and  the  Value  of  Life   Years  (VOLY)  as  between  €50-100,000,  Mid-
range  estimates  of  €1.5  million  and  €75,000  respectively  have  been  used  to  convert  health 
related impacts to monetary estimates. 

It  is  important  to  note  that  both  VOSL  and  VOLY  estimates  include  several  important 
uncertainties. For example, VOSL is calculated based on two general approaches, the human 
capital approach and the willingness to  pay (WTP)  approach.  The human capital approach 
measures  the  economic  productivity  of  the  individual  whose  life  is  at  risk;  it  takes  an 
individual’s  discounted  lifetime  earnings  as  its  measure  of  value,  assigning  valuations  in 
direct proportion to income.  The WTP approach is based on the assumption that changes in 
individuals’ economic welfare can be valued according to what they are wiling (and able) to 
pay to achieve that change22.  Thus the monetary estimate of the value of a statistical life will 
be influenced by an individual’s ability and propensity to pay, which itself depends on their 
individual  financial  circumstances.    In  addition,  an  individual’s  perception  of  risk-changes 
will influence their WTP, and thus the final VOSL value. 

The themes particularly analysed: 

▪ 

▪ 

▪ 

▪ 

▪ 

Climate change and energy 

Air pollution 

Water pollution and resources 

Biodiversity and nature 

Material resource use and Waste management 

The  review  presents  an  overview  of  the  environmental  problem  and  a  discussion  of  the 
related available estimates of the external environmental costs.  

2.2 

The scale of environmental problems in the EU 

The  most  recent  State  of  the  Environment  Report  (2010),  published  by  the  European 
Environment  Agency  (EEA),  concluded  that  mounting  demands  on  natural  capital  are 
exerting  increased  pressure  to  ecosystems,  economies  and  social  cohesion  in  Europe  and 
elsewhere.23  Despite  some  progress  and 
the  environment,  major 
environmental challenges remain, which will have significant consequences for Europe if left 
unaddressed. 

improvements 

to 

2.2.1  Thematic approach  

The  analysis  adopts  a  thematic  approach  based  on  the  range  of  physical  environmental 
problems and examining the available estimates of external costs.  

The  different  thematic  impacts  and  their  environmental  costs  can  be  aggregated,  as  long  as 
care  is  taken  to  avoid  double-counting  particular  impacts.  In  the  summary  table  below  are 

21 Section 9 of Annex to Part III: Annexes to impact assessment guidelines (European Commission 15 January 
2009).  
22  European  Commission  (2005)  ExternE  –  Externalities  of  Energy:  Methodology  2005  update 
http://www.externe.info/brussels/methup05a.pdf. 
23 Available from: http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer/synthesis/synthesis. 

62

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
indicated  those  impacts  that  have  not  been  included  in  the  overall  order  of  magnitude 
estimate to avoid the double counting risk. 

The table is a summary of the costs of the environmental issues described above.  This value 
is  an  approximation,  and  should  not  be  considered  as  a  comprehensive  valuation  of  all 
environmental issues in Europe.   

Table 1.1 Aggregation of Thematic External Costs in the EU (€ per year) 

Environmental 
theme 

Type of Environmental Cost 

Climate Change 

External cost of European GHG emissions 

Biodiversity 

Loss of Ecosystem Services (Cost of Policy Inaction) 

Air and Industrial 
Pollution 

Invasive Alien Species 

Soil Degradation 

Ozone (premature deaths) 

Ozone (crop damage) 

Particulate matter  

SOx, NOx. PM, VOCs, mercury 

Water Resources 

Drought 

Abstraction  

Freshwater Pollution  Pesticides (benefit of implementing policy) 

Urban waste water (compliance cost) 

Marine Environment  Fishing 

Urbanisation and development 

Eutrophication (Baltic Sea) 

Benefit of Landfill Directive 

Waste 

Total  

Annual 
Value (€ 
billion) 

€162 
billion 

€218 
billion 

€13 billion 

€38 billion 

€1 billion 

€7 billion 

< €1 
billion 

€87 billion 

€12 billion 

€102 
billion 

€1.billion 

€15 billion 

< €1 
billion 

< €1 
billion 

€8 billion 

€2 billion 

Aggregated Annual 
Value 

(€ billion) 

(%) 

€162 

24% 

€269 

40% 

€95 

14% 

€114 

17% 

€16 

2.5% 

€8  

1% 

0.5% 

€2 

€666 

Source: Individual thematic assessments 

The aggregated assessment indicates that the total environmental cost in the EU each year is 
in  the  order  of  €666  billion.  This  is  a  cons ervative  assessment,  given  the  risks  of  double 
counting, and might be considered a minimum estimate. To put the figure of €666 billion in 
context, the GDP of the EU-27 was €11,783 billion in 2009 24. External environmental costs 
therefore represent, conservatively, 5.7% of EU GDP. 

Finally,  it  is  worth  noting  the  analysis  by  UNEP  et  al  summarised  in  the  Table  1.2.  This 
suggests  that  global  external  costs  are  in  the  order  of  €5,000  billion.    This  figure  does  not 
include  the  cost  of  ecosystem  services  associated  with  biodiversity  loss.  Based  on  the  EU 
share  of  global  GDP  (as  a  crude  proxy  of  the  share  of  external  cost)  of  20%,  this  would 

24 Eurostat. 

63

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
suggest that the aggregated annual external cost in the EU is in the order of €1,000 billion, 
which comparable with the aggregate thematic figure above.  

The UNEP  report  also  suggests that the external  cost will continue to increase. At a global 
level, the increase to 2050 is in the order of four times. For the EU, assuming the EU share of 
global GDP falls to say 10% by 2050, as a result of the relatively higher rates of growth in the 
rest  of  the  world,  the  UNEP  report  suggests  annual  external  cost  would  still  double  in  real 
terms to over €2,000 billion without further policy action. 

Table 1.2  Global Environmental Costs in 2008 and Projected to 2050 

Environmental Impact 

External costs in 
2008 
(€ billions) 

External cost 
relative to global 
GDP in 2008 

Projected external 
costs in 2050 
(€ billions) 

Projected external 
cost relative to 
global GDP in 
2050 

Greenhouse gas (GHG) 
emissions 

Water abstraction 

Pollution (SOx, NOx, PM, 
VOCs, mercury) 

General Waste 

Natural resources 
Fish 
Timber 

3,398 

920 

410 

148 

41 
32 

Other ecosystem services, 
pollutants and waste 

Not available (NA) 

7.5% 

2.0% 

0.9% 

0.3% 

0.1% 
0.1% 

NA 

15,607 

3,527 

1,445 

476 

215 
192 

NA 

12.9% 

2.9% 

1.2% 

0.4% 

0.2% 
0.2% 

NA 

Total 

4,946 

11.0% 

21,461 

17.8% 

Source: UNEP/FI Trucost, 2010. Adjusted to Euro at $1=€0.75 
The  recently  published  impact  assessment  of  the  new  EU  biodiversity  strategy  to  202025 
provides information on economic reasons for action to reach the 2020 objective of halting 
biodiversity  loss26.  The  assessment  of  the  economic  impact  of  the  different  targets  showed 
that  increased  benefits  from  ecosystem  services  are  to  be  expected  if  new  initiatives  are 
implemented.  Though  no  aggregate  information  is  yet  available,  project-based  evidence 
showed  the  cost-benefits  ratio  of  restoration  projects  can  range  from  3  to  75.  In  addition, 
payments for water-related ecosystem services are expected to amount to USD 30 billion by 
2050.  The  implementation  of  green  infrastructure,  amongst  others,  could  reduce  the  social 
costs of traffic accidents. In Switzerland for example, these amount to €42 million per year. 
No detailed assessment of the impact of different initiatives to be taken in the context of the 
strategy is available yet.  

2.2.2  Resource Use and Decoupling 

A different approach to considering the scale of environmental external costs is to consider 
the  cost  savings  from  improving  the  efficiency  with  which  resources  are  used  and  hence 

25 European Commission (2011). Communication on our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity 
strategy to 2020, COM(2011) 244 final, 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/1_EN_ACT_part1_v7%5B1%5D.pdf.  
26 European Commission (2010). Communication on options for an EU vision and target for biodiversity beyond 
2010, COM(2010)4 final, 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/policy/pdf/communication_2010_0004.pdf; Environment 
Council Conclusions of 15 March 2010, http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/10/st07/st07536.en10.pdf. 

64

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
reducing  the  associated  external  cost.  It  should  be  clearly  noted  that  this  approach  is  an 
alternative  method  of  examining  external  costs,  and  should  not  be  included  in  the  thematic 
aggregation of external costs, above. It more specifically relates to those costs resulting from 
the inability to decouple economy from use of natural resources/environmental impact.   

Potential  resource  savings,  achieved  by  improving  resource  efficiency  in  the  EU  to  levels 
already achieved by the most efficient Member States, have been estimated. This provides an 
indication of the scale of benefits available using existing technologies.  

The  analysis  is  based  on  Eurostat  data  for  EU27  on  total  domestic  material  consumption 
(DMC) and domestic inland energy consumption. This data refers to raw materials only and 
does not address natural resources and the associated challenges such as underestimation. The 
resource savings are based on Member States (MS) achieving the level of resource efficiency 
set by the average achieved by the five most efficient MS, calculated as the resources used 
per unit of GDP by MS. 

The analysis (Table 1.3.) indicates that the scope for resource savings is greater for materials 
(46%)  than  for  energy  (20%),  due  in  part  to  the  higher  unit  costs  of  energy.  The  resource 
savings are estimated using the market price of materials and for energy, plus an estimate of 
the  associated  external  cost  savings  from  reduced  pollution,  based  on  available  externality 
estimates. The saving at market prices is €550  billion a year. A further €60 billion a year in 
reduced  externality  costs  might  also  be  secured.  The  total  economic  value  achieved  is 
equivalent to over 5% of EU GDP. 

Table 1.3 Estimated savings in market and external costs from improved resource efficiency in the EU (€ 

billion) 

In d ica to r

U n it

Ma te ria ls

E n e rg y

To ta l

To ta l re s o u rce s  (E U 2 7 )

m il to n n e s ; m il to e

R e s o u rce  s a vin g  (a vg  o f to p  5 )

m il to n n e s ; m il to e

Sa vin g s  a s  a  s h a re  o f to ta l

%

U n it va lu e  o f e xte rn a l co s t

U n it va lu e  o f m a rke t p rice

Exte rn a l co s t

Ma rke t va lu e

To ta l e co n o m ic va lu e

€ /to n n e ;  € /to e

€ /to n n e ;  € /to e

€  b illio n  p e r a n n u m

€  b illio n  p e r a n n u m

€  b illio n  p e r a n n u m

8 ,2 0 0

3 ,8 0 0

4 6 %

2 .4 0

9 .8 0

1 0

4 0

5 0

1 ,8 0 0

3 7 0

2 0 %

1 5 1

1 ,5 0 8

6 0

5 5 0

6 1 0

6 0

5 9 0

6 6 0

Sources: GHK own estimates using data from Eurostat. External cost estimates sourced from COWI (using a 
UK study of the externalities of primary aggregate production and likely to be a minimum estimate; and taken 
as 10% of market price for energy, at current price of $100 a barrel, which approximates to  €0.01 per kWh) 

Notes: 

1. 
extracted from the domestic territory, plus all physical imports minus all physical exports. Data for 2007.  

Materials: The total amount of materials directly used, defined as the annual quantity of raw materials 

2. 
Energy: The total energy necessary to satisfy inland consumption of the EU based on consumption by 
the energy sector itself; distribution and transformation losses; and final energy consumption by end users. Data 
for 2008. 

2.2.3.  New and emerging problems in the EU 

In addition to the problems of well defined environmental impacts, there is also the risk that 
new  and  emerging  problems  will  add  to  the  current  stock  of  problems.  One  case  that 
illustrates this is the environmental risks from nanotechnology. It is likely that other risks will 

65

 
 
 
 
 
           
            
           
               
             
               
             
            
                
                  
             
                
               
           
                
               
           
 
emerge in coming years. However, stakeholders considered this risk to be of less significance 
than the problem of implementing current policies. 

2.3 

The scale of environmental problems outside the EU 

Table 1.3 provides an indicative estimate of the global external cost per year from a range of 
environmental  impacts.  The  recent  European  Environment  State  and  Outlook  Report  2010 
(SOER2010) highlights close link between Europe’s environmental challenges and those in 
the rest of the world. Europe is contributing to environmental pressures in other regions of the 
world,  and  at  the  same  time,  the  impacts  of  activities  elsewhere  are  increasingly  affecting 
Europe. 

This  analysis  provides  a  brief  overview  of  key  environmental  issues  that  link  the  EU  and 
other  parts  of  the  world:  these  are  presented  in  the  table  below,  which  describes  both  EU 
influence on the rest of the world as well as those of other regions on Europe.  

For the sake of analysis, these issues have been divided into three levels: 

•  Global issues 
•  Regional  issues  (in  this  case,  the  Pan-European  region  of  countries  that  are 
members  of  the  UN  Economic  Commission  in  Western,  Central  and  Eastern 
European, the Caucasus and Central Asia) 

•  Europe’s  neighbourhood  (bordering  countries  and  others  under  the  European 

Neighbourhood Policy, ENP). 

The EU has subscribed to number of multilateral environmental agreements to address these 
common issues. These agreements are found at global level, in the Pan-European region and 
also  with  neighbouring  countries.  A  selected  set  of  key  conventions  are  also  shown  in  the 
Table  1.4.,  together  with  key  agreements  the  EU  has  undertaken,  such  as  the  Cancun 
Agreement  on  climate  change  agreed  at  the  December  2010  COP.  In  a  few  cases,  EU 
legislation  calls  for  cooperation  with  neighbouring  countries  on  shared  ecosystems:  an 
example is the Water Framework Directive (listed in the table). 

SOER provides a description of environmental issues, including projections for some issues. 
It also provides an analysis of the long-term global megatrends that will influence Europe’s 
environment. Key megatrends are presented in the last column of the table along with brief 
information on projections, where available. 

66

 
 
 
 
 
Table 1.4 

 Key environmental issues linking the EU and the rest of the world 

Issue 

Global influence on EU 
environment 

EU influence on environment in 
other regions of the world 

Selected EU 
Commitments 

Global megatrends and their potential influence in coming 
years (from EEA, SOER 2010) 

Shared global environmental issues 
Climate change: mitigation 

•  GHG emissions in 

the rest of the world 
affecting climate 
change impacts in 
Europe 

• 

• 

EU commitment to reduce GHG 
emissions  
EU commitment to address 
climate change and assist 
developing countries in so doing 

Climate change: adaptation 

•  GHG emissions in 

• 

the rest of the world 
affecting climate 
change impacts in 
Europe 

Biodiversity protection 

•  Alien species from 

other parts of the 
world disrupt EU 
ecosystems 

•  Habitat loss outside 

EU affects 
migratory species 

EU commitment to assist 
countries with adaptation  

• 

•  Biodiversity loss in the EU 
affects global trends 
EU imports of endangered 
species 
EU commitment to support 
global biodiversity goals 

• 

•  UNFCCC and the 
Kyoto Protocol  

Increasing severity of the consequences of climate change 
•  Growth of emerging economies will increase their share of 

•  The Cancun 
Agreement  

•  Climate and Energy 

Package 
•  UNFCCC 
•  The Cancun 
Agreement 

•  CBD 
•  Nagoya Declaration 
•  CITES  
•  MDG 7b  
•  EU Council 
(3/2010) 

global GHG emissions in coming decades 

Increasing severity of the consequences of climate change 
•  Without new policies, global climate change impacts will 

become more severe  

Decreasing stocks of natural resources 
Increasing severity of the consequences of climate change 
•  Resource consumption and climate change are growing 

pressures on global biodiversity 

Transboundary movements of 
hazardous waste 

Other transboundary waste 
movements 

• 

• 

Illegal EU exports of hazardous 
waste 

•  Basel Convention 

Legal and illegal EU exports 
(e.g. electronic waste, cars 
exported as second-hand goods) 

•  Waste Framework 
Directive, other 
legislation 

Increasing unsustainable environmental pollution load 
•  Waste exports from emerging economies may grow; 

possible backlash in receiving countries 

Increasing unsustainable environmental pollution load 
•  Waste exports from emerging economies may grow; 

possible backlash in receiving countries 

67

 
 
 
 
 
Issue 

Global influence on EU 
environment 

EU influence on environment in 
other regions of the world 

Selected EU 
Commitments 

Global megatrends and their potential influence in coming 
years (from EEA, SOER 2010) 

•  Chemicals imported 
to the EU as well as 
chemicals found in 
agricultural and 
manufactured 
imports may harm 
human health and 
the environment in 
Europe 

•  Competition for 
natural resources 
(from oil and gas to 
rare metals and 
timber) affecting 
resource extraction 
in EU (from oil from 
regional seas to 
timber) 

Transboundary movement of 
chemicals 

EU share of consumption of 
global renewable/non-
renewable resources 

Insufficient access of the share 
of global population to safe 
drinking water supply and 
basic sanitation 

The adverse living conditions 
of slum dwellers 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

EU exports of chemicals 
(including pesticides) could 
harm human health and the 
environment in other parts of the 
world, especially if their storage, 
use and disposal are not properly 
managed 

EU imports of renewable/ non-
renewable imports and 
“embedded” GHG emissions, 
water consumption, etc. 
EU goods imports and 
“embedded” GHG emissions, 
water consumption, etc. 

EU support for a shared global 
commitment to halve the share 
of global population without 
access to safe drinking water and 
basic sanitation 
EU support for a shared global 
commitment to improve the 
lives of at least 100 million slum 
dwellers 

Ozone layer protection 

•  High share of ODS 
emissions from non-
EU sources 

•  Decreasing with accelerated 
phase-out of ODS in EU  

Regional environmental issues (i.e. Pan-European) 

68

•  Rotterdam 

• 

• 

• 

Convention (Prior 
informed consent) 
Stockholm 
Convention 
(persistent organic 
pollutants) 
Support for sound 
management 
through SAICM 

•  MDG 7a 

Thousands of chemicals are in commerce and for most, 
their effects on human health and the environment are 
poorly understood 

•  Chemical production outside the EU and OECD countries 

• 

is growing rapidly 
EU legislation – in particular REACH – provides a 
comprehensive approach to assessing risks and applies to 
imports; moreover, many governments are looking at EU 
legislation. 

Intensified global competition for resources 
Decreasing stocks of natural resources 
•  With rise of emerging economies, global resource demand 
will grow along with issues of price and scarcity: a concern 
for EU in terms of environmental security 

•  MDG 7c 

Increasing unsustainable environmental pollution load 
•  UN reports progress to drinking water goal, but sanitation 

goal remains more distant 

•  MDG 7d 

Living in an urban world: spreading cities and spiralling 
consumption 
• 

Improvements not keeping pace with growing numbers of 
urban poor 

•  Montreal Protocol  

•  Global ODS consumption expected to decline in coming 

years 

 
 
 
 
Issue 

Global influence on EU 
environment 

EU influence on environment in 
other regions of the world 

Selected EU 
Commitments 

Global megatrends and their potential influence in coming 
years (from EEA, SOER 2010) 

Transboundary air pollution 

•  Air pollution from 
neighbouring 
countries to EU 
•  Air pollution from 

other continents 

•  Air pollution from EU to 

•  LRTAP 

neighbouring countries 
EU commitments under LRTAP 

• 

Increasing unsustainable environmental pollution load 
• 

EU emissions of SO2 and NOx  expected to decline (PM 
and others to remain stable) 
Inter-continental pollutants expected to raise background 
levels of pollution in EU 

• 

Transboundary water pollution 

•  Water pollution 

from neighbouring 
countries to EU 

•  Water pollution from EU to 
neighbouring countries 

•  Helsinki Convention
•  Water Framework 

Increasing unsustainable environmental pollution load 
•  Water pollution from urban areas in EU should decrease; 

Directive 

agricultural trends unclear 

Issues in Europe’s direct neighbourhood 
Shared ecosystems: regional 
seas 

• 

Exploitation of 
fisheries by other 
countries 

•  Arctic 
•  Baltic 
•  Black 
•  Mediterranean 
•  NE Atlantic 

Shared cross-border 
ecosystems (e.g. Carpathians, 
Dinaric Alps, Bialowieza 
Forest) 

Shared watercourses (e.g. 
Danube, Dniestr, Daugava) 

• 

Shared migratory 
species and habitats 

•  Water pollution 

from neighbouring 
countries affecting 
EU 
Shared water 
resources and 
ecosystems 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

• 

EU fishing, aquaculture and 
agricultural runoff, as well as 
chemical pollution from ships 
and industry, are having major 
impacts on coastal waters and 
seas 
EU exploitation of shared 
fisheries (varies by sea) 
Shared migratory species and 
habitats 
Links with neighbouring areas 
can support habitats and species 
in the EU 
EU water pollution affecting 
neighbouring countries 
Shared water resources and 
ecosystems 

•  Conventions for 
Baltic, Black and 
Med. seas and NE 
Atlantic 

•  Marine Strategy 
Framework 
Directive 

•  Carpathian 

Convention and 
others  

•  COE Conventions 

Decreasing stocks of natural resources 
•  Concerns over oil and gas exploration in Arctic 
Increasing severity of the consequences of climate change 
•  Climate change will increase ecosystem vulnerability 

Increasing severity of the consequences of climate change 
•  Climate change will increase ecosystem vulnerability – and 

need for ecological corridors  

•  Water Framework 

Directive 

•  Danube Convention 

and others 

Increasing severity of the consequences of climate change 
•  Climate change will increase ecosystem vulnerability 
• 

The intensity and frequency of water scarcity, droughts and 
flooding are expected to increase 

69

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The impacts of the activities of non-EU countries on the effectiveness of EU environmental policy and intervention 

Depolluting the Danube 

The Danube River Basin (DRB) is Europe's second largest river basin, and  the world's most ‘international’ river basin as it 
includes the territories of nineteen countries, nine of which are non-EU countries. The DRB contains 130 identified industrial 
pollution  hot  spots  and  suffers  from  toxic  chemical  pollution  as  well  as  eutrophication  caused  by  nutrient  runoff  from 
agriculture and industrial pollutants discharged into the river. The DRB also faces water quantity issues as a function of dams 
and flood control measures and vulnerability to climate change and extreme weather events27. 

The Joint Action Programme28 of the ICPDR demonstrated that the Danube Countries were willing to invest over €4.4 billion 
over  the  period  2001-2005  in  order  to  respond  to  priority  needs  in  the  sectors  of  municipal  waste  water  collection  and 
treatment, industrial waste water treatment, and agricultural pollution and land use.  

Countries within the DRB are socially and economically diverse and face a variety of challenges that are bound up with the 
environment. Serbia and Romania contain significant mineral deposits that could serve as an economic foundation for rural 
development. However, the risks to the environment from poorly planned and technologically inadequate mining operations 
are great. While the EU’s environmental legal framework provides a protection to the environment, there are concerns that 
since  this  does  not  apply  to  non-EU  countries,  such  as  Serbia,  it  could  undermine  EU  efforts  to  address  pollution  in  the 
Danube.  

Threats to the conservation of the Egyptian vulture  

The Egyptian Vulture was listed as Endangered in the IUCN Red List following a very recent and extremely rapid population 
decline in India, Europe and West Africa, owing to a variety of threats29. The species is included in Annex I of the EU Wild 
Birds Directive and in Appendix II of the Bern, Bonn and CITES Conventions. As a result of the important decline in Europe, 
the species was classified as Endangered at European and EU level. 

The species is migratory and spends a considerable part of its life cycle in Africa, where it may be facing significant threats. 
The threats stem from a range of activities including the use of poison baits (prohibited in Europe by the Bern Convention and 
in the EU by both the Birds and the Habitats Directives); and the electrocution of migratory and wintering, Egyptian Vultures 
that prefer to roost on electrical poles and pylons. In the latter case, halting these deaths requires the insulation of the power 
lines, especially near Port Sudan and coordination with the Sudanese Electricity Company to ensure the use of a safe model of 
pylons. 

It is not possible to quantify the costs relating to the losses of these vultures, EU based vultures,. based in the Balkans and 
also Southern Europe, particularly Spain. However this example demonstrates how activities taking place outside the EU are 
undermining  the  EU’s  conservation  efforts  relating  to  these  species,  most  notably  through  projects  funded  by  the  LIFE 
programme to conserve a number of raptors30. 

3.  Underlying causes of environment and climate problems 

The  problems  described  above  are  a  consequence  of  wide  range  of  economic  and  social 
activity and behaviour, such as institutional drivers, market failures and regulatory failures.  

The role of LIFE is not to solve the environmental problems but rather to act as catalyst for 
change  in  areas  where  a  small  instrument  would  be  effective  and  achieve  the  highest  EU 
added  value.  This  has  been  achieved  by  funding  start-up's  actions  and  innovative, 
demonstrative,  and  best  practice  projects  that  could  be  replicated  elsewhere,  as  well  as  by  
acting  as  a  platform  for  knowledge-sharing.  LIFE  also  acted  as  a  gap  filler.  Given  these 
characteristics, the instrument typically deals with institutional drivers (and in some cases also 
market failures). For this reason, only these drivers are described in this section.  

27 Antypas, A (2010) Environment and the Purposes of a Danube Area Macro(cid:31)regional Strategy. 
28 The Joint Action Programme (JAP) of the ICPDR outlines the specific steps that were agreed to be taken over 
the  period  2001-2005  to  achieve  the  environmental  objectives  outlined  in  the  Danube  River  Protection 
Convention. 
29 BirdLife International, 2008. 
30 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/themes/animalandplants/lists/raptors.htm.  

70

 
 
 
                                                 
•  Uneven  and  inadequate  level  of  environmental  protection  due  to  the  insufficient 

implementation31 or scope of environmental and climate policy  

Despite  the  well  documented  health  and  socio-economic  benefits  of  implementing 
environmental and climate legislation, a high rate of implementation failures remains.32 New 
strategies  for  implementation  and  compliance  are  being  analysed  in  an  effort  to  reduce 
implementation  failures.  The  underlying  causes  for  implementation  failures  identified  are 
diverse and vary from Member State to Member State. One of the drivers to be highlighted is 
insufficient  administrative  capacity.  The  capacity  of 
individual 
compentence,  organisational  capacities,  the  enabling  environment  and  partnerships/network 
organisations  (that  describes  the  quality  of  the  intereaction  and  cooperation  among  the 
relevant  public,  and  private  actors  as  well  as  with  development  of  partners  in  the  sector  or 
among  authorities).  This  situation  occurs  in  a  moment  where  the  most  demanding  EU 
environmental  acts  (such  as  the  Habitats  Directive,  the  Water  Framework  Directive,  the 
Marine  Strategy  Framework  Directive,  Waste  Framework  Directive,  the  EU  Climate  and 
Energy Package or REACH to name a few) enter their crucial period of implementation.  

institutions 

include 

•  Uneven integration of environment and climate concerns into other policies  

The principle of environmental integration recognises that environmental policy alone cannot 
achieve  the  environmental  improvements  needed.33    However,  evidence  (e.g.,  see  the  latest 
Cohesion  report)  suggests  that  this  approach  has  shown  some  limits.  As  a  consequence,  in 
practice, there are substantial divergences in the way environmental and climate objectives are 
incorporated into national/regional programmes and dealt with by the various authorities and 
the private sector.  Underlying causes identified include different competing priorities, lack of 
absorption  capacity  and  knowledge  sharing,  or  lack  of  coordination  between  authorities 
(including the fact that environmental authorities often do not have direct access to funding 
sources) and poor strategic planning. Overcoming barriers such as the lack of knowledge of 
the benefits that can be gained from improved integration will be key to addressing this area.  

•  Inadequate levels of awarenness and sharing of information  

The  problem  of  implementation  and  integration  described  above  arise  in  part  because  of  an 
inadequate  sharing  of  information.  The  problem  is  twofold:  insufficient  understanding  of 
environmental  problems  and  challenges  and  insufficient  knowledge  sharing  (e.g.,  potential 
solutions  to  the  problems).  Insufficient  understading  requires  raising  awareness  among  EU 
citizens  and  stakeholders  to  drive  behavioural  changes  and  promoting  environmental 
responsiveness.  Inadequate  sharing  of  information  and  EU  environmental/climate  policy 
lessons  requires  more  attention  to  networks,  means  for  information  flows,  and  cooperation 
between  different  actors  that  remain  insufficient  and  inadequate,  limiting  the  capacity  for 
experience sharing and mutual learning.   

31 It was discussed whether to consider implementation as a problem as such. However, given that legislation and 
thus  implementation  of  the  acquis  aims  at  solving  the  environmental  and  climate  physical  problems,  it  was 
decided to limit environmental problems to physical problems and consider uneven implementation as a driver to 
those  problems.  Nevertheless  it  should  be  acknowledged  that  most  of  the  drivers  and  underlying  causes 
mentioned  can  also  be  considered  drivers  and  underlying  causes  for  inadequate  implementation  in  addition  to 
independent drivers to environmental and climate physical problems.  
32 One third of all open cases for non-compliance are environment related cases, which indicates that the 
implementation of environmental legislation remains far from satisfactory. 
33 COM(2004)394 "Integrating environmental considerations into other policy areas – a stocktaking of the 
Cardiff process".  

71

 
 
                                                 
•  Inadequate support to eco-innovation  

The  pursuit  of  eco-innovation  is  not  just  developing  new  consumer  products,  services  and 
technologies that are intrinsically cleaner and greener than their predecessors. It is also about 
engendering  better  practices  and  approaches  across  the  economy.  While  market  failures  are 
addressed by other EU funds, institutional weaknesses in the area of eco-innovation are more 
insufficiently  dealt  with.  This  is  particularly  relevant  for  activities  related  to  developing 
policy-driven  and  public  sector  oriented  solutions  to  environmental  problems  that  have  no 
market  replication  potential  and  that  simply  promote  new  and  more  cost  effective  ways  to 
implement  environmental  policy.  Simirlaly,  testing  of  new  approaches  remain  inadequate. 
Low carbon technology development is hampered by uncertainty and knowledge spill-over in 
general,  which  may  lead  to  lower  investment  in  R&D  than  optimal.  In  addition,  there  is  a 
commercialisation  problem  for  capital  intensive technologies where investments are marked 
by long lead times. After technologies have been developed they need to be tested at a small 
scale, hence it will be critical to foster the take up of low carbon approaches, strategies and 
tools and to accelerate the learning curves as cost-effectively as possible. 

4.  Benefits of action 

The  scope  for  improvements  in  EU  policy  implementation  and  development  can  be 
demonstrated by the achievements of recent EU policy development and improvements. This 
can  be  evidenced  to  experience  in  MS  and  by  reference  to  particular  EU  polices  to 
demonstrate the costs and benefits of better, and better implemented, environmental policies.   

Evidence 1:  Benefits of improved environmental policy implementation and development 

The  development  and  implementation  of  improved  environmental  policies  and  legislation  will  lead  to  a  wide  range  of 
benefits,  including  health  benefits,  eco-system  benefits,  and  broader  benefits  such  as  benefits  to  natural  resources  (e.g. 
fisheries  or  agriculture),  social  benefits  and  also  general  economic  benefits  (e.g.  attracting  tourism  or  eco-efficiency 
gains). It is, however, important to clarify up front what is meant by benefits and how they are calculated. Many of the 
benefits are in fact avoided damage. This is the case notably for health benefits and other environmental benefits such as 
eco-system benefits. In other words, the benefit is calculated on the basis of understanding what the impact or level of 
damage is and how this will be reduced with improved environmental regulation. This leads to estimates for reductions in 
the incidence of respiratory diseases for example, the reduction in the number of poor quality rivers, or the reduction in 
agricultural  losses  from  pollution  deposition.  Other  benefits  are  more  ‘common  sense’  benefits,  i.e.  where  improved 
regulation  leads  to  actual  improvements  rather  than  just  a  reduction  of  damage.  For  example,  the  social  benefits  of 
increased  learning  and  awareness  of  environmental  impacts  and  increased  involvement  in  solving  environmental 
problems is this type of benefit. Another example is the issue of improved access to clean drinking water. Also, improved 
environmental policy may lead to enhanced competitiveness and new job opportunities, e.g. by promoting environmental 
technologies and innovation  

Source: Ten Brink and Bassi, 200834 

A number of recent case studies illustrate the economic and social benefits of improvements 
in  the  development  and  implementation  of  environmental  policies  at  the  MS  level,  which 
demonstrate the capacity to secure environmental objectives and to do so cost-effectively. 

Evidence 2:  Benefits of policy action for the environment – evidence from case studies 

Implementation of Birds and Habitats Directive – Belgium (Flanders) 

The Birds and Habitats Directives are the cornerstone of the EU’s nature and biodiversity policy. Although most of the 
Natura  2000  network  (central  to  implementation  of  the  Directives)  has  now  been  established,  effective  protection, 
management and restoration of sites is now of utmost importance. In Flanders, one of the most densely populated regions 

34 add 

72

 
 
                                                 
of the European Union, widespread pressures on environmental quality and natural areas particularly due to pollution and 
habitat  fragmentation  are  affecting  the  ability  of  the  region  to  reach  its  biodiversity  targets,  for  example  in  terms  of 
reducing  the  barriers  to  migratory  fish  species  and  improving  the  connectivity  of  its  rivers.  In  response,  the  Flemish 
region  has  increasingly  focused  on  a  number  of  ecological  restoration  measures  as  part  of  its  activities  to  meet  the 
objectives  of  the  Directives.  This  includes  a  trend  towards  larger  restoration  projects  (supported  by  increased  funding 
provided by the LIFE instrument); the acquisition of land for creation of nature reserves and the use of large public works 
such as port development/design of flood control areas, to carry out restoration activities.  

In Belgium, the cost of implementing the network per year was recently estimated to be €195/ha/year, compared with an 
EU-25 average of €63/ha/year (Gantioler et al. 2010). The high pe r hectare costs are likely influenced by cost drivers such 
as  population  density  (increased costs  due  to  increased  pressure on  the  site),  highly  scattered  and  small  sites,  and  high 
levels of income (e.g. GDP, reflecting wages and land costs). No overall monetary valuation of the benefits of the Natura 
2000 network compared to costs has yet been undertaken in Belgium (although site-level cost-benefit studies do exist). 
However,  it  has  been  shown  through  a  range  of  studies  that  ecosystem  restoration  provides  a  number  of  ecosystem 
services which are of extremely high value, such as improving the resilience of the region against flooding (Decleer, K. 
(2008). Additional studies (De Nocker et al. not dated, Liekens et al 2009, LNE 2010) have been undertaken  attempting 
to  estimate  the  value  of  these  ecosystem  services,  which  would  otherwise  have  been  lost  without  restoration  of  sites. 
Some of those studies have shown that a combination of measures such as dykes and floodplains can be cost-effective, 
offering higher benefits at lower costs compared to more intensive man-made measures, such as the development of huge 
flood barriers near Antwerp.  

Bio-waste prevention – Hungary  

In 2005, 4,646 ktonnes of municipal waste was generated in Hungary, 27.6% of which is considered bio-waste. Hungary 
has  not  asked  for  a  derogation  under  the  Landfill  Directive,  and  so  has  to  reduce  the  amount  of  its  biodegradable 
municipal  waste  going  to  landfills  by  75%  in  2004,  50%  in  2009  and  35%  in  2016.  The  majority  of  municipal  waste 
(82%) is currently landfilled, with less than 5% of bio-waste being composted. By 2020, it is estimated that Hungary’s 
generation  of  bio-waste  will  have  increased  by more  than  30%  compared  to  2008  levels  (2.1  ktonnes).  There  is  thus  a 
strong  rationale  for  implementing  waste  prevention  and  recycling  measures  to  divert  waste  from  landfill.  Waste 
prevention  measures  and  changing  the  current  disposal  and  treatment  methods,  (increasing  the  amount  of  bio-waste 
(59%) disposed of through in-vessel composting) is expected to provide significant economic savings as well as reducing 
the environmental impacts of municipal waste  

The  PV  of  avoided  environmental  damage  is  estimated  to  be  almost  €90  million  from  2013-2020  (roughly  €10  per 
capita). The PV of the financial cost for composting is about €45 million (2013-2020), however the financial benefit from 
avoided landfilling, incineration, MBT and home composting reduces the overall cost. This case study did not investigate 
any potential benefits from job creation resulting from these measures.  

Landfill diversion of biodegradable waste – Bulgaria  

Bulgaria  is  confronted  with  widespread  dumping  in  non  managed  dumpsites,  although  it  is  currently  developing  a 
network  of  well  managed  landfills  combined  with  sanitation  and  land  restoration  of  closed  dumpsites.  Despite  this, 
complementary measures are needed, in particular the development of a bio-waste treatment capacity. One of the main 
measures relating to this is the development of a windrow composting plant, as an affordable solution to divert bio-waste 
from landfills. Bio-waste treatment, as one of the main composing elements of biodegradable waste, will help in reaching 
the EU acquis, and beyond.  

The  investment  costs  for  developing  such  a  plant  are  estimated  to  be  almost  €900,000  and  operational  costs  are 
approximately €15/ton. The benefits of such a measure are mu lti-faceted and are mainly in terms of cost savings through 
home composting (avoided transport costs) and avoided landfill costs, as well as avoided CO2 emissions, which totalled 
for the project period, amount to €240,000. Other benefits  include positive impacts on human health, reduced water and 
soil contamination, aesthetic and landscape impacts and economic impacts, all of which impact on social welfare and thus 
need  to  be  taken  into  consideration.  The  case  study  demonstrates  that  by  increasing  the  recycling  capacity  and  the 
quantity of biodegradable waste to be handled by composting, stimulated by funding programs, a significant benefit can 
be realised. 

Air emission reduction measures – Croatia  

The  Croatian  Air  Protection  Act  is  harmonised  with  Directive  96/62/EC  on  Ambient  Air  Quality  Assessment  and 
Management  and  takes  into  account  other  EU  Directives  relating  to  air  quality  and  emissions  into  air  (97/101/EC). 
Potential technical and policy measures have been proposed that can be implemented in the short term to guarantee that 
present  and  future  air  quality  standards  can  be  respected  in  Rijeka  Port,  thus  complying  with  the  European  acquis. 

35  Nera  &  Accent  (2007):  Report  on  the  benefits  of  Water  Framework  Directive  programmes  of  measures  in 
England and Wales, by Nera and Accent for the UK Department for environment, food and rural affairs (Defra), 
November 2007.  

73

 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
Potential  measures  include  the  use  of  fuel  with  a  lower  sulphur;  flue  gas  desulphurization;  advanced  internal  engine 
modification such as dry water injection (DWI), humid air motors (HAM) and exhaust gas recirculation.  

The mandatory use of 0.1% content sulphur fuel by shipping when in the harbour would cost €4.6 million a year, and €2.4 
when  at  berth.  The  annual  cost  of  installing  sustainable  shore  side  electricity  (above  5  visits)  driven  by  the  use  of  a 
differentiated harbour tax would amount to €2.4 million. Other benefits for agricu ltural production, cultural heritage or 
ecosystems from reduced pollutant emissions are excluded and the potential benefits under-estimated The annual cost of 
implementing a secondary catalytic reduction process would amount to €1.6 million. By using figures in the Clean Air for 
Europe (CAFE) Programme on the average damages on human health, the resulting reduction in pollutant emissions by 
implementing  these  select  measures  would  lead  to  net  benefits  of  €7.3  million  a  year.  Other  measures  (e.g.  flue  gas 
desulphurization and more significant motor adaptations) lead to significant net costs due to the high investment costs of 
the measures. 

Water Framework Directive – UK  

Improving water quality is the leading objective of water policy within the EU. As a resource, the quality and availability 
of  water  is  important  for  economic  sustainability,  social  well  being,  human  health  and  the  preservation  of  the 
environment.  The  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD)  is  the  overarching  legislative  tool  aimed  at  achieving  this 
objective. To achieve compliance with the Directive, each environmental standard must be accomplished (or a derogation 
issued) and a series of reporting deadlines must be met to ensure that national plans and systems are in place to effectively 
implement and enforce the Directive.  

It is difficult to provide an EU-level cost in this case study for methodological reasons. However, the results of the UK 
assessments are indicative of the order of magnitude of the expected costs and benefits. They suggest that the cost of full 
compliance with the WFD is approximately €63 billion in th e UK by 2015 (although this does not take into account the 
fact  that  less  stringent  targets  apply  and  phased  improvements  are  permitted).  A  UK  benefits  study35  estimated  the 
aggregate  willingness  to  pay  (WTP)  benefits  of  the  WFD  by  households  ranged  from  €21-€33  billion  per  annum. 
However,  other  benefits  must  also  be  considered  -  in  terms  of  cost  savings  for  industries  which  rely  on  both  large 
volumes  of  water  and  good  quality  water  resources  (such  as  cost  savings  in  drinking  water  treatment).  The  EU  wide 
benefit of this was estimated to be around €362.5 million per  year due to reduced pesticide contamination and €70 million 
in the Netherlands alone from reduced metal removal costs. Taking these other benefits into account demonstrates that the 
benefits of effective implementation of WFD are sizeable and justify the costs of implementation. 

The  value  of  this  process  can  be  identified  from  a  review  of  recent  improvements  in  EU 
policy development, two examples of which include:  
1.  Air  quality  improvements36  -  Additional  measures  to  deliver  better  air  quality  would 
cost between 0.04% and 0.12% of EU-25 GDP in 2020, but would achieve health benefits 
alone that would exceed the costs by a factor of two or more; 

2.  Improved  pesticides  management37  -  Introducing  further  measures  on  the  sustainable 
use  of  pesticides  would  generate  net  benefits  to  the  EU  especially  farmers  even  with 
additional costs to some industries. 

These examples are further discussed in the Box below. The exploitation and demonstration 
of  such  opportunities  to  improve  the  scope  and  stringency  of  the  acquis,  where  marginal 
changes can be made, and where the cost-effectiveness of action can be shown, will continue 
to be needed.   

Evidence 3: Environmental and economic benefits of improvements in EU environmental policy - exemplars 

Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution and the Directive on Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe38 

36 The Communication on Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution and The Directive on “Ambient Air Quality and 
Cleaner Air for Europe” Impact Assessment. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/cafe/general/keydocs.htm. 
37  European  Commission  (2006)Thematic  Strategy  on  the  Sustainable  Use  of  Pesticides.  Impact  Assessment. 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ppps/pdf/sec_2006_0894.pdf. 
38 The Communication on Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution and The Directive on “Ambient Air Quality and 
Cleaner Air for Europe” Impact Assessment. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/cafe/general/keydocs.htm. 

74

 
 
                                                 
Emissions  of  pollutants  to  air,  not  only  damage  the  environment  through  changes  to  the  climate  and  air  quality  (i.e. 
greenhouse  gases  and  particulate  emissions),  but  can  also  have  repercussions  for  water  and  soil  environments,  as 
suspended  pollutants  in  the  atmosphere  can  be  deposited  in  each  environment  through  precipitation.  Recognising  the 
success  of  previous  strategies  and  the  legislative  action  taken  to  reduce  air  pollution  and  protect  the  environment,  the 
Commission  has  investigated  what  additional  measures  could  be  employed  to  deliver  greater  benefits  by  revising  the 
strategy and its constituent legislative tools.  To achieve significant improvements by 2020, three options for abatement of 
emissions  are  assessed,  based  on  incremental  degrees  of  pollution  abatement.  Net  of  the  baseline,  the  direct  abatement 
costs for the EU were estimated to be in the region of €5.9  billion for Scenario 1, and €14.9 billion for Scenario 3 per year 
in  2020.  Additionally,  the  indirect  costs  were  also  assessed  using  the  GEM-E3  general  equilibrium  model  of  the  EU 
economy which accounts for the direct and wider economic impacts, such as those relating to price changes, labour market 
adjustments and feedback effects caused by implementing the abatement measures. The estimated costs of the scenarios in 
this model were estimated to be between 0.04% and 0.12% of EU-25 GDP in 2020 respectively.   

Assessing the benefits of these measures, the following estimates were calculated: 

•  Human health benefits of €37-€120 billion in scenario 1 

and €49-€160 billion in Scenario 3, based on the value of 

statistical lives saved in 2020 (equivalent to 0.1%-0.35% of GDP); 

•  Damage reduction to agricultural crops in 2020 of €0.3 billion per year; and 

• 

Environmental benefits equivalent to 74% less forest area and 39% less freshwater area where acidification critical 
loads are exceeded, plus 43% less area where critical loads for eutrophication are exceeded in 2020.  

Based on the health benefits alone, the analysis indicates that the benefits should at least exceed the costs by a factor of two 
or  more,  if  the  environmental  and  agriculture  benefits  are  to  be  accounted  for.  A  clear  justification  for  improving  the 
implementation and development of environmental policy therefore exists. 

Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides39   

A review of the thematic strategy on the use of pesticides to include plant protection and biocidal products has revealed 
that substantial benefits can still be achieved through the introduction of further measures to protect human health and the 
environment. The Strategy sits between two other leading pieces of environmental legislation, the REACH regulation to 
regulate what chemicals can be placed on the market and the Water Framework Directive (WFD) which monitors residues 
of  chemicals  entering  the  water  environment.  The  Thematic  strategy  is  therefore  responsible  for  regulating  the  use  of 
pesticides.  

The  proposed  measures  target  a  reduction  of  the  risks  for  the  environment  and  human  health  linked  to  the  use  of  plant 
protection products. The overall costs and benefits of the strategy are summarised in Table 1 below, reproduced from the 
impact assessment. 

Table 1: Costs and Benefits of the Thematic Strategy on Pesticides 

Costs 

Benefits 
€1,110 - €1440 million /yr  
Farmers 
                          (Reduced health impacts) 
Industries        + 3,000 jobs                                       €300 - €670 million /yr 
                          (could be contained through more advisory services and development of more innovative products) 
                                                                                                                                         -€670  to - €300 million/yr 
                                                                                                                                         + 3000 jobs 
Member State Authorities    
€200 million /yr (savings for health and environment costs) + 180 jobs 
Positive impacts on humans and the environment  

€380 - €710 million  

€725 million /yr 

Balance 

The analysis clearly indicates a positive net benefit from the revision of existing legislation protecting human health and 
the environment. 

39 European Commission (2006) Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides. Impact Assessment. 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ppps/pdf/sec_2006_0894.pdf. 

75

 
 
 
       
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
It  is  not  possible  to  specify  the  exact  contribution  of  implementation  failures  to  the  overall 
scale  of  the  problem.  Moreover,  the  full  implementation  of  existing  policies  would  not  be 
expected to internalise all external costs, where the costs of doing so would be greater than the 
environmental  benefits  achieved.  However,  the  costs  of  continued  environmental  damage 
would  be  lower  if  the  acquis  were  properly  implemented;  difficulties  of  transposition  and 
inadequate  capacities  to  implement  and  enforce  polices  at  MS  level  are  resulting  in  higher 
external costs. Effective implementation of environmental policy can lead to cost savings as 
well as environmental benefits. 

Benefits from implementing the IPPC – To date, there has been insufficient implementation 
of  best  available  techniques  (BAT).  Estimates  indicate  that  implementing  BAT  is  likely  to 
incur additional costs of €2– €7 billion for i ndustry and yield €9 – €30 billion in cost savings, 
a benefit-cost ratio of over €5 for every €1 spent.
 This increases to over €7 for every €1 spent 
if health benefits are included. 

This example is further detailed in the Box below.   

Evidence 4: Environmental and economic benefits of the implementation of EU environmental policy - exemplars 

Industrial Emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (recast) Directive40  

The  review  process  evaluating  the  performance  of  the  first  IPPC  Directive  96/61/EC  highlighted  a  number  of  problems 
which  were  adversely  affecting  the  cost  effective  implementation  of  the  Directive  by  the  Member  State  authorities  and 
industrial  operators.  Foremost  amongst  these  problems  is  the  insufficient  implementation  of  best  available  techniques 
(BAT) leading to limited progress in the prevention and reduction of industrial emissions and to distortion of competition 
due  to  large  differences  in  environmental  standards  between  operators  in  the  different  Member  States.  While  the  initial 
compliance  costs  associated  with  introducing  BAT  may  be  higher,  the  BREF  supporting  document  prepared  for  each 
industry  sector  prove  that  sufficient  cost  savings  can  occur  through  greater  energy,  water  and  material  efficiency,  in 
addition  to  reductions  in  waste  generation  to  exceed  the  initial  investment  cost.    Estimates  of  the  impacts  indicate  the 
implementing BAT is likely to incur additional costs of €2.1-  €6.5 billion for industry and yield €9 – €30 billion in cost 
savings. This result suggests a cost benefit ratio of over €5 for every €1 spent. 

If  health  benefits  of  €7-€28  billion  per  year  due  to  the  reduc
125,000 respectively are included then this ratio increases to over €7 per €1 spent. 

tion  of  premature  deaths/  years  of  lives  lost  by  13,000  and 

40  Directive  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  Industrial  Emissions  (integrated  pollution 
prevention and control) (recast) Impact Assessment 
http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/Notice.do?val=462132:cs&lang=en&list=511975:cs,516991:cs,508612:cs,505133:cs,499125:cs,48
5132:cs,461932:cs,462133:cs,462132:cs,261603:cs,&pos=9&page=1&nbl=16&pgs=10&hwords=&checktexte=
checkbox&visu=#texte. 

76

 
 
 
 
                                                 
Environmental externalities values: Data sources used to calculate the economic value of environmental impacts 

Theme 

Indicator  

Economic value per 
unit € 

Source 

Environment, Policy and Governance (EPG) 

Climate 
Change/Air/ Urban 
Environment 

Reduction in CO2 emissions – tonnes 

120 

Watkiss, P.(2006): The social cost of carbon, by Paul Watkiss Associates, UK, for Defra, available at: 
http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/19/21/37321411.pdf. 
This reference provides EU price as 70-170 Euros, hence average of 120 Euros per tonne carbon. 

Natural resources 
and waste 

Reduction in energy consumption – 
tons/CO2 

0.0015 

The value of energy savings was calculated by converting MJ into kwh, and then using a standard figure 
for kg / CO2 of electricity generated in the UK. This value was identified at: 
http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/reporting/pdf/20090928-guidelines-ghg-conversion-
factors.pdf). 
The total tonnage of CO2 emissions was subsequently multiplied by the social cost of carbon of €120 / 
tonne. 

Likely reduction in use of limited or 
non-renewable natural resources: Tons 
per year 

10 

COWI (July 2010) Economic Analysis of Resource Efficiency Policies, DG environment 

Likely reduction in non-hazardous 
solid waste generation tonnes/year 

11 

DG Env (2000) A Study on the Economic Valuation of Environmental Externalities from Landfill 
Disposal and Incineration of Waste 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/pdf/econ_eva_landfill_report.pdf 
Assumes that the landfill is a modern containment landfill that fulfils the demands of the newest directive 
(EC/31/1999). The landfill has a leachate collection and treatment system. Further, the landfill gas is 
collected to generate electricity and heat (CHP).  Includes global warming, air pollution, leachate, 
disamenity and pollution displacement externalities. 

77

 
 
Environmental externalities values: Data sources used to calculate the economic value of environmental impacts 

Theme 

Indicator  

Economic value per 
unit € 

Source 

Likely increase in recycling of waste -  
Tons/year 

11 

Soil 

Reduced of soil erosion - ha 

51 

Forests 

Protection of forest area - ha 

1836 

DG Env (2000) A Study on the Economic Valuation of Environmental Externalities from Landfill 
Disposal and Incineration of Waste 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/pdf/econ_eva_landfill_report.pdf 
Assumes that the landfill is a modern containment landfill that fulfils the demands of the newest directive 
(EC/31/1999). The landfill has a leachate collection and treatment system. Further, the landfill gas is 
collected to generate electricity and heat (CHP).  Includes global warming, air pollution, leachate, 
disamenity and pollution displacement externalities. 

From Commission staff working document - Document accompanying the Communication from the 
Commission to the Council, The European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee 
and the Committee of the Regions - Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection - Impact assessment of the 
thematic strategy on soil protection {COM(2006)231 final} {SEC(2006)1165} http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52006SC0620:EN:NOT .  

Based on intermediate figure for cost of soil erosion in Europe of €7,624 million (2003 €), for 
approximately 150 million ha.   This is only based on data for 13 European countries. Therefore €7624 
million/150 ha = €51/ha. 

Ten Brink, P., Braat, L., Rayment, M., Bräuer, I., Chiabai, A., Bassi, S., Markandya, A., Nunes, P., ten 
Brink, B., van Oorschot, M., Gerdes H., Stupak, N., Foo, V., Kettunen, M., & Gantioler, S. 2009. Further 
Developing. Figure based on COPI values for bioregions in Europe. 

Water 

Area of rivers/lakes that will have 
improved quality (chemical, 
microbiological or ecological) -ha  

36 

Benefits from improved environmental quality from eutrophication in marine ecosystem. Valuation of air 
pollutation ecosystem damage acid ozone nitrogene and biodiversity; DG Environment, October 2007. 

Likely improvement in areas meeting 
national quality standards/ targets - ha 

Area of likely improved groundwater 
quality - ha 

36 

120 

A study calculated the potential benefits of improved water in Swedish archipelago as 506-842 SEK. The 
evaluation team estimated the potential benefits in the EU given the characteristics of the geographical 
area in question (e.g. the size and the population). 

Benefits from improved environmental quality from eutrophication in marine ecosystem. Valuation of air 
pollutation ecosystem damage acid ozone nitrogene and biodiversity; DG Environment, October 2007. 

EU Water saving potential (Part 2 – Case Studies) ENV.D.2/ETU/2007/0001r, 19. July 2007: Ecologic - 
Institute for International and European Environmental Policy 

78

 
 
 
 
 
Environmental externalities values: Data sources used to calculate the economic value of environmental impacts 

Theme 

Indicator  

Economic value per 
unit € 

Source 

Air 

Likely improvement of air quality - 
km2 

0.038 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Annex to : The Communication on Thematic Strategy on 
Air Pollution and The Directive on “Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe” Impact 
Assessment, SEC (2005) 1133 

Likely improvement of air quality - 
Number of people that will be affected 

91 

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Annex to : The Communication on Thematic Strategy on 
Air Pollution and The Directive on “Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe” Impact 
Assessment, SEC (2005) 1133 

Likely increase in area with ambient 
air quality meeting EU air quality 
standards - km2 

Likely reduction in emissions of 
noxious gasses (e.g. SO2, NOx, 
NMVOC an NH3) - tonnes/year 

People that will be better protected 
from air pollution by particles? 
Number of people 

Environment and 
Health 

Nature and Biodiversity 

Health benefits under the chosen level of ambition. The evaluation team selected what the EC calls “the 
mid-range scenario”: the middle value improvement in each category. The figure includes fewer 
premature deaths, less sickness, fewer hospital admission, improved labour productivity. 

The Communication on Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution and The Directive on Ambient Air Quality 
and Cleaner Air for Europe 

The Communication on Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution and The Directive on Ambient Air Quality 
and Cleaner Air for Europe 

0.038 

1,308 

37,348 

Reference: de Leeuw, F. and Horálek, J. (2009). Assessment of the health impacts of the exposure to 
PM2.5 at a European level. ETC/ACC Technical paper 2009/1. 

The benefit per person is €37,300.   This is based on an approximate reduction in mortality associated 
with reducing particulate matter concentrations.  If we assume that the LIFE interventions decrease 
mortality by 5% (low scenario in reference used), then every person lives ~0.5 years longer. Value of a 
Year of Life Lost is €75,000, so 0.5 years is worth €37,300 per person. 

Coastal and 
Halophytic Habitat 

Ecosystem services of habitats that 
will be created or re-created – ha 
Habitats that will be restored – ha 
Habitats that will be bought under 
sympathetic management – ha 

7083 

All values across habitats are taken from the following source: 
ten Brink, P., Braat, L., Rayment, M., Bräuer, I., Chiabai, A., Bassi, S., Markandya, A., Nunes, P., ten 
Brink, B., van Oorschot, M., Gerdes H., Stupak, N., Foo, V., Kettunen, M., & Gantioler, S. 2009. Further 
Developing 
Figure based on COPI values for bioregions in Europe.  There is likely to be considerable variation 

79

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Environmental externalities values: Data sources used to calculate the economic value of environmental impacts 

Theme 

Indicator  

Economic value per 
unit € 

Source 

Coastal Sand 
Dunes and Inland 
Dunes 

Freshwater 
Habitats 

Temperate Heath 
and Scrub 

Sclerophyllous 
scrub 

Natural and Semi-
Natural Grassland 
Formations 

Raised Bogs, 
Mires and Fens 

Forests 

Ecosystem services of habitats that 
will be created or re-created – ha 
Habitats that will be restored – ha 
Habitats that will be bought under 
sympathetic management – ha 

Ecosystem services of habitats that 
will be created or re-created – ha 
Habitats that will be restored – ha 
Habitats that will be bought under 
sympathetic management – ha 

Ecosystem services of habitats that 
will be created or re-created – ha 
Habitats that will be restored – ha 
Habitats that will be bought under 
sympathetic management – ha 

Ecosystem services of habitats that 
will be created or re-created – ha 
Habitats that will be restored – ha 
Habitats that will be bought under 
sympathetic management – ha 

Ecosystem services of habitats that 
will be created or re-created – ha 
Habitats that will be restored – ha 
Habitats that will be bought under 
sympathetic management – ha 

Ecosystem services of habitats that 
will be created or re-created – ha 
Habitats that will be restored – ha 
Habitats that will be bought under 
sympathetic management – ha 

Ecosystem services of habitats that 
will be created or re-created – ha 
Habitats that will be restored – ha 

60970 

between habitats in specific bioregions due to biotic / abiotic factors. 

3675 

317 

89 

202 

1845 

1836 

80

 
 
Environmental externalities values: Data sources used to calculate the economic value of environmental impacts 

Theme 

Indicator  

Economic value per 
unit € 

Source 

Habitats that will be bought under 
sympathetic management – ha 

Controlling invasive species / ha / year 

21 

Invasive Alien 
Species  

Reference: Kettunen, M., Genovesi, P., Gollasch, S., Pagad, S., Starfinger, U. ten Brink, P. & Shine, C. 
(2008) Technical support to EU strategy on invasive species (IAS) - Assessment of the impacts of IAS in 
Europe and the EU (final module report for the European Commission). Institute for European 
Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussels, Belgium. 44 pp. + Annexes 

81

 
 
 
ANNEX 6:   EXAMPLES ILLUSTRATING THE EU ADDED VALUE OF THE LIFE PROGRAMME  

1.  The concept of EU added value in LIFE  

Most  environmental  problems  have  a  transboundary  or  transnational  nature  and  cannot  be 
adequately solved by Member States alone without international cooperation. Member States 
need to join forces and create partnerships with stakeholders to tackle these problems which, 
if not solved, may later come at a great cost for the EU as whole. LIFE attracts partnerships 
that  otherwise  would  be  difficult  to  set-up,  ensuring  a  more  effective  intervention  than 
Member States' individual action by an increased pooling of resources and expertise.  

At the same time, some EU environmental problems are better addressed at regional or local 
level, also because some EU environmental assets are very localised.  Local solutions can be 
replicated in other areas  or  transfered  to sectors facing similar problems. LIFE provides the 
platform  for  development  and  exchange  of  best  practices  and  knowldedge-sharing  allowing 
Member  States  and  stakeholders  to  learn  from  each  other  and  address  the  environmental 
problem more efficiently.   

Finally,  environmental  assets  are  unevenly  distributed  across  the  EU  and  the  obligation  to 
preserve them calls for a consistent application of the principle of responsability sharing and 
solidarity. 

2.  Examples of EU added value in the LIFE programme 

2.1.  Solidarity: Pooling efforts to protect EU natural capital and environmental assets 

By assisting Member States that host most valuable EU natural capital or are confronted with 
transboundary or transational environmental problems, LIFE allows for a better distribution of 
responsibility  and  solidarity  in  preserving  the  EU  environmental  common  good.    This  is 
typically  the  case  of  Natura  2000  with  high  concentration  of  species  and  sites  of  EU 
importance in certain countries frequently associated with a reduced capacity to  address the 
needs of protecting the network. 

Ilustration: LIFE and the Iberian lynx (Spain and Portugal) 

The Iberian lynx is the world’s most endangered feline species and the most endangered carnivorous mammal in Europe. 
Numbers of the animal declined significantly from around 1000 in 1990 in Spain and Protugal to 102 by 2002 localised in 
two areas in Andalucía: Sierra Morena and Doñana. The lynx is one of the most emblematic EU specie and an umbrella 
species that helps in the conservation of a whole ecosystem.  

Building partnerships for species protection. To build on and move beyond the findings of regional projects, the Andalusian 
government applied for LIFE funding to develop a partnership project to consolidate and guarantee the future of the lynx 
populations, principally by restoring rabbit populations. The partnership included all those crucial to protecting the lynx such 
as hunters and landowners organisations, environmental NGOs and international experts on carnivores conservation. 

When the project started only 102 specimenes remained in the entire word. After two LIFE projects population has increased 
up to 270 specimens, it is being reintroduced in new areas, and further reintroduction in Portugal and other Spanish regions is 
expected. Furthermore, the project works in close collaboration with the captive breeding programme financed by Spain  and 
Portugal creating synergies between EU funding and national funds. Hopes are high to upgrade the conservation status of this 
EU essential species. 

2.2.  Catalytic role of LIFE 

LIFE acts as a catalyst to start-up action,  providing  one-off  investment needed in a specific 
area, eliminating initial barriers to the implementation of EU environmental policy and testing 

82

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
new approaches for future scaling up. LIFE addresses gaps and externalities, raises awareness 
and demonstrates the benefits of environmental protection.  

Illustration: LIFE eliminating barriers to facilitate the implementation and acceptance of the Habitats Directive 

LIFE started in 1992 just after the Habitats Directive was adopted. Since its beginnings LIFE was a crucial instrument for its 
implementation: firstly by financing the inventories required for the designation of the Natura2000 sites both in old and new 
Member States; secondly by restoring and improving the conservation status of habitats and species; thirdly by building the 
capacity required to manage the network in the long term; and fourthly by eliminating the initial resistance in many sectors, 
including public administration, to implement the Directive. 

Farming  for  Conservation  in  the  Burren:  The  Burren  region  in  Ireland  (c.720km2)  was  always  in  demand  by  farmers 
whose unique pastoral activities – including the reverse transhumance tradition of winter grazing – have been proven to be 
central to the presence of such a rich biodiversity. However, a distortion of the ‘balance’ between farming and the Burren in 
recent decades has resulted in serious conservation concerns: agricultural intensification has impacted on water quality, while 
a  reduction  in  farming  on  rough  limestone  grasslands  has  resulted  in  extensive  scrub  encroachment.  Livelihoods  in  the 
farming and the tourism sector were also threatened as a result.  

An  EU  LIFE  Nature  project  brought  together  farmers,  scientists,  conservationists  and  agriculturalists  to  work  proactively 
together to help resolve these problems and formulate a blueprint for sustainable farming in the Burren. Innovative ideas such 
as  the  development  of  new  grazing  and  feeding  systems  were  launched  to  improve  habitat  health  without  further 
compromising the financial viability of the farming system. The success of this project led to a pioneering ‘Burren Farming 
for Conservation Programme (BFCP)’ funded through the Irish Rural Development Programme. Massively oversubscribed, 
the BFCP now works with 120 Burren farmers managing 12,887ha within Natura 2000. 

2.3.  Creating synergies, multipliers and leverage 

LIFE helps Member States and stakeholders to accelarate and improve the implementaton of 
EU legislation by finding more cost-effective ways to address environmental problems and by 
creating  synergies  across  EU  funds  and  national  funds  while  levering  in  additional  national 
and  private  sector  funds  to  ensure  the  continuation  of  activities  financed  under  LIFE  or 
expanding  their results.   

Illustration: LIFE ensuring synergies across EU funds and national funds 

Protection  and  usage  of  aapa  mires  with  a  rich  avifauna  in  Finland:  The  aim  of  this  LIFE  project  was  to  prepare 
conservation  and  management  plans  for  five  areas  within  the  central  Lapland  aapa  mire  zone,  so  that  ecotourism  and 
recreational  use can  be  organised  on  a  sustainable  basis. The project  succeeded in  combining  resources  from  different EU 
sources (LIFE for planning and ERDF for construction of the tourism infrastructure) and national funds (for construction of 
barns on the hay meadows).  The use of various funding sources provided the opportunity to make environmental objectives 
more ambitious. Implementation of the service structure in Lapland has increased interest in the Natura 2000 network as a 
whole and brought positive publicity to the project. The success in combining funds led to setting up of a group at regional 
level  responsible  for  planning  the  yearly  allocation  of  domestic  and  EU  resources  for  Natura  2000  allowing  greater 
integration of environment in the wider development objectives, engaging more stakeholders and building capacity.  

Protecting coastal meadows in Estonia: LIFE projects have financed the restoration and conservation of Estonian's coastal 
meadows part of Natura 2000 network. In 2003 the administration of the Silma Nature Reserve applied for a LIFE-Nature 
project on these habitats. Using the experience of the previous LIFE projects, the Reserve administration set up and started 
implementing  management  plans  for  the  Natura  2000  sites  concerned.  These  have  been  used  as  a  basis  for  a  National 
Environment Action Plan 2007-2013, the Development Plan of the Environment Ministry and the Rural Development Plan 
2007-2013. Moreover thanks to the LIFE project the nature administration in Estonia was reorganised and the management 
tools  developed  through  the  LIFE  project  are  being  used  in  other  protected  areas  of  the  same  region  and  the  experience 
gained  by  LIFE  project  is  now  available  to  the  whole  region.  The  sustainability  of  the  habitat  management  has  been 
guaranteed  by  using  the  national  subsidies  for  semi-natural  grasslands  under  the  RDR  scheme.  A  similar  cooperation  is 
currently being developed concerning the use of Regional Development funds, through the State Forest Management Centre, 
which is responsible for the construction and maintenance of all visitor infrastructures in the area. 

Illustration: LIFE as a platform for dissemination best practices and knowledge-sharing (creating multipliers and 
leverage) 

The  Open  MI  project  developed  an  innovative  tool  which  allows  the  integration  of  predictive  models  in  watershed 
management  and  so  helps  implementing  the  Water  Framework  Directive  (which  requires  an  integrated  approach  and  thus 
integrated  modelling  for  the  watershed).  The  project  secured  continued  funding  in  the  form  of  venture  capital  to  allow 
development  of  the  standard  operational  software  to  a  next  level.  As  a  result,  applications  for  the  software  are  being 
considered not just in Europe but internationally, with a high level of interest in USA. 

83

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The MAD but Better project: One of the objectives of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) is the long-term progressive 
reduction  of  contaminant  discharges  to  the  aquatic  environment  in  urban  wastewater.  One  of  the  products  of  wastewater 
treatment  processes  is  sludge,  the  use  of  which  is  encouraged  by  the  Urban  Waste  Water  Treatment  Directive  whenever 
appropriate.  However  it  continues  to  remain  an  environmentally  senstive  issue  with  a  significant  need  to  build  confidence 
through regulatory compliance. The LIFE project developed and demonstrated a full-scale treatment process which made it 
highly  adaptable  to  a  range  of  companies  in  this  related  waste  industries  and  therefore  gave  the  plant  high  replication 
transferability potential. It became a catalyst for improved wastewater managenment and the project’s technology has now 
become  the  new  sludge  treatment  standard  for  the  entire  UK  water  industry.  By  August  2007,  four  Enzymic  Hydrolysis 
Plants had been built by the beneficiary and five ordered by other UK. 12 EU Member States and 26 countries around the 
world have already shown interest in replicating the treatment plant. In addition, the cost of sludge disposal is further reduced 
to just €210 per tonne of dry solid - this compares very favourab ly with average landfill costs of €415 per tonne. It also save s 
farmers around €175 per ha in fertiliser replacement. 

PERBIOF: Wastewater treatment plants face recurrent problems such as sludge production and toxicity of treated effluents 
in  the  tannery  sector.  The  PERBIOF  project  developed  at  demonstration  scale  an  innovative  technology  for  treating 
municipal and/or industrial wastewater. The high compactness of the plant in comparison with traditional plants meant the 
footprint is some 25% of that of a standard plant and sludge production is about one thirtieth of the amount produced by a 
traditional plant. Although investment costs are 10% higher than for a standard plant, operating costs are one-third of those of 
a standard plant. With €625,000 EU investme nt over 3 years, the LIFE project estimated that by using its technology, €72 
million per year in cost savings could be achieved by the tannery industry. The project yields a Net Present Value (NPV) over 
10 years,  discounted  at  4%,  of  €655  million. This  is  equivale nt  to  over  €1,000 in  benefits  generated  for every  €1  spent  in 
LIFE.  

The “SuperC” project aimed to demonstrate the economical and ecological advantages of using geothermal energy to heat 
and  cool  large  buildings.  Taking  the  Students'  Service  Centre  of  the  RWTH  Institute  of  Technology  at  the  University  of 
Aachen  as  its  demonstration  site,  it  planned  to  develop  an  installation  which  would  provide  the  energy  required  for  the 
heating and cooling of this large building with a 95 percent reduction in CO2 emissions. 

2.4.  Bringing solutions to upcoming environmental challenges of EU interest 

Stakeholders are often confronted with environmental problems for which no solutions have 
been found yet, and which, if not addressed at an early stage, will lead to higher costs. LIFE 
offers the possiblity for stakeholders (public and private) to find solutions to these problems 
and a direct channel for influencing EU decision making, such as modification of BREF and 
BATs or even proposing the development of new legislation and demonstrating the economic 
feasibility of these solutions.  

Illustration: finding cost-effective solutions for emerging environmental policy 

PAMELA:  Based  on  the  results  of  the  PAMELA  project  (Process  for  Advanced  Management  of  End  of  Life  Aircraft), 
Airbus set up sustainable proccess for aircraft dismantling and recovery applicable across the sector and recommended the 
development  of  EU  legislation  for  this  waste  stream.  TARMAC  (Tarbes  Advanced  Recycling  and  Maintenance  Aircraft 
Company) was established in 2007 to provide parking and dismantling services for some of the 6,000 aircrafts that will retire 
during the next 20 years. TARMAC has already started work on dismantling aircraft and Airbus sees the TARMAC site at 
Tarbes as the first of a network, all of which will apply the lessons learned from PAMELA. 

RECYSHIP: The main expected results of this ongoing project are optimised processes for decontamination and dismantling 
of end-of-life ships, the definition of suitable areas for possible installation (based on capacity and ecological criteria) and the 
development of a good environmental management system for European ships. The project also intends to provide support to 
future EU legislation for ship dismantling. 

BIOAGRO project: Support for methods to reduce Greenhouse gas output in the agricultural sector leading to the setting up 
of a complete facility for producing a carbon neutral biomass pellet fuel. This project was targeted towards developing and 
implementing an innovative method to reduce greenhouse gas output from the agricultural sector. The project involved the 
seed industry, combustion technology industry and academia.  

84

 
 
 
 
 
2.5.  Increased effectiveness and efficiency of EU level intervention: creating critical 

mass 

Changing  behaviours  is  one  of  the  most  challenging  aspects  of  EU  environmental  policy. 
LIFE has created partnerships between different Member States' authorities and specialists in 
communication to develop campaigns that raise awareness among authorities, citizens and the 
private  sector  on  the  need  to  adopt  more  sustainable  practices.  Without  LIFE,  the 
geographical impact of such campaigns would have been much more limited. 

Illustration: Changing behaviours by EU joined action 

European day 'In town, without my car?' (subsequently becoming the European Mobility Week): In 2002, the campaign 
succeeded  in  establishing  a  truly  European  initiative  with  320  cities  from  21  countries  taking  part  in  European  Mobility 
Week.  A  second  event  held  in  September  2003  consisted  of  a  week-long  series  of  awareness-raising  events  focusing  on 
various aspects of sustainable mobility. Mobility Week succesfully continues taking place in Europe and is now spreading to 
the rest of the world via grassroots networks. 

The European Week of Waste Reduction. The LIFE project EWWR aims to reduce the amount of waste generated in the 
EU  by  mobilising  all  relevant  actors  in  a  EU-wide  awareness-raising  campaign  and  changing  behaviours  of  different 
stakeholders in their waste generation. 4 Member States have joined to develop a common strategy as well as tools to carry 
out awareness-raising activities on recycling around the EU over one week every year. In 2009, 2,672 initiatives were carried 
out, in 2010 there were 4,346 in 24 countries reflecting the success of the event. In 2011 expectations are even higher. 

85

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 7:   ASSESSMENT OF THE LIFE+ REGULATION: DATA USED TO CALCULATE THE 

IMPACTS OF THE BASELINE SCENARIO 

1 

The LIFE+ Regulation (2007-2013) 

For the assessment of the LIFE+ Regulation, assumptions have been the following:  

• 

• 

• 

• 

the  basic  objectives  and  structure  of  the  instrument  remain  the  same  (and  that  the 
completion of the 6EAP in 2012 is followed by a replacement statement that continues 
to define the strategic policy objectives for the next programme period); 

the current allocation of €2.2  billion over 7 years (€300m per year) remains the same 
in real terms; 

the  emerging  policy  needs,  in  so  far  as  they  differ  from  the  current  period,  are 
reflected  in  the  strategic  policy  statement  and  hence  in  the  different  delivery 
mechanisms; 

the  priority  recommendations  adopted  from  the  mid-term  evaluation  (MTE)  of  the 
regulation  are  implemented.  They  aim  to  improve  the  policy  focus  and  multiplier 
value of the instrument and also to allow funding of activities in third countries where 
it delivers EU added value. 

The impact assessment has focused on the use of action grants given their significance in the 
overall  instrument,  but  also  includes  consideration  of  the  impacts  of  the  operating  grants  to 
NGOs. The scale and type of public procurement expenditure is the same for all options and 
is therefore not included in the impact assessment. The assessment of action grants is based 
on a survey of project beneficiaries contracted under the first three years of the programme. 
The table below provides a summary of the responses received. These response rates provide 
the  basis  of  grossing-up  survey  responses.  Based  on  the  first  three  years,  the  annual 
investment  cost  of  the  programme  (including  Member  State  investment)  is:  Nature  and 
Biodiversity (NAT): €199m; Environmental Po licy & Governance (EPG):  €223m; nformation 
& Communications (INF): €17m; Total: €438m. 

Table 1.1 Summary of the LIFE+ Action Grant projects contracted (2007-2009) and survey responses 

NAT*  

EPG 

INF 

Total 

FUNDING – Total Investment 
(€ million)  

PROJECTS 
(Number) 

Total 

Sample 

215 

288 

39 

37 

90 

13 

Response 
Rate 

17% 

31% 

33% 

Total 

Sample 

563 

668 

50 

63 

238 

14 

147 

549 
Source: EC LIFE+ monitoring records and GHK survey returns 
*Excludes 7 projects and €33m of funding for marine projects 

1,318 

27% 

348 

Response 
Rate 

11% 

36% 

29% 

26% 

In  the  context  of  a  proposal  for  a  specific  instrument  for  environment  and  climate  action, 
activities  that  address  climate  change  are  included.  In  the  case  of  nature  projects,  these 
contribute  directly  to  climate  adaptation  through  contributing  to  eco-system  resilience  and 
explicit climate adaptation functions, such as flood management. In the case of EPG, climate 
change  is  an  explicit  policy  theme  and  has  been  recognised  as  a  priority  theme  in  calls  for 
proposals. In the first three years of the current programme 28% of contracted EPG funding 
was provided to projects classified under the climate change theme. The assessment of action 

86

 
 
 
 
the 

three  sub-components  of  Nature  and  Biodiversity  (NAT); 
grants  has  covered 
Environmental  Policy  &  Governance  (EPG);  and  Information  &  Communications  (INF). 
Given  the  early  stages  of  projects  and  the  emphasis  in  some  projects  on  results  that  only 
indirectly influence environmental impacts, the assessment focuses on projects funded under 
NAT and EPG.  

1.1. 

Impact  assessment  of  action  grants  for  Nature  &  Biodiversity  (NAT)  and 
Environmental Policy & Governance (EPG) 

The  impact  of  the  NAT  and  EPG  projects  has  been  assessed  in  terms  of  the  physical 
environmental  impacts,  the  economic  value  of  these  benefits  in  so  far  as  relevant  external 
costs  have  been  identified,  and  any  related  economic  and  social  impacts  identified  by  the 
projects.  It  is  important  to  recognise  that  the  projects,  especially  those  only  recently 
contracted,  have  yet  to  be  completed.  The  assessment  is  therefore  based  on  the  best 
assessments of project managers as to the likely future impact of the projects.41 Projects were 
asked to anticipate the impact three years after the end of the project, recognising a period of 
elapsed time would be required before the full impacts of the projects could be realised. 

1.1.1.  Environmental Impacts 

The environmental impact has been examined by reference to a series of indicators selected to 
reflect  the  nature  of  the  projects,  and  withthe  aim  to  maintain  some  consistency  with  the 
indicators  previously  used  in  the  ex-post  assessment  of  the  LIFE  III  programme  (see  in 
section 2 the list of indicators used in the assessment). The relevant estimates of the value of 
the environmental impacts have been sourced from the literature.   

(a) 

Nature & Biodiversity 

In the case of NAT projects, the assessment has examined the impacts by broad habitat type. 
The reported impacts for selected indicators are shown in the Table 1.2. below. 

Table 1.2  Reported impacts on habitats: Expected impacts of LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity projects on 

selected indicators 42 

Selected Indicators 

Survey Response 

Applied to All Projects* 

No of 
Habitats/A
reas/ 
Species 

Area (Ha) 

No of 
Habitats/Areas 
/ Species 

Area (Ha) 

Habitats that will be created or re-created 

25 

684 

200 

6,100 

Habitats that will be restored 

1,221 

242,518 

10,800 

2,154,100 

Habitats that will be brought under 
sympathetic management 

2,172 

114,733 

19,300 

1,019,100 

Priority areas protected from invasive species  

20 

9,666 

200 

85,900 

Species and area of habitats that will benefit 
from local biodiversity action 

108 

163,060 

1,000 

1,448,300 

*Grossed up results based on the share of total project investment reported. 

41 See also the Ex Post Evaluation of Projects and Activities Financed under the LIFE Programme. Available 
from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/evaluation/. 
42 These figures relate to impacts that are expected to be seen after three years of the project ending. The figures 
therefore relate to expected not achieved results – no projects under the current programme have finished. 

87

 
 
 
                                                 
The  total  area  benefitting  from  projects  is  of  around  4.7m  hectares  of  land.  This  represents 
some 6% of the total area of the designated Natura 2000 terrestrial sites. Although a number 
of  responses  were  received  from  marine  based  projects,  these  are  not  included  in  the  above 
results, which are based only on terrestrial projects, including coastal projects.  

The  reported  environmental  impacts  have  been converted  into  an  estimated  economic  value 
using published externality values for eco-system services associated with different types of 
habitat.  These  are  applied  to  estimates  of  the  environmental  impacts  by  habitat  type  as 
reported by projects.  Given the lack of detailed knowledge of the individual projects (e.g. the 
level of quality of the ecosystems within these projects) and the related eco-system benefits, 
the  following  estimate  (Table  1.3)  should  be  taken  as  providing  only  a  very  approximate 
estimate  of  the  economic  value  of  the  environmental  benefits.  The  externality  values  are 
based on case studies of the economic value of eco-system services. These cases include the 
impacts of substantial changes in eco-system services. 

Table 1.3 

Indicator 

Indicative annual economic value of the environmental benefits provided by Nature 
projects (€m) 

Total value 

Low estimate  
(@ 5%) 

Medium estimate 
(@10%) 

Higher estimate 
(@15%) 

Habitats that will be created or re-
created 

Habitats that will be restored 

Habitats that will be brought under 
sympathetic management 

53 

6,280 

1,943 

3 

314 

97 

5 

628 

194 

Total 

414 
*Grossed up results based on the share of total projects reporting. 

8,276 

828 

8 

942 

291 

1,241 

Three habitat types are responsible for most of the benefits calculated above as they are often 
the main focus of valuation studies: freshwater habitats (accounting for half of the benefits), 
and coastal habitats and forests each accounting for around 20% of benefits.  

The  estimated  value  of  benefits  takes  a  conservative  approach,  assuming  the  benefits  are 
between  5%  and  15%  of  the  published  externality  values  to  provide  an  indicative  estimate 
only.  This  indicates  an  annual  benefit  of  between  €400m  a nd  €1,200m.  It  is  extremely 
unlikely that the benefits are less than this, but likely that benefits in fact exceed this range. 
On an annual basis, taking the low estimate, the benefits represent twice the total investment 
cost  of  the  projects  (of  €199 m).  Using  the  higher  estimate,  benefits  are  six  times  the 
investment cost. This excludes any economic or social impacts, described below. The benefits 
are also expected to last for many years (although management costs will be required). Taking 
the low estimate and assuming the benefits last for 10 years, the discounted (at 4%) present 
value would be €3.2 billion, almost six times  the total investment cost (€562m). 

See section 4 for a detailed analysis of habitat improvement. 

(b) 

Environmental Policy & Governance (EPG) 

The  analysis  of  Environment  Policy  &  Governance  (EPG)  projects  has  focused  on  those 
projects  anticipating  physical  environmental  outcomes.  33  of the  68  projects  that  responded 
provided  estimates.  These  are  summarised  in  Table  1.4.  Significant  impacts  are  reported  in 
terms  of  expected  reductions  in  CO2  emissions,  the  area  and  people  likely  to  benefit  from 
improved air quality, the area of soil erosion prevented, and the reductions in non-hazardous 
solid waste generation. 

88

 
 
Table 1.4 

Reported environmental impacts (selected indicators) 

Theme 

Indicator  

Unit 

Survey 
Response 

Grossed 
Response* 

Climate Change 

Expected reduction in emissions of CO2 or 
other greenhouse gases 

Tons/year 

152,467 

933,000** 

Water 

Water 

Water 

Air  

Air  

Air  

Air  

Air  

Soil 

Area of rivers/lakes that will have improved 
quality 

Likely improvement in areas meeting national 
quality standards/ targets 

Area with likely improved groundwater quality 

Ha 

Ha 

Ha 

507,850 

1,604,000 

495,800 

1,566,000 

5,931 

19,000 

Likely improvement of air quality 

Km2 

10,410 

30,000 

Likely improvement of air quality 

No of people 
(m) 

4 

12 

Likely increase in area with ambient air quality 
meeting EU air quality standards 

Likely reduction in emissions of noxious gasses 
(e.g. SO2, NOx, NMVOC an NH3) 

Expected decrease in CO2 emissions through 
use of private cars  

Km2 

5,400 

16,000 

Tons/year 

1,700 

5,000** 

Tons/year 

50,400 

147,000** 

Expected reduction of soil erosion 

Ha (000) 

2,000 

7,000** 

Urban environment  

Expected reduction in CO2 emissions through 
increase in bicycle traffic 

Tons/year 

4,803 

20,000** 

Urban environment  

Expected reduction in CO2 emissions through 
reduction in car traffic  

Tons/year 

6,301 

27,000** 

Env& Health 

People that will be better protected from air 
pollution by particles 

No of people 
(m) 

Natural resources & 
waste  

Likely reduction in energy consumption 

KwH/Year 

1 

3 

1 

35 

Natural resources 
and waste  

Likely reduction in use of limited or non-
renewable natural resource 

Tons/year 

10,105 

119,000 

Natural resources 
and waste  

Likely reduction in non-hazardous solid waste 
generation 

Tons/year 

27,080 

318,000** 

Natural resources 
and waste  

Likely increase in recycling of waste 

Tons/year 

82,435 

968,000** 

Forests 

Forest Area that will be better protected 

Ha (000) 

2,000 

33,000 

*Grossed up results based on the share of total project investment reported by theme. 
** Used to estimate the economic value of environmental impacts. 

Indicators  were  chosen  based  on  indicators  used  in  the  ex-post  assessment  of  LIFE.  Project 
beneficiaries (2007-2009) were then asked to attribute an expected impact to each indicator. 
The  economic  value  of  these  environmental  benefits  has  been  calculated  based  on  the 
application  of  published  externality  estimates.  It  is  difficult  without  knowing  the  specific 
details and context of the project to be confident that the application of externality values is 
justified. However, in the case of estimates of reductions in emissions or wastes (rather than 
changes  in  environmental  quality),  externalities  can  be  applied  with  more  confidence  to 
provide  a  conservative  assessment.  This  means  that  indicators  of  changes  in  air  and  water 
quality are not included. 

89

 
 
The externality values relevant to each indicator are taken from the literature (see Annex 5). It 
should  however  be  emphasised  that,  the  transfer  of  externality  estimates  does  lead  to  some 
uncertainty, which has been minimised by excluding indicators of environmental quality, and 
has  not  therefore  been  reflected  in  the  calculation  of  a  range  –  whilst  the  benefit  estimates 
should only be taken as being indicative, because of the exclusions they can be taken as the 
minimum or a ‘low’ estimate. On this basis, the economic value of the environmental benefits 
provided by Environment projects could be in the order of €200 million per year (Table 1.5). 
This  represents  the  minimum  level  of  benefit.  Substantial  economic  benefits  are  also 
potentially associated with health benefits (improved air quality and reduced particulates and 
improved forest protection). 

Table 1.5 Indicative  annual  economic  value  of  the  environmental  benefits  provided  by  Environment 

projects (€m) 

Indicator  

Unit 

Estimated 
Impact 

Externality 
Value (€)* 

Economic 
Value (€m) 

% of 
Total 

Expected reduction in emissions of CO2 or 
other greenhouse gases 

Likely reduction in emissions of noxious 
gasses (e.g. SO2, NOx, NMVOC an NH3) 

Expected decrease in CO2 emissions 
through reduction in use of private cars  

Tons/year 

5,000 

1,308 

Tons/year 

147,000 

Tons/year 

933,000 

120 

112 

58% 

Expected reduction of soil erosion 

Ha (000) 

7,000 

Expected reduction in CO2 emissions 
through increase in bicycle traffic 

Expected reduction in CO2 emissions 
through reduction in car traffic  

Likely reduction in non-hazardous solid 
waste generation 

Tons/year 

20,000 

Tons/year 

27,000 

Tons/year 

318,000 

Likely increase in recycling of waste 

Tons/year 

968,000 

Total annual economic value 

120 

5 

120 

120 

11 

11 

6 

18 

38 

2 

3 

3 

11 

194 

3% 

9% 

20% 

1% 

2% 

2% 

5% 

100% 

*Externality value relates to the selected indicator unit, e.g. tons of CO2 per year. 
Note that the different indicators relating to CO2 emissions reflect activities under different themes and does not 
reflect any double-counting. 

On an annual basis, taking the minimum benefit estimate of the 2007-09 projects, the benefits 
are  around  the  same  as  the  total  investment  cost  of  the  projects  (of  €223m).  This  excludes 
significant  environmental  benefits  that  cannot  be  monetised  as  well  as  economic  and  social 
benefits, described below, which are substantial. Environmental benefits are also expected to 
last for many years. Assuming the benefits last for 10 years, the discounted (at 4%) present 
value would be €1.6 billion, two and a half times the total investment cost (€668m). 

To  summarise,  the  environmental  impacts  of  the  LIFE+  Regulation  are  substantial.  In 
addition  to  the  quantified  benefits  of  some  €600m  a  year,  which  are  based  on  conservative 
estimates,  the  instrument  leads  to  the  improved  conservation  and  restoration  of  some  4.7m 
hectares  of  land,  representing  some  6%  of  the  total  area  of  the  designated  Natura  2000 
terrestrial  sites.  It  also  supports  a  wide  range  of  environmental  improvements  including 
improvements  in  water  quality  over  an  area  of  approximately  3  million  hectares; 
improvements  in  air  quality  affecting  some  12  million  people;  and  reductions  in  waste  of 
some 300,000 tonnes and the recycling of a further 1 million tonnes.   

90

 
 
 
 
 
1.1.2.  Economic and Social Impacts of Nature and EPG Projects 

The  economic  and  social  impacts  of  the  Action  Grants,  as  reported  by  Nature  and  EPG 
projects, are summarised in Table 1.6, for the indicators selected for the Impact Assessment. 
Key impacts include: 

•  a total investment of some €600m is being  made in technology outcomes by EPG projects. 
In  addition  Nature  projects  are  investing  €380 m  in  new  approaches  and  techniques  for 
nature conservation;  

• 

the additional sales generated by the development of new products from EPG projects of 
€2.7billion, generating around €1.1 billion of GVA 43;  

•  substantial health impacts both from the investment in improved natural environments and 

from improvements in environmental quality affecting over 12 million people; 

•  modest  but  positive  employment  impacts  of  some  2,000  jobs44  associated  with  the 
continuation  of  project  activity  post  LIFE  funding  and  indirect  economic  benefits  of  a 
further 18,000 jobs based on additional sales of new products45. 

43GVA accounts for 40% of environmental technology sales, based on DG Environment, 2007, Table 4.4. Total 
sales of eco-industries was estimated to be €319  billion in 2008 (2008 prices), (Ecorys, 2009). 
44 In terms of social impacts, a recent analysis on the economic benefits of environmental policy concluded that 
the Natura 2000 network could be supportive of 122,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs in the regions where the 
sites are located, if adequately resourced and managed. If indirect and induced effects are taken into account, this 
could amount to 207,000 FTE jobs at the EU level. However, these job estimates must also be treated with some 
caution  as  it  is  not  possible  to  control  for  negative  or  positive  impacts  in  other  sectors  (Rayment  et  al  (2009) 
within Kettunen et al (2011). 
45  €147k  of  environmental  technology  sales  supports  one  job  (including  multiplier  effets),  based  on  DG 
Environment, 2007, Table 4.4. 

91

 
 
                                                 
Table 1.6  Estimated economic and social impacts of LIFE Projects (for selected indicators) 

Impact Indicators 

NATURE & Biodiversity  Projects 

EPG Projects 

Additional 
technology 
outcomes 

64% of the investment in projects will lead to the demonstration 
or development of new methods, techniques or approaches for 
species or habitat creation. 
The total investment in technical outcomes is therefore €380m 
for NAT projects. 
e.g. new methods for marine monitoring such as remote 
sensing, new approach to wetland restoration, pilot techniques 
for conservation of amphibians 

88% of the investment in projects will result in new methods, new techniques 
and/or new approaches. 
The total investment in technology outcomes is therefore €590m for EPG 
projects. 
e.g. new innovative tools and methods for interactive and co-creative citizens, a 
new approach for creating a corridor crossing a city and connecting different 
elements of its environmental and cultural heritage and establishing a set of 
certifying criteria  

Additional sales / 
GVA 

11% of projects will include new commercially viable products 
(eg timber). 
(Project beneficiaries were unable to estimate the expected 
annual sales from these products) 

44% of  projects will lead to new commercially viable products, collectively 
amounting to annual sales of €2.3bn  and  €1.1bn in GVA (assuming GVA 
constitutes 40% of sales)  
e.g. a new water box technology as a more cost effective solution to irrigation 

Economic 
Impacts 

Net cost savings 

27% of project investment (€160m) will lead to cost savings for 
the Competent Authorities. 
(Projects were unable to estimate the annual cost savings)  

57% of project investment (€380m) will lead to cost savings for Competent 
Authorities as a result of new methods, techniques or approaches 
(Projects were unable to estimate the level of annual cost savings) 

NGO contributions 
to policy 

33% of total budget granted for 2007 and 2008 is allocated 
towards environmental policy development and environmental 
policy implementation, some €5m  

22% of total budget granted for 2007 and 2008 is allocated towards 
environmental policy development and environmental policy implementation, 
some €3.5m 

Improvement in 
human health 

4.7m hectares of land (6% of total Natura 2000 designated area) 
will be protected, restored and improved, helping to improve 
human health. 

At least 1 million people will be better protected from particulate pollution and 
some 12 million people will be receive health benefits due to improvements in air 
quality 

Social 
Impacts 

Additional 
employment 

A total of 750 jobs are estimated to be safeguarded as a result of 
the planned continuation of NAT projects post LIFE funding 
A total of 175 jobs will be created as a result of the LIFE+ 
project (mainly from increased tourism) 

A total of 1,000 jobs are estimated to be safeguarded as a result of the planned 
continuation of EPG projects post LIFE funding 
Projects were expected to continue for varying lengths of time, between 2 years 
and 5 years 
An estimated 18,000 jobs from additional sales of €2.7 bn of new products 

Source: Based on the survey response of project beneficiaries 

92

 
 
1.2.  

Impact assessment of Information and Communication 

The  main  driver  behind  the  introduction  of  the  new  Information  and  Communication 
component  to  the  LIFE  Programme  was  the  political  perception  that  there  was  a  need  for 
greater  communication  of  the  LIFE+  Regulation  to  take  place,  and  to  “bring  environmental 
policy closer to the citizens.”  The main aim of the component has been to actively promote 
EU  environmental  policies  through  information,  communication,  awareness-raising  and 
dialogue, helping to ‘empower’ individuals and groups in European civil society, as well as 
other  stakeholders  such  as  industry  and  local  authorities  to  participate  in  an  informed  and 
active manner in the protection of the environment and the sustainable use of resources. The 
aim  is  that,  by  enhancing  their  ownership  of  environmental  policy,  more  effective 
implementation can be achieved. 

In the first three calls of LIFE+ (2007,2008 and 2009), 38 projects were selected for funding 
under the Information and Communications component, accounting for just over €24 million 
in EC contributions (total sum of investment was €49 million). 12 of these projects related to 
nature  and  biodiversity  (with  forest  fires  and  climate  change  accounting  for  a  further  11). 
Many  of  these  projects  aim  to  raise  awareness  amongst  the  general  public  (some  with  a 
particular focus on sub-groups such as schoolchildren and consumers), visitors to Natura 2000 
sites, landowners/farmers and other stakeholders, of the importance of nature and biodiversity 
conservation,  and  to  educate  their  targeted  audience  on  the  effect  that  human  activities  can 
have on the  local  environment.  Other  projects aim  to  raise  awareness  of  a  number  of  target 
groups of either broader topics (e.g. climate change and its impacts on the local community) 
or  more  specific  issues  that  are  aimed  at  a  narrower  target  audience,  such  as  improving  the 
understanding of the olive oil industry of the need to introduce more sustainable production 
and consumption practices.  

However,  as  a  result  of  the  indirect  influence  the  projects  have  on  realising  environmental 
benefits, it is not possible to quantify a specific impact.  

1.3. 

Impact assessment of operating grants 

A summary of the impacts of NGOs is presented below, based on evidence collected during 
the MTE. In summary, the assessment indicates that the funding represents value for money.  

Progress of NGOs using outcome indicator data 

An  analysis  of  the  operational  funding  of  NGOs  for  2007  and  2008  undertaken  in  the  mid-term  evaluation  showed  that  a 
substantial  proportion  of  the  budget  is  used  for  policy  development  (27%),  policy  implementation  (28%),  with  external 
capacity building, awareness raising and enlargement and third countries being smaller fields of activity. 

An analysis of reported outcome indicators (based on the indicators reported by the NGOs on the actual application of funds 
retrieved  in  the  2008  programme  and  data  on  estimated  values  for  the  2009  programme)  showed  that  the  most  common 
activities  undertaken  by  the  NGOs  were  press  releases,  participation  in  conferences  and  written  submissions  to  the 
Commission. In contrast, attention to non compliance and infringement procedures appeared to be less of a priority for the 
EU-wide operating funded NGOs.  

Conclusions 

•  A  large  number  of  NGOs  have  undertaken  a  broad  range  of  activities  to  contribute  towards  improved  EU  policy 

implementation and development. For example, they have: 

o 
o 
o 

Served as hubs for a growing number of national and international environmental organisations.  
Provided information about existing and upcoming policies 
Informed EU decision makers about the views and demands of their members and sought their support, 
as  well  as  working  in  coalitions  with  other  organisations  (including  those  outside  the  environmental 
movement) to have their views accepted 

93 

 
 
 
 
•  Much of the success of NGOs is related to their ability to:  

o  Defend or increase the ambitions of EU legislation, and campaign for real implementation of legislation 

or policy priorities.  

o  Assist in increasing transparency and public participation. 
o  Contribute to integration of environmental concerns into other policies through the provision of specific 

expertise. 

o  Help  members  better  understand  EU  environmental  policies,  to  better  mobilise  the  public  and  decision 

makers to support a progressive role for the EU on environment and sustainable development. 

However, it is relatively difficult to assess the progress NGOs have made with respect to such objectives using quantitative 
outcome  indicators  such  as  those  above.  Data  suggests  that  NGOs  use  a  wide  variety  of  activities  and  undertake  different 
tasks to achieve their aims. The nature and level of activity varies significantly between NGOs, reflecting in part the level of 
specialisation of the particular NGO. 

1.4.  Effects of the revisions made following the mid-term evaluation 

The programme has been revised in two main ways following the mid-term evaluation. The 
first change was to address the recommendation that calls for proposals reflect a stronger link 
to EC policy needs. The second change, supported by legal opinion, was to allow funding of 
activity in third countries where it provided EU added value. 

The  impact  assessment  has  briefly  considered  the  potential  effects  of  these  changes.  In  the 
former  case,  a  review  of  the  responses  to  the  first  call  to  have  a  stronger  priority  focus 
(climate  change)  did  not  produce  any  major  or  obvious  difference  in  the  balance  of  themes 
reflected in the applications to that in previous calls. In the case of the second, there has been 
limited time for any cases to be identified.  

The MTE also emphasised the importance of increasing the multiplier effects from projects. 
However, this will need to be reflected in the assessment of bids and management of projects; 
and only demonstrated some time after. The proposed use of Integrated Projects to assist in 
this process will not be available until the next period. It is therefore not possible to include 
any specific allowance for this in this assessment. 

Finally,  the  MTE  also  raised  a  concern  over  the  use  of  the  National  Allocations  and  MS 
specified priorities, potentially leading to a reduced level of EU added value. A response to 
this conclusion cannot be implemented in the context of the baseline scenario. 

Whilst  there  is  recognition  of  the  value  of  key  changes,  they  are  unlikely  to  have  an 
immediate short-term impact. 

1.5.  EU added value and subsidiarity 

In accordance with the provisions of the Treaty, the priorities of the Budget Review and the 
current LIFE Regulation, the findings of the MTE, as well as views from stakeholders during 
the  Impact  Assessment,  confirm  the  strong  rationale  and  relevance  of  the  instrument, 
operating  at  the  EU  level  in  support  of  the  shared  responsibilities  between  the  EU  and 
Member  States  for  environmental  protection.  The  findings  also  confirm  the  actual  and 
potential scope to achieve EU added value. This added value is based on activity largely at the 
local level which supports burden sharing and the engagement of civil society in EU policy 
making and contributes directly to meeting EU environmental policy needs and priorities. 

The impacts presented above, would have been unlikely to have been generated without the 
programme  and  the  associated  EU  spending;  the  analysis  in  the  zero  option  confirmed  the 
small  level  of  deadweight  associated  with  the  programme.  As  noted  the  programme  has 

94 

 
 
 
facilitated local action in support of EU policy needs, particularly where the collective lessons 
of groups of projects around particular policy themes provide a critical mass of evidence and 
lessons for wider replication; which would otherwise not have been undertaken, or if it had 
then at higher taxpayer expense.   

However,  the  inability  to  generate  strong  multiplier  value,  either  through  projects  with  the 
scale to create spillovers and knock-on effects, or by leveraging other financial instruments in 
pursuit  of  environmental  objectives  was  also  raised  in  the  MTE.  Subsequent  instruments 
should  therefore  recognise  a  requirement  for  stronger,  but  non-exclusive  priorities,  clearly 
reflecting EU needs, expressed through multi-annual work programmes; the use of integrated 
projects to leverage wider funding; and greater use of national as well local projects to address 
institutional weaknesses.  

The MTE, and subsequently the report of the European Economic and Social Committee on 
the  MTE,46also  raised  concerns  over  the  current  use  of  national  allocations  to  provide  an 
affective basis for enabling the required levels of responsibility sharing. As noted above, the 
MTE  raised  the  concern  of  a  potential  conflict  over  the  quality  of  projects,  where  national 
allocations dictated the selection of projects, that although judged to be eligible, provided less 
EU added value than projects that would otherwise have been selected.  

46 Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council:  Mid-term  review  of  the  LIFE+  Regulation,  COM(2010)  516  final, 
15/03/11. 

95 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
2 

Indicators used for the assessment 

2.1 

Environment,  Policy  and  Governance  -  Environmental  Impact  indicators  by 
theme 

(Impacts expected to be seen 3 years after the project has ended) 

Theme 

Indicator 

Climate Change 

Expected reduction in emissions of CO2 or other 
greenhouse gases (expressed in CO equivalent) 

Unit 

Tons/year 

Expected reduction in emissions of Ozone Depleting 
Substances (ODS)  

Tons/year 

Air   

Likely improvement of air quality 

Likely increase in area with ambient air quality 
meeting EU air quality standards  

Number of people that will be 
affected  
Area km2 

Increase in area - km2 
Expected population living in 
the area 

Likely reduction in emissions of noxious gasses (e.g. 
SO2, NOx, NMVOC an NH3) 

Tons/year 

Likely reduction in use of private cars  

Expected decrease in km 
travelled per year 
Expected Reduction in CO2 
emissions Tons/day 

Likely improvement of ecosystem negatively affected 
by acidification 

Number of ecosystems that will 
be improved  

Water 

Area that will be protected against adverse effects of 
flooding 

Area km2 

People that will be  protected against adverse effects 
of flooding 

Number of people that will be  
protected 

Area of rivers/lakes that will have improved quality 
(chemical, microbiological or ecological) 

Area -  ha 

Likely improvement in areas meeting national quality 
standards/ targets 

Area – ha  

Area with likely improved groundwater quality 

Area – ha  

Area that will be protected against adverse effects of 
flooding 

Area – ha  

People that will be protected against adverse effects 
of flooding 

Number of people that will be  
protected  

Volume of urban wastewater that will meet EC 
Directive 91/271 requirements 

Volume of urban waste water discharges that will be 
shifted from untreated to treated 

Volume of industrial waste water discharges that will 
have enhanced quality regarding hazardous chemical 
substances 

Volume - m3/year 

Volume - m3/year 

Volume - m3 

Likely reduction in energy consumption  

MJ/year 

Likely reduction in water consumption  

Likely reduction in use of limited or non-renewable 
natural resources  

Volume - m3/year 

Tons or m3/year 

96 

Natural Resources 
and Waste  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Likely reduction in non-hazardous solid waste 
generation  

Tons/year 

Likely reduction in hazardous waste generation  

Tons/year 

Likely increase in recycling of waste  

Chemicals 

Expected reduction in use of hazardous chemical 
substances (e.g. CMR or PBT11)  

Tons/year 

Tons/year 

Expected substitution of hazardous substances  

Number of substances 

Sustainable Urban 
Development  

Expected increase in size of urban recreational/ green 
areas  

Area - ha 

Expected increase in pedestrian/ bicycle paths in 
cities 

Area - km 

Expected increase in bicycle traffic 

Expected reduction in car traffic  

Km/year 
Expected reduction in CO2 
emissions Tons/day 

Km/year 
Expected reduction in CO2 
emissions Tons/day 

Expected success of recreational/green area  

Number of users/year 

Strategic 
Approaches  

Will eco-friendly products be introduced 

State Yes/No 
Number of products 

Goods that will be purchased under green 
procurement system  

Number of companies that will 
be involved 

Tourists expected to  be on sustainable travel 
arrangements 

Number of tourists  

House units that will be constructed in accordance 
with sustainable building principles 

Number of house units that will 
be constructed  

Please state any other expected impacts 

Soil  

Expected area of improved soil quality  

Expected extent of reduced soil erosion  

Please state any other expected impacts  

Area – km2 

Area – km2 

Noise 

Expected reduction in environmental noise caused by 
traffic  

Decibels 

Reduction in environmental noise caused by 
industrial activities  

Reduction in environmental noise caused by 
recreational activities 

Please state any other expected impacts 

Decibels 

Decibels 

Environment and 
Health  

People that will be better protected from air pollution 
by particles   

Number of people  

People that will be  better protected from air pollution 
by ozone 

Number of people 

Please state any other expected impacts 

97 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
2.2 

Nature & Biodiversity Environmental Impacts  

(Impacts expected to be seen 3 years after the project has ended)  

Indicator 

Land Purchase  

Habitats that will be created or re-created  

Habitats that will be restored  

Habitats that will be brought under favourable  
management.  

Favourable conservation status that will be achieved 
for species /habitats  

Species that will be  reintroduced  

Invasive species that will be controlled  

Unit 

Area (ha)  

Area - ha 
Number of habitats created/re-created 

Area - ha 
Number of habitats restored  

Area - ha 
Number of habitats brought under 
sympathetic management  

Number of species listed on directive 
annexes  
Number of  habitats achieving favourable 
status  
Number of  priority habitats achieving 
favourable status  
Overall % change in conservation status 
from before the project to after  

Number of individual species reintroduced  
Original population 

Area - ha 
Number of invasive species that will be 
controlled  
Number of  priority habitats protected 

Demonstration of the wider applicability of the 
technique(s) applied 

State Yes/No  
Type of audience   

Species and area of habitats that will benefit from 
local biodiversity action 

Area ha 
Number and type of species  

Please state any other impacts expected 

3 

Activities, outputs and results of the LIFE+ Action Grants 

3.1 

Analysis of the Nature and Biodiversity survey 

3.1.1  Administration costs 

(a) 

Costs of Bidding 

The  cost  to  applicants  of  bidding  for  LIFE  Nature  funding  was  €12,000  per  project,  taking 
into account the administration and technical staff time involved. The main cost was the time 
required  to  write  and  submit  the  bid.  Given  an  average  project  size  of  €2.2m,  the  bid  cost 
represented 0.6% of project value.  

The  table  below  provides  a  breakdown  of  the  average  number  of  hours  spent  on  each  task 
during  the  bidding  stage  per  project,  divided  between  administrative  and  professional  staff. 
This indicates that the cost of profession staff accounts for 69% of the total cost. 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 3.1.  

LIFE+ Nature Projects – Average time and cost spent on the application 
process per project bid 

Bid tasks  

Researching 
Funding options 

Negotiating, 
conceiving and 
writing the 
proposal 

Submitting the 
proposal to the 
competent 
authority 

Answering 
Commission 
requests 

Negotiating/ 
signing the 
contracts 

Total 

Administrati
ve staff - 
hours 

Technical/ 
Professional - 
hours 

Administrative 
staff - cost € 

Technical/ 
Professional - 
cost € 

Total - cost € 

% 

19 

21 

447 

554 

1,002 

8% 

80 

162 

1,896 

4,245 

6,141 

51% 

22 

24 

12 

156 

88 

24 

26 

321 

513 

2,313 

2,826 

23% 

564 

635 

1,199 

10% 

294 

3,715 

677 

8,424 

971 

8% 

12,139 

100% 

Source: GHK project survey (n= 44). 
Notes: Average cost per hour based on: 
▪ 
▪ 

Administrative staff time - €24/hour. 
Technical & Professional staff time €26/hour. 

(b) 

Costs of Project Management 

The  cost  to  beneficiaries  of  the  administration  and  management  of  the  project  including 
reporting,  taking  into  account  the  administrative  and  technical  staff  time  involved,  was 
€25,500,  1.2%  of  project  value.  The  largest  item  of  cost  is  the  planned  expenditure  on  the 
preparation of the Final Report, account for a third of costs. 

Figure 3.2. Stakeholder involvement 

Public Authorities

82%

NGOs

59%

Universities and research organisations

Policy Makers

Farm ers

Private com panies

Other 

23%

43%

41%

41%

39%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Source:  GHK  LIFE  Nat  Survey,  Base  =  44  respondents.    More  than  one  stakeholder  could  be  involved  in  a 
project. 

The  table  below  provides  a  breakdown  of  the  average  number  of  hours  spent  on  each  task 
during  the  project  management  stage  per  project,  divided  between  administrative  and 
technical staff time, and the subsequent average cost per project. This indicates that the cost of 
profession staff accounts for 66% of the total cost. 

99 

 
 
 
 
Table 3.3 

LIFE+ Nature Projects – Time and cost spent on the project management reporting and 
information obligations per project 

Project management 
tasks 

Administrative 
staff - hours 

Technical/ 
Professional - 
hours 

Administrative 
staff - cost € 

Technical/ 
Professional - 
cost € 

Total - 
cost € 

% 

Preparation of the 
inception report 

Preparation of mid-
term report 

Preparation of final 
report 

Preparation of 
layman's report 

Notification activities 
linked to changes to 
the grant agreement 
other than amendments 

Amendments to the 
grant agreement 

Visits of the 
monitoring team 

Visits of the 
Commission 

Other 

39 

89 

97 

12 

9 

32 

33 

21 

36 

85 

91 

195 

55 

42 

53 

61 

52 

4 

925 

2,232 

3,158 

12% 

2,106 

2,387 

4,493 

18% 

2,310 

5,113 

7,423 

29% 

284 

1,449 

1,732 

7% 

220 

761 

779 

500 

855 

1,104 

1,324 

5% 

1,398 

2,159 

8% 

1,590 

2,369 

9% 

1,364 

1,864 

112 

967 

7% 

4% 

638 

8,741 

16,749 

25,490 

100% 

368 

Total 
Source: GHK project survey (n= 44). 
Notes: Average cost per hour based on: 
▪ 
▪ 

Administrative staff time - €24/hour. 
Technical & Professional staff time €26/hour. 

3.1.2  Activities and Outputs 

The  majority  of  projects  included  activities  related  to  Natura  2000  site  restoration  or 
improvement  (59%).  Natura  2000  management  planning  and  site  survey  or  research  was 
common  conservation  actions  (undertaken  by  48%  and  39%  respectively).    As  shown  in 
Figure 3.4, a further 50% included an element of visitor management and education which is 
in  line  with  the  objective  of  creating  awareness  and  knowledge  sharing.  Natura  2000  site 
creation or land purchase was generally not an important element of the project cohort who 
responded to the survey, whilst ex-situ conservation was not part  of any project  activity for 
those who replied. The most frequently undertaken preparatory actions were inventories and 
studies,  which  were  conducted  by  64%  of  projects.  Whilst  62%  of  respondents  stated  that 
preparatory actions had not changed objectives and planned results, the remainder stated that 
preparatory actions had made objectives clearer and more focused. 

100 

 
 
 
Figure 3.4. The conservation actions that projects are designed to undertake 

Natura 2000 site restoration/im provem ent

59%

Visitor m anagement/ education

Natura 2000 m anagem ent planning

50%

48%

Natura 2000 site survey or research

39%

Biodiversity dem onstration/innovation projects

32%

Species conservation measures outside Natura 2000 sites

Rem oval of alien species 

25%

23%

Habitat conservation m easures outside Natura 2000 sites

18%

Natura 2000 land purchase

16%

Other

Species Reintroduction

14%

14%

Natura 2000 site creation

10%

Ex situ conservation

0%

0%

10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Source: GHK LIFE Nat Survey, Base = 44 respondents. Respondents could choose all options that applied 

3.1.3  Management Results 

Over  half  of  project  beneficiaries  (59%)  felt  that  their  activities  had  helped  to  improve  the 
capacity  of  the  area’s  stakeholders,  through  the  involvement  of  the  local  community  via 
schools and public seminars. In addition, seminars and information days engaged local people 
and demonstration days allowed a larger number of stakeholders, including at the city level, to 
be engaged. Looking forward, the majority of respondents stated that partnerships would be 
established.  For  example,  one  project  aimed  to  establish  a  private  foundation  who  would 
manage restored sites and communication actions aligned through the Park Authority. Others 
stated  more  generic  activity  where  local  authorities,  NGOs  and  public  services  would 
continue  to  co-operate,  including  through  working  groups.    Transnational  co-operation  is 
likely to be established in over half of projects (54%), with all stating that this would improve 
project results or help projects to achieve results at least to some extent.  

The table below summarises the range of management results planned to be produced by the 
projects. 

Figure 3.5. Management results by indicator 

Indicator of management results 

Number of projects 

Share of projects (%) 

Legislative/ policy/ planning documents to be politically approved as a 
result of your project 

Management systems or plans to be introduced 

Implementation of new monitoring or assessment systems 

Land use agreements to be established or land purchase and land 
compensation measures conducted 

Compensation to be provided to  landowners/land users affected by 
projects loss 

Recreational facilities to be established in project area improving 
visitors' numbers/ awareness of area characteristics 

Enlargement of the national Natura 2000 network as a result of the 
project 

Improvement of the conservation status of site(s) in the Natura 2000 

101 

23 

29 

23 

24 

8 

34 

8 

30 

52% 

66% 

52% 

55% 

18% 

77% 

18% 

68% 

 
 
 
 
Indicator of management results 

Number of projects 

Share of projects (%) 

network 

Measurable change evident  in the extent or condition of particular 
priority habitats 
Source: GHK LIFE Nat Survey, Base = 44 respondents. Respondents could choose all results that applied. 

57% 

25 

47%  of  projects  expected  up  to  three  legislative,  policy  or  planning  documents  to  be 
politically  approved  as  a  result  of  their  activity,  with  26%  expecting  one  document  to  be 
approved and 11% stating that five documents would be approved. The URBANBEES project 
states  that  it  will  develop  and  implement  an  action  plan  to  conserve  and  enhance  wild  bee 
diversity in urban habitats. The plan will include guidance on changing conventional practices 
and  the  testing  will  lead  to  a  validated  action  plan,  which  will  be  reproducible  in  other 
European cities. The project expects more than 5 legislative, policy or planning documents to 
be produced. In addition, for the 66% of projects that anticipated, new management systems 
or  plans  would  be  introduced,  the  systems  or  plans  were  expected  to  be  realised  at  varying 
scales  with  72%  of  projects  introducing  management  systems  at  the  local  level,  55%  at  the 
regional  level  and  41%  at  the  national  level.  Over  half  of  the  projects  (52%)  will  include 
implementation of new monitoring or assessment systems at all levels, but particularly at the 
local scale (65%) and regional scale (57%).  

A number of recreational facilities are to be established to improve visitor numbers and/or the 
awareness of the project area’s characteristics. As a result of this activity, several respondents 
were able to estimate an increase in visitor numbers. The average increase in visitor numbers 
was 64% (although these figures varied from 5% to 500%).  

3.1.4  Employment data 

Only 14 projects were able to estimate the increase in employment they expected to occur as a 
result of the LIFE+ project (e.g. from increased tourism to the site). In total these 14 projects 
estimated that they would result in an impact of 35 FTE. 

All projects have to draft an "After-LIFE conservation plan". If projects can not demonstrate 
how  results/activities  will  be  continued  afterwards,  projects  will  not  secure  funding.  
Respondents were asked whether their projects would continue after the LIFE funding period 
as the means by which continuation could be secured and 39% of respondents stated that they 
would. In the other cases, different arrangements are planned to continue the activities. When 
asked  how  many  years  the  impacts  of  the  project  would  last,7%  stated  up  to  5  years,  29% 
stated 5-10 years and 64% stated 10 years or more. 

When asked how many additional people the project would employ answers ranged from no 
additional Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions to 10 additional FTE positions (where 1 full-
time post is equal to 2 part time posts). Some 30 additional positions are being created by the 
respondent projects – a total of 150 FTE jobs across all Nature and Biodiversity projects if the 
sample is fully representative.  

3.1.5  Demonstration and Innovation Results 

64%  of  projects  include  the  demonstration  or  development  of  new  methods,  techniques  or 
approaches  for  species  or  habitat  creation.  When  asked  to  elaborate  on  the  kind  of 
demonstration  and  development,  answers  included  the  development  of  new  grazing 
techniques, the development of early warning systems, measures to control invasive or alien 
species not undertaken within the country and restoration of certain habitats. 

102 

 
 
 
The  results  of  demonstration  or  development  activity  may  lead  to  cost  savings  for  the 
Competent  Authorities  in  some  case  (27%).  However  these  beneficiaries  were  unable  to 
estimate the savings that could potentially be made. 70% of projects promote the sharing or 
upscaling  of  best  practice  through  a  variety  of  methods  including  the  diffusion  of 
demonstrative actions, media, best practice guidance, and the production of recommendations 
or communication activity within local communities (including schools etc).  

3.1.6  Awareness and Replication 

To generate awareness project beneficiaries are required to develop a website. Other methods 
are  also  being  used  (organisation  of  meetings,  workshops  and  conferences,  production  of 
publications, training sessions for local stakeholders etc.).   

Through  awareness  raising  activities,  most  beneficiaries  anticipate  that  their  projects  will 
reach some 500 or more people (59%). When questioned further, projects suggested that the 
target  audience  could  be  up  to  1  million  people.  For  20%  of  the  projects  it  is  expected  that 
between 200 and 500 people will be reached. The majority of project results are designed to 
be replicated (64%) by, for instance, partners, local and regional authorities, NGOs, fisherman 
and farmers and over periods ranging from three years to ten years.  

The results of project activity are likely to benefit a variety of user groups. For example, on 
average, 62 local authorities, 5 national public authorities, 19 businesses and 6150 community 
members will benefit from the results of each project. Other groups who will benefit include 
whole cities, farmers, landowners, NGOs, students and schools. The primary benefits to target 
users  include  increased  awareness,  improvement  to  environmental  quality  and  habitats, 
enhanced technical knowledge, income from tourism and increased visitor numbers. 59% of 
projects will include staff training at the project site. 

3.1.7  Summary of EU Added Value 

Respondents  were  asked  to  consider  the  extent  to  which  the  project  would  provide  added 
value ranging from a very significant level to not at all. The most important strategic role of 
the projects was their demonstration of best practice. 89% of respondents agreed their project 
provided  significantly  or  very  significantly.  One  in  four  projects  (26%)  expected  to 
demonstrate or pilot new methods, techniques or approaches to a very significant level. The 
least  important  strategic  or  catalytic  role  played  by  projects  was  leveraging  additional 
investment (either public or private), only 16% expected to achieved any significant or very 
significant impact. This is in addition to the co-financing already provided and that required 
to continue with activities after project closure.  

When  asked  to  rate  the  co-ordinating  and  implementation  role  of  the  project,  the  most 
significant action was building the capacity of stakeholders which will take place in 65% of 
projects  to  a  significant  or  very  significant  degree.  Facilitating  the  implementation  of 
European policy and legislation to a significant or very significant degree will take place in 
59%  of  projects  that  responded  and  improving  the  co-ordination,  networking  and  working 
relationships between stakeholders will take place to a significant level in 54% of projects.  

All projects will contribute to the dissemination of information and good practice at least to 
some degree and 41% will disseminate good practice to a significant level. 57% of projects 
will significantly or very significantly contribute to increased knowledge base.  

103 

 
 
 
 
3.2 

Analysis of EPG Survey 

3.2.1.  Administration costs 

(a) 

Costs of Bidding 

The cost to applicants of bidding for LIFE EPG funding was €23,000 per project, taking into 
account the administration and technical staff time involved, almost double to cost for Nature 
projects. The main cost was the time required to write and submit the bid. Given an average 
project size of €2.6m, th e bid cost represented 0.9% of project value.  

The  table  below  provides  a  breakdown  of  the  average  number  of  hours  spent  on  each  task 
during  the  bidding  stage  per  project,  divided  between  administrative  and  professional  staff. 
This indicates that the cost of profession staff accounts for 83% of the total cost. 

Table 3.6: LIFE+ EPG Projects – Time and cost spent on the application process per project 

Bid tasks 

Administrative 
staff - hours 

Technical/ 
Professional - 
hours 

Administrative 
staff - cost € 

Technical/ 
Professional - 
cost € 

Total - 
cost € 

% 

Researching Funding 
options 

Negotiating, conceiving 
and writing the proposal 

Submitting the proposal 
to the competent 
authority 

Answering Commission 
requests 

Negotiating/ signing the 
contracts 

Total 

16 

76 

19 

22 

13 

147 

25 

322 

134 

65 

36 

583 

438 

831 

1,270 

5% 

2,059 

10,591 

12,649 

55% 

526 

592 

360 

3,974 

4,417 

4,943 

21% 

2,147 

2,739 

12% 

1,171 

1,531 

7% 

19,158 

23,133 

100% 

Source: GHK project survey (n= 90). 

Notes: Average cost per hour based on: 
▪ 
▪ 

Administrative staff time - €27/hour. 
Technical & Professional staff time €33/hour. 

(b) 

Costs of Project Management 

The  cost  to  beneficiaries  of  the  administration  and  management  of  the  project  including 
reporting, taking into account the administrative and technical staff time involved, was almost 
€28,000,  1.1%  of  project  value.  The  largest  ite ms  of  cost  are  the  expenditure  on  the 
preparation of the Inception Report, account for 29% of costs and the Final Report (27%). 

The  table  below  provides  a  breakdown  of  the  average  number  of  hours  spent  on  each  task 
during  the  project  management  stage  per  project,  divided  between  administrative  and 
technical staff time, and the subsequent average cost per project. This indicates that the cost of 
profession staff accounts for 65% of the total cost. 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
Table 3.7 

LIFE+ EPG Projects – Time and cost spent on the project management reporting and 
information obligations per project 

Project management 
tasks 

Administrativ
e staff - hours 

Technical/ 
Professional 
- hours 

Administrativ
e staff - cost € 

Technical/ 
Professional 
- cost € 

Total - 
cost € 

% 

Preparation of the 
inception report 

Preparation of mid-term 
report 

Preparation of final report 

Preparation of layman's 
report 

Notification activities 
linked to changes to the 
grant agreement other than 
amendments 

Amendments to the grant 
agreement 

Visits of the monitoring 
team 

Visits of the Commission 

Other 

104 

58 

105 

37 

9 

13 

12 

9 

14 

157 

114 

139 

32 

21 

22 

29 

17 

13 

2,816 

5,164 

7,980 

29% 

1,559 

3,752 

5,311 

19% 

2,837 

4,586 

7,422 

27% 

1,002 

1,053 

2,056 

7% 

239 

363 

329 

254 

385 

706 

945 

3% 

723 

1,086 

4% 

961 

557 

442 

1,291 

812 

828 

5% 

3% 

3% 

546 

9,786 

17,944 

27,730 

100% 

Total 

362 
Source: GHK project survey (n= 90). 
Notes: Average cost per hour based on: 
▪ 
▪ 

Administrative staff time - €27/hour. 
Technical & Professional staff time €33/hour. 

3.2.2.  Activities and Output 

Respondents  were  asked  what  core  activities  the  project  would  undertake  (Figure  3.8). 
Developing (62%) and/or demonstrating (51%) new technology and processes were the most 
frequent responses. Of different preparatory actions, preparatory studies were most frequently 
undertaken by respondents (78%), closely followed by technical planning (63%).  

Figure 3.8.  

The core actions that projects are designed to undertake 

Developing and or dem onstrating new technology 
and  processes 

Developing action plans to facilitate environm entally 
friendly behaviour / technologies

Enhancing cooperation with municipalities/ Local 
authorities/ Industry/ Unions etc to facilitate 
knowledge transfer

Producing guidance on practices to reduce 
environm ental impact  of activities 

Testing technology for environm ental effectiveness 
and running costs

Establishing monitoring system s 

62%

51%

48%

38%

32%

30%

Carrying out an inventory of the environm ent e.g. 
noise assessm ent

Installing environm ental infrastructure (e.g. 
wastewater treatm ent plans; sustainable urban 
drainage systems (SUDS))

24%

19%

Other

6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Source: GHK LIFE EPG Survey, Base = 90 respondents. 

105 

 
 
 
 
3.2.3.  Management Results 

When  asked  how  many  legislative,  policy  or  planning  documents  were  to  be  politically 
approved as a result of their activity, answers ranged from 0 to 7 with an average response of 
one  per  project.  In  addition,  for  61%  of  projects  it  was  anticipated  that  new  management 
systems  or  plans  would  be  introduced.  Projects  expected  these  management  systems  to  be 
realised at the local (49%), regional (41%), national (12%) and EU (18%) scales. Over half of 
projects  (59%)  will  include  implementation  of  new  monitoring  or  assessment  systems.  This 
will  occur  across  all  levels,  particularly  the  local  and  regional  scale  (45%  and  37% 
respectively).  72%  of  project  beneficiaries  felt  that  their  project  activity  would  help  to 
improve  the  capacity  of  the  area’s  stakeholders,  through  training,  awareness  raising, 
knowledge sharing and the development of new processes and systems. Approximately two-
thirds of respondents stated that partnerships would be established. For example, one project 
was to establish a collaborative network among technical staff to control performance in terms 
of reducing the environmental impact of the use of chemicals. Transnational co-operation is 
likely  to  be  established  through  just  over  half  of  projects  (54%),  with  all  stating  that  this 
would improve project results or help projects to achieve results at least to some extent.  

The  table  below  summarises  the  intended  management  results  of  the  projects.  Key  results 
include  developing  early  warning  systems  and  monitoring  systems  for  climate  change 
management  and 
life-cycle  analysis,  waste  management  strategies  and 
introduction of systems for sustainable management of limited resources. 

introducing 

Figure 3.9.  

Management results by indicator 

Theme 

Management results Indicator 

Number of projects  Share of projects (%) 

by theme 

Climate Change 
Management 

Early warning climate strategy model that will 
be implemented  

Emissions Trading Schemes that will be  
established 

Air Quality 
Management 

Monitoring systems 

Monitoring systems 

Early warning systems 

Water Management  

River basin management plans/programme  

Natural Resources 
and Waste 
Management  

Chemicals 
Management 

Measures that will be developed for protection 
of the marine environment  

Administrative staff to be trained in River 
Basin Management Planning 

Introduction of system for sustainable 
management of limited or sensitive resources 

Introduction of life-cycle analysis 
(sustainability-oriented method) as a basis of 
development of industrial and/or consumer 
products 

Waste management strategy 

People to  receive training in safe management, 
handling and use of chemicals including 
pesticides 

Companies that will be informed about/trained 
in implementation of EC legislation on 
chemicals 

106 

17 

2 

20 

5 

2 

9 

1 

6 

12 

14 

12 

3 

3 

43% 

5% 

50% 

50% 

20% 

38% 

4% 

25% 

36% 

42% 

36% 

30% 

30% 

 
 
 
Theme 

Management results Indicator 

Number of projects  Share of projects (%) 

by theme 

Strengthening of science-policy integration on 
chemicals issues 

Guidelines for evaluation or classification of 
chemical hazard/ risks to be introduced  

Chemical management guidelines to be 
introduced  

Measures that will reduce risks related to 
handling or use of pesticides introduced? 

Urban Environment  

Development of  urban environmental 
management plan (or sustainability plan) 

Strategic 
Approaches 
Management  

Development of a cooperation between citizens 
and city council regarding urban environment 
issues 

Environmental management system (EMAS or 
other)  

Environmental assessment system or 
procedures 

Eco-labelling or other broad environmental 
labelling system 

Green procurement system 

Guideline for sustainable tourism 

Guideline for sustainable building 

Forest Management 

Monitoring systems  

A system  that will  provide   comprehensive 
information on forests to increase 
understanding in relation to climate change, 
biodiversity, forest fires, forest conditions and 
the protective functions of forests 

Development of a risk assessment framework 
concerning multiple stresses on forests over 
time and space. 

Soil Management 

Soil management plans or monitoring systems 

Noise Management   Environmental noise management plans or 
monitoring systems 

Environment and 
Health Management  

Health management strategy 

Monitoring system 

3.2.4.  Employment Data 

5 

3 

2 

3 

4 

0 

1 

4 

1 

1 

3 

1 

5 

4 

2 

6 

2 

4 

3 

50% 

30% 

20% 

30% 

25% 

0% 

6% 

24% 

6% 

6% 

18% 

6% 

71% 

57% 

29% 

67% 

50% 

24% 

18% 

Respondents were asked whether their projects were likely to continue after the LIFE funding 
period  and  59%  of  respondents  stated  that  they  would.  When  asked  how  many  additional 
people  the  project  would  employ,  answers  ranged  from  no  additional  Full  Time  Equivalent 
(FTE) positions to 150 additional FTE positions (where 1 full-time post is equal to 2 part time 
posts). The total of all FTE positions created of those who responded to the survey was 300 
FTE positions and the projects were expected to continue for varying lengths of time, between 
a year and a half and indefinitely. 

107 

 
 
 
 
 
 
3.2.5.  Demonstration and Innovation Results 

When asked whether the project could be classified as 'demonstrative' and/ or ‘innovative’ (as 
per  the  Commission  agreed  definition)  half  of  the  respondents  stated  demonstrative,  17% 
stated  innovative  and  28%  considered  that  their  project  was  both  demonstrative  and 
innovative.  

When  asked  about  the  innovation  activities  of  projects  it  was  revealed  that  on  average  a 
projects  would  result  in  2  new  methods,  2  new  techniques  and  2  new  approaches.  For 
example, the  GREECIT, Green  citizens of Europe project,  aims  to  develop innovative tools 
and methods for interactive and co-creative citizens. This project states that it will results in 
20 new methods, 10 new approaches and 10 new techniques.  

65% of the respondents stated that as a result of the new methods, techniques or approaches, 
cost  savings  would  be  achieved  by  the  Competent  Authority.  When  asked  to  estimate  these 
annual  cost  savings  responses  varied  from  €35,000  to  €10,000,000  per  project.  Other 
responses indicated cost savings in terms of savings per ton/waste., and as a share of current 
costs.  Just  under  half  of  respondents  (48%)  stated  that  their  projects  would  lead  to  new 
commercially viable products and when  further probed for expected annual sales, responses 
ranged from €100,000 to €335million. 

3.2.6.  Awareness and Replication 

Through awareness raising activities, a significant number of projects anticipate that they will 
reach over 500 people (49%), with a target audience up to 100,000 people. A further 25% of 
projects aim to reach between 200 and 500 people and 20% between 50 – 200 people. These 
results  are  fairly  evenly  split  in  the  geographic  focus  between  local  regional  and  national 
levels. 

The majority of project results are designed to be replicated (76%) by, for instance, partners, 
local  and  regional  authorities,  farmers,  NGOs,  private  businesses  and  other  project 
organisations, over periods ranging from two years to ten years. The results of project activity 
are  likely  to  benefit  a  variety  of  user  groups.  For  example  respondents  will  collectively 
provide a benefit to 1,068 local authorities, 331 national public authorities, 3,098 businesses 
and 1,386,952 community members. In addition 71% of projects will include staff training at 
the project site. 

3.2.7.  Summary of EU Added Value 

Respondents were asked to rate how well the project would achieve a range of strategic roles. 
The  most  important  strategic  role  of  projects  was  the  demonstration  or  piloting  of  new 
methods,  techniques  or  approaches,  for  which  95%  of  respondents  considered  their  project 
would  have  either  a  significant  or  very  significant  impact.  85%  also  considered  they  would 
significantly  contribute  to  the  development  of  new  methods,  approaches  or  innovative 
solutions.  

When  asked  to  rate  the  co-ordinating  and  implementation  role  of  the  project,  the  most 
significant  role  was  building  the  capacity  of  stakeholders  (69%).  Beneficiaries  also  rated 
highly  the  degree  to  which  their  project  would  facilitate  the  implementation  of  European 
policy  and  legislation  and  improve  the  co-ordination,  networking  and  working  relationships 
between stakeholders. 

108 

 
 
 
 
All projects will contribute to the dissemination of information and good practice at least to 
some degree and 55% will disseminate good practice to a significant level. 76% of projects 
will help to increase the profile of environmental issues and raise awareness. In addition 65% 
of  respondents  will  contribute  to  the  knowledge  base  for  development  and  monitoring  of 
environment policy and legislation to a very significant or significant level.  

3.3.  Analysis of LIFE- Information and Communication Survey 

3.3.1.  Administration costs 

(a) 

Costs of Bidding 

The  cost  to  applicants  of  bidding  for  LIFE  funding  was  €10,600  per  project,  taking  into 
account  the  administration  and  technical  staff  time  involved,  similar  to  the  cost  for  Nature 
projects. The main cost was the time required to write and submit the bid. Given an average 
project size of €1.1m, th e bid cost represented 1% of project value. 

The  table  below  provides  a  breakdown  of  the  average  number  of  hours  spent  on  each  task 
during  the  bidding  stage  per  project,  divided  between  administrative  and  professional  staff. 
This indicates that the cost of profession staff accounts for 59% of the total cost. 

Table 3.10:  

LIFE+ INF Projects – Time and cost spent on the application process per project 

Bid tasks 

Researching 
Funding options 

Negotiating, 
conceiving and 
writing the 
proposal 

Submitting the 
proposal to the 
competent 
authority 

Answering 
Commission 
requests 

Negotiating/ 
signing the 
contracts 

Total 

Administrative 
staff - hours 

Technical/ 
Professional - 
hours 

Administrative 
staff - cost € 

Technical/ 
Professional - 
cost € 

Total - cost €  % 

20 

24 

379 

583 

962 

9% 

144 

166 

2,769 

4,116 

6,885 

65% 

7 

28 

29 

229 

13 

37 

12 

252 

142 

327 

470 

4% 

548 

920 

1,467 

14% 

566 

4,404 

293 

6,239 

859 

8% 

10,643 

100% 

Source: GHK project survey (n= 13). 

Notes: Average cost per hour based on: 
▪ 
▪ 

Administrative staff time - €19/hour. 
Technical & Professional staff time €25/hour. 

(b) 

Costs of Project Management 

The  cost  to  beneficiaries  of  the  administration  and  management  of  the  project  including 
reporting, taking into account the administrative and technical staff time involved, was almost 
€14,000, 1.3% of project value. The la rgest item of cost is the expenditure on the preparation 
of the Mid-term Report, 31% of costs. 

109 

 
 
 
 
 
The  table  below  provides  a  breakdown  of  the  average  number  of  hours  spent  on  each  task 
during  the  project  management  stage  per  project,  divided  between  administrative  and 
technical staff time, and the subsequent average cost per project. This indicates that the cost of 
profession staff accounts for 48% of the total cost. 

Table 3.11:  

LIFE+ INF Projects – Time and cost spent on the project management reporting and 
information obligations per project 

Project management 
tasks 

Administrative 
staff - hours 

Technical/ 
Professional 
- hours 

Administrative 
staff - cost € 

Technical/ 
Professional 
- cost € 

Total - 
cost € 

% 

Preparation of the 
inception report 

Preparation of mid-term 
report 

Preparation of final report 

Preparation of layman's 
report 

Notification activities 
linked to changes to the 
grant agreement other than 
amendments 

Amendments to the grant 
agreement 

Visits of the monitoring 
team 

Visits of the Commission 

Other 

91 

156 

45 

20 

8 

27 

22 

6 

0 

73 

54 

62 

27 

11 

15 

25 

4 

0 

1,750 

1,801 

3,551 

25% 

3,003 

1,333 

4,336 

31% 

874 

376 

158 

524 

428 

124 

- 

1,535 

2,408 

17% 

678 

1,054 

8% 

265 

423 

3% 

379 

903 

6% 

621 

110 

- 

1,049 

8% 

235 

2% 

- 

0% 

Total 

376 
Source: GHK project survey (n= 13) 

272 

7,238 

6,721 

13,959  100% 

Notes: Average cost per hour based on: 
▪ 
▪ 

Administrative staff time - €19/hour. 
Technical & Professional staff time €25/hour. 

3.3.2.  Activities and Outputs 

Respondents were asked which core actions the project was designed to undertake. Eleven out 
of  the  thirteen  projects’  core  activity  was  awareness  raising  campaigns  related  to  the 
implementation, updating and development of European environmental policy and legislation.  
Seven out of thirteen projects’ focus was information and communication actions related to 
the  implementation,  updating  and  development  of  European  environmental  policy  and 
legislation. 

Projects often undertake a number of public events and excursions for those living in the area 
(on average 24 over the lifetime of the project). Stakeholder events and meetings take place 
numerous  times  (an  average  of  41  times  during  the  project  lifetime,  however  this  result  is 
distorted  by  one  project  which  states  210  stakeholders  and  events  would  take  place).  In 
addition,  educational  activities,  media  activities  and  participatory  activities  take  place  often 
(on  average  41,  21  and  17  times  respectively  during  the  project  lifetime).  Activities 
comprising  of  site  visits,  publications,  individual  meetings  with  public  authorities  and 

110 

 
 
 
 
activities  aiming  to  facilitate  user  access  and  awareness  take  place  less  often  but  still  on 
average  between  9  and  16  times  over  the  course  of  the  project.  On  average  each  project 
includes 7 presentations at technical conferences, 4 meetings between LIFE projects, 2 films 
or DVDs, and 1 final conference. 

Stakeholder  consultation  is  part  of  the  project’s  activities  for  seven  of  the  projects  with  the 
number  of  consultations  varying  between  1  and  700.  Preparatory  studies  were  or  will  be 
included in six of projects – for the majority, one study has been undertaken. Three projects 
included  technical  planning;  for  those  who  provided  detail  on  the  number  of  technical 
planning actions, responses varied between 2 and 10.  

3.3.3.  Employment Data 

Respondents  were  also  asked  whether  their  projects  were  likely  to  continue  after  the  LIFE 
funding  period.  Five  of  the  7  respondents  stated  that  the  project  was  likely  to  continue  and 
when  asked  how  many  additional  people  the  project  would  employ,  one  respondent  said  2 
additional Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions and the others did not know. One respondent 
was  able  to  state  that  the  project  would  continue  for  three  years  or  more,  the  others  were 
unable to say. 

3.3.4.  Awareness and Replication of Results 

The  primary  topics  of  awareness  raising  campaigns  related  to  climate  change  and  water 
sustainability  with  two  further  projects  focusing  on  natural  resources  and  waste.  More 
specifically  this  included  local  impact  and  mitigation  measures  such  as  energy  saving,  the 
restoration of rivers and rational use of water resources and the promotion of green products 
and reducing carbon emissions and the prevention of waste. Such activity was to be achieved 
through  specific  actions  with  numbers  ranging  from  2  actions  to  4000  actions.  The  primary 
targets of awareness raising activity were the local population (7 projects), public authorities 
(6 projects) and private companies (6 projects) as illustrated in the figure below. In addition 5 
projects stated their activity focused on local enterprises and a further four focused on policy 
makers. 

Figure 3.12  

Target Audiences of Awareness raising activity 

Forest managers

Landowners

1

1

Universities/research  organisations

Institutions

Farmers

Policy makers

Other

Local enterprises

Private companies

Public authorities 

Local population

2

2

3

4

5

5

6

6

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

7

8

Source: GHK LIFE-Inf Survey, Base = 13 respondents. 

Eleven  of  thirteen  projects  indicated  that  they  would  expect  to  reach  over  500  from  their 
awareness raising activity. Four projects provided further detail on the number of people who 
would be reached and answers ranged from 10,000 to 25 million. Eleven projects also stated 
that new knowledge and skills would be imparted to the target audiences following awareness 

111 

 
 
 
 
raising  activities.  Between  200  and  100,000  people  would  gain  an  increased  awareness  or 
knowledge  of  environmental  issues,  between  30  and  50,000  would  receive  specific  training 
and  between  300  and  50,000  would  gain  improved  skills  or  competencies  to  deal  with 
environmental management issues.  

Eight projects stated that awareness would be raised regionally by their actions. Six projects 
stated the awareness would be raised at the national level and a further six projects stated that 
the  impact  would  be  local.  Four  projects  felt  that  awareness  would  be  improved  at  an  EU 
level.  Seven  of  the  respondents  stated  that  project  results  were  designed  to  be  replicated 
through  the  distribution  of  web  tools,  the  promotion  by  authorities  and  associations  and  the 
creation  of  a  national  campaign.  The  target  audience  that  respondents  anticipated  would 
benefit on average from the projects included local public authorities (810), an average of 8 
national public authorities, 20 business and 114 community members. 

Four projects said that they had evidence to show the environmental impact of their activity – 
more specifically this included one project with a 10% decrease in carbon emissions for all 
those  engaged  in  the  project  and  another  which  stated  that  a  decrease  in  per  capita  water 
consumption would illustrate the project’s environmental impact.  

3.3.5.  Summary of EU Added Value 

To ascertain the added value of the projects, respondents were asked to the rate the extent to 
which their projects would lead to certain results. The most significant impacts are related to 
best  practice  with  seven  respondents  stating  that  their  projects  would  demonstrate  best 
practice either to a significant or very significant level and nine respondents stating the project 
will  promote  the  sharing  and  up-scaling  of  best  practice  through  the  planned  dissemination 
activity. It is also expected that projects will lead to wider adoption of methods, approaches or 
innovative solutions, with 76% of respondents believing this would take place to some degree 
or to a significant or very significant level.  

There  were  mixed  views  as  to  whether  projects  would  lead  to  additional  private  or  public 
sector investment or interest. There was little agreement that projects would contribute to the 
development of new methods, approaches or innovative solutions, although one-third felt this 
would take place to some degree. 

As  to  views  on  the  project’s  coordination  and  implementation  role,  the  most  significant 
impact  is  expected  to  be  the  improvement  of  co-ordination,  networking  and  working 
relationships between stakeholders, with ten projects stating it would occur to a significant or 
very  significant  level.  Two-thirds  of  projects  were  expected  to  significantly  or  very 
significantly  build  up  the  capacity  of  stakeholders.  The  facilitation  of  European  policy  and 
legislation  implementation  is  likely  to  be  a  significant  or  very  significant  result  for  seven 
respondents.  

It  was  expected  that  the  project  would  play  a  significant  or  very  significant  part  in  the 
dissemination of information and good practice, as would be expected from communications 
activity.  A  significant  number  of  projects  also  anticipated  that  the  profile  of  environmental 
projects would be raised as a result of their project activity.  Projects held mixed views as to 
whether  they  would  shape  more  strategic  environmental  thinking  or  whether  they  would 
contribute to the knowledge base for the development and monitoring of environmental policy 
or legislation. 

4 

Detailed analysis of habitat improvement  

The estimated terrestrial area of expected habitat improvement by habitat type for the current 

112 

 
 
 
programme was based on the response of LIFE projects to the project survey. In some cases 
projects  cover  more  than  one  habitat  type,  in  which  case  the  dominant  habitat  type  was 
identified.  

The survey did not attempt to assess the scale of improvement in environmental quality, based 
on  e-survey  responses;  and  would  require  site  by  site  appraisal.  The  survey  responses  have 
been grossed up for all terrestrial projects based on the levels of project investment. Marine 
impacts have not been included. 

a. Habitats that will be created or re-created 

Habitat Type 

Number of  habitats 
created or re-created 

Area (ha) 

Coastal and Halophytic Habitat 

Coastal Sand Dunes and Inland Dunes 

Freshwater Habitats 

Temperate Heath and Scrub 

Sclerophyllous Scrub (Matorral) 

Natural and Semi-Natural Grassland Formations 

Raised Bogs, Mires and Fens 

Rocky Habitats and Caves 

Forests 

Total  

30 

40 

60 

10 

1 

20 

40 

1 

20 

650 

590 

2,800 

360 

6 

470 

840 

6 

360 

220 

6,100 

b. Habitats that will be restored 

Habitat Type 

Number of  habitats 
created or re-created 

Coastal and Halophytic Habitat 

Coastal Sand Dunes and Inland Dunes 

Freshwater Habitats 

Temperate Heath and Scrub 

Sclerophyllous Scrub (Matorral) 

Natural and Semi-Natural Grassland Formations 

Raised Bogs, Mires and Fens 

Rocky Habitats and Caves 

Forests 

Total 

3,500 

3,500 

3,500 

10 

2 

60 

160 

2 

60 

10,800 

Area (ha) 

105,500 

2,700 

1,238,000 

360 

60 

380,400 

15,400 

60 

411,900 

2,154,000 

c. Habitats that will be brought under sympathetic management 

113 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Habitat Type 

Number of  habitats 
created or re-created 

Area (ha) 

Coastal and Halophytic Habitat 

Coastal Sand Dunes and Inland Dunes 

Freshwater Habitats 

Temperate Heath and Scrub 

Sclerophyllous Scrub (Matorral) 

Natural and Semi-Natural Grassland Formations 

Raised Bogs, Mires and Fens 

Rocky Habitats and Caves 

Forests 

Total 

6,300 

6,400 

6,300 

10 

3 

90 

80 

3 

60 

19,300 

103,200 

6,100 

5,000 

360 

3,300 

473,400 

3,800 

3,300 

420,500 

1,019,000 

d. Favourable conservation status that will be achieved for species and habitats 

Habitat Type 

Number of 
species listed in 
the Annexes of 
the Birds and 
Habitats 
Directives 

Number of  
habitats 
achieving 
favourable 
status 

Number of  
priority 
habitats 
achieving 
favourable 
status 

Overall % 
change in 
conservation 
status from 
before the project 
to after 

Coastal and Halophytic 
Habitat 

Coastal Sand Dunes and 
Inland Dunes 

Freshwater Habitats 

Temperate Heath and Scrub 

Sclerophyllous Scrub 
(Matorral) 

Natural and Semi-Natural 
Grassland Formations 

Raised Bogs, Mires and Fens 

Rocky Habitats and Caves 

Forests 

Total: 

310 

50 

120 

- 

20 

120 

240 

20 

160 

140 

40 

50 

9 

1 

40 

90 

1 

60 

50 

30 

20 

2 

- 

30 

70 

- 

40 

1,700 

170 

2,000 

- 

20 

1,600 

380 

20 

200 

1,040 

430 

240 

6,100 

e.  

Number of individual species reintroduced 

Habitat Type 

Number of individual 
species reintroduced 

Number of species in the 
population before the 
project began 

Coastal and Halophytic Habitat 

Coastal Sand Dunes and Inland Dunes 

160 

150 

114 

- 

- 

 
 
 
 
 
Freshwater Habitats 

Temperate Heath and Scrub 

Sclerophyllous Scrub (Matorral) 

Natural and Semi-Natural Grassland 
Formations 

Raised Bogs, Mires and Fens 

Rocky Habitats and Caves 

Forests 

Total: 

5,500 

1,800 

- 

- 

20 

- 

- 

40 

5,900 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

80 

1,900 

f. 

Invasive species that will be controlled 

Habitat Type 

Habitat Type 

Area (ha) 

Coastal and Halophytic 
Habitat 

Coastal Sand Dunes and 
Inland Dunes 

Freshwater Habitats 

Temperate Heath and Scrub 

Sclerophyllous Scrub 
(Matorral) 

Natural and Semi-Natural 
Grassland Formations 

Raised Bogs, Mires and Fens 

Rocky Habitats and Caves 

Forests 

Total: 

1,700 

1,900 

1,100 

120 

110 

21,300 

580 

110 

59,000 

85,900 

Number of 
 priority 
habitats 
protected 

Number of 
invasive species 
that will be 
controlled 

119,200 

3,000 

119,200 

40 

5 

1 

3,000 

109,500 

- 

- 

119,200 

1,599,000 

20 

1 

70 

- 

- 

302,000 

20 

20 

60 

2 

1 

30 

10 

1 

40 

180 

357,700 

2,017,000 

g.  Species and area of habitats that will benefit from local biodiversity action 

Habitat Type 

Area (ha) 

Number and 
type of species 

Area (ha) 

Number and type 
of species 

Coastal and Halophytic 
Habitat 

Coastal Sand Dunes and 
Inland Dunes 

Freshwater Habitats 

3,600 

3,100 

142,400 

Temperate Heath and Scrub 

- 

Sclerophyllous Scrub 
(Matorral) 

Natural and Semi-Natural 
Grassland Formations 

Raised Bogs, Mires and Fens 

2,800 

- 

280 

- 

- 

90 

- 

20 

- 

- 

115 

31,700 

27,200 

1,265,000 

- 

24,500 

- 

2,400 

- 

- 

780 

- 

180 

- 

- 

 
 
 
 
Habitat Type 

Area (ha) 

Number and 
type of species 

Area (ha) 

Number and type 
of species 

Rocky Habitats and Caves 

Forests 

Total: 

2,800 

8,200 

- 

- 

24,500 

73,100 

163,200 

110 

1,448,000 

- 

- 

960 

116 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 8: FULL ASSESSMENT OF THE ZERO OPTION AND OF THE EXPANDED OPTION 

1. 

Full assessment of the Zero option  

In  this  option,  all  Action  Grant  funding  is  undertaken  through  the  main  EU  financial 
instruments (especially Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) related funds and the Structural 
Funds).  Public  procurement  continues.  Operating  Grants  for  environmental  NGOs  is 
discontinued.  The  main  EU  financial  instruments  are  Cohesion  Policy,  CAP  Pillar  II  and 
Common Fisheries Policy funds and Horizon 2020. These are assumed to operate as they do 
now.  

To the extent that LIFE+ activities can be funded under other instruments, then the impacts 
can be assumed to continue under this option, subject to the level of funding. In the case of 
operating  grants  for  environmental  NGOs,  it  is  assumed  that  no  other  instrument  would  be 
available to fund this activity. 

The MTE47 examined the level of project funding that would have been used in the absence of 
funding  from the LIFE instrument. Projects were asked whether  they  would otherwise have 
used other EU and MS programmes.  

The results (table below) indicate that some projects consider they could have secured funding 
from other EU instruments. In total, 12% of EC LIFE funding could have been derived from 
other EU funds; in the case of EPG projects, 13% of investment could have been funded from 
other  instruments.  The  main  EU  instruments  considered  to  provide  a  source  of  alternative 
funding  to  LIFE  were,  FP7  and  Interreg.  Interestingly,  the  use  of  the  Competitiveness  and 
Innovation  Programme  (CIP)  as  an  alternative  instrument  was  barely  mentioned,  reflecting 
the attempts to distinguish and target the instruments on different activities.   

The  results  also  suggest  that  the  possibility  of  securing  alternative  funding  from  Member 
States' (MS) programmes was very limited (3% for the programme overall, 5% for EPG but 
zero for the other strands). 

Table 1.1  

Share of EC project contribution by LIFE Strand that could have been funded  

               from other EU and MS financial instruments 

LIFE Programme by Strand 

Nature & Biodiversity 

Environmental Policy & Governance 

Information & Communications 

Total Programme 

Share of investment from 
other EU funds (%) 

Share of investment 
from MS funds (%) 

6 

20 

6 

13 

0 

6 

0 

3 

Source: Mid-Term Evaluation (GHK project survey), n = 165 projects; total investment of €374m 

Examination of projects that suggested they would have used alternative instruments does not 
however  indicate  that  other  EU  instruments  would  clearly  be  capable  of  funding  them; 
projects would of course need to be reconfigured to suit the relevant eligibility criteria of the 
other  instruments  whilst  essentially  undertaking  the  same  activity  –  and  be  successful,  to 
generate similar results and impacts. 

The  possibility  of  other  instruments  funding  activities  funded  by  Action  Grants  is  being 
reviewed by strand, and delivering similar types and quality of results and impacts. 

47 Mid-term Evaluation of the LIFE Regulation, European Commission, 2010 

117

 
 
 
                                                 
1.1.  Nature and Biodiversity 

Under LIFE III, funding for nature and biodiversity was limited to the implementation of the 
Birds and Habitats Directives, which established the legal basis for the Natura 2000 network. 
In  2007,  LIFEIII  was  widened  under  LIFE+  to  include  additional  funding  for  a  wider 
biodiversity  component  (under 
the 
implementation of the broader objectives laid out in the Communication on “Halting the loss 
of biodiversity by 2010 – and beyond”.48  

the  “Biodiversity”  strand),  which  focused  on 

Given that much of LIFE’s nature-related funding to date has been directed towards funding 
activities to support the implementation of the Natura 2000 network, this is the area where the 
implications of having to rely only on other EC funds might be expected to be greatest.  

1.1.1.  Support for the Natura 2000 network 

In this option, Natura 2000 related activity is included within several EU funding instruments 
aside  from  LIFE+,  including  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development 
(EAFRD),  European  Fisheries  Fund  (EFF),  Structural  Funds  (i.e.  the  European  Fund  for 
Regional Development – ERDF and the European Social Fund – ESF and the Cohesion Fund) 
and the 7th European Framework Programme for Research and Development (FP7). Because 
of their scale, these other financial instruments might well be (and even arguably be better) 
suited  to  the  needs  of  the  network  (e.g.  Structural  and  Cohesion  Funds  –  €336  billion  and 
EAFRD  €151  billion  over  the  period  2007  to  2013).  EAFRD  in  particular  is  suited  to 
providing annual payments to farmers and landowners; these make up a significant proportion 
of  the  overall  ongoing  costs  of  managing  the  network.  This  is  set  against  the  significantly 
smaller  budget  of  LIFE  (€2.2  billion  over  the  2007  to  2013  period  of  which  39%  is  to  be 
allocated to grants for Nature and Biodiversity).  

Examining the possible use of other instruments  to provide the same results and impacts as 
LIFE Nature, the alternative funding is most likely to come from EARFD, and the Structural 
Funds.  These  funds,  combined  with  LIFE,  have  made  available  around  €3.8  billion  for 
financing Natura 2000 through 2007 to 2013 (see 0). Note that (from 0 above) beneficiaries 
considered their scope to access alternative funds  was very limited – only 6% of beneficiaries 
thought they could have used other EU funding sources and none considered they could have 
used MS funding sources.  

Estimating  the  financial  allocations  for  Natura  2000  from  the  current  EU  budget  is  difficult 
because the budgetary allocations under most of the funds do not allow a distinction between 
Natura 2000 related expenditure and support to conservation of biodiversity and environment 
in a wider context. Due to these difficulties, the exercise can easily lead to underestimates or 
overestimates of the contribution to the implementation and management of Natura 2000 of 
certain EU funding instruments. According to a BirdLife report (Boccaccio et al. 2009)49, if 
spending on agri-environment is considered in relation to its value purely for biodiversity, in 
2007 in Austria less than 8 per cent of total budget was spent on sub-measures with ‘strong’ 
effects.  

In the case of the Structural Funds, payments allocated to Natura 2000 and biodiversity that 
might directly benefit conservation or restoration are difficult to define since they are covered 
by the broadly defined heading of category 51 and the wide range of measures possible to be 

48COM (2006) 216. 
49Boccaccio L, Brunner A, Powell A (2009). “Could do better.”BirdLife International (May 2009); 1-45. 

118

 
 
                                                 
supported within it.50 The following table attempts to provide a very rough first order estimate 
of  the  potential  contributions  to  Natura  2000  under  the  three  most  important  EU  financial 
instruments assuming a proportion of the key measures is applied for this purpose.   

Table 1.2  

Approximate allocation under some EU financial instruments which are dedicated to, or 
are most likely to benefit, Natura 2000 (€million, 2007-2013) 51 

Funding instrument 

LIFE+ Nature & Biodiversity allocation 

EAFRD direct Natura 2000 payments +  agri-environment payments expected 
to likely contribute to Natura 2000 management (25 per cent of category 214 
on agri-environment) 

Structural funds  
(25 - 50 per cent of ERDF cat.51 for biodiversity and Natura 2000) 

Total 

Estimated allocation  
(€million, 2007-2013)  

700 

600 - 5,400 

600 - 1,300 

1,900 – 7,400 
300 – 1,100 per year 

Note: Other rural development measures are also used by Member States to finance Natura 2000, e.g. forest-
environment payments, non-productive investments in agriculture and forests 

The  estimated  spending  is  approximately  between  300  –  1,100  million  EUR  /  year,  which 
represents only 5-20 per cent of the estimated financing needs of 5.8 billion EUR / year. 

It  also  needs  to  be  noted  that  the  figures  refer  to  allocated  funding  and  not  to  actual 
expenditure. Mid-term information available on financing under EAFRD indicates a disparity 
between  planned  allocations  and  resources  used,  particularly  in  the  context  of  the  direct 
Natura 2000 payments (Kettunen et al. 2011). This suggests a slow uptake of the measure at 
the beginning of the financing period.  

Moreover,  although  there  are  a  range  of  funds  available  to  support  the  network,  a  recent 
report52  found  that  there  is  a  significant  range  of  activities  that  are  not  funded  by  the  other 
instruments (Table 1.3). Key gaps identified include: 

• 
• 
• 

• 

Pilot projects; 
Consultation & networking; 
Conservation  management,  especially  where  projects  are  unable  to  demonstrate 
significant socio-economic benefits (as required by other funds; 
Gaps for particular habitats – particularly those that are not managed for agriculture or 
forestry  –  especially  marine,  coastal,  water  and  unfarmed  terrestrial  habitats.  The 
allocation and uptake of payments for forest measures under EAFRD is low compared 
to those for agricultural habitats;  

•  Management planning; 
•  Monitoring and risk management. 

50Kettunen, M., Baldock D., Gantioler, S., Carter, O., Torkler, P., Arroyo Schnell, A.,Baumueller, A., Gerritsen, 
E., Rayment, M., Daly, E. & Pieterse, M. (2011). Assessment of the Natura 2000 co-financing arrangements of 
the  EU  financing  instrument.A  project  for  the  European  Commission  –  final  report.  Institute  for  European 
Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussels, Belgium. 138 pp + Annexes. 
51  Note  figures  must  be  treated  with  caution.  See  forthcoming  Kettunen  report  (2011)  for  caveats  linked  to 
EAFRD figures.  
52  IEEP  et  al  (2011,  forthcoming):  Assessment  of  the  Natura  2000  co-financing  arrangements  of  the  EU 
financing instrument. Final Report. 

119

 
 
                                                 
The scale of the gap is also significant; current EU funding is estimated at €0.5 to €1.1 billion 
annually compared to estimated annual costs of €5.8 billion 53. To  establish the approximate 
scale of funding relative to where the gaps are, Kettunen et al (2011) analysed the main costs 
of implementing the network provided by 11 Member States in the context of the Gantioler et 
al (2010) study. The results indicated that around 15% of costs are in activities for which there 
are  significant  gaps  in  financing  opportunities,  and  52%  in  activities  for  which  there  are 
moderate  gaps  in  financing  opportunities.  To  the  extent  that  LIFE  is  the  only  instrument 
capable of meeting some of these gaps (as indicated below) and is already doing so then there 
is little or no scope to use alternative instruments.  

Table 1.3 

Overview of the major and moderate gaps in financing key management measures within 
the current EU co-financing framework for Natura 2000 

Establishment of Natura 2000 Sites 

PILOT PROJECTS 

Management planning 

Moderate 
gaps 

In principle, possible in all budget lines. However, restricted under EAFRD.  
The pilots must usually be in line with the funds general requirements (i.e. 
have links with rural / regional development). Information if funds have been 
used for pilot projects is not available. 

ESTABLISHMENT OF 
MANAGEMENT BODIES 

Significant 
gaps 

Some possibilities under ERDF but most probable only used indirectly in some 
transboundary projects. 

CONSULTATION AND 
NETWORKING – PUBLIC 
MEETINGS, 
NETWORKING, LIASON 
WITH LANDOWNERS 

Moderate 
gaps 

LIFE communication can provide direct project funding. ERDF provides 
several indirect options but the real uptake is only realised through 
transnational cooperation projects. 

RUNNING COSTS OF 
MANAGEMENT BODIES 

Significant 
gaps 

None of the funding lines provides funding for running costs. Some use might 
be possible under LIFE if beneficiaries "sell" their projects as innovative and 
new to cover ongoing costs. 

ONGOING STAFF COSTS 

Significant 
gaps 

Ongoing habitat management and monitoring 

 LIFE provides staff costs only during the project lifetime.  

CONSERVATION 
MANAGEMENT – 
HABITATS, SPECIES 

Moderate 
gaps (e.g. 
marine) 

LIFE has a clear track record of projects in this field. Under EAFRD AEM and 
Natura payments can be linked to specific conservation (e.g. agricultural land 
and forests), although often not targeted enough. EFF provides several 
opportunities but most legal opportunities remain unclear with low or no 
uptake in the national programmes. FP7 provides indirect research possibilities 
with wider biodiversity context. ERDF provides good opportunities for 
transboundary activities and in sectoral programmes, although in 
competiveness objective regions possibilities are limited as nature projects 
must be investment related and show economic effects. Species conservation is 
more difficult under ERDF as funding has a clear territorial dimension and 
species projects need to be linked to concrete land based measures. 

53Gantioler, S., Rayment, M., Bassi, S., Kettunen, M., McConville, A., Landgrebe, R., Gerdes, H. and ten Brink, 
P. (2010) Costs and Socio-Economic Benefits associated with the Natura 2000 Network. Final report prepare by 
the Institute for European Environmental Policy / GHK / Ecologic on Contract ENV.B.2/SER/2008/0038 for the 
European  Commission,  DG  Environment:  Brussels.et  al  (2010).  Costs  and  socio-economic  benefits  associated 
with 
from: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/natura2000_costs_benefits.pdf.    

Available 

network. 

Natura 

2000 

the 

120

 
 
                                                 
 
Establishment of Natura 2000 Sites 

IMPLEMENTATION OF 
MANAGEMENT SCHEMES 
AND AGREEMENTS 

Moderate 
gaps (e.g. 
non-rual 
areas) 

LIFE can provide project financing. Significant potential under AEM where a 
huge diversity of measures exists, can be difficult to target measures on sites as 
the measures are voluntary. Some positive impacts might come from LFA and 
Natura 2000 payments but these payments are not targeted at specific 
outcomes. 

PROVISION OF SERVICES, 
COMPENSATION FOR 
RIGHTS FOREGONE AND 
LOSS OF INCOME 

Moderate 
gaps (e.g. 
non-rual 
areas) 

AEM and Natura payments allow for wide coverage of payments but can lack 
clear targeting. Also, these payments only cover loss of income and additional 
cost for agriculture-related activities, not for urban development etc.. LIFE can 
also finance compensation payments.  

MONITORING AND 
SURVEYING, AND RISK 
MANAGEMENT  

Moderate 
gaps (e.g. 
marine) 

LIFE projects can realise all kind of measures in this field. In principle 
measures could be included under LEADER activities but no information is 
available on the uptake. Under ERDF, monitoring and surveillance could be 
realised under the risk prevention schemes but no information about uptake is 
available as most risk prevention plans are linked to industrial risks and 
hazardous materials.  

(ONGOING) 
SURVEILLANCE OF SITES 

Significant 
gaps 

None of the funds provides possibilities for ongoing surveillance. 

Source: Edited from Kettunen et al (2011)  

There  are  some  activities  (e.g.  monitoring,  surveying,  management  of  risks),  which  are  not 
generally  eligible  for  funding  through  other  instruments.  Only  LIFE  provides  opportunities 
for funding these important activities. These activities relate more to management activities of 
the network rather than one-off investments. Activities linked to the latter seem relatively well 
covered  by  the  various  financial  instruments.  Some  two  thirds  of  the  estimated  costs  of 
running the network relate to management activities (see 0), which are largely ineligible for 
funding through other means.54Without LIFE therefore, entire aspects of the network would 
receive no funding from EC sources. 

Table 1.4  Summary of the main costs of implementing the Natura 2000 network 

Cost category 

One off costs (annualised) 

Management 

Land purchase 

Infrastructure 

Sub-total 

Recurrent costs (annual) 

Management planning55 

Habitat management & monitoring 

Subtotal 

Total (25 MS) 

Costs for 25 Member States (€m) 

% 

255 

398 

835 

1,671 

703 

2,707 

3,428 

5,099 

5% 

8% 

16% 

33% 

14% 

53% 

67% 

100% 

54Kettunen et al (2011) , initial source Gantioler et al. 2010 . 

55Some  management  planning  falls  under  one-off  costs,  some  under  recurrent  costs.  Recurrent  costs  mainly 
include  the  running  of  management  bodies,  and  to  a  less  extent  public  communication,  and  review  of 
management plans. 

121

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Source: Edited from Kettunen et al (2011) op cit 

These  funding  gaps  result  from  the  different  objectives,  eligibility  criteria  and  payment 
structures  of  these  other  instruments  and  arise  from  the  fact  that  none  of  them  (with  the 
exception  of  LIFE)  were  specifically  designed  to  fund  nature  projects.  Even  where  it  is 
possible to use other instruments as an alternative source to LIFE funding other funds have a 
specific socio-economic aim other than biodiversity conservation. Therefore, while they can 
fund conservation actions, it is only when these actions are linked to relevant sectors through 
socio-economic objectives, that these actions can be funded.56 LIFE therefore is the only fund 
which can fund conservation actions where the purpose is conservation alone. Without LIFE 
therefore, a subset of these activities would receive no funding.  

Moreover, while other funds provide valuable finance for Natura 2000, it can be argued that 
the specialist expertise within DG Environment can be crucial in maximising the added value 
that  its  funding  delivers  for  the  network.  Replacing  this  funding  from  other  sources  would 
therefore  reduce  the  added  value  delivered  to  the  overall  detriment  of  the  network.  At  the 
same time, the LIFE programme combines Commission expertise in helping with the design 
of  the  programmes  and  the  use  of  funds  with  technical  expertise  regarding  the  practical 
implementation at a national and regional level. 

The presence of these gaps in funding argues that the baseline impacts cannot in general be 
provided  by  alternative  instruments.  This  is  supported  by  the  projects  themselves;  which 
considered  that  only  6%  of  LIFE  funding  for  Nature  could  have  been  replaced  by  other 
instruments.  

Another consideration is whether the use of alternative instruments provides the same level of 
EU  added  value  through  contributions  to  burden  sharing  in  the  protection  of  EU  natural 
assets. Figure 1.5 below indicates the funds received by MS under the EAFRD and Structural 
Funds that are most likely to benefit the Natura 2000 network, relative to the MS allocation 
under the National Allocation for the LIFE programme, using this as a suitable proxy for the 
distribution of nature protection priorities.  

The variance from the national allocation indicates where Member States receive too much, or 
too  little  relative  to  their  needs.  The  greater  the  variance,  the  less  the  use  of  these  funds 
contributes to burden sharing. In the case of EAFRD for 7 MS the funding is greater than 5% 
different to that implied by the national allocation. In the case of the Structural Funds for 5 
MS,  the  funding  is  greater  than  5%  different  to  that  implied  by  the  national  allocation  and 
suggests that neither fund provides the same level of EU added value as LIFE.57 

56  For  instance,  funding  of  conservation  action  under  EAFRD  is  only  possible  for  farmland  and  forestry,  and 
does not include other types of Natura 2000 sites.  
57 Under proposals for the next MFF, cohesion policy in non-convergence regions will not fund environmental 
measures:  “Transition  regions  and  competitiveness  regions  would  be  required  to  focus  the  entire  allocation  of 
cohesion  funding  (except  for  the  ESF)  primarily  on  energy  efficiency  and  renewable  energy;  SME 
competitiveness and innovation. In these regions, investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy will be 
at least 20%.” - COM(2011) 500 final, page 25. 

122

 
 
                                                 
Figure 1.5.  

Burden sharing in the protection of natural assets: The variance in the national 
distribution of EAFRD and Structural Funds relative to the national allocations under 
the LIFE programme 

Source: GHK analysis, adapted from the information in IEEP et al (2011, forthcoming) 

Finally,  it  needs  to  be  questioned  to  what  extent  national  financing  for  nature  conservation 
could replace resources from LIFE+.  The budget of the instrument is small compared to other 
EU financing instruments, and if it is only considered by its size, it could be argued that this 
could  be  easily  replaced  at  the  national  level.  However,  as  became  evident  from  the 
stakeholder consultation and its mid-term evaluation, LIFE+ plays an important catalytic role 
in leveraging MS funds, and without which less MS funds would be allocated. An analysis of 
national funding available for Natura 2000 in six case study countries58 showed that though 
the  level  of  financing  and  the  application  of  EU  financing  instruments  strongly  vary  across 
Member States, national level funding is generally inadequate and there is a lack of resources 
to compensate for the heavy reliance on EU financing instruments. 

1.1.2.  Support for wider biodiversity goals 

Aside from the funding of the actual Natura 2000 network, the impact on broader biodiversity 
goals needs to be considered. Current baseline funding is modest (some €20m in the first two 
calls).  However, the Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) of the LIFE programme found that this is 
not  an  expression  of  the  lack  of  a  need  for  such  activities.  Instead,  the  broadening  of  the 
Nature  component  to  include  wider  biodiversity  issues  is  seen  by  Member  States  and 
stakeholders as both useful and necessary, with the previously restricted focus being seen as 
too limiting given the need to protect species and ecosystems outside of the network as well 
as within.  

Rather,  the  limited  activity  under  the  Biodiversity  strand  was  seen  as  an  indication  of 
“teething problems” in light of the theme’s infancy compared to the Nature theme, which has 
been operating since the beginning of the LIFE Programmes. The MTE analysis noted that it 
is likely that the Biodiversity theme would develop in the same way as the Nature theme, and 
would attract a high number of good quality applications as the biodiversity ‘market’ matures. 

58Kettunen et al (2011). 

123

 
 
 
                                                 
The  current  impacts  of  the  LIFE  programme  are  therefore  likely  to  under-represent  the 
impacts of the baseline option over the programme period.  

Biodiversity  and  ecosystem  services  are  worth  hundreds  of  billions  of  Euros  per  year  and 
underpin EU growth, jobs and wellbeing. Once these services are lost or degraded, it can be 
very difficult or impossible to restore them or to find substitutes. There is therefore a definite 
need  for  funding  to  maintain  and  restore  biodiversity  and  the  functioning  of  ecosystem 
services.59 

This need for funding is recognised in the development of the new EU biodiversity strategy 
towards 2020, released in May 201160.  

1.2.  Environmental Policy & Governance (EPG) 

As  indicated  above,  projects  advise  that  the  possibility  of  other  EU  instruments  funding 
project  activity  is  greatest  for  the  EPG  strand.  The  MTE  identified  the  principal  risk  of 
overlap and potential for the use of other instruments to fund LIFE activity was in relation to 
eco-innovation projects. 

To  assess  the  implications  of  this  the  segment  of  projects  that  might  be  classified  as  eco-
innovation projects has been identified, using the typology described in Table 1.6 below, itself 
based on a detailed review of project descriptions to understand the major focus of projects. 
The typology provides the basis of an indicative analysis only, since projects are often multi-
faceted and tend to have elements of each of the types of activity described; the typology and 
related analysis therefore seeks only to reflect the major focus of projects. 

Table 1.6. An indicative typology of EPG projects  

Main purpose of activity  

Type of activity 

A - Problem definition – measuring 
environmental impacts 

Environmental investigation / collecting data on the extent of a problem / 
barriers to implementation / better ways of addressing environmental challenges 

B - Improvements in implementing 
environmental policy  

C - Improvements in the environmental 
management of economic activities, 
integrating environmental objectives 

Developing a new approach / technique /process for monitoring of 
environmental impacts within a municipality or sector  

Develop / demonstrate and introduce methods and action plans for reducing 
environmental impacts (approach / management system/ process / plans) to 
reduce environmental impact, informing policy. Mainly at the level of 
municipality. Sometimes with other national / international partners 

Stimulate behaviour change through new market based instruments 

Assistance in purchasing infrastructure / capital costs that reduces 
environmental impacts  

Set up public private partnerships (PPPs) to show more effective ways of 
reducing environmental impacts  

Demonstrate good practice / produce instructions / tools / kits/ guidelines to 
industry on how to reduce environmental impacts  

Pro-actively engaging with stakeholders (industry involved) to change 
behaviour  

59 Communication COM(2006)216 “Halting the Loss of Biodiversity by 2010 – and beyond”. Available from: 
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2006:0216:FIN:EN:PDF. 
60European  Commission  (2011).Communication  on  our  life  insurance,  our  natural  capital:  an  EU  biodiversity 
strategy to 2020, COM(2011) 244 final. 

124

 
 
 
 
                                                 
D - Developing eco-innovative solutions 
to environmental problems that 
improve implementation & compliance  

Testing and demonstrating / developing a technology / technique / process / 
product that reduces environmental impacts favouring implementation of and 
compliance with environmental legislation within a municipality or sector 

Source: Adapted from GHK analysis of EPG activities. 

Table 1.7 indicates that the eco-innovation focused activity accounts for 42% of projects, but 
because they tend to be slightly larger projects, to account for 48% of the EC contribution to 
EPG projects. 

The  likelihood  of  using  other  instruments  for  each  of  the  different  activities  has  been 
reviewed: 

▪  Environmental  problems:  Overall  assessment  of  replacing  LIFE:  Unlikely.  Projects 
relate  to  measuring  and  monitoring  environmental  problems.  Some  projects  might  get 
funding from FP7 for research and monitoring activity. Future Cohesion Policy may have 
a  stronger  focus  on  monitoring,  although  this  is  still  not  likely  to  be  an  adequate 
replacement for LIFE. To the extent that these relate to municipality plans there may some 
very limited scope to combine with urban planning; 

▪  Environmental  policy  improvements:  Overall  assessment  of  replacing  LIFE:  Unlikely 
Projects  relate  to  improving  environmental  policies  and  plans,  mainly  at  municipality 
level. Might  conceivably be  seen as an element in broader urban planning and cohesion 
policy,  although  projects  tend  to  be  well  focused.  Interreg  funding  was  referenced  by  a 
small number of projects as a possible alternative; 

▪  Environmental  integration:  Overall  assessment  of  replacing  LIFE:  Unlikely.    Projects 
demonstrate initiatives to integrate environmental objectives in sectoral activities could in 
principle be funded by others (e.g. CIP, ERDF), but any such opportunities are not always 
clear given the different objectives of other instruments. Since such projects are expected 
to  demonstrate  the  possibility  of  socio-economic  benefits,  the  demonstration  projects 
might form the basis for ERDF funding; 

innovative  solutions 

to  environmental  problems, 

▪  Eco-innovation  activity:  Overall  assessment  of  replacing  LIFE:  Unlikely.  Projects 
demonstrate 
largely  by  private 
companies  (two  thirds  of  beneficiaries)  to  assist  in  meeting  compliance  requirements 
directly  or  as  a  process  to  assist  other  companies  (in  around  a  third  of  cases).  In  some 
cases  could  possibly  be  funded  by  FP7  even  though  they  are  not  always  commercially 
orientated.  There  is  some  possible  use  of  CIP  where  commercial  interest  are  being 
pursued.  The  possibility  of  socio-economic  benefits  might  suggest  some  use  of  ERDF  / 
EAFRD. 

Table 1.7. An indicative breakdown of EPG projects  

EPG Projects by 
Activity 

Share of EPG 
Projects by Activity 

Share of EPG EC 
Contribution by 
Activity 

Possible use of other instruments to 
provide the EC contribution (as % of 
EPG EC contribution) 

A. Environmental 
problems 

B. Environmental 
policy improvement 

C. Environmental 
integration 

D. Eco-innovation 
activity  

Total EPG 

14% 

26% 

19% 

42% 

100% 

15-25% 

0-5% 

5-10% 

15-25% 

10-18% (weighted total) 

15% 

26% 

11% 

48% 

100% 

125

 
 
Source: GHK Project survey, n=86 projects, with total investment of €190m 
GHK own estimates of the use of other instruments based on review 

Translating  this  review  into  an  estimate  of  the  possible  share  of  the  EC  contribution  that 
might have been funded from other instruments suggests that overall 10% to 18% of the EC 
contribution  to  EPG  projects  might  have  been  financed  from  other  instruments.  This 
compares with the 20% identified by projects from the MTE. 

The EPG activity least capable of being funded by alternative instruments is the preparation 
of  new  or  revised  management  plans  and  capacity  building  for  the  improvement  of 
environmental policies and also the development of new environmental policies. An example 
of an EPG project contributing to policy development is a project managed by Airbus which 
sought to develop an extended product and site-oriented environmental management system 
(EMS). Large-scale pilot experiments were used to demonstrate a broadening of the scope of 
the  EMS  to  integrate  product-related  activities  and  a  life-cycle  dimension. Guidelines  were 
produced and used to further disseminate this approach both within the aerospace sector and 
to other industries. It is considered unlikely that this project would have been eligible under 
alternative funding instruments.  

This has been identified as the biggest ‘gap’ left by the other instruments, and sets LIFE apart 
as  being  an  ‘initiator  of  change’  and  a  key  mechanism  for  enhancing  the  capacity  of 
competent authorities  to  develop  sound planning and policy action.  The  importance  of such 
plans  is  often  underestimated  –  without  them  there  is  effectively  no  guidance  for  how  to 
manage responses to environmental problems or to guide environmental investment.     

The other notable gap addressed by the specific instrument is facilitating the development of 
‘science for policy’ as opposed to funding for more commercially-driven ‘science for market.’ 
Some solutions are often developed with the sole purpose of addressing a particular problem 
which a local authority might have, for example, although it may have no commercial value. 
Given  the  potential  likelihood  that  the  future  Framework  Programme  for  Research  and 
Innovation  (‘FP8’)  may  shift  to  being  a  more  commercially-oriented instrument, this  gap in 
funding  ‘science  for  policy’  may,  as  noted  above,  become  more  prominent,  suggesting  that 
LIFE would have a more important role to play in financing such solutions.  

The  first  approximation  of  the  impact  of  the  zero  option  on  EPG  activities  based  on  the 
possible use of alternative EU instruments is that between 10% and 18% of baseline results 
and  impacts  would  be  retained  through  use  of  other  funds.  This  assumes  that  the  different 
types of project funded by alternative instruments make the same contributions to results and 
impacts. The analysis of types of projects indicates that over 56% of results are reported by 
policy  improvement  and  integration  projects  and  32%  by  eco-innovation  projects.  59%  of 
reported  impacts  are  from  eco-innovation  projects.  The  analysis  is  broadly  in  line  with 
expectations, with policy improvement and integration projects focused more on testing and 
developing  new  policy  approaches  and  proposals  (which  only  have  environmental  impacts 
when  implemented);  whereas  eco-innovation  projects  are  focused  on  demonstrating 
environmental benefits as a result of innovative solutions.  

Table 1.8. 

An indicative breakdown of EPG projects by type of activity reporting results and 
impacts 

EPG Projects by Activity 

Share of EPG EC 
Contribution by 
Activity - Spend 

Share of EPG EC 
Contribution by 
Activity – Results 

Share of EPG EC 
Contribution by 
Activity – Impacts 

Environmental problems 

15% 

13% 

10% 

126

 
 
  
Environmental policy improvement 

Environmental integration 

Eco-innovation activity  

Total EPG 

26% 

11% 

48% 

100% 

38% 

18% 

32% 

100% 

23% 

8% 

59% 

100% 

Source: GHK Project survey, 
Projects reporting results, n=31, with EC investment of €25m 
Projects reporting impacts, n=42 with total investment of €45m 

Based on the possible use of other funds by type of project activity, (low and high estimate, 
Table  1.7)  the  share  of  results  and  impacts  in  the  baseline  that  might  be  produced  by  other 
instruments can be calculated by multiplying the estimates in Table 1.8 by the shares in Table 
1.8. This suggests that between 8% and 15% of results and between 11% and 19% of impacts 
produced in the baseline could be generated by other funding instruments. 

Based on the conservative impact of some €200m of environmental benefits each year under 
the current LIFE+ Regulation, then perhaps in the order of €20m  to €40m of benefits might be 
secured under the zero option from other funding instruments. If compared with the baseline, 
where  overlaps  have  been  eliminated  and  there  is  a  significant  increase  of  climate  action-
related projects, the zero option would imply a loss of €333 million of environmental benefits 
each year. 

1.3. 

Information & Communication (INFO) 

In  reviewing  the  objectives  of  other  EU  financial  instruments  which  could  be  accessed  to 
meet environmental goals, it is apparent that there is no other alternative EU instrument that 
has  a  specific  component  dedicated  to  raising  awareness  amongst  a  wide  range  of 
stakeholders  of  the  importance  of  various  aspects  of  environmental  policy,  and  the  ways  in 
which other policy areas can contribute to better implementation of EU environmental policy. 

Recent Eurobarometer surveys suggest that more could be done to provide European citizens 
with more information about the environment, as there is still a general lack of awareness of 
environmental problems amongst the general public. Roughly 38% of citizens feel that more 
information about the environment would be useful. For instance, 47% of citizens feel that the 
labelling of environmentally-friendly products is inadequate.61 

Furthermore, unlike EC-wide communication activities that are run by DG ENV itself such as 
Green Week and the European Business Awards for the environment, projects funded under 
the  Information  and  Communication  component  are  distinctive  because  they  often  have  a 
greater focus on a local area or municipality, a spatial level at which coordinating action can 
often be more effective.  

Given  the  bottom-up  nature  of  LIFE,  it  would  therefore  appear  to  be  the  case  that  no 
alternative EU instrument would fund projects which aim to raise awareness amongst a broad 
set of stakeholders specifically about environmental issues at a local and regional level, and to 
bridge  the  ‘communication  gap’  between  policymakers  at  the  European  level  and  citizens. 
The  MTE  also  found  that  communications  activities  were  often  ranked  low  as  a  priority  by 
most Member States, suggesting that the likelihood of LIFE INF-type activities being funded 
by alternative MS instruments remains low. The actual contribution of the strand to the results 
and impacts of the programme is difficult to judge given the indirect nature of its influence, 
and its relatively modest budget (5% of the Action Grants).   

61 What Europeans think about the environment, Eurobarometer. 

127

 
 
                                                 
1.4.  Operating Grants for Environmental NGOs 

There  are  a  number  of  ways  in  which  NGOs  contribute  towards  improvements  in  EU 
environmental  policy  development,  implementation  and  enforcement.  An  analysis  on  data 
collected  from  the  NGOs  in  the  MTE  revealed  that  the  activities  of  NGOs  that  have  been 
granted an operational fund are split up as follows: 

Table 1.9. 

An indicative breakdown of the type of activities undertaken by NGO Operating Grant 
recipients 

Kind of activity 

% of total budget granted for 
2007 and 2008 

A 

B 

C 

D 

E 

F 

Environmental policy development 

Environmental policy implementation 

External capacity building of members and partners 

Environmental education and awareness raising 

Activities on enlargement and third countries 

Internal functioning and capacity building 

Source: DG Environment and analysis from the Mid-Term Evaluation 

These six activities can be grouped into four elements: 

Covered by activity A and partly E and F: 

27% 

28% 

17% 

10% 

8% 

10% 

•  Problem  identification  and  definition  of  policy  options.  NGOs  are  systematically 
invited  to  participate  in  various  working  groups,  scientific  expert  groups,  advisory 
groups and preparatory and implementation committees by the Commission to support 
policy  work.  NGOs  regularly  provide  input  into  various  policy  areas  and  act  as 
important  counterweights  to  other  stakeholders  with  financial  interests.  There  are 
numerous examples of environmental investigation and studies carried out by NGOs 
in  relation  to  environmental  policy,  many  of  which  have  contributed  directly  to  the 
policy  process.    For  instance,  an  investigation  by  the  Pesticides  Action  Network 
(PAN) Europe in 2008 of bottles of wine purchased inside the EU found evidence that 
some wines contain residues of “a large number of pesticides”.62 

•  Policy definition and political debate.  Involving NGOs in consultations and  policy 
debate  contributes  to  a  balanced  and  broader  stakeholder  representation.  The  White 
Paper on European Governance63 stressed the importance of involving civil society in 
the  consultation  processes,  and  the  European  Commission  encourages  civil  society 
representation  at  the  European  level.  Moreover,  the  EU  is  party  to  the  Aarhus 
Convention,  which  establishes  the  right  for  public  participation  in  environmental 
decision-making  and  requires  that  public  authorities  enable  the  affected  public  and 
NGOs  to  comment  on  environmental  decisions,  and  for  these  comments  to  be  taken 
into  account.  In  this,  funded  NGOs  play  an  important  role  in  coordinating  the 
positions of their members, providing the Commission with a single interlocutor and 
giving a voice to a large number of local organisations  which would otherwise  have 
difficulties  reaching  EU  decision-makers.  Examples  of  activities  include  preparation 
of  coordinated  press  releases,  position  papers  and  memoranda  to  EU  presidencies. 
NGOs  also  reply  regularly  to  public  consultations,  providing  useful  input  and 

62 PAN Europe (2008) European wines systematically contaminated with pesticide residues. Available from: 
http://www.pan-europe.info/Media/PR/080326.html. 
63COM(2001) 428 final. 

128

 
 
                                                 
perspective to the policy process. Operation grants are considered a tool to protect the 
level  playing  field  in  the  public  debate  and  the  policy  development  between 
environmental NGOs and sector-federations or other organisations funded by industry. 
However  only  31%  of  the  NGOs  in  the  MTE  thought  a  level  playing  field  is 
effectively being reached with the actual operational funding. Of the 34 NGOs funded 
in 2007 and 2008, 13 specialised mainly in policy development, another 12 focused on 
multiple activities including policy development. 

Covered by activity B, E and F: 

•  Policy  implementation.  With  their  networks  and  specific  expertise,  NGOs  are 
effective  in  promoting  implementation  of  EU  policy  on  the  ground.  They  can  for 
example  draw  attention  to  cases  of  non-compliance  and  publishing  black  lists, 
scoreboards and reports. They also act as centres of expertise helping local authorities 
and  economic  actors  to  comply  with  legal  or  policy  requests,  or  setting  up 
implementation initiatives themselves. 

Covered by activity C and D: 

•  Raising awareness of environmental problems and policy issues. In support of the 
above  functions,  NGOs  carry  out  activities  to  raise  awareness  of  civil  society  and 
decision  makers,  reducing  information  failure  and  improving  the  quality  of  policy 
debate  and  policy  decisions.  Activities  include  campaigns,  events  and  awards,  and 
environmental  education  (targeting  various  groups  such  as  children,  officials  and 
professionals). Genuine grass-root NGOs have a particular advantage of being ‘close 
to  the  ground’  and  having  high  credibility  with  the  public,  and  therefore  being 
effective in achieving outreach and increasing awareness and knowledge. Specialised 
NGOs  are  often  recognised  as  centres  of  expertise  on  specific  issues  and  gain 
it.  NGOs  also  actively  raise  awareness  and  promote  EU 
credibility  from 
environmental policy beyond EU borders.  

Without funding from the programme through Operating Grants, the beneficiary NGOs would 
need to substantially reduce their activities, which include their contributions to the EU policy 
process, either because they lack the direct means for continuing their activities (A to E) or 
because they lose their internal supporting capacity (F).  

Some  NGOs,  for  principal  reasons  or  to  avoid  any  risk  or  allegation  of  non-independence, 
refuse all subvention from governmental sources and all private sponsoring. Only very large 
and  international  renowned  NGOs  can  afford  to  limit  their  resources  to  membership 
contributions and its own merchandising. Most NGOs active in the field of EU policy do not 
possess  these  possibilities  or  cannot  compete  on  a  free  market  of  membership  and 
merchandising, because they cover more technical or for the large public less visible topics.         

Demands  on  NGOs,  their  European  structures  and  their  offices  in  Brussels  have  grown 
considerably in recent times, including meeting demands from citizens and requests from the 
EU institutions for input and expertise. In this context, financial resources for the operation of 
environmental NGOs remain hugely important and the removal of operating grants for NGO 
beneficiaries  would  severely  hamper  their  ability  to  meet  multiple  responsibilities  for 
contributing  to  policy  development  and  implementation,  awareness  raising  and  helping  to 
identify problems and potential solutions with regards to environmental policy. 

NGOs  are  not  dependent  on  one  single  source  of  income,  but  tend  to  apply  for  different 
grants, both operation based and project based. However, in the MTE about 81% declared that 
the  operational  funding  cannot  be  replaced  by  either  the  ERDF,  ESF,  Cohesion  Fund, 

129

 
 
EAFRD, CIP, EFF, 7th framework programme or LIFE+ public procurement contracts. 34% 
thought  that  LIFE+  action  grants  could  partially  replace  operational  funding.  The  balance 
between  continuous,  operation  funded  activities  and  discontinuous  project  based  (and 
individually granted) activities is an issue, in that in the case of the former, an NGO is able to 
rely  on  continuous  funding  in  their  role  as  a  stakeholder,  whereas  in  the  case  of  discreet 
projects, the contribution of an NGO is confined to an individual project where they cannot 
play a full role as a stakeholder. 

Regarding  their  dependency  on  LIFE+  operational  funding  NGOs  receiving  LIFE+  funding 
declared that they are:  

•  Very dependent: survival is not possible without the actual LIFE+ funding: 16%; 

•  Dependent: shifts in the actual LIFE+ funding would lead to considerable shifts in the 

working programme: 65%; 

•  Rather  dependent:  the  NGO  would  lose  efficiency  but  could  find  other  sources  to 

continue realising its programme: 16%; 

•  Rather  independent:  the  NGO  is  strong  enough  to  realise  its  primary  mission,  the 

funds only help to realise useful extra projects: 3%; 

• 

Independent: the NGO can easily swap between possible sources of working means:  
0%. 

The degree of dependency from LIFE+ operational funding can be expressed by the amount 
of operational funding received or by the % of co-funding for operational expenditures. NGOs 
with  a  LIFE+  co-funding  percentage  of  >  50%  or  with  an  amount  of  >  €500,000  can  be 
considered as at risk if LIFE+ operational funding were to be discontinued. This would affect 
19 different NGOs out of the 32 NGOs funded for 2010. 

The absence of NGO activity leads to major costs. These costs can be linked to the drivers of 
environmental  problems  for  which  a  supporting  LIFE-like  financial  instrument  could  help 
remediation. Examples of such costs are the risk of unbalanced influence by interested parties, 
reduced  effectiveness  of  policy  through  lack  of  NGO  participation  in  the  process  and 
increased costs of consultation as further described below. 

The following drivers are identified:  

▪  Variable and inadequate levels of environmental protection through weaknesses in policy 

implementation and development;  

1.  Without  the  NGO  intervention  on  policy  development  there  would  be  an  increased 
risk  of  regulatory  capture  and  reduced  effectiveness  of  policy:  The  removal  of 
NGO  funding  would  significantly  reduce  the  contributions  made  by  NGOs  to  the 
development  and  implementation  of  priority  policy  areas,  and,  in  particular,  since 
these  areas  are  likely  to  be  the  subject  of  particular  lobbying  and  negotiation  from 
affected parties, increasing the risk of unbalanced negotiation and regulatory capture. 
Inadequate  coordination,  and  inadequate  integration  of  the  environment  into  policy 
(including in 3rd countries);  

2.  The  role  of  NGOs  in  the  field  of  coordination  and  integration  is  expressed  in  their 
policy development, implementation and awareness raising activities, especially when 
they  integrate  environmental  issues  in  the  larger  frame  of  sustainability.  NGOs  that 
work  across  both  environmental  concerns  and  other  sectoral  areas  play    important 

130

 
 
 
▪ 

roles in addressing the inadequate integration of the environment into policy. Without 
the NGO activities increased costs for coordination and integration will occur. 

Inadequate sharing of information and awareness of EU environmental problems 
3.  Increased  costs  of  awareness  raising  and  reduced  effectiveness  of  policy:  NGOs  can 
be effective communicators with both civil society and policy makers, disseminating 
information and  improving the quality of policy debate; with subsequent benefits in 
terms  of  the  quality  of  policy  decisions  and  hence  its  cost-effectiveness  and 
acceptability. 

4.  Increased  costs  of  consultation:  NGOs  provide  a  more  cost-effective  way  of  dealing 
with civil society, since in effect, a European environmental NGO represents the co-
ordinated views of all national member organisations, consolidating a large number of 
veiwpoints.(3)  Decreased  NGO  independency:  LIFE+  operational  funding  allows 
NGOs to keep a higher level of independency compared to national funding, and other 
funding or resources. A lower degree of independency would affect the quality of the 
policy  input  given  by  the  NGOs.(4)  Increased  costs  for  facilitating  exchange  of 
information between stakeholders or target groups: NGOs possess of a large network 
of members, sympathisers, contacts and interlocutors, often at grassroots level. NGOs 
use  this  network  not  only  for  disseminating  downhill  information  or  to  collect 
information  for  uphill  public  consultation,  but  also  for  mutual  exchange  between 
contacts in a target group. 

1.5.  The assessment of the option 

The assessment of the option is summarised in the following assessment grids 

Table 1.10.Assessment of Zero option (relative to baseline) 

Specific objective to be 
achieved/ problem 
addressed 

Element 

Anticipated 
impact: 
effectiveness 
(rated from –5 
to +5) 

Explanation of rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve impact 

To improve the scope of 
EU environmental 
policy and legislation.  

To  improve the 
implementation of EU 
environmental policy 
and legislation, 
(including EU 
commitments to 
international 
agreements)  

To improve the effective 
contribution of other EU 
policies to 
environmental 
objectives 

NAT 

EPG 

INF 

NGO 

NAT 

EPG 

INF 

NGO 

NAT 

EPG 

INF 

-3 

-1 

-1 

-4 

-5 

-4 

-3 

-4 

-2 

-2 

-2 

Adverse impact, especially biodiversity but main impact is on 
implementation 

 Adverse impact but main impact is on implementation 

-2 

No significant effect on policy scope but lack of awareness can 
effect policy development 

Very significant impact by not addressing regulatory capture  

Very significant impact – little replacement in other funds 

Very significant impact – some replacement in other funds 

-4 

Adverse impact through loss of awareness 

Very significant impact through loss of implementation activities 
led by NGOs.  

-2 

Adverse impact through loss of working with policy makers 
across policy areas 

Adverse impact from loss of ‘C’ Projects – but only small share 
of EPG 

Adverse impact through loss of dissemination with policy makers 

131

 
 
Specific objective to be 
achieved/ problem 
addressed 

Element 

Anticipated 
impact: 
effectiveness 
(rated from –5 
to +5) 

Explanation of rating and aspects of the policy option 
necessary to achieve impact 

To develop solutions for 
subsequent 
mainstreaming in other 
EU financial 
instruments and MS 
practices 

To contribute to 
responsibility sharing  in 
the protection of EU 
natural assets 

To contribute to 
responsibility sharing  in 
addressing 
transboundary problems 
affecting EU internal 
and external borders 

NGO 

NAT 

EPG 

INF 

NGO 

NAT 

EPG 

INF 

NGO 

NAT 

EPG 

INF 

NGO 

-2 

-2 

-2 

-1 

-2 

-4 

-3 

-2 

-3 

-3 

-4 

-2 

-3 

and economic actors in other sectors 

Adverse impact through loss of engagement with policy makers 
and the cross-policy networking capacity of NGOs. 

Adverse impact from lack of demonstration 

Significant impact from loss of ‘D’ projects  - some replacement 

Adverse impact from lack of dissemination to potential applicants 

Adverse impact from lack of NGO dissemination 

Very significant impact due to loss of investment 

Significant adverse impact from lack of demonstration 

Adverse impact from lack of awareness of issues – e.g. forest 
management and forest fire protection 

Significant adverse impact from lack of expertise 

Significant adverse impact from loss of transboundary working 

Very significant adverse impact from loss of transboundary 
working  

Adverse impact from lack of targeting of transboundary problems 
and related awareness of issues 

Significant adverse impact  from lack of expertise 

-2 

-3 

-3 

Table 1.11. Assessment of Zero option – Against impact indicators 

Anticipated impact: 
effectiveness (rated 
from –5 to +5) 

Explanation of rating and aspects of the policy 
option necessary to achieve impact 

Specific objective to be achieved/ 
problem addressed 

Changes in 
policies/management 

Environmental 
impacts 

Changes in 
habitats/eco-systems 

Changes in pollution / 
resource use 

-3 

-5 

-4 

Technology outcomes 

-4 

Economic 
impacts 

Additional sales / GVA 

-4 

Net cost savings 

NGO contributions to 
policy 

Social impacts 

Improvements in 
human health 

-4 

-4 

-5 

Additional employment 

-4 

132

No replacement of activity in other funds 

No replacement of activity in other funds 

Limited replacement of activities most directly 
related to these impacts 

Limited replacement of activities most directly 
related to these impacts 

Limited replacement of activities most directly 
related to these impacts 

Limited replacement of activities most directly 
related to these impacts 

Only limited replacement of activity in other funds 

Limited replacement of activities most directly 
related to these impacts 

Limited replacement of activities most directly 
related to these impacts 

 
 
 
Table 1.12 Assessment of Zero option – Other criteria 

Specific objective to be achieved/ problem 
addressed 

Anticipated impact: effectiveness 
(rated from –5 to +5) 

Impacts on different social and economic 
groups 

Fundamental rights 

Risks 

-3 

0 

Financial costs to the EU budget (direct staff 
costs, funding instruments) 

€57m  

Explanation of rating and aspects of 
the policy option necessary to 
achieve impact 

Loss of environmental and social 
benefits will tend to have adverse 
effects on lower income groups 

No impact 

Public procurement costs per year – 
sometimes called the common pot – 
this is the same for all options 

Financial costs to Member States (e.g. 
administrative costs for applicants and 
management costs for beneficiaries) 

To the extent that MS can find 
replacement resources for LIFE there 
will be additional costs 

No member state activity, except for 
20% of EPG projects assumed to be 
funded under other instruments 

EC savings of €5m staff cost and 
€10m TA 
MS savings of €3.4m in bid costs pa 
and €1.7m in admin costs pa 

Summary of benefits and advantages of 
option  

Summary of disadvantages and risks of 
policy option (including negative economic 
and social costs in EU and third countries) 

EC savings of €15m 
MS savings of €5m per year relative 
to baseline 
Some €30m-€40m of environmental 
benefits might be secured from other 
instruments for the LIFE+ 
Regulation. Nothing can be secured 
from alternative sources of funding 
for the Baseline.  

Loss of environmental benefits 
conservatively estimated to be 
€600m per year for LIFE+ regulation 
and between €750-1,000m per year 
for the Baseline 
Loss of economic and social benefits, 
worth at least €1 billion GVA 
Loss of burden sharing 
Loss of engagement of civil society 
in EU policy 
Long-term risks from failure to 
address growing problems 

Essential accompanying measures 

None 

Feasibility: Issues raised in stakeholder 
consultations  

General concern of lack of action 

Feasibility: Issues raised by Member States 

General concern of lack of action 

1.6. Summary of the impact of the option 

The analysis has indicated that despite the operation of the main financial instruments, there 
are significant gaps in their coverage, with the result that in the absence of the instrument only 
a small level of activity would be otherwise be funded from EU or MS resources. The main 
area that might otherwise be funded relates to some eco-innovation activity under EPG that 
could  potentially  be  funded,  mainly  under  FP7  or  sometimes  CIP.  However,  in  the  case  of 
FP7, it was acknowledged that LIFE projects allowed beneficiaries to go beyond research to 
identify and catalyse policy solutions that might otherwise be ineligible under FP7. 

The choice of this option would save the baseline programme cost of some €234m a year. It 
would  however  lead  to  the  loss  of  programme  benefits  conservatively  estimated,  under  the 
baseline  scenario,  of  some  €600m  per  year  as  assessed  against  the  baseline  option.  When 
applied  to  the  Baseline,  given  that  potential  overlaps  have  been  eliminated  and  the  budget 

133

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
increase  and  without  taking  into  account  the  potential  impact  of  Integrated  Projects,  the 
savings  would  be  of  around  €361  million  (€348  million  action  grants  and  €13  million  for 
operating  grants)  a  year  and  €5  million  on  management  costs  and  €10  million  of  TA. 
However, there would be a loss of environmental benefits of some €750-1,000 million each 
year.  

The  environmental  impacts  of  the  option  would  be  significant.  There  would  very  likely  be 
considerable deterioration in the condition of habitats and ecosystems given the fact that there 
is no replacement of the activities funded under LIFE by other EU funds. There is also likely 
to  be  some  negative  impacts  with  regard  to  pollution  and  resource  use,  although  there  are 
some limited possibilities for these activities to be funded by other means. In the absence of 
LIFE,  there  is  also  likely  to  be  fewer  opportunities  or  means  by  which  policies  or 
management  systems  can  be  changed,  which  would  have  potentially  negative  consequences 
for the environment. 

2. 

Full assessment of the expanded option 

2.1.  Description of the option 

In the context of the Impact Assessment, an additional option was developed to reflect upon a 
more ambitious instrument. The main difference as compared with the Baseline is: 

- 

- 

the  possibility  for  Integrated  Projects  in  the  main  environmental  sectors  where 
programme-based approach will be more efficient (see section 2.2.2);  

the  possibility  for  allowing  technical  assistance  projects  to  help  Member  States  to 
prepare Integrated Projects during the first years of the process as well as to providing 
enough margin of manoeuvre to fund enough traditional projects as to ensure critical 
mass in the main environmental sectors (see section 2.2.1).   

This  has  been  assessed  by  GHK  as  the  strongest  option  against  the  range  of  assessment 
criteria. This option scores highest on all criteria, and the scope to improve EU added value 
compared  to  the  current  LIFE+  Regulation.  It  has  been  shown  that  the  same  activities  and 
results cannot be obtained through other financial instruments (the Zero option). 

The expanded option is detailed in Table 2.1. This option includes provision for adjustments 
depending on the outcomes of policy developments (e.g. future Horizon 2020) especially with 
regard  to  eco-innovative  projects.  Since  discussions  about  innovative  financial  instruments 
and support to eco-innovation have not been finalised this expanded option is flexible enough 
to adjust to these future decisions. 

Table 2.1.Description of the Expanded Option  

Dimensions of 
Instrument Options 

Comment 

Stage 1: Objective Definition: Definition of policy needs and objectives taking account of alternative instruments 

Scope: Thematic and 
territorial focus of the 
option including 
reference to the need 
for action outside the 
EU 

The thematic focus of the option would reflect the general objective of developing, updating and 
implementing EU environmental policy. Thus it would seek to address emerging problems of EU 
scale and the whole of the environmental acquis.  

The option would continue to focus, given the limited funds compared to the scale of the 
environmental problem, on institutional weaknesses by awareness raising, support for innovation 

134

 
 
 
 
 
Dimensions of 
Instrument Options 

Comment 

and demonstration, learning and knowledge exchange, linked to the identification of 
opportunities and solutions for the improvement and the use of good practice in the development 
of EU environmental policy and its implementation at MS level. As in the case of the Baseline, 
EPG projects are refocused towards implementation and integration of the environment into 
other policies (type B and C projects). 

Given the Treaty requirements for international action, as well as the importance of global 
environmental and European neighbourhood problems an explicit role in co-operation with DG 
RELEX and DG DEV would be included, together with direct interventions with third countries 
where it provided EU added value (i.e., third countries can participate as associated beneficiaries 
in EU funded LIFE projects) 

Budget: considerable scaling up would be possible and would deliver improved cost-
effectiveness 

The intended programme of results of the option is not capable of being funded by other 
financial instruments. The option takes a pro-active approach to co-operation and the 
development of synergy with other funding instruments, by introducing integrated projects and 
looking to support project pipelines.  

A clear focus on piloting and demonstration of activities to support future project pipelines, and 
subsequent roll-out through the other funding instruments, especially through CP and CAP. 

The majority of EC funding in response to environmental problems and especially the 
investment needs of the existing acquis will continue to be met by Cohesion Policy. 

The importance of ensuring environmental policy integration results in actual environmental 
improvements on the ground is also recognised, as endorsed by the Cardiff process. 

Processes: 
consideration of role of 
the option given 
alternative instruments 

Stage 2: Design of the intervention taking account of target actors, and desired outcomes  

Approaches: Top-
down programming vs. 
bottom-up project 
funding 

The requirements for activities is defined in the EU strategic statement of objectives for the 
programme period, and more fully reflected in the multi- annual work plans. The work plans will 
reflect in part the Directive by Directive decisions made with MS through comitology. The work 
plans will also specify the desired use of the alternative delivery mechanisms and the expected 
outcomes 
• 

Public procurement – activities are defined and planned through DG Annual 
Management Plans (AMPs) 

•  Operating Grants – EU level activity by NGOs 
•  Action Grants comprising: 

o  Top-down projects, especially designed for information and dissemination 

campaigns or to distribute results of a series of projects for a particular sector 
as well as specific needs (e.g., for developing or update legislation) 

o  Local and regional project activity in MS  
o 
o  Technical Assistance – (based on the JASPERS instrument) 

Integrated Projects 

The target beneficiaries are the Commission (through funding for public procurement), EU 
environmental NGOs (through use of Operating Grants), MS through ‘top-down’ projects, and 
MS actors (competent authorities, universities/research institutes, businesses, NGOs), through 
‘bottom-up’ project activity 

Levels of intervention: 
target beneficiaries, 
intervention rates, 
funding levels 

Public procurement (100%) of goods & services includes information and communication, and  
the preparation, implementation, monitoring, checking and evaluation of projects, policies, 
programmes and legislation   

Operating Grants with a maximum  intervention rate of 70%, to strengthen the participation of  
EU environmental NGOs in the dialogue process in environmental policy-making and in its 
implementation; and in the European standardisation process 

Action grant projects as the basis of the full range of outputs, comprising 
Top-down projects with an intervention rate of 70% 
Bottom-up projects with an intervention rate of 50% 

- 
- 

135

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Dimensions of 
Instrument Options 

Comment 

- 
- 

Integrated projects with an intervention rate of 75% 
Technical Assistance (with an intervention rate of 100%) to support the design and 
submission of integrated projects. 

Stage 3: Operation: Detailed specification of the operation of the instrument 

Interventions: use of 
different types of 
Grants / funding 

• 

Public procurement – activities are defined and planned through DG Annual 
Management Plans (AMPs), combining those of DG ENV and DG CLIMA and subject 
to standard public procurement rules 

•  Operating Grants – allocated via calls launched and appraised by DG ENV, supported 
by appointed National Contact Points (NCPs) in MS to disseminate details of the call 
and to assist applicants 

•  Action Grants: 

o  Traditional projects to range between €1 to €1.5 million of EU co-financing 

(at 2011 prices) 
Integrated projects of about €10 EU co-financing 

o 
o  Technical Assistance for Integrated Multi-funded Projects (minimum size of 
say €5m)  – allocated  via annual pre-application call for proposals, launched 
and appraised by DG ENV, supported by NCPs 

Implementing 
methods: centralised 
within the EC, Agency, 
decentralised within 
MS 

Similar to the Baseline. 

2.2. 

Project activity and programme budget 

2.2.1.  Project activity 

A. Project type and scale for Action Grants 

Four types of projects are proposed: 

• 

Integrated  projects  (EU  contribution  €10m)  –  large  sc ale  activity  designed  to 
address  a  major  challenge  and  involving  the  need  to  integrate  a  range  of 
economic,  social  and  environmental  objectives,  supported  by  other  funding 
instruments; 

•  Top-down projects (EU contribution €1m)  – designed to formally recognise the 
need for cross MS participation in mutual or peer to peer learning in compliance 
and enforcement and specific dissemination and information sharing projects; 

•  Bottom-up projects (EU contribution €1.5m)  – representing the ‘classic’ project 

as contracted under the baseline scenario, although slightly larger;  

•  Technical  assistance  (TA)  projects  (EU  contribution  €0.25m)  –  designed  to 

support the costs of preparing the Integrated projects.  

B. New features as compared to the Baseline 

Technical Assistance as a tool for Capacity Building 

LIFE  is  being  extensively  used  as  a  capacity  building  tool  for  nature  protection  and 
environmental policy and governance. However, further support for capacity building is a key 
requirement for the future, in light of the fact that a lack of capacity is a significant part of the 
reason  for  Natura  2000  sites  being  ineffectively  managed  and/or  protected  and  for  the 
continuing infringements of EU legislation by Member States.  

136

 
 
A recent report64 identified the lack of stakeholder capacity as one of the major constraints for 
a more successful uptake of EU funding for Natura 2000. Improving stakeholders’ capacity to 
access  and  effectively  utilise  different  EU  funding  opportunities  would  also  enhance 
stakeholders’  ability  to  seek  new,  more  innovative  sources  for  funding,  thus  increasing  the 
overall  resources  available  and  securing  the  financing  of  Natura  2000  in  the  long  term. 
Capacity  building  at  the  level  of  relevant  government  officials  in  various  ministries  would 
also help to improve integration of nature protection and other policy needs into relevant EU 
funds  at  the  national  level,  and,  potentially,  improve  coordination  and  cooperation  between 
relevant administrative bodies.  

Integrated Projects as well as projects funded under the Governance strand will be essential 
tools for achieving this objective.  

This option also includes provision for the use of more targeted technical assistance in support 
of  integrated  projects,  but  also  perhaps  in  support  of  specific  capacity  building  through  the 
funding  of  networks  of  projects.  Such  examples  include  ELENA  –  European  Local  Energy 
Assistance scheme and JASPERS – Joint Assistance to Support projects in European Regions 
(see Box below). 

Possible Examples of Support for Technical Assistance 

ELENA - European Local Energy Assistance Scheme 

ELENA was set up by the European Commission and European Investment Bank (EIB) and managed by the EIB via 
the Intelligent Energy Europe programme. ELENA helps to prepare cities and regions’ sustainable energy projects to 
be ‘ready for EIB funding’ by covering a share of the cost of technical support needed to prepare, implement, finance 
investment programmes e.g. feasibility, market studies; business plans; energy audits; preparing tender documents. 
This enhances the capacity of cities and regions in EU to implement projects and investment programmes e.g. 
retrofitting of public/private buildings, sustainable building, energy-efficient district heating and cooling networks, 
environmentally-friendly transport, and LIFE could consider a similar type of assistance to local and regional 
authorities. 

Source:http://www.eib.org/products/technical_assistance/elena/index.htm 

JASPERS - Joint Assistance to Support projects in European Regions   

JASPERS is a technical support facility for the twelve EU Member States which joined the EU in 2004 and 2007. It 
is designed to help them to better prepare projects which will be supported by EU funds. Through this joint initiative, 
the European Commission (DG Regional Policy), the European Investment Bank, in cooperation with the European 
Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) andKreditanstaltfürWiederaufbau (KfW),)share their 
professional experience with the beneficiary Member States in order to help them to use EU Structural Funds more 
effectively. 

Source:http://www.eib.org/attachments/thematic/jaspers_brochure_2006_en.pdf 

2.2.2   Achieving critical mass 

The introduction of the large Integrated Projects has the potential, by reducing the number, to 
undermine  the  critical  mass  and  the  related  multiplier  effects  of  the  smaller  projects, 
especially for EPG, given the breadth of the acquis. 

Given their potential, 15 Integrated Projects per year would only cover three priority sectors 
(nature, water and waste); however, one could question whether this is enough to adequately 

64Kettunen et al (2011) 

137

 
 
                                                 
address the range in the scale and number of challenges, which goes beyond the three priority 
sectors of the Baseline. 

As  a  result  the  preferred  option  has  the  risk,  of  ‘falling  between  two  stools’  –  neither 
introducing enough Integrated Projects to make a difference nor funding enough of the more 
‘traditional’ projects to maintain current levels of activity. This suggests that the option will 
not  be  effective  without  a  larger  budget  and  that  the  programme  does  not  achieve  critical 
mass. 

Instead  of  starting  with  the  budget,  the  funding  requirement  can  be  considered  from  the 
perspective of ‘what will it take’ to produce a step change in the impact of the programme. 

Integrated Projects 

The  number  of  projects  required  relates  to  the  relevant  territorial  ‘units’  for  each 
environmental theme as the basis of establishing an adequate number of projects. Statistical 
relevance of between 15-25% has been used as criterion to determine critical mass.  

Nature  –  The  relevant  unit  is  the  NUTS  2  region,  in  which  to  ensure  adequate  nature 
protection  and  biodiversity  measures.  This  also  has  the  merit  of  linking  directly  to  possible 
regional funding. There are 271 NUTS regions. Assuming that the minimum level of action is 
required, in the form of one Integrated Project for nature conservation, in 25% of regions over 
a 7 year programme period, the required number of projects would be 10.65 

EPG  –  The  relevant  unit  depends  on  the  environmental  theme.  Priority  areas  for  activity 
would include: 

•  Waste management – the appropriate unit is also probably the NUTS 2 region, given 
the  nature  of  regional  waste  management  plans.  Perhaps  15%  Integrated  Projects 
activity over the programme would provide a minimum level of catalytic effect – say a 
minimum of 6-10 projects a year; 

•  Water management – the appropriate unit is the river basin district of which there are 
110. Given the  important  issues associated with  transposition and implementation of 
the  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD)  then  a  greater  share  of  ‘units’  should  be 
covered – say 25%. This would require a minimum of say 3-4 projects a year; 

•  Air  quality  management  –  activity  in  large  cities  to  combat  urban  air  pollution  (e.g. 
particulates, low level ozone and nitrogen dioxide) would also benefit from the use of 
Integrated  Projects.  Building  on  the  2013  European  ‘Year  of  Air’,  3  Integrated 
Projects a year would allow action in 20 of the most polluted EU cities.  

•  Marine  environment:  probably  1-2  Integrated  project  per  sea  basin  (3-5  projects  per 

year).    

EPG would require a minimum of 13-15 projects a year if the use of Integrated Projects was 
to  really  tackle  the  institutional  weaknesses  that  underpin  the  lack  of  adequate  policy 
implementation and effective policy integration. 

Top-down projects- under Governance strand 

The purpose of the top-down projects is to enable greater national and cross-MS working on 
common  policy  issues,  especially  of  compliance  promotion  and  enforcement  at  the  national 

65 25% of 271, divided by 7 (assuming a 7 year programme period). 

138

 
 
                                                 
level, together with some specific awareness raising activity and dissemination actions (e.g., 
specific projects disseminating best practices developed by LIFE projects in a given sectors). 
The indicative range of 18 projects a year (6 Nature and 12 focusing on other environmental 
sectors)  in  the  constant  budget  programme  is  probably  of  an  appropriate  scale.  Over  the 
programme each MS may on average have been involved in between 4 and 5 projects.  

Traditional projects 

The traditional LIFE projects require a substantial scale of activity across projects in order to 
generate scope for synthesis and replication and the generation of multiplier effects.  

Nature – The current programme has about 90 projects a year, mainly relating to the Natura 
2000 network. Whilst the introduction of the Integrated Projects reduces the need for the same 
number  of  projects;  the  minimum  requirement  would  be  to  maintain  half  of  the  current 
traditional activity, 45 projects per year. 

EPG  -  The  current  programme  has  about  90  projects  over  10  environmental  sectors,  an 
average  9  per  sector  per  year.  This  would  appear  to  be,  based  on  the  MTE,  the  minimum 
number  required  in  order  to  facilitate  the  creation  of  lessons  and  replication.  Under  the 
baseline, the number of sectors has been reduced to 6 to generate a stronger focus.66 At the 
same  time  the  intention  is  to  increase  the  average  size  of  projects  and  to  secure  stronger 
networking of project activity. Taking the number per sector required as the basis of a strong 
multiplier  effect  as  no  less  than  10  projects  per  sector,  with  6  sectors,  a  minimum  of  60 
projects would be required.     

Taking the minimum requirements above, this translates into a budget requirement for action 
grants of €456m per year (Table 2.2). 67 The final envelop for the Programme would be €3,957 
million (a 23% increase compared to the baseline). 

Table 2.2. 

Indicative outline of the minimum annual number, size and types of projects funded by 
Action Grants with the preferred option to achieve a ‘step change’ (2011 prices) 

Type of project 

Integrated 

Top-down 

Traditional 

TA 

Totals 

Nature (No of projects) 

EPG (No of projects) 

CLIMA (No of projects) 

Total Projects 

Average EU contribution 
(€m) 

10 

13 

23 

10 

Total EU Spend (€m/y) 

230 

Source: Adapted from GHK's  proposals 

6 

12 

18 

1 

18 

45 

50 

40 

135 

1.5 

202.5 

10 

13 

23 

0.25 

5.75 

71 

88 

40 

199 

456.25 

66 Environmental sectors (excluding nature, biodiversity & soil) could be grouped into Air & Emissions, Climate 
Action  (which  is  a  sub-programme  with  earmarked  resources),  Green  economy  &  Resource  efficiency, 
Chemicals,  Environment  &  Health  (including  noise),  Water,  Waste.  Innovation  and  Strategic  focus  have  been 
eliminated as independent themes. 
67 NGOs operating grants, Technical assistance and public procurement remain constant at €765 million for the 
whole programming period (€57 million a year for TA and public procurement for DG ENV, €39 million a year 
for TA and public procurement for DG CLIMA, and €13 million a year for operating grants for NGOs).   

139

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
However, if 50% of the resources  of  the  Environment sub-programme should go to address 
nature and biodiversity needs, as in the baseline, an increase in the Nature budget as presented 
in Table 2.2 above would be required. The final budget required each year would be €500m a 
year (see Table 2.3 below). The final envelop for the Programme would be €4,265 million (a 
33% increase compared to the baseline).  

Table 2.3. 

Indicative outline of the minimum annual number, size and types of projects funded by 
Action Grants with the preferred option to achieve a ‘step change’ (2011 prices) 

Type of project 

Integrated 

Top-down 

Traditional 

TA 

Totals 

Nature (No of projects) 

EPG (No of projects) 

CLIMA (No of projects) 

Total Projects 

Average EU contribution 
(€m) 

11 

13 

24 

10 

Total EU Spend (€m/y 

240 

12 

12 

24 

1 

24 

63 

50 

40 

153 

1.5 

10 

13 

24 

0.25 

97 

88 

40 

225 

4 

229.5 

6 

499.5 

Source: Adapted from GHK's proposals 

2.2.4. Summary of the impact of the option 

The impact of the option is supposed to increase proportionally to the increase in the budget. 
If climate action budget was to remain constant, the increase will mostly affect the nature and 
environment part. The impacts on climate action would remain constant. Under the option of 
an annual budget of €456 million, environmenta l benefits between €898 and €1,369 million a 
year are expected.  Under the option of annual budget of €500 m illion, environmental benefits 
of €1,030 and €1,500 million a year are expected. 

However, these estimates do not take into account the benefits derived from increased focus 
(about 20% increase in benefits) or the benefits of using Integrated Projects in two additional 
sectors, in particular air and marine environment. The use of Integrated Projects for air could 
have large health benefits.  

140

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 9 - CALCULATION OF EXTERNALISATION COSTS 

This  annex  analyses  the  different  management  options  for  the  LIFE  Programme  taking  into 
account the conditions laid down in the MFF Communication.  In the Communication of 29 
June  2011  (MFF  Communication),  the  Commission  announced  that  the  LIFE  Programme 
should remain centrally managed, but that management tasks could be largely delegated to an 
Executive  Agency.  Whilst  some  aspects  of  this  delegation  were  fixed  in  the  MFF 
Communication – in particular, that it should be an existing Executive Agency - other details 
on the extent, conditions and terms of the delegation were left open and are dealt with in this 
Impact Assessment.  

It should be noted that at the time of any delegation the Commission will publish a fuller cost 
benefit  analysis  going  into  further  detail,  and  informed  by  negotiations  with  the  Executive 
Agency. Therefore, the estimation of resources for both the Agency and the Commission, the 
cumulative  impacts  across  the  entire  programme  period  as  well  as  the  impacts  of  the 
transitional arrangements will need to be a carefully developed, reviewed and validated at the 
time of preparing the detailed cost/benefit analysis. 

1. 

Initial considerations 

It is difficult to compare the costs of direct centralised management by the Commission with 
the  costs  of  management  by  an  Executive  Agency  (hereafter,  called  'Agency').  Doing  so 
requires  assumptions  to  be  made,  in  particular,  on  the  performance  by  any  Agency  and  on 
'efficiency gains'. Many of these assumptions will be tested when negotiating a contract with 
an  Executive  Agency,  but  even  the  benefits  of  any  improved  performance  will  not  be  seen 
until later.  

The Court of Auditors has already highlighted some of the problems with past analyses of an 
Agency option: 

•  Emphasis is placed mainly on savings from the use of cheaper contract staff rather than 
permanent  staff  but  aspects  of  improved  performance  and  efficiency  gains  are  rarely 
considered;  

•  Costs  of  additional  staff  needed  in  the  Commission  to  supervise  agencies  and  at  the 

agencies for horizontal functions, are not accurately included or not included at all; 

•  Comparison is often made using the single average unit cost for the various categories of 
contract  staff  but  in  practice  they  vary  in  grade  and  therefore  cost.  Analysis  shows  the 
composition of the Commission consists largely of lower grades compared to specialised 
personnel  so  this  would  lead  to  an  overestimation  of  Commission  costs  in  cost 
comparisons. 

In  this  analysis  the  cost  of  additional  staff  to  supervise  agencies  has  been  estimated,  but 
potential  performance  and  efficiency  gains  have  only  been  partially  considered,  which  may 
leave the Agency option in a less favourable light.  

2. 

Assessment of the baseline management option (direct centralised management) 

The current LIFE+ programme is entirely managed by the Commission, with the support of 
contracted technical assistance. 

141

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
For the analysis, the following baseline data is used: 

Average programme spend per year (EC contribution): €234m 
Approximate number of projects commissioned per year: 200-230 
Average length of time of a project: 4 years 
Approximate number of projects operating per year: 600 (with a peak of over 700) 
Average total project size: €2.4m 
Average intervention rate: 50% with a possibility of up to 70% for NGOs operating grants and 75% for Nature projects 
focusing on priority habitats and species.  

The staff requirements are 44 full-time equivalent (fte) posts, which represents the two LIFE 
Units  of  DG  Environment.  The  posts  cover  the  following  specific  functions:  Management 
group  (4  fte),  LIFE  Units’  Technical  Desk  Officers  (TDOs)  (19  fte),  LIFE  Unit's  Financial 
Desk  Officers  (FDO)  (11  fte),  LIFE  Unit  Administration  (8  fte)  and  LIFE  Unit  Financial 
Administration (2 fte).  

-  Each  TDO  is  responsible  for  approximately  40  projects.68  This  includes  following 
project progress (evaluation of mid-term and final reports, correspondence, answering 
queries), 
and 
handling 
communication/dissemination activities.  

amendments 

extensions 

project 

visits, 

and 

-  Each FDO typically manages approximately 70 projects.  

-  The  TDOs  and  FDOs  are  organised  in  country  desks.  Each  TDO  and  FDO  is 

responsible for the project portfolio within one or more countries. 

The  44  posts  consist  currently  of  36  permanent  and  8  contract  staff.  Based  on  DG  BUDG 
figures  for  staff  costs  (average  cost  of  DG  staff  in  2010  is  €127,000  and  €64,000  for 
permanent  and  contract  staff  respectively),  this  equates  to  €5.1m  in  staff  costs   (excluding 
overheads) per annum.   

In  addition,  the  LIFE  Units  are  assisted  by  external  contractors  providing  technical 
assistance  with  an  average  cost  over  the  programme  period  of  approximately  €10m  per 
annum  (including  wages,  mission,  training  materials,  communication  activities  etc.).  This 
covers around 80 fte posts, doing the following work under the supervision of the LIFE Units:  

•  Project  Selection:  a  total  of  55,  mainly  part-time,  experts  working  on  all  stages  of  the 

evaluation and selection procedure, except eligibility;  

•  Project Monitoring: approximately 60 people monitoring the projects funded:  

•  Communication:  15  environment  and  communications  experts  responsible,  for  example, 
for  the  production  and  circulation  of  thematic  and  best  practice  publications,  the 
development  and  maintenance  of  the  LIFE  website,  maintaining  the  LIFE  project 
database, and organising seminars and events. 

• 

Information workshops: implementing information workshops on preparing and managing 
LIFE+ project proposals in collaboration with the Member States. 

68 COWI (2009) Ex-Post Evaluation of Projects and Activities Financed under the LIFE Programme. 

142

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Table 1: Annual management costs for the current LIFE+ programme 

Staff69 

Officials 
Contract staff 
Total Staff 
TA 
TOTAL COST 

No 

36 
8 
44 

cost per fte 
127.000 
64.000 

 80 

 125.000 

total cost 
4.572.000  
512.000  
5.084.000  
10.000.000 
15.084.000  

The number of full-time equivalent posts to manage all aspects of the programme is therefore 
approximately 125 full-time equivalent posts. The total administrative cost is the sum of staff 
costs  (excluding  office  overheads)  and  the  cost  of  outsourcing  (technical  assistance).  The 
current  management  costs  (excluding  overheads)  amount  to  just  over  €15  million 
(€15,084,000)  per annum, representing 6.2% of the total annual programme budget.70  

3. 

Assessment of the option of full externalisation to an existing agency 

Two possibilities are envisaged: either contracted technical assistance will be maintained, to 
support the Agency in its work, or technical assistance will be discontinued as Agency staff 
take over the corresponding tasks. 

3.1.  Without replacing technical assistance 

The following assumptions are made: 

-  Based on the experience gained with the externalisation of the eco-innovation part of 
the  CIP  programme,  the  same  number  of  staff  currently  managing  the  LIFE+ 
Programme  within  the  Commission  (44  posts)  could  be  needed  in  the  Agency  (of 
whom 9 would be officials seconded from the parent DG to the Agency).71  

-  Around 8 posts would be needed for coordination and control tasks in the parent DGs 
(for governance, supervision and monitoring of the programme, including establishing 
links between the parent DGs and the Agency).  

-  There  would  be  an  additional  staff  requirement  related  to  supplying  additional 
administrative  services  (human  resources  etc.)  to  the  Agency  new  staff  of  44  posts.  
Applying a ratio of 1 administration job for every 5 new posts adds a further 9 posts. 

This  makes  for  a  total  staff  requirement  of  61  (44+8+9)  fulltime  equivalent  posts,  at  an 
annual cost of €5.0m. Additional overhead costs  (e.g., office costs) would be associated with 
the 17 (8+9) additional posts. Assuming an overhead cost of €25,000 per  post, this would add 
a further €0.4m, making a  total staff related cost of €5.4m .  

69  Overview  of  average  cost  updated  on  4/10/2010.  Official=  €127.000  (including  administrative  support); 
Temporary  Agent=  €127.000;  Seconded  National  Expert=  €73.000;  Contract  Agent=  €64.000.  Source  DG 
BUDG http://www.cec/budg/pre/legalbasis/pre-040-020_preparation_en.html. 
70 Estimated to be €244 million (annual EC contribution to action grants and expenditure on technical assistance) 
71 Based on experience and conversations with EACI, a minimum of 6 staff need to be seconded to the Agency 
when  transfer  occurs.  According  to  figures  for  existing  agencies  like  EACI,  the  percentage  used  for  seconded 
staff is 24% of the staff used in the parent DG. A 20% level is used here since it is expected that the number of 
projects financed will decrease as well as overall Commission staff (5% target).   

143

 
 
 
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Staff  related  costs  under  the  Agency  management  option  (without  replacing  technical 
assistance)  would  be  €5.4m  per  year.  Together  with  a  technical  assistance  cost  of  €10m 
per year, Agency management costs would represents €15.4m per annum, or 6.3% of the 
programme budget.72. This is slightly more than the centralised management option.   

Table 2: Annual management costs for full externalisation to an Agency 

Staff 
Officials (min 9 seconded) 
Contract staff - wages 
DG ENV – programme 
governance 
Admin staff @20% 
Total Staff cost 
Additional staff o'head - 
TA 
Total Cost 
TA 
TOTAL COST 

No 

cost per 
job 
127.000 
64.000 

127.000 
64.000 

25.000 

9 
35 

8 
9 
61 

17 

total cost 
1.143.000  
2.240.000  

1.016.000  
563.200  
4.962.200  

420.000  
5.382.200  
10.000.000  
15.382.200  

6,3% 

3.2.  Replacing technical assistance 

If  the  existing  technical  assistance  provided  by  external  contractors  under  the  centralised 
option is replaced, it would require a broad range of geographical and thematic expertise, as 
well  as  full  coverage  of  the  EU  languages.  Although  hiring  new  Agency  employees  to 
undertake this work entails some costs, it is likely that these employees could be found.  

Assuming  that  such  candidates  could  do  the  work  of  the  technical  assistance  external 
contractors  at  the  same  level  of  effectiveness  and  efficiency,  then  at  an  annual  staff  cost  of 
€64,000, the additional 80 fulltime equivalent contract  posts would cost €5.1m. There is also a 
the  same  ratio  of  one 
requirement  for  additional  administrative  posts.  Assuming 
administrative post to five new posts would add a further 16 posts. The total staff cost would 
be €6.1m. In addition, there would be overhead  costs of €25,000 for the additional 96 posts, 
adding  a  further  €2.4m.  Since  the  staff  would  be  based  in  Brussels,  there  would  be  the 
additional  mission  costs  currently  avoided  by  using  contractor  staff  based  in  the  Member 
States. These costs are estimated to be in the order of €0.7m based on 700 trips per year at a 
rate  of  €1,000  a  trip.  The  costs  of  replaci ng  the  technical  assistance  activity  by  Agency 
activity would on this basis cost be €9.2m , a saving of €0.8m per year. 

The estimated costs do not take account of the high mobility of staff in the Agency (2.5 year 
length of service on average)73 and the consequent need to re-invest in recruiting/training of 
new staff as well as the efficiency loss due to the non-productive months resulting from the 
turn-over of new staff. Based on a contract staff requirement of 115 (35+80) posts, the staff 
turnover  over  a  7  year  programme,  would  require  the  recruitment  and  training  of  the 
workforce twice over (230 posts). Based on a cost of recruitment and training of say €10,000 
a  post,  the  staff  turnover  would  cost  €330,000  a  year   or  some  €2.3m   over  the  programme 
period. 

72 Applied to current programme budget assuming that for some years the transitional costs will be standing still. 
73 Draft Impact Assessment of EACI, CSES, 2011. 

144

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
  
 
  
  
 
 
 
                                                 
On the other hand, there would also be cost savings if the work is brought in-house rather than 
the parent DG (or Agency) having to manage and supervise the contracting and undertaking 
of this technical assistance externally.  

With  staff  related  costs  of  €5.4m  per  year,  cost s  of  replacing  technical  assistance  of  €9.2m 
and  a  staff  turn  over  costs  of  €2.3m,  the  tota l  management  cost  by  the  Agency,  with  the 
replacement of external assistance, would amount to €15m per year, representing 6.1% of the 
programme budget.  
The cost saving estimated above excludes other costs that are difficult to quantify: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

kick  off  costs  necessary  to  transfer  the  activities  and  start  the  new  business  in  the 
agency; 
costs  associated  with  establishing  a  team  of  experts  with  the  expertise  that  has  been 
developed for the current programme; 
costs associated with developing any associated programme support (e.g. database and 
related reporting systems, such as a potential replacement for BUTLER, training and 
recruitment costs within the Commission for comparison; 
Potential productivity and efficiency gains within the Agency from managing a large 
programme over 7 years. 

3.3. 

Summary of the cost comparison 

The various cost estimates for the three options are summarised in the Table 3 below. 

Table 3: Summary of the annual cost estimates (€m) of the differe nt management options 

Category of cost 

Staff costs (€m) 

Additional overhead costs (€m) 

Technical assistance (€m) 

Mission costs (€m) 

Total cost (€m) 

Total cost as % of programme 

Total saving (€m) compared with 
Centralised Management option 

Saving as % of Centralised 
Management option 

Management options 

Centralised 
Management 

Agency (with 
Technical 
Assistance) 

Agency (without 
Technical 
Assistance) 

5.1 

10.0 

15.1 

6.2% 

5.0 

0.4 

10.0 

15.4 

6.3% 

-0.3 

-2.0% 

11.1 

3.1 

0.7 

15.0 

6.1% 

0.1 

0.9% 

It should be repeated that there are a number of uncertainties that could affect the final costs 
of the different Agency options.   

145

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
4. 

Analysis on a per project basis 

As a form of sensitivity analysis, the calculations set out in section 3 can be tested to see if 
they change with the change in number of projects that is likely to occur with the introduction 
of Integrated Projects. This is done comparing central management with the Agency option of 
Agency where technical assistance is not replaced.  

4.1   Number of projects started in the average year 

The average number of projects being managed in any one year under the baseline option is 
600 projects (between 200-230 projects are selected every year). However, this number will 
decline  (under  the  preferred  option  of  the  Impact  Assessment),  as  a  consequence  of  the 
phasing-in of Integrated Projects, which are larger in size. Table 4 summarises the number of 
projects 
the  future  programme  (Governance  and 
Communication projects are embedded into the two strands, especially in the category "Top-
down").74  

to  be  financed  annually  under 

Table 4: Summary of number of projects per year 

Projects 
                      Strand 
Nature 
EPG 
Climate action 
Total Projects 

Integrated 
6 
9 
0 
15 

Top-
down 
5 
5 
0 
10 

Traditional 
40 
35 
40 
115 

Total 
51 
49 
40 
140 

Applying a complexity factor of "2" to Integrated Projects, it would mean that on average the 
equivalent of 155 traditional projects would start each year, and over time the equivalent 
of around 400 projects would be running at any one time.  

4.2   Costs under different options  

The  programme  runs  until  2024  as  projects  finish,  but  for  simplicity  the  costs  are  only 
examined during the 7 years of the programme (this does not affect the result). To calculate 
the cost per project, the data for the baseline are used.  

On average, the staff cost per project under direct central management are around €8,500  and 
for Agency is €9,000 . 

Table 5: Estimation of staff cost per project 

Avg no projects pa 
Current staff cost (€m) 
Current staff 

Current days pa 
Cost per day (€) 

EC 
600 
5,1 
44 

9680 
527 

Agency 
600 
5,4 
61 

1342075 
402 

74 These are traditional projects funded under the Governance strand. Because these are expected to be smaller in 
size and clearly spelled out in the Call for proposals they are referred to as "Top Down".  
75 Staff no multiplied by annual days (@220 days per year). 

146

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Days per project 
Staff cost per project 

EC 
16 
8500 

Agency 
2276 
9000 

A  multiplier  factor  represents  the  length  of  the  projects  and  therefore  the  total  number  of 
projects  being  looked  after  on  average  each  year  (when  the  programme  has  matured).  A 
multiplier factor of 3 is applied to standard projects (since these last between 2-4 years) and 5 
to Integrated Projects assuming their average life is longer.     

Table 6: Comparative calculation of cost (per project calculation base) 

EC 
Staff 
Complexity factor 
Number started in a year 
Total 
Average length of 
projects (multiplier) 
Total Staff cost 
TA  
Total TA cost 
TOTAL COST 

AGENCY 
Staff 
Complexity factor 
Number started in a year 
Total 
Average no of projects pa 
(multiplier) 
Total Staff cost 
TA (cost per project) 
Total TA cost 
TOTAL COST  

Integrated  Top-down 

Traditional 

8500  cost per project 

2 
15 
255.000 

1 
10 
85.000 

1 
115 
977.500 

5 
1.275.000 

3 
255.000 

3 
2.932.500 

16.667  cost per project 

2.500.000 

500.000 

5.750.000 

1.317.500 

4.462.500 
3 
8.750.000 
13.212.500 

Integrated  Top-down 

Standard 

9000  cost per project 

2 
15 
270.000 

1 
10 
90.000 

1 
115 
1.035.000 

1.395.000 

5 
1.350.000 

3 
270.000 

15.333  cost per project 

2.300.000 

460.000 

3 
3.105.000 

5.290.000 

4.725.000 
3 
8.050.000 
  12.775.000 

Using the above basis of calculation, the Agency will provide some cost savings of about €0.4 
million.  

5. 

Advantages and disadvantages of the Agency option: 

(a) The advantages of the Agency option 

• 

• 

The  majority  of  the  staff  in  the  Agency  (up  to  75%)  can  be  contract  posts  that  are 
significantly cheaper. 

The recruitment of such contract staff of a high quality and technical capability is not 
likely  to  be  difficult  given  past  evidence.77  The  Agency  employees  could  therefore 
undertake  the  bulk  of  work  that  is  currently  undertaken  by  the  LIFE  Unit  staff  and 
external contractors (under the option that includes technical assistance): 

76 Days divided by no. of projects. 
77  See  Technopolis  (2006),  ‘Cost  Benefit  Analysis  of  the  externalisation  of  the  certain  tasks  regarding  the 
implementation  of  the  Competitiveness  and  Innovation  Framework  Programme  (2007-2013)  through  an 
executive Agency’. 

147

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
o  Management tasks – specific tasks relating to programme management such as 
financial and administrative management e.g. payment processing (and finding 
ways to improve the processing)78; 

o  Programme  implementation  e.g.,  ensuring  reports  processed  within  deadlines 

and selection of projects takes place on time; 

o  Communication and dissemination activities; 

• 

• 

The  recruitment  of  staff  with  a  specific  technical  profile  could  also  increase  the 
effectiveness  of  technical  monitoring  and  improve  the  communication  of  lessons 
learned  to  the  parent  DGs  (provided  the  organisational  arrangements  are  based  on 
thematic expertise rather than geographical or a mixture of both). 

The  use  of  contract  posts  in  the  Agency  also  ‘frees  up’  the  Commission’s  human 
resources  in  terms  of  ‘saving’  permanent  posts  and  allowing  for  the  re-allocation  of 
them to core policy tasks, which in itself reduces the need for contract posts. In fact, 
the Agency option could free up 19 posts;79 of which two thirds would be AST posts 
and one third AD posts. However, this would materialise only after a number of years 
and only if all ongoing projects would be transferred. 

(b) The disadvantages of the Agency option 

• 

• 

• 

• 

Integrated  Projects  are  to  act  as  a  catalyst  for  effective  mainstreaming  into  the  other 
EU  financial  instruments.  This  will  require  careful  design  and  cooperation  with  the 
policy units in the parent DGs and other DGs to ensure their success. 

Integrated  projects  are  also  to  provide  examples  of  how  integration  is  possible  in 
practice.  Therefore  it  is  important  to  know  whether  this  approach  works  and  to 
identify  at  an  early  stage  problems  and  to  react  rapidly.  Close  monitoring  by  the 
Commission and contact with the beneficiaries is needed to ensure this early detection 
and quick solution finding.  

If  the  level  of  the  programme  remains  similar  to  current  levels,  or  if  the  budget 
increase  is  associated  with  a  similar  or  fewer  numbers  of  projects  but  with  a  larger 
average size, and especially if technical assistance is used because of the importance 
of maintaining the current networks, the Agency option becomes less attractive on cost 
saving grounds.  

The  preferred  option  for  the  programme  is  one  which  is  based  on  a  strategic 
programming  approach,  requiring  enhanced  cooperation  and  management 
to 
effectively contribute to policy design and implementation and high quality technical 
support to ensure replication of results is achieved. As a result, there is a risk that the 
Agency option would decrease the ability of this option to deliver the expected added 
value.  For  example,  Integrated  Projects  for  Nature  will  test  the  development  and 
implementation of the Prioritised Action framework (PAFs) required by the Habitats 
Directive.  It  is  essential  that  the  Commission  closely  follows  how  these  new 
frameworks are developed in different Member States and is able to quickly react to 

78  According  to  the  European  Court  of  Auditors  Special  Report  No.  13,  ‘Delegating  implementing  tasks  to 
Executive  Agencies:  a  successful  option?’  (2009),  the  contracting  time  for  the  ‘Public  health’  programme 
dropped from 345 days to 219 when managed by an Agency; payment period shortened from 503 to 91 days and 
approval time for technical/financial reports dropped from 90 to 42 days. 
79 36 post minus 9 seconded and less 8 staff used in parent DGs for governance. 

148

 
 
 
 
                                                 
demands for advice. This is more effectively done if the monitoring and management 
of the project remain within the Commission.  

• 

• 

There  is  also  a  clear  link  between  Integrated  Projects  and  implementation  and 
compliance  of  some  of  the  most  demanding  legislation  (Water  Framework  Directive 
or the Waste Framework Directive). In the case of the Water Framework Directive, the 
projects  will  be  implementing  plans  that  are  directly  assessed  by  the  Commission  to 
determine whether a Member States is meeting its obligations under the Directive. In 
addition,  based  on  the  experience  with  Nature  projects,  this  type  of  project  provides 
technical information that can be used for infringement cases or pilot cases. Therefore, 
strong  policy  link  with  technical  units  during  design  and  implementation  of 
these projects is necessary, and could not be done efficiently by an Agency.  

There  will  be  around  600  open  projects  at  the  end  of  the  LIFE+  programme  period, 
which will not be completed until 2017-2018. These will also need to be managed and 
provided  with  technical  assistance  [by  the  parent  DGs  or  by  the  Agency?]. 
Transitional  arrangements  could  be  complicated  for  them  (although  they  could  also 
allow for a more constant workflow for the Agency if transferred. 

6. 

Hybrid solution 

Given the need to ensure that Integrated Projects feed back into policy design, provide more 
effective information for policy implementation and maximise their demonstration value, one 
option which would address these objectives would be to keep Integrated Projects under direct 
central management.   

Table 7 shows the number of projects 'live' at any one time. Note that the assumption is that 
Integrated  Projects  are  evenly  spread  over  the  programme,  whereas  they  may  be  more 
weighted towards the second half as Member States will need time to develop proposals for 
this new concept. 

Table 7: Cumulative number of projects over time and related costs 

Cumulative  

Integrated 

Top-down 

Traditional 

2014 
2015 
2016 
2017 
2018 
2019 
2020 
2021 
2022 
2023 
2024 

Average annual open 
projects80 
Total number over 
programme81 

15 
30 
45 
60 
75 
75 
75 
60 
45 
30 
15 

75 

105 

10 
20 
30 
30 
30 
30 
30 
20 
10 
0 
0 

30 

70 

80 Total number of each project type over 7 years.  
81 Annual number of project type x 7. 

149

Cost 
3.805.000 
7.610.000 
11.415.000 
12.170.000 
12.925.000 
12.925.000 
12.925.000 
9.120.000 
5.315.000 
1.510.000 
755.000 

4% 
8% 
13% 
13% 
14% 
14% 
14% 
10% 
6% 
2% 
1% 

115 
230 
345 
345 
345 
345 
345 
230 
115 
0 
0 

345 

90.475.000 

100% 

805 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Cumulative  

Integrated 

Top-down 

Traditional 

Cost 

Average Project Cost 

50.333 

25.167 

24.333 

Total annual cost 
Total programme cost 

3.775.000 

755.000 

8.395.000 

12.925.000 
90.475.000 

7 

Table 8: Calculation of management cost for the hybrid option 

EC 
Staff 
Complexity factor 
Total 
Average no of projects pa 
(multiplier) 
Total Staff cost 
TA  
Total TA cost 
TOTAL 
AGENCY 
Staff 
Complexity factor 
Total 
Average no of projects pa 
(multiplier) 
Total Staff cost 
TA (cost per project) 
Total TA cost 
TOTAL 

Integrated  Top-down 

Traditional 

8500  cost per project 

2 
255.000 

5 
1.275.000 

1 
85.000 

3 
255.000 

16.667  cost per project 

2.500.000 
3.775.00 

500.000 
750.000 

Top-down 

Traditional 

9000  cost per project 

3 

4.525.000 

1 
1.035.000 

3 
3.105.000 

  cost per project 

3 

5.290.000 
8.395.000 

8.395.000 
  12.920.000 

The average annual cost of €12.9m is  reached in 2018 (see Table 8 above). 

7. 

Conclusion 

Considering  the  arguments  against  a  full  externalisation  option,  and  the  above  calculations 
demonstrating  a  low  cost  decision  factor,  the  preferred  option  is  a  hybrid  between  full 
externalisation and full integration. 

The estimation of these resources for both the Agency and the Commission, the cumulative 
impacts  across  the  entire  programme  period  as  well  as  the  impacts  of  the  transitional 
arrangements  will  need  to  be  a  carefully  developed,  reviewed  and  validated  at  the  time  of 
preparing the detailed cost/benefit analysis for any transfer to an Agency. Similarly, the mid 
term  evaluation  of  the  new  programme  will  need  to  revisit  the  analysis  to  assess  whether 
Integrated Projects should be managed directly or by an Agency. 

150

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 10: OBJECTIVES AND MONITORING FRAMEWORK   

General Objective: Provide solutions in order to achieve environmental objectives by developing, updating and implementing EU environmental policy.-  

Specific and Operational 
Objectives 

Types of activities 

Expected outputs 

Output indicators 

Expected results 

Result indicators 

Impacts indicators 

1. To improve the scope of EU environmental and climate policy and legislation 

−  To identify, test and 
develop policy 
proposals to current 
and emerging 
environmental and 
climate problems  

Public procurement 
and technical studies 
defining and scaling 
problems and 
identifying possible 
policy options 

Public procurement / 
grant funding of the 
demonstration of the 
feasibility of policy 
options 

Challenges to the operation of 
existing approaches 

No. of reports providing 
analysis/solutions, by 
theme, Directive, MS 

Improved environmental 
monitoring and problem 
definition 

Expanded knowledge base, including 
for forests 

Demonstration of new/updated policy 
approaches 

No. of policy options/ 
instruments developed and 
tested, by theme, 
Directive, MS 

Policy proposals that 
improve the scope of EU 
policy to deal with 
environmental and 
climate problems 

Testing of new financial instruments 

Attributable 
environmental 
improvements from 
improved targeting 
and/or design of policy 
instruments 

Expanded sets of 
environmental and 
climate indicators, 
periodicity & quality 
of data by theme, 
Directive, MS 

Increase in knowledge 
base of environmental 
problems e.g. number 
of new tools or users 
of tools or studies 
available. 

New policy proposals 
by theme, Directive, 
MS 

Funding of 
environmental  and 
climate NGOs 

Increased participation of NGOs and 
civil society in policy making and 
review 

−  To facilitate and 
improve  the 
contributions of 
environmental and 
climate NGOs and 
civil society in policy 
making and review 

Improved participation 
of citizens and NGOs in 
the decision-making 
process. 

Uptake of NGOs and 
civil society proposals 
for amendments in the 
legislative acts. 

No., size, type of NGOs (+ 
subset of indicators 
required for NGO 
outputs82) – n. of 
contributions, 
amendments to policy 
making; participation in 
public consultations; n. 
position papers.  

2. To  improve the implementation of EU environmental and climate policy and legislation, (including EU commitments to international agreements 

−  To identify, test and 
develop policy 

Public procurement 
and technical studies 

Challenges to the operation of 
existing approaches 

No of reports providing 
analysis of existing 

Take-up of new or 
updated approaches and 

Expanded and 
improved capacity for 

Attributable 
environmental and 

82 Additional work is required to fine-tune the NGO indicators to better reflect their role in helping to avoid regulatory capture as well as promoting civil engagement 

151

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
Types of activities 

Expected outputs 

Output indicators 

Expected results 

Result indicators 

Impacts indicators 

Specific and Operational 
Objectives 

approaches to 
improve MS and 
private sector 
capacity to transpose, 
implement monitor 
and enforce 
environment and 
climate legislation. 

−  To facilitate 

knowledge sharing 
on successful 
environmental and 
climate policy and 
practice. 

−  To improve support 
for international 
commitments and 
management of third 
country problems. 

−  To increase 

effectiveness of MS 
and third countries 
activities to reduce 
environmental 
externalities 
adversely affecting 
the EU 

Expanded institutional capacity to 
implement policy (new skills, 
expanded knowledge base, new and 
extended networks of competent 
authorities) 

Expanded knowledge base, including 
for forests 

Demonstration of updated policy 
approaches and of good practice 
policy implementation/enforcement 

Dissemination of good practice 
(multiplier effects)  

on transposition, 
implementation, 
monitoring and 
enforcement problems 
(including in the 
context of 
international 
commitments) 

Grant funding of the 
demonstration of 
updated and improved 
policy approaches 

Grant funding of good 
practice demonstration 
for subsequent 
dissemination 

Grant funding of 
mutual and peer 
learning activities and 
networks 

Grant funding of 
targeted training 
initiatives 

To 

improve 
the  contributions  of 
environmental  NGOs 
and  civil  society  to 
implementation, 

Grant funding of 
environmental and 
climate NGOs 

Grant funding of 

Increased awareness on 
environmental and climate problems 

Increased participation of NGOs and 
civil society on policy 

institutional weaknesses in 
relation to policy 
implementation, and 
related solutions by theme, 
Directive, MS 

good practices that 
improve monitoring, 
implementation and 
enforcement of EU 
environmental and 
climate policy in MS 

Participation in peer 
learning networks and 
replication  activities (by 
MS, themes, number and 
type of actors) 

Participation in training 
activities (by MS, themes 
and actors) 

Dissemination activity of 
updated and good practice 
policy approaches, by type 
of activity (workshops, 
publications, etc,) and by 
theme and type and 
number of actors 

N. of projects/ measures 
or approaches replicated 
and transfer 

Third country involvement 
in research, demonstration 
and dissemination 
activities 

No., size, type of NGOs (+ 
subset of indicators 
required for NGO outputs) 
– n. of projects where 
NGOs participate 

Improved capacity to 
manage environmental 
and climate policies 

Sub-target 
10% of RBD adequately 
managed (or 15% of 
national branches).  

15% of Regions have 
adequate implementation 
of waste legislation 

At least 15% of N2000 
brought into adequate 
management 

25% projects/measures 
or approaches replicated 
and/or transferred 

Increased EU 
contribution to securing 
international 
commitments 

Increased participation 
of citizens and NGOs in 
the decision-making 
process. 

152

implementing EU 
environmental and 
climate policies at MS 
and regional/local 
levels (changes in No. 
& quality of relevant 
responsible authority 
staff) 

Reported changes and 
improvements in  
transposition and 
implementation 
procedures 

Reduced no. of 
reported infringements 
of EU legislation 

Improved quality of 
European Commission 
inputs to international 
working 

climate improvements 
from  
increased effectiveness 
of policy instruments, 
especially through 
improved levels of 
implementation 
(attributable 
reductions in env. and 
cliamte problems due 
to capacity 
improvements) 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

Increased 
resilience 
climate change;  

to 

Improved 
resource 
efficiency;  

Improved 
environmental 
quality;  

EU 

Enhanced 
environmental 
assets 

Improved 
conservation 
status 

Attributable and 
specified  climate 
improvements due to 
the improved quality 
of policy approach / 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Specific and Operational 
Objectives 

policy  making  and 
review. 

To 

support 
and  raise  awareness, 
communication,  and 
dissemination  among 
on 
civil 
society 
environmental 
and 
climate aspects 

Types of activities 

Expected outputs 

Output indicators 

Expected results 

Result indicators 

Impacts indicators 

implementation. 

Increased dissemination of 
knowledge among different 
stakeholders 

dissemination of 
project results and 
awareness raising 
campaigns 

Public procurement of 
dissemination and 
awareness raising 
campaigns 

Enhanced 
dissemination 
obligations in grant 
funded projects 

Increased awareness and 
communication on 
environmental and 
climate problems 
(compared to 
eurobarometre results) 

Increased empowerment 
of civil society 

N. of projects where civil 
society and private sector 
organisations participate 

N. dissemination activities 
carried out, per sector, 
MS, n. of persons 
reached,, n. publications, 
media appearances etc 

N. of complaints at 
national and EU level per 
sector and per MS from 
civil society and NGOs 

management and use 
of new approaches 

Attributable reductions 
in international env. 
and climate problems 

3. To improve the effective contribution of other EU policies to environmental and climate objectives at implementation level 

−  To identify and 
undertake  
demonstration 
activities capable of 
informing 
opportunities for 
improved sectoral 
performance of 
environment and 
climate in achieving 
environmental and 
climate objectives 
and upholding the 
potential of the 
climate and 
environmental 
policies. 

−  To raise awareness of 

Grant funding of 
demonstration and 
dissemination of new 
or updated approaches 
to improve 
environmental and 
climate performance 
of key sectors 

Enhanced 
dissemination 
obligations in grant 
funded projects 

Dissemination of 
project results, 
including funding of 
specific projects, 
publications and 
conferences or 

Increased awareness of the need and 
scope for integration 

Expanded institutional capacity (new 
skills, expanded knowledge base, 
new and extended networks of 
responsible authorities, better 
coordination among authorities in a 
MS or region dealing  with different 
sectors to increase integration) 

Demonstration of new or updated 
approaches to improve environmental 
and climate performance of key Grant 
funding of demonstration and 
dissemination of key sectors. 

Dissemination within sectors of 
new/updated approaches to improve 
environmental or climate integration 

No. of reported policy 
proposals for improved 
integration of env. & 
climate objectives in 
sectoral activities, by 
sector and sub-sector 

No. of new and updated 
approaches demonstrated 
that improve integration 
and enable economic 
actors to improve env. & 
climate performance, by 
type of actor, sector and 
MS.  
No. of dissemination 
activities of updated and 
good practice approaches 
to integration, by type of 
activity (workshops, 

153

Attributable reductions 
in environmental and 
climate problems as a 
result of take-up of 
demonstrated 
successful approaches.  

Take up of new or 
updated approaches that 
improve sectoral 
environmental and 
climate performance.  

Sub-target: 
At least 25% of new or 
updated approaches 
taken up by the market 
and economic sectors 
and responsible 
authorities 

No. of updated 
approaches that have 
been used by 
economic actors to 
improve 
environmental and 
climate performance 
by actor, sector, MS 
and type and number 
of actors 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Specific and Operational 
Objectives 

policy makers and 
economic and social 
actors of the 
opportunities for 
better integration 

Types of activities 

Expected outputs 

Output indicators 

Expected results 

Result indicators 

Impacts indicators 

workshops targeting a 
specific sector  

–multiplier effects 

publications, etc.) by 
sector and type and 
number of actors.  

4. To develop solutions for subsequent mainstreaming in other EU financial instruments and MS practices to support the multiplier effect  

−  To identify, test and 

develop technical and 
policy solutions to 
environmental and 
climate problems 
suitable for 
mainstreaming 
through other EU / 
MS financial 
instruments 

Grant funding of 
innovative and 
demonstrative 
solutions to 
environment and 
climate problems 
capable of being 
mainstreamed 

Activities for 
dissemination as 
above. 

Demonstration of new or updated 
approaches/ techniques to improve 
environmental and climate 
performance capable of being 
mainstreamed 

No. of reported technical 
and policy solutions 
capable of being 
mainstreamed, by theme, 
sector and MS 

Applications for EU funding based on 
demonstration projects (multiplier 
effect) 

Dissemination activity of 
project results potentially 
capable of being 
mainstreamed (workshops, 
publications, etc.) by 
theme, sector and type and 
number of actors. 

Application submitted for 
mainstream funding based 
on demonstration results, 
by value, by theme and 
sector. 

No. tested approaches 
incorporated in national 
and regional programmes 
linked to other EU 
instruments. 

Increased mainstream 
funding for environment 
and climate solutions 

Sub-targets: 
At least 25% approaches 
incorporated into 
national/regional 
programmes.  

No. of projects 
receiving mainstream 
funding (under 
EARDF, ERDF, CF, 
EFF) to roll-out and 
diffuse the take-up of 
demonstrated solutions 
under LIFER, by 
value, theme, sector 

Attributable reductions 
in environmental and 
climate problems as a 
result of subsequent 
application of 
solutions from 
mainstream funding  

Increased uptake of 
other EU funds for 
environment and climate 
related by 50% 

No. of measures and 
projects receiving 
mainstream funding 
complementing 
integrated projects. 

No. of MS/Regions 
that replicate 
integrated project  
approaches.  

5. To contribute to responsibility sharing in the protection of natural assets and to stop biodiversity loss 

Attributable and 

154

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Specific and Operational 
Objectives 

−  To recognise the 

effort sharing of MS 
on the basis of the 
geographic 
distribution of 
environmental 
resources  

−  To increase 

effectiveness of 
protection and 
management 
activities in MSs with 
unequal amounts of 
natural assets [EPV 
says I think this is 
feasible because of 
IP] 

Types of activities 

Expected outputs 

Output indicators 

Expected results 

Result indicators 

Impacts indicators 

Funding of best 
practice and 
demonstration 
activities in 
Natura2000 (N2K); 

Funding of best 
practice and 
demonstration 
protection of 
biodiversity and 
ecosystem services 
outside N2K, 
including species and 
habitats IUCN/EU Red 
Lists 

Challenges to the operation of 
existing approaches 

New and expanded networks of 
stakeholders enabling conservation 
measures 

Expanded knowledge base of good 
practice conservation measures 

Expanded use of nature conservation 
measures within N2K sites and wider 
eco-system management 

New and demonstrative approaches 
to nature and biodiversity 
conservation 

No of sites, by area and 
type of habitat subject to 
restoration and/or 
improved management 

No of approaches 
demonstrated 

No species subject to 
conservation activities 

specified  
environmental 
improvements due to 
the improved quality 
of management and 
use of new approaches 

Improved quality of 
management of N2K 
sites and networks (by 
area, habitat, and MS) 

Quality of approaches 
to biodiversity and 
conservation 
demonstrated to be 
effective and efficient 

No. of species and 
habitats that reach 
favourable 
conservation status 

No. of water bodies 
that reach good 
ecological status 

Improved conservation 
status of and reduced 
degradation of EU 
significant 
environmental natural 
assets level of protection 
of EU significant 
environmental assets 

Contribute to reaching 
Biodiversity Strategy 
targets 

Sub-targets: 

 At least 15% of N2000 
brought into adequate 
management 

25% of habitats targeted 
reached favourable 
conservation status 

25% of species targeted 
achieved favourable 
conservation status 

6. To contribute to responsibility sharing in addressing transboundary problems affecting EU internal and external borders 

−  To recognise the risk 
sharing principle for 
MS on the basis of 
transboundary 
problems 
experienced 

Funding of 
transboundary 
projects, including 
third country 
participation when 
required 

−  To increase 

effectiveness of MS 

Dissemination 
activities as above 

Challenges to the operation of 
existing approaches 

Expanded knowledge base of cross-
border problems 

Expanded institutional capacity to 
implement policy across internal and 
external EU borders 

No of reports providing 
analysis of existing 
institutional weaknesses in 
relation to transboundary 
pollution, and related 
solutions, by theme and 
MS 

No. policy/ technical 
proposals and approaches 

Reduced significance of 
transboundary problems 

Increased cooperation 
across internal and 
external EU borders 

No. and quality of 
updated approaches for 
dealing with 
transboundary 
problems 
demonstrated to be 
effective and efficient 

No. of approaches for 
dealing with 

Attributable and 
specified 
environmental 
improvements due to 
the improved quality 
of policy approach/ 
management and use 
of new approaches to 
transboundary 
problems.  

155

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Specific and Operational 
Objectives 

and third countries 
activities to reduce 
environmental 
externalities 
adversely affecting 
the EU.  

Types of activities 

Expected outputs 

Output indicators 

Expected results 

Result indicators 

Impacts indicators 

Demonstration and dissemination of 
new or updated approaches to address 
transboundary problems.  

for addressing 
transboundary problems 
tested and demonstrated 
by theme and MS 

Third country involvement 
in research, demonstration 
and dissemination 
activities by theme 

No. of networks or 
cooperation mechanism 
created 

transboundary 
problems replicated in 
other EU and non-EU 
countries 

No. of networks and 
cooperation 
mechanisms improved 
or consolidated 

7. To contribute to the efforts to mitigate climate change 

Funding of projects 
concerning mitigation 
activities. 

Expanded knowledge base of good 
practices for mitigation activities 

No of projects addressing 
mitigation activities 

Demonstration of new approaches to 
climate mitigation 

No of pilot projects on 
mitigation activities 

Reduced levels of 
greenhouse gas 
emissions. 

Improved levels of 
energy efficiency. 
Take-up of technologies 
that facilitate mitigation 

Tones of GHG 
reduced 

Renewable energy 
production by 
demonstrated 
technologies 

Energy saved 

Attributable and 
specified  climate 
improvements due to 
the improved quality 
of policy approach / 
management and use 
of new approaches 

−  To improve the 

knowledge base and 
building it into 
effective mitigation 
actions. 

−  To mainstream 

mitigation efforts 
into local and 
regional structures. 

−  To develop pilot 

mitigation projects 

8. To support efforts leading to adaptation to climate change 

Funding of projects 
concerning adaptation 
activities. 

−  To build the 

knowledge base on 
adaptation to climate 
change. 

−  To develop strategies 

Expanded knowledge base of good 
practices for mitigation activities 

No of projects addressing 
adaptation activities 

Improved resilience to 
climate change. 

Increased adapted 
capacity 

Demonstration of new approaches to 
climate adaptation 

No. of local and regional 
adaptation strategies 

Increased capacity in evaluating 

No. of new approaches 

Improved climate 
proofing of investments 

Innovative adaptation 

Attributable and 
specified  climate 
improvements due to 
the improved quality 
of management and 
use of new approaches 

156

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Types of activities 

Expected outputs 

Output indicators 

Expected results 

Result indicators 

Impacts indicators 

impacts and planning adaptation 

measures 

developed to facilitate 
adaptation in specific 
fields 

Reduced vulnerability 

Specific and Operational 
Objectives 

for mainstreaming 
adaptation into local 
and regional 
governance 
structures. 

−  To strengthen climate 

"proofing" of 
investments.   

−  To develop 

innovative adaptation 
pilot projects. 

157

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 11: 

 INTEGRATED PROJECTS 

1.  Main lessons learned from current and previous Programming period 

The recent mid-term evaluation for the period 2007-200983 concludes that LIFE is an efficient 
successful financial instrument crucial to the needs of environmental policy. It is a catalyst for 
the  implementation  of  some  of  the  most  demanding  Directives,  preparing  the  ground  for 
continued management through other funds. LIFE is therefore considered as the reference EU 
instrument for environmental financing. 

However,  one  of  the  aspects  highlighted  by  the  mid-term  evaluation  is  that  building 
synergies  between  LIFE  and  other  EU  funds  has  been  a  challenge.  There  are  many 
examples of mainstreaming EU and domestic resources towards strategic environmental goals 
at  territorial  level.  However,  the  widely  implementation  of  this  approach  based  on  positive 
complementarity  remains  a  challenge  in  practice.  This  partially  derives  from  the  way 
prioritisation  is  made  at  national  or  regional  level.  Competing  priorities  for  limited  funding 
result in many cases in a lower prioritisation given to environmental funding, especially for 
nature  conservation  and  biodiversity.  Also,  there  seems  to  be  underdeveloped  capacity  to 
manage funds available.  

LIFE  brought  positive  exceptions  to  the  above.  For  example,  many  agri-environmental 
measures  were  tested  in  LIFE  and  afterwards  incorporated  into  Rural  Development 
Programmes.  Other  LIFE  projects  allowed  development  of  water  resources  management 
policies, paving the way for investments in water infrastructure co-financed by the ERDF or 
the  CF.  Such  constructive  synergies  allowed  additional  mobilisation  of  funds  for 
environmental purposes. A more constructive approach to complementarity between different 
EU instruments based on these positive experiences should therefore be promoted for the next 
programming period.  

LIFE is a small instrument and cannot be used to solve all environmental problems. Domestic 
funds and other EU funds remain the core funding instruments for environmental protection. 
However, LIFE has an enormous catalyst effect and its individual projects traditionally have 
a  disproportionately  large  impact.  For  that  reason,  a  new  tool  is  proposed  in  the  MFF 
Communication,  i.e.,  Integrated  Projects  which are  meant  to  mobilise  both  national  and  EU 
funds  to  implement  environmental  action  plans  as  part  of  wider  development  programmes. 
They  also  have  the  potential  to  mobilise  funds  from  financial  institutions  and  the  private 
sector.  Therefore,  Integrated  Projects  should  be  used  to  demonstrate  to  regional  and 
national authorities the benefits of investing in the environmental sector and push them 
to  develop  strategic  frameworks  and  methods  to  use  different  funds  in  an  integrated 
way. This would help to make complementarity of EU funding a reality. 

2.  Concept and characteristics of Integrated Projects 

Integrated  Projects  are  demonstration  projects  for  the  sustainable  implementation  of 
environmental action plans. An Integrated Project is similar to a traditional LIFE project but it 
covers  a  larger  portion  of  the  territory  or  a  region  (it  could  also  be  national),  where  the 
applicant,  namely  the  authority  responsible  for  the  environmental  sector  concerned,  aims  at 
implementing  a  sectoral  environmental  action  plan  by  carrying  out  the  necessary 

83 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/about/documents/com2010_516midterm_eval.pdf. 

158

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
environmental measures required to achieve the environmental objective (as specified in the 
environmental  action  plan),  generating  the  necessary  capacity  to  manage  the  specific 
environmental sector at the most appropriate territorial/administrative level in a durable way. 

The characteristics (and pre-conditions) of a LIFE Integrated Project are: 
−  A multi-annual environmental action plan for a specific sector should already be in place, 
such  as  Prioritised  action  framework  under  the  Habitats  Directive  or  a  river  basin 
management plan under the Water Framework Directive; 

−  The  above  plans  identify  the  overall  financial  needs  and  sources  of  finance,  including 
LIFE, required to implement the plan and thus to achieve the environmental objective; 
−  The  LIFE  project  supports  a  series  of  specific  activities  and  measures  included  in  the 
environmental action plan (these constitute the Integrated Project and are specified in the 
project  proposal).  These  specific  activities  are  individually  clearly  defined  with  a 
financing plan, timelines and expected outcomes, as traditional LIFE projects;  

−  When submitting the Integrated Project proposal, the applicant includes a financial plan, 
indicating how  the measures included in the overall environmental action plan should be 
resourced, including LIFE Integrated Project funds but also other regional, national and/or 
EU funds; 

−  The  applicant  must  demonstrate  that  the  Integrated  Project  itself  delivers  environmental 
outcomes also as a self-standing part of the overall environmental action plan and that it 
contributes to the outcomes of the overall plan. 

−  Priority  will  be  given  to  Integrated  Projects  having  a  cross-border  dimension  related  to 
environmental impacts and protection, or internal market aspects e.g., in the area of waste 
and resources or ecosystem services, to economic and employment impact. 

These projects will be inclusive: involvement of all relevant stakeholders (public, private and 
civil society) in the particular sector and their funds will be required. 

It is foreseen that Integrated Projects will require an indicative EU contribution of €10million 
per project (whereas traditional projects are expected to require around €1.5m). 

Box 1: Two theoretical examples of LIFE "Iintegrated Projects"  

1. Natura2000  

Region X has 10 Natura2000 sites under its jurisdiction so it develops a Regional Programme for Natura2000 covering all the 
sites.  Such  program  covers  all aspects  related  to  the  management  of  the  sites, and  all  the  features  needed to  guarantee  the 
connectivity  and  the  functionality  of  the  network  thus  covering  aspects  like  green  infrastructures  and  ecosystem  services. 
This programme identifies a range of management and conservation needs which are translated into different activities that 
require financial support.  

These activities include inter alia restoring four sites (removal of alien species, reforestation, creation of ponds etc), recurring 
management once the restoration is finalised, create corridors between the sites, stop agriculture in one site, leasing hunting 
rights  in  another  site,  installing  waste  water  treatment  systems  for  houses'  discharges  affecting  a  river  and  ground  waters 
connected  to  five  sites,  soil  decontamination  in three  sites, conditioning two  sites  for  visitors  (interpretative  paths,  visitors 
centres, observation towers and spots, parking facilities), training farmers to adopt more sustainable agricultural practices in 
three sites and buffers around, compensation payments etc.,  

Region  X  identifies  the  financial  needs  for  the  implementation  of  these  activities  and  submits  a  proposal  for  a  LIFE 
integrated project. This project clearly specifies the activities or group of activities among those included in the programme 
that  will  be  financed  by  LIFE  (e.g.  the  restoration  and  connectivity  activities,  capacity  building,  awareness  raising).  In 
addition,  it  presents  evidence  on  how  it  will  use  other  funds  (e.g.  from  EARDF,  ERDF,  private)  to  implement  the 
complementary measures included in the programme (compensation payments, correction of power lines, infrastructure etc).  

159

 
 
 
 
 
 
2. Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) at a transboundary scale 

A River Basin Competent Authority Y has a transboundary European river basin under its responsibility. It develops a River 
Basin  Management  Plan  according  to  the  requirements  of  the  WFD.  Such  Plan  covers  all  aspects  related  to  water 
management in the river basin, aiming at ensuring "good status" for all waters in the river basin. The plan identifies more 
specific objectives (ecological status, quantitative status, chemical status, etc.) and identifies the range of measures that will 
be needed to achieve those objectives which are translated into different activities requiring financial support.  

These  measures  include  inter  alia  reducing  pollution  from  agriculture  through  promotion  of  environmentally  sensitive 
farming  practices  (reduction  of  pesticides  use,  promotion  of  water  saving,  suspension  of  certain  farming  activities,  etc); 
installing  waster  water  treatment  plants  in  two  agglomerations  and  green  filters  in  specific  areas  to  avoid  percolation  in 
ground  waters;  elimination  of  invasive  alien  species  and  developing  early  detection  systems;    decontamination  of  soil,  
developing  biological  monitoring  methods  and  chemical  monitoring,  prevention  and  limitation  of  input  of  pollutants  to 
groundwater and surface water from industry, mining and quarrying activities and diffuse pollution; promotion of sustainable 
drainage schemes for flood risk, floods vulnerability assessment and flood mapping and restoring floodplains etc.  

Competent Authority Y identifies, together with Competent Authorities from other States belonging to the same river basin 
district  and  other  interested  parties  (eg.  representatives  from  hydropower  industry,  farmers'  associations  etc.)  the  financial 
needs  for  the  implementation  of  these  measures  and  activities  and  submits,  a  proposal  for  a  LIFE  integrated  project.  This 
project  clearly  specifies  the  measures/activities  or  group  of  measures/activities  among  those  included  in  the  River  Basin 
Management  Plan  (and  programme  of  measures)  that  will  be  financed  by  LIFE  (e.g.  removal  of  obstacles  for  river 
connectivity  to  improve  fish  migration,  development  of  monitoring  methods,  awareness  raising,  partnerships  etc.).  In 
addition,  it  presents  evidence  on  how  it  will  use  other  available  funds  (e.g.  from  ERDF,  EARDF,  public,  private)  to 
implement the complementary measures included in the programme (compensations payments, infrastructure etc).  

The potential contribution of Integrated Projects to the practical integration of environmental 
objectives  can  be  exemplified  by  the  experience  of  INTERREG  projects,  since  Integrated 
Projects  share  the  same  objective  as  some  INTERREG  projects  that  seek  to  better  integrate 
economic, social and environmental objectives. Some INTERREG projects therefore provide 
possible illustrations of the integration benefits that might follow from Integrated Projects. It 
should be noted that INTERREG  projects  do not seek to combine different funding sources 
and therefore do not have the requirement and potential impact as Integrated Projects do. 

Below  are  summarised  two  examples  of  INTERREG  projects  which  have  had  a  particular 
focus on integrating environmental objectives with wider economic development objectives. 
These  projects  illustrate  the  potential  benefits  from  integrating  economic,  social  and 
environmental objectives as the basis of co-ordinated action and learning. 

Box 2:  Successful  examples of Integrated Management from INTERREG 

TIDE (Tidal River Development)  

The  TIDE  project  covers  the  estuaries  of  the  Rivers  Elbe  (DE),  Humber  (UK),  Scheldt  (BE/NL)  and  Weser  (DE)  and 
brings together experts, scientists, policy-makers and managers representing economic, social and environmental interests 
in  the  four  estuaries.  TIDE  aims  to  promote  the  economic  objectives  of  port  development,  alongside  environmental 
protection and social benefits to the wider population through the development and use of ecosystem services. TIDE seeks 
to integrate the physical needs for economic development with ecological and environmental needs based on the definition 
of ecosystem services. In this case study the ecosystem service approach is used and thought of as: defining benefits that 
estuary  ecosystems  can  provide,  defining  services  required  to  realise  these  benefits  and  assessing  what  management 
techniques are needed to provide for these services.  

The  project  aims  to  realise  its  objectives  through  principles  of  shared  management  and  four  work  packages  have  been 
designed,  one  assigned  to  each  partner.  Work  package  integration  is  leading  to  shared  experiences  and  promotion  of 
knowledge transfer between sites and partners. All partners contribute to the different work packages although one partner 
initiates  each  package  by  producing  a  guidance  document  and  a  central  team  co-ordinates  the  different  partners.  The  4 
work packages are designed to cover the following different themes: 

Improve Knowledge on Estuary Functioning  

− 
−  Realise Integrated Management Planning / Governance  
−  Mitigation and Compensation Measures  
−  Transnational Exchange & Capacity Building. 

160

 
 
 
 
The  integrated  partnership  model  is  achieved  primarily  through  the  work  package  integration  and  also  through  general 
cooperation and sharing of knowledge and solutions by partners. The benefits of this method include: 

Provision of a forum for issues to be discussed between port authorities and conservation bodies. 
Scope to learn lessons drawn from previous projects 

− 
− 
−  Knowledge sharing between partners, breaking down previously polarised views 
− 

Identifying and establishing the strategic management themes for estuaries to be assessed alongside estuary 
specific themes. 

Sources: TIDE, Tidal River development -  
http://www.northsearegion.eu/files/repository/20091028105326_TIDE_Flyer_8s_K07_Druck.pdf; TIDE Times, Issue 01 
2010, Hamburg Port Authority &s.Pro sustainable projects GmbH -http://tide-
project.eu/downloads/TIDE_Times_Issue_01.pdf; Stakeholder interviews  

NATURESHIP 

The Natureship project is part of the Central Baltic Interreg IVA Programme. The participating regions of the Programme 
are  situated  in  Estonia,  Finland  (including  Åland),  Latvia  and  Sweden.  The  emphasis  of  the  Natureship  project  is  for  a 
novel approach on planning and management of traditional rural landscapes and selected coastlines. The aim of the project 
is to create and restore an optimal ecosystem service network based on integrated sustainable coastal planning. The project 
builds  on  the  earlier  co-operation  between  partners  on  the  Interreg  IIIA  project  RUOKO  (reed  strategy  in  Finland  and 
Estonia), in which an attempt was made to optimise ecosystem services. This team was then expanded to draw on other 
relevant  knowledge  such  as  the  County  Administrative  Council  of  Gotland  who  had  mapped  the  Gotland  coastal  area, 
covering data relevant for ecosystem services. The different partners each took responsibility for different theme areas of 
the project including: 

Integrated coastal planning 

− 
−  Landscape and habitat monitoring and evaluation with retrospective land cover and land use change detection 

using remote sensing and GIS 

−  Management and species of traditional rural biotopes 
−  City meadows  
−  Conservation and management of calcareous habitats in the coastal cultural Landscape 
−  Evaluation of ecosystem services as a tool for coastal zone  
−  Management 
−  Ecosystem services and management of coastal lagoons. 

NATURSHIP highlighted a number of win-wins, reflecting the holistic and proactive objectives that can be funded under 
Interreg.  The  project  has  a  strong  focus  on  ecosystem  services,  protecting  natural  resources  through  planning  and 
management whilst providing a safe and healthy environment. In addition the project will also assess how to achieve cost-
effective planning and management of traditional rural biotopes in order to enhance public and biodiversity values. 

Sources: 
http://www.centralbaltic.eu/documents/doc_view/4-programme-document-?tmpl=component&format=raw; 
Evaluation of the Central Baltic Interreg IVA Programme 2007-2013, Final mid[term evaluation report, Deabaltika, 24 
November 2010; Stakeholder interviews.  

3.  

Added value and impact of Integrated Projects 

The  MFF  Communication  suggests  that  integrated  instruments  could  be  used  to  maximise 
their  leverage  role  by  combining  different  funding  sources.  LIFE,  which  is  the  specific 
instrument  for  the  environment  (as  a  contributor  funder)  would  guide  the  implementation 
process in an Integrated Project by providing a specific environmental focus and expertise and 
by ensuring that the total funds mobilised have the most positive environmental impact. The 
main benefits of Integrated Projects would therefore be: 

161

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
▪  Environmental priorities would become embedded into all the project activities as 

a requirement; 

▪  Administrative  cost  savings;  because  of  a  larger  size  and  potential  higher 
effectiveness  of  the  projects84,  replacing  some  smaller  projects  with  associated 
reductions in the costs of applications, and monitoring and evaluation; 

▪  As  a  result  of  their  scale,  Integrated  Projects  provide  a  greater  ability  to  create 
employment opportunities linked to continuing environmental management both 
during the project lifetime and in the post-funding period work ensuring sustained 
results;  

▪  Because of their scale, Integrated Projects can establish a structured relationship 
with and develop project pipelines for the relevant EU funds, thereby promoting 
the  mobilisation  of  much  larger  resources  to  support  environmental  objectives. 
This should help to tackle the current under spending by the Structural Funds in 
the fields of biodiversity and environment, 

▪  Opportunity  to  build  capacity  on  a  wider  scale  with  a  wider  spectrum  of 

stakeholders; 

▪ 

Integrated  Projects  provide  a  major  role  for  regional  and  local  authorities  as 
potential  lead  beneficiaries,  which  are  also  often  the  environmental  competent 
authorities  as  well  as  being  responsible  for  leading  projects  funded  by  Rural 
Development,  the  Operational  Programmes  for  Structural  Funds,  and  the  future 
Natura 2000 Prioritised Action Frameworks.85 

The  box  below  provides  an  early  illustration  of  how  an  Integrated  Project  might  be  used  to 
support capacity building. 

Box 3: LIFE Integrated Project: Example of use for capacity building 

NATURA 2000 in Slovenia - management models and information system 

The  Slovenian  delegate  to  the  Habitats  Committee  recently  presented  their  national  Management  Plan  for  Natura  2000. 
They are now considering the idea of an integrated project, building on a previous LIFE project to exemplify the catalytic 
power of LIFE. 

A  previous  LIFE  project  led  to  a  transnational  co-operation  between  different  actors  and  different  sectors  (forestry, 
fisheries and water management). This capacity could now be used in an Integrated Project. Slovenia is currently in the 
process of implementing legislation to ensure that integrated projects are feasible. 

Potential benefits: 

−  Rural development funds could help in aspects of forestry and agricultural, cohesion funds could be used to 

undertake sustainable tourism, environmental protection and nature conservation activities, whilst LIFE funding 
would help with capacity building, awareness raising and training. 

−  Combining these activities and funding is considered to provide a real opportunity to bring together economic, 

social and environmental objectives leading to enhanced results. 

Practicalities: 

One single regulation and one set of guidelines would be required to cover administrative and reporting aspects across all 

84 The larger size of Integrated Projects responds to the call for larger projects made in the ex-post assessment of 
the LIFE III Programme. 
85Noted as a benefit of Integrated Projects by the Committee of the Regions (2011) DRAFT OPINION of the 
Commission for the Environment, Climate Change and Energy on THE EU LIFE PROGRAMME.THE WAY 
FORWARD. 

162

 
 
 
 
                                                 
funding instruments. To ensure Integrated Projects are feasible it is essential that there is a strong project design phase with 
rigorous and detailed preparation which agree priorities across funding instruments.  

A  further  example  describes  LIFE  projects  that  could  be  considered  as  precursors  of 
Integrated  Projects.  The  case  studies  below  in  Box  4  and  5  highlight  potential  benefits  of 
Integrated Projects, as outlined by the beneficiaries and also the challenges in developing and 
managing  such  projects.  Integrated  Projects  have  not  been  fully  tested.  Since  the 
administrative  capacity  varies  between  MS  and  between  projects,  it  will  be  important  to 
encourage MS and regions to learn from each other and to develop mutual learning networks. 

Box 4: Projects that could have been a LIFE Integrated Project 

LIFE Integrated Projects: PM10 control in urban areas 

Four Austrian LIFE projects are interconnected and all have PM10 control in urban areas as a main objective. Each project 
has been used as a further step in developing a more holistic approach and contributing to a long term plan. The four 
projects could theoretically have been combined into a single integrated project, which drew on several funding sources. 
Potential benefits 

−  The larger project would have greater impacts; 
−  The project would enable partners from different sectors to work together and allow a more effective; 

combination of different priorities such as climate change, health and air pollution;  
− 
Integrated projects would help to achieve economic development alongside environmental protection; 
−  Greater scope for innovation through the co-ordination and synergy between environmental and economic 

objectives and activities. 

Practicalities 

An Integrated Project could follow-on from current LIFE projects, building on achievements to date. In the case of PM10 
projects,  they  have  created  new  knowledge  and  techniques  which  an  integrated  project  could  develop  over  a  larger 
geographical  scale,  combining  LIFE  funds  which  would  focus  on  practical  solutions  with  DG  RTD  funds  to  further 
scientific knowledge and structural funds to invest in necessary infrastructure.  

In addition, to ensure the up-take of integrated projects, it will be necessary to have just one application process in which 
you can apply for different combination of relevant funds and one monitoring and evaluation process rather than separate 
processes for each fund. 

Furthermore clear clarification, guidance, provision of relevant definitions and frequently asked questions would help in 
the  application  process.  The  project  suggested  a  two-step  application  approach,  the  first  step  establishing  feasibility  and 
eligibility, would be useful as applications for integrated projects are likely to require significant resources. The two step 
approach ensures that the applicant is developing a suitable project before submitting a completed application. 

The example below describes a LIFE project that has successfully combined different funding 
sources.  

Box 5: LIFE Integrated Project: An example of multiple funding 

Protection and usage of aapa mires with a rich avifauna 

LIFE project actual costs: €2 .6m; ERDF project cost: €0.6m 

The aim of this project was to prepare conservation and management plans for five areas within the central Lapland aapa 
mire zone, so that ecotourism and recreational use can be organised on a sustainable basis. 

The project was considered successful in combining the resources gained from different  EU sources (LIFE for planning 
and  ERDF  for  construction  of  the  tourism  infrastructure)  and  national  funds  (for  construction  of  barns  on  the  hay 
meadows). The funds were managed efficiently. The EC payments were made in time and did not cause any problems or 
delays in the implementation process.  

The project manager of this LIFE project noted the following (perscomm): 

163

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
▪  Administratively the project was well set-up with clear roles and responsibilities for all parties. Objectives and results 

▪ 

were separated for purposes of effective monitoring and evaluation; 
It was not difficult to align the project to the different objectives of different funding sources as the various project 
objectives were  clear.  In  addition  different  project  managers  were  required  to  clearly  state  their  expectations  in  the 
preparation phase; 

▪  The use of various funding sources provided the opportunity to make environmental objectives more ambitious. The 
beneficiary also stated that integrated projects can create positive publicity and enhance the status of Natura 2000; 
▪  The  combination of  funds  has  not  resulted  in  significant  additional  administrative  costs. If  the project objectives  are 

mutually supportive, the overall benefit is greater than any additional costs. 

By combining funds the projects can implement measures that the LIFE fund would have been unable to support such as 
service  structures.  Implementation  of the  service  structure,  in  Lapland  has  increased  interest  in  Natura  2000  areas  and 
brought positive publicity to the project and to the LIFE programme more generally.  

The  success  in  combining  funds  has  provided  confidence  in  the  approach;  and  it  will  be  used  in  the  future,  with  the 
expectation  that  this  will  allow  greater  integration  of  environmental  project  activity  in  wider  development  activity, 
engaging more stakeholders and building capacity, improve the end results and contribute to sustainability. 

The  table  below  highlights  potential  risks  based  on  the  reflections  of  public  authorities  that 
have  considered  the  use  of  Integrated  Projects.  They  were  collected  as  part  of  the  Impact 
Assessment, and provide possible solutions that could be further developed. 

Table 6: Summary of Reflections on Integrated Projects from LIFE Beneficiaries 

Potential Challenge 

Possible Solution 

Structural funds have a decentralised 
management opposed to LIFE’s centralised 
management which could limit the ability to 
effectively manage Integrated Projects and 
transfer lessons. 

Other instruments will need to revise their 
legal basis to recognise the use of Integrated 
Projects and to include them as an eligible 
activity under the main funding instruments 

There is a lack of capacity on the ground to 
put together proposals for Integrated 
Projects. 

Different eligibility criteria of the different 
funding instrument may pose problems for 
potential beneficiaries 

Different funding instruments may be 
working with different timetables and also 
different timing cycles (e.g. structural funds 
operate an n+2 cycle)  

LIFE  as  a  centrally  managed  programme  based  on  annual  calls,  could 
approve  ‘potential’  Integrated  Projects,  or  ‘Hub  Projects’  allowing  the 
project  to  subsequently  link  with  other  partners  and  funds  in  the 
decentralised programmes.  
The  hub  project  would  negotiate  with  the  other  programmes  before 
application,  and  contract  following  approval  from  LIFE.  The  monitoring 
and evaluation requirements would be established and managed by LIFE. 
If the links fail to be made, the project continues as standalone LIFE project 
(albeit potentially larger than the average). 

Discussions between DGs have taken place to discuss and develop the idea. 
It  will  be  important  to  test  the  feasibility  of  any  proposed  model  with 
beneficiaries and NCPs, perhaps through a workshop or seminar. 

Technical  assistance  funding  could  be  made  available.  Best  practice 
examples will need to be developed and provided to prospective applicants. 

Although  the  current  LIFE  programme  is  addressing  some  of  the  gaps  in 
the  eligibility  criteria,  the  Commission  could  streamline  eligibility  criteria 
further  and  make  explicit  what  activities  and  which  type  of  beneficiaries 
and  activities  can  be  funded  through  Integrated  Projects.  Alternatively,  it 
could,  through  adequate  cross-reference  in  the  statutory  basis  of  the 
different  instruments,  allow  the  requirements  of  the  Integrated  Project  to 
take precedence, allowing other eligibility criteria to be excluded. 

A robust planning stage with defined roles and responsibilities and detailed 
delivery  plans  will  be  required.  The  LIFE  Unit  could  contribute  to  the 
planning  of,  for  example,  Operational  Programmes  for  Structural  Funds, 
commenting on draft Proposals. 
Since  projects  will  be  larger  and  longer,  there  is  greater  scope  for  some 
flexibility.  An  n+2  type  rule  would  potentially  prevent  projects  requiring 
structural funds being approved in the last three years of the MFF given an 
average  life  of  say  5 years.  Again  direct  involvement  may  be  required  by 
the  LIFE  Unit,  or  may  require  the  suspension  of  such  rules  under  the 
precedence granted to Integrated Projects 

164

 
 
 
 
Potential Challenge 

Possible Solution 

Multiple monitoring and evaluation 
The  LIFE  monitoring,  evaluation  and  reporting  system  could  be  extended 
requirements associated with the different 
in  agreement  with  other  instruments  to  include  the  completion  and 
funds could make the administration 
distribution of relevant monitoring and evaluation reports to national/local 
complex and costly 
programme committees  
Source: Interviews with beneficiaries from five LIFE projects and discussions with DG Environment officials  
Consultation responses from a  survey carried out by the Committee of the Regions (CoR)86 
with local and regional authorities found that the majority considered that Integrated Projects 
were both highly desirable and feasible.  85% of the respondents like the idea of ‘Integrated 
Projects’,  contrary  to  only  10%  who  disagree  with  the  concept;  5%  of  respondents  did  not 
express an opinion. About three quarters of the respondents consider Integrated Projects quite 
feasible, while 21% finds those projects very feasible; only 5% believe that such projects are 
not feasible. 

The  box  below  summarises  the  main  findings  of  the  consultation  with  respect  to  Integrated 
Projects 

Box 7: Consultation views from local and regional authorities on Integrated Projects (IPs) 

The main finding of the consultation, with local and regional authorities, in relation to Integrated Projects, is that they are 
both desirable and feasible. The main benefits and problems are summarised below. 

The benefits foreseen from the use of Integrated Projects include: 

− 

− 
− 
− 
− 

addressing a wide variety of problems, notably in the fields of ‘freshwater management’, ‘nature and 
biodiversity’ and ‘resource use and waste’ (except where a sole and specific focus on the environment is 
required); 
enhancing coordination in environmental issues especially when involving international cooperation;  
promoting coordination between sectoral policies and between different territorial areas;  
enabling the optimisation of resources and increased value for money; and 
creating opportunities for the implementation of large-scale actions, bringing together both a large number of 
experts/technicians and adequate funds. 

Problems foreseen for the use of Integrated Projects include:  

− 
− 
− 

− 
− 

the lack of necessary staff capacity to support Integrated Projects at the local level;  
concerns that such projects are too complex and would fail to achieve high quality standards; 
concerns over the increased coordination requirements between the different agencies governing IPs, calling for 
consensus at a high governance level; 
the need to simplify financial reporting procedures; and 
the difficulties faced by public bodies lacking resources to co-finance IPs. 

Source:  Committee  of  the  Regions  Consultation:  LIFE  Impact  Assessment:  Assessment  of  Territorial  Impacts  of  the  EU 
Life+ instrument (Table 1) and text 

Survey replies received from 40 respondents from 12 MS 

4.  

Critical mass evaluation 

Given  the  resources  allocated  to  the  Environment  sub-programme  of  the  future  LIFE,  an 
analysis of ‘what will it take’ to produce a step change in the impact of the programme has 
been  made.  The  number  of  Integrated  Projects  required  relates  to  the  relevant  territorial 
‘units’  for  each  environmental  theme.  A  statistical  relevance  of  15-20%  of  the  relevant 
territorial unit has been used to determine the number of projects required in a specific sector 
to  have  enough  examples  applicable  to  different  administrative  and  regional  characteristics 

86Assessment of Territorial Impacts of the EU Life+ instrument, Committee of the Regions, 2011. 

165

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
(including  levels  of  capacity  development)  so  that  different  experiences  can  be  widely 
disseminated among Member States and regions.  

Since Integrated Projects aim at implementing environmental action plans, only those sectors 
where  EU  legislation  requires  some  planning  or  programming  (i.e.,  programmed-base 
Directives) could be considered for Integrated Projects funding. This is the case for Prioritised 
Action  Framework under the Habitats Directive, a River  Basin Management Plan  under the 
Water Framework Directive, waste minimisation plan under the Waste Framework Directive, 
air pollution abatement plan to meet the air quality requirements of the CAFÉ legislation and 
the Programme of measures under the Marine Strategy Directive. It can also derive from EU 
recommendations such as sustainable urban plan, integrated coastal zone management plans 
etc.). These sectors are also those that require a planned and large territorial scale action. This 
is the reason for selecting the sectors outlined below. Urban has been embedded into the Air 
sector and Integrated Coastal Zone Management into the Water Framework Directive (which 
covers transitional waters) and the Marine Strategy Directive (which covers Coastal waters). 

Integrated  Projects  would  gradually  be  introduced  in  the  Climate  Action  sub-programme  in 
the area of mitigation and adaptation, in order to allow time build up capacity needed for such 
projects. 

Integrated  Projects  in  Nature  –  The  relevant  unit  is  the  NUTS  2  region,  given  than  regions 
tend to be responsible for the management of Natura2000. This also has the merit of linking 
directly to possible regional funding. There are 271 NUTS 2 regions. Assuming the minimum 
level  of  action  required,  one  Integrated  Project  for  nature  conservation,  in  say  between  15-
25% of the regions over a 7-year programme period would be needed. This means between 6 
and 10 Nature Integrated Projects per year.87 

Integrated Projects in Environment  – The relevant unit depends on the environmental theme.  

•  Waste management – the appropriate unit is also probably the NUTS 2 region, given the 
nature  of  regional  waste  management  plans.  15%  Integrated  Project  activity  over  the 
programme would provide a minimum level of catalytic effect – say a minimum of 6-10 
projects a year; 

•  Water management – the appropriate unit is the river basin district of which there are 110 
river basin districts and 176 national branches. Given the important issues associated with 
transposition  and  implementation  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD),  and  the 
interest  in  ensuring  cross-compliance  with  the  WFD  as  a  condition  of  regional  funding, 
then  a  greater  share  of  ‘units’  should  be  covered  –  15-25%.  This  would  require  a 
minimum of say 3-4 projects a year; 

•  Air  quality  management  –  activity  in  large  cities  to  combat  urban  air  pollution  (e.g. 
particulates,  low  level  ozone  and  nitrogen  dioxide)  would  also  benefit  from  the  use  of 
Integrated  Projects.  Building  on  the  2013  European  ‘Year  of  Air’,  3  IP  projects  a  year 
would  allow  action  in  20  of  the  most  polluted  EU  cities.  This  could  be  combined  with 
other urban elements 

•  Marine  environment  –  probably  1-2  Integrated  project  per  sea  basin  (3-5  projects  per 

year).    

87 25% of 271, divided by 7. 

166

 
 
 
 
                                                 
The  Environment  strand  would  therefore  require  a  minimum  of  13-15  Integrated  Projects  a 
year, if the use of these projects was to really tackle the institutional weaknesses that underpin 
the  lack  of  adequate  policy  implementation  and  effective  policy  integration  in  the  entire 
acquis. 

Given  that  these  projects  are  larger  in  size  (EU  contribution  €10  million  per  project),  this 
would imply that traditional projects could not be financed. These traditional projects cannot 
be phased out since they address particular needs. Firstly, these projects address the needs of 
stakeholders that are not necessarily public authorities. In many cases, environmental projects 
are aimed at demonstrating ways to achieve a more effective implementation of the legislation 
by  the  addressee  of  environmental  legislation,  which  could  be  a  SME  or  another  type  of 
private  operator.  In  addition,  not  all  environmental  activities  require  a  planned  and  large 
territorial scale action. For example, some activities aiming at halting the loss of biodiversity, 
while  being  part  of  the  EU  Biodiversity  strategy,  require  small  scale  interventions  that  can 
create projects 'blueprints' to be scaled up and continued through other funds. Finally, not all 
public  authorities  would  be  ready  at  the  beginning  of  the  programming  period  to  submit  an 
Integrated Project in some cases due to lack of capacity.  

Based  on  the  experience  under  LIFE+,  between  8-10  traditional  project  per  environmental 
sector  would  be  required  to  achieve  critical  mass  and  create  multipliers.  If  environmental 
sectors are grouped in 6 sectors (biodiversity, water, natural resources and waste, environment 
health,  which  would  include  noise  and  chemicals,  emissions,  which  would  include  air  and 
IPPC,  and  green  economy)  around  56  to  60  traditional  projects  per  year  are  required  in 
addition to information projects. 

Therefore, Integrated Projects would concentrate on the sectors (1) where implementation and 
integration  problems  are  more  significant,  (2)  are  more  linked  to  achieving  Europe  2020 
resources efficiency targets; and (3) have more possibility to link to, and therefore mobilise, 
other EU funds.  

(1) Sectors where implementation or integration problems are more significant 

As to implementation problems, a good indicator is infringement cases. Nature conservation, 
waste  and  water  legislation  accounts  for  59%  of  the  infringement  case  load  for  the 
environment sector, with the sectors "impact assessment" and air contributing the bulk of the 
remainder (27%). Other sectors, such as Marine, are still in a development phase.88  The last 
few years have seen a marked increase in cases in the air sector.  

Implementation  problems  often  reflect  integration  problems.  For  example,  the  high 
percentage of cases concerning nature protection legislation can be explained by the fact that 
many  infrastructure  developments  proposed  in  Member  States  that  lead  to  complaints  are 
those affecting in some way Natura 2000 sites or EU protected species. As shown above when 
analysing consistency with other EU funds and the Zero option, Nature conservation also has 
problem of absorption capacity in other EU programmes, partially because authorities do not 
always perceive the socio-economic benefit of nature conservation.  

The overall percentage share of waste and water cases reflects the fact that they have entered 
crucial implementation phases. The waste sector also has problems of absorption capacity in 
other  EU  programmes.  As  in  the  case  of  Nature,  the  capacity  to  develop  and  prepare 
investments,  and  to  channel  large  amounts  of  EU  funding,  is  still  lacking  in  some  Member 
States. There is a risk that some funds from the 2007-2013 programming period will not be 
spent in time. 

88 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/legal/law/statistics.htm. 

167

 
 
                                                 
Nature,  water  and  waste  are  entering  crucial  implementation  phases.  In  the  near  future,  the 
Habitats  Directive  will  move  from  designation  to  active  management  and  restoration; 
similarly,  under  the  Water  Framework  Directive  (WFD),  the  river  basin  management  plans 
will  need  implementation  to  achieve  the  objective  of  good  environmental  status.  Air 
legislation will be revised in 2013, which implies that in the period 2014-2020 will also enter 
its  crucial  implementation  phase.  The  Marine  legislation  will  enter  as  well  the  crucial 
implementation phase, since by 2020 Member States should have achieved or maintain a good 
environmental status. 

Management  and  implementation  costs  for  Natura2000,  water  and  waste  are  very  high  i.e., 
€5.8 billion per year for Natura2000, €30 billion per 
municipal waste compared to Air which requires about €1 billion per  year (see Annex 5).  

year for water, €7-12 billion per year for 

(2)  Sectors  that  are  more  linked  to  achieving  Europe  2020  resource  efficiency  targets  and 
direct environmental benefits  

The  Resource  efficiency  roadmap  indentifies  biodiversity,  water,  waste,  air  and  soil  as  the 
main  environmental  sectors  that  are  essential  to  shift  towards  a  more  resource  efficient 
economy. Of these, biodiversity, water, waste and air are suitable for Integrated Projects. 

As to direct environmental benefits, as shown in section 2.2.2(a) and Annex 7, Nature, water 
and  waste  are  the  sectors  with  more  direct  environmental  benefits.  In  addition,  air  provides 
many socio-economic benefits linked to health. Not enough information about marine projects 
exists as to determine the environmental benefits generated.  

(3) Sectors that have more possibility to link to, and therefore mobilise, other EU funds.  

Mainstreaming of nature, water and waste is much consolidated and has been improved under 
the  MFF  Communication  proposals  thereby  providing  more  opportunities  for  providing 
examples  for  integrated  funding  to  solve  the  significant  absorption  capacity  problems 
identified.  Air  has  also  improved  mainstreaming  due  to  its  health  impacts,  and  many  links 
with  climate  change  (especially  in  urban  areas).  The  new  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries 
policy  has  also  improved  the  integration  of  Nature  Directives  and  the  Marine  Strategy 
Framework Directive.  

Additional criteria: 

(4) The maturity of the sector (i.e., the development of plans and programmes is required by 
the legislation and they are already in place), including the success of environmental sectors 
in LIFE. 

Nature,  water  and  waste  are  probably  the  most  mature  environmental  sectors  in  terms  of 
planning  and  programming.  Management  plans  for  Natura2000,  River  Basin  Management 
Plans and Waste management plans have already been developed. The Habitats Directive will 
require  a  programme  approach  applied  to  the  network  (and  not  only  to  a  site)  through 
Prioritised Action Frameworks. The Water Framework Directive’s River Basin Management 
Plans already foresees an integrated approach, and there is an increasing call for overreaching 
waste strategies.  

As to the consolidation of the sectors in LIFE, Nature, water and waste are the traditionally 
successful sectors: 50% of resources are allocated to Nature, and water and waste applications 
amount  to  almost  70%  of  all  LIFE  Environment  applications,  with  an  average  of  50-60 
applications  for  water  and  80-100  for  waste  compare  with  12  applications  for  air.  Marine 
applications tend to be done in the context of the Habitats Directive.  

168

 
 
 
(5)  The  stakeholders’  opinion  could  also  be  used  to  discriminate  between  one  or  another 
sector.    As  seen  in  Box  9  above,  nature,  water  and  waste  are  the  sectors  signalled  by 
stakeholders. Air is also mentioned but to a lesser extent 

5. 

Expected progression over the programming period for the sub-programme for 
Environment 

A progressive decrease in the number of traditional Action grant LIFE projects financed (and 
a parallel decrease in the budget dedicated to such projects) is expected during the Programme 
implementation. In parallel, an increase in the number of Integrated Projects is foreseen (see 
projections below). For the nature component, the start will be easier since the current LIFE+ 
Regulation is financing the elaboration of Prioritised Action Framework that will serve as a 
basis  for  the  Integrated  Projects.  For  water  and  waste  a  slower  start  is  expected  i.e.,  fewer 
projects in the beginning of the programming period.  

Figure 5.1. Integrated Projects covered (water, waste, nature) 

Budget Progression 
LIFE Environment sub-programme

700,00

600,00

500,00

400,00

300,00

n
o

i
l
l
i

m

€ 

200,00

100,00

-

Traditional 

Integrated projects

Total LIFE ENV budget

TOTAL LIFE

Log. (Total LIFE ENV
budget)

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Year

Figure 5.2 Integrated Projects covered (water, waste, nature, air; targets reduced) 

Budget Progression 
LIFE Environment sub-programme

700,00

600,00

500,00

400,00

300,00

n
o

i
l
l
i

m

€ 

200,00

100,00

-

2014

2015

2016

2017

2018

2019

2020

Year

169

Traditional 

Integrated projects

Total LIFE ENV budget

TOTAL LIFE

Log. (Total LIFE ENV
budget)

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
The table below summarises foreseen evolution of the number and budget for Integrated 
Projects over the programming period, in order to reach the critical mass threshold. 

Table 5.1 Possible evolution scenarios for IP in the Programming period (water, waste, Nature)- current 
prices 

Year 

NAT-IP 

Budget (€ 
million) 

ENV IP 

Budget (€million) 

2014 
2015 
2016 
2017 
2018 
2019 
2020 

(Benchmark) 

Critical mass 
budget 

3 
4 
6 
8 
10 
10 
10 
51 
49 

 7/year 

30
40
60
80
100
100
100
510

2
4
7
9
12
15
12
61
56-63

8-9/year

20 
40 
70 
90 
120 
150 
120 
610 

Table 5.2. Possible evolution scenarios for IP in the Programming period (water, waste, nature and air)- 
current prices) 

Year 

NAT-IP 

Budget (€ 
million) 

ENV IP 

Budget (€million) 

2014 
2015 
2016 
2017 
2018 
2019 
2020 

(Benchmark) 
Critical mass 
budget 

3 
4 
6 
8 
10 
10 
10 
51 
49 

30
40
60
80
100
100
100
510

5
7
10
12
13
15
15
77
83-98

42.5 
62.5 
92.5 
112.5 
127.5 
150.0 
142.5 
730 

 7/year 

12-14/year

170

 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
  
 
 
 
Figure 1 

Programmatic approach and integrated projects in practice: Natura 2000 example  

171

 
 
Figure 2:  

Programmatic approach and integrated projects in practice: River Basin Management Plans (Water Framework Directive) 

172

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 12:   REFERENCES 

Sources of information used for the present Impact assessment are the following: 

a. 

Official documents of the European Commission 

•  DG JRC (2004) Promoting environmental technologies: sector analyses, barriers and 

measures. Available from: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/etap/pdfs/spc_finalreport_ipts.pdf 

•  EC (2010). Report from the Commission. 27th Annual Report on Monitoring the 

Application of EU Law (2009). COM(2010)538. European Commission. 1 October 
2010. Brussels. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/infringements/infringements_annual_report_27_e
n.htm  

•  EC (2010). The EU Budget Review (COM(2010) 700 final). Available from: 

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/reform/library/com_2010_700_en.pdf  

•  EC (2010). 2009 Environmental Policy Review: Part 2. SEC(2010)9745 final. 

Available from: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pdf/policy/EPR%202009_SEC_2010_0975_Part%20
2.pdf   

•  EC (2010). Sustainable Development. Available from: 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/  

•  EC (2010). Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative: Innovation Union COM(2010) 546 Final. 
Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/innovation-union-
communication_en.pdf  

•  EC (2010). Eurostat. Available from: 

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/ 

•  EC (2010). Environment – LIFE Programme: Raptors. Available from: 

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/themes/animalandplants/lists/raptors.htm 

•  EC (2009). Part III: Annexes to Impact Assessment Guidelines. Available from: 

http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/docs/iag_2009_annex_
en.pdf   

•  EC (2009). PRO INNO Paper 7: The impact of publicly funded research on 

innovation. Available from: www.proinno-
europe.eu/admin/uploaded.../NBNA23100ENC.pdf  

•  EC (2008). Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on 

the Functioning of the European Union (2008/C 115/01). Available from:  
http://www.ecb.int/ecb/legal/pdf/fxac08115enc_002.pdf 

173

 
 
•  EC (2007) Mid term review of the 6th Environmental Action Programme, COM(2007) 

225 Final. Available from:  http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0225:FIN:EN:PDF  

•  EC (2007). Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on 
the protection of the environment through criminal law. COM(2007)51. Brussels. 
9.2.2007. 

•  EC (2007). Commission staff working document - Accompanying document to the 
proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial 
emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (recast): Impact Assessment 
(COM(2007) 843 final). Available from: http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/Notice.do?val=462132:cs&lang=en&list=511975:cs,516991:cs,508612:
cs,505133:cs,499125:cs,485132:cs,461932:cs,462133:cs,462132:cs,261603:cs,&pos=
9&page=1&nbl=16&pgs=10&hwords=&checktexte=checkbox&visu=#texte 

•  EC (2007). Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on 

the protection of the environment through criminal law. COM(2007)51.  

•  EC (2006). Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides: Impact 

Assessment. Available from: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ppps/pdf/sec_2006_0894.pdf 

•  EC (2005) The Communication on Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution and The 

Directive on “Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe”: Impact Assessment. 
(COM(2005)446 final). Available from: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/cafe/pdf/ia_report_en050921_final.pdf  

•  EC (2004). Commission Working Document, ‘Integrating environmental 

considerations into other policy areas – a stocktaking of the Cardiff process’. COM 
(2004) 394 final. 

•  EC (2004) Co-ordination Group for Biodiversity and Nature (meeting 02/03/2010). 
Financing Natura 2000 – State of Play, Agenda item 3.A, Doc.3.A and European 
Commission (2004). Financing Natura 2000. (COM(2004)431 final) 

•  EC(2004). Integrating environmental considerations into other policy areas – a 

stocktaking of the Cardiff process. COM(2004)394. 

•  EC(2004). Financial Perspectives 2007 – 2013. COM(2004)487. 

•  EC (1998). Commission Working Document, “Partnership for integration.  A Strategy 

for integrating environment into EU policies”. COM (1998) 333 final.    

174

 
 
 
 
 
 
b. 

Articles, books, other literature  

•  ADB (2008). Effectiveness of ADB’s Capacity Development Assistance. How to Get 

Institutions Right. 

•  Allio, Lorenzo and Fandel, Marie-Hélène (2006). Making Europe work: improving the 
transposition, implementation and enforcement of EU legislation. EPC Working Paper 
No. 25. European Policy Centre. June. Brussels. Available at: www.epc.eu. 

•  Antypas, A (2010) Environment and the Purposes of a Danube Area Macro-regional 

Strategy 

•  BirdLife Europe et al. (2010). Changing Perspectives: How the EU budget can shape a 
sustainable future. Available from: http://www.eeb.org/EEB/?LinkServID=7819455B-
C145-9353-9D77F0192D2A9BD2&showMeta=0 

•  Börzel, Tanja,  and Hofmann, Tobias (2007). Why do member states infringe on EU 
law? A quantitative study on the interactive effects of capacity and power. Centre for 
European Studies Working Papers 148.  

•  Christensen, J. H.; Hewitson, B.; Busuioc, A.; Chen, A.; Gao, X.; Held, I.; Jones, R.; 

Kolli, R. K.; Kwon, W.-T.; Laprise, R.; Magaña Rueda, V.; Mearns, L.; Menéndez, C. 
G.; Räisänen, J.; Rinke, A.; Sarr, A. and Whetton, P., 2007. Regional Climate 
Projections. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of 
Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on 
Climate Change. Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; Chen, Z.; Marquis, M.; Averyt, 
K. B.; Tignor, M. and Miller, H. L. (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, 
United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA. 

•  Culture Action Europe (2010). The EU 2020 Strategy: Analysis and Perspectives. 

Available from: http://www.cultureactioneurope.org/lang-
en/component/content/article/41-general/597-the-eu-2020-strategy-analysis-and-
perspectives  

•  Demmke, Christoph (2004). Implementation of environmental policies in the US and 

the EU. In: Vig, N. and Fauvre, M. (eds). Green Giants? Environmental Policies in the 
US and the EU. MIT Press.  

•  EEA (2010). State of the Environment (SOER) Assessment. Available from: 

http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer 

•  EEA (2010) Global and European Temperature CSI 012 

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/global-and-european-
temperature/global-and-european-temperature-assessment-3 

•  EEA (2008) Impacts of Europe’s Changing Climate – 2008 indicator based 

assessment. EEA Report 4/2008 

175

 
 
•  EEA (2007) Air pollution in Europe 1990 – 2004. EEA Report 2/2007 

•  EEA (2010) The European Environment State and Outlook 2010 – Air Pollution 

•  EEA (2009) Progress towards the European 2010 biodiversity target. EEA Report 

4/2009. 

•  EEA (2010) Use of freshwater resources – outlook from the EEA (Outlook 014) 
http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/use-of-freshwater-resources-
outlook/use-of-freshwater-resources-outlook 

•  EEA (2007) Europe’s environment – the fourth assessment.  State of the Environment 

Report 1/2007 

•  EEA (2010) The European Environment State and Outlook – Nature and Biodiversity 

•  EEA (2010) Land Take (CSI 014) http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-
maps/indicators/land-take/land-take-assessment-published-nov-2005 

•  EEA (2010) Towards an early warning and information system for invasive alien 

species (IAS) threatening biodiversity in Europe.   EEA Report 5/2010 

•  EEA (2010) The European Environment State and Outlook - Soil 

•  EEA (2010) The European Environment State and Outlook – Material Resources and 

Waste 

•  EEA (2009) Diverting waste from landfill. Effectiveness of waste-management 

policies in the European Union. EEA report 7/2009 

•  Euractiv (2010) Greens unimpressed by draft 'Europe 2020' plan. Available from: 
http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-environment/eus-draft-2020-strategy-fails-
impress-environment-news-282980  

•  Europa Press Release RAPID (2009) Commission launches consultation on EU 2020: 
a new strategy to make the EU a smarter, greener social market. Available from: 
http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1807 

•  Farmer, Andrew (2007). Simplifying EU Environmental Policy. Study for the 

European Parliament’s  Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety 
under contract IP/A/ENVI/FWC/2006-172/C1/SC4. 

•  Gallagher, N. (2003). Fact sheet on LIFE project ‘Epicentre - The application of 
Environmental Performance Evaluation and EMS to achieve and report regional 
environmental improvement’ LIFE00 ENV/IRL/000756. Available from: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dsp
Page&n_proj_id=1884&docType=pdf 

176

 
 
•  Gallup Organisation (2007). Survey of the Observatory of European SMEs. Available 

from: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/files/analysis/doc/2007/02_summary_en.pd
f 

•  Garnaut, R., Howes, S., Jotzo, F., Sheehan, P., 2008, 'Emissions in the Platinum Age: 
the Implications of Rapid Development for Climate Change Mitigation', Oxford 
Review of Economic Policy 24 (2), 377-401 

•  Geeraerts, Kristof, Bursens, Peter and Leroy, Pieter (2006). De omzetting van de 

kaderrichtlijn water in Vlaanderen. Succes- en faalfactoren in de totstandkoming van 
het decreet integraal waterbeleid. Universiteit Antwerpen. Steunpunt 
Milieubeleidswetenschappen. December 2006. 

•  Griffiths, N. (2010). Europe 2020: innovation, green growth and jobs; Reshaping the 

EU's long-term strategy - take two. Available from: 
http://www.innovationeu.org/news/innovation-eu-vol2-1/0199-europe-2020-
innovation-green-growth-and-jobs.html 

•  Hulme, P. E. (2007) Biological Invasions in Europe: Drivers, Pressures, States, 

Impacts and Responses. Biological Invasions, (25), 56–80 

• 

• 

IEEP, Bio and Ecologic (2009) Study on Inspection Requirements for Waste Shipment 
Inspections. Study for the European Commission under the Framework Contract 
G.4/FRA/2007/0067. Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/pdf/report_august09.pdf.  

IPCC (2001) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, in IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 
2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth 
Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing 
Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp. 

•  Knill, Christoph and Lenschow, Andrea (2000). New concepts – old problems? The 

institutional constraints for the effective implementation of EU environmental policy. 
Paper presented at the Conference of the International Studies Association in Los 
Angeles, USA. March 2000. 

•  Krämer, Ludwig (2004). Data on Environmental Judgements by the EC Court of 
Justice. Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law. Vol 1. Issue 2. 
September 2004. pp. 127-135. 

•  Milieu Ltd, AmbienDura and FFact (2009) Study on the feasibility of the 

establishment of a Waste Implementation Agency. Report for the European 
Commission, DG Environment under Study Contract DG ENV.G.4/ETU/2008/0080r. 
December 2009. 

177

 
 
•  ODI (2006). Capacity Development for Policy Advocacy: Current Thinking and 

Approaches among Agencies Supporting Civil Society Organisations. Prepared by 
Blagescu, M. and Young, J. 

•  OECD (2006). The Challenge of Capacity Development: Working Towards Good 

Practice.  

•  Persson (2004), Stockholm Environment Institute, “Environmental Policy Integration 

– An Introduction” 

•  Rechtschaffen, C. (2007). Shining the spotlight on EU Compliance with the 

environment. 

•  Rhodes, Edwardo Lao. 2003. Environmental Justice in America. Indiana University 

Press: Bloomington, IN 

•  Richardson, Jeremy (ed.) (2001). European Union: Power and Policy-making. 

Routledge. 

•  Siepcevic, Reinhard (2009). The judicial enforcement of EU law through national 

courts: possibilities and limits. Journal of European Public Policy. Vol 16. Issue 3. pp 
378-394. 

•  Stern, N. (2007): The Economics of Climate change: The Stern Review, Cambridge, 

available at: http://www.occ.gov.uk/activities/stern.htm 

•  TEEB for National and International Policy Makers (2009). Available from: 

http://www.teebweb.org/ForPolicymakers/tabid/1019/Default.aspx 

•  Ten Brink, Patrick and Farmer, Andrew (2005). Funding Environmental Compliance: 

lessons learned from international practice. OECD, 
http://www.ieep.eu/publications/pdfs/2005/fundingenvcompliance.pdf  

•  UNEP FI/PRI and TruCost (2010). Universal ownership. Why environmental 

externalities matter to institutional investors. UNEP FI. New York. Available from: 
http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/universal_ownership.pdf 

•  UNDP (2007). Capacity Assessment methodology: User’s Guide. 

•  University of Southampton, Federation of Small Businesses et al (2008), Sustainable 

Waste Management: Implementing Sustainable Waste Management Within Micro and 
Small to Medium Sized Enterprises 

•  Wennerås, Pal (2007). The enforcement of EC environmental law. Oxford University 

Press. pp 341. 

178

 
 
•  Wilkinson, David (2007): ‘Environmental Policy Integration at EU level – State-of-
the-Art Report’, EPIGOV Paper No. 4, Ecologic – Institute for International and 
European Environmental Policy: Berlin. 

c. 

Case studies 

1.3.1 

Implementation of the French Bonus-Malus scheme 

•  ACEA (2009) New passenger Car Registrations: 

www.acea.be/images/uploads/files/20091215_PRPC-FINAL-0911.pdf 

•  Bredin E. (2010) Presentation held at IEA workshop in November 2010: French 

incentives supporting low emissions vehicles: Focus on the Bonus/Malus scheme: 
www.iea.org/work/2010/tax/6_1_Bredin.pdf 

•  CGDD (2010) Une évaluation du bonus malus automobile écologique, le point sur nr 

53, Mai 2010 : www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/LPS53.pdf 

•  Douaud A. (2010) CO2, Gaz a effet de serre, Economie de carburant, Priorite n1 en 

Europe www.unep.org/transport/pcfv/PDF/Douaud_VehiculeBasCO2.pdf 

•  EIS Analysis Briefing (2010) Greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles have 

decreased 

• 

• 

• 

IEEP et al. (2005)  ‘Service contract to carry out economic analysis and business 
impact assessment of CO2 emissions reduction measures in the automotive sector’. A 
report to DGENV by IEEP, TNO and CAIR.  Brussels. 

IFEN - Institut Français de l’environnement (2006) Etat de l’environnement en 
France, Paris, France 

IHS et al. (2010) EC study Assessment of the Effectiveness of Scrapping Schemes for 
Vehicles, study prepared by IHS & Global Insights: 
http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/files/projects/report_scrapping_sche
mes_en.pdf  

•  La Dépêche (2009) Bonus-malus : Sarkozy confirme le principe mais reporte son 

extension, September 19, 2009 : http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2008/09/19/476584-
Bonus-malus-Sarkozy-confirme-le-principe-mais-reporte-son-extension.html 

•  Les Echos (2010) Victime de son succès, le bonus-malus auto sera encore durci en 

2011 et en 2012, 29/10/10: www.lesechos.fr/economie-
politique/france/actu/020895168295-victime-de-son-succes-le-bonus-malus-auto-sera-
encore-durci-en-2011-et-en-2012.htm 

•  Les Echos (2009b) Il faut étendre le bonus malus, Les Echos, 10 Septembre 2009 : 

http://www.lesechos.fr/info/france/020129653296-il-faut-etendre-le-bonus-malus.htm 

179

 
 
•  MEEDDM - French Ministry of Ecology, sustainable development, transport and 
housing (2010) Q&A on the bonus ecologique (in French): www.developpement-
durable.gouv.fr/spip.php?page=article&id_article=13044 

•  Roussel F. (2009) Qualité de l’air en France : une amélioration lente et hétérogène, 

actu-environnement, 31 July 2009 : http://www.actu-
environnement.com/ae/news/bilan_2008_qualite_air_france_8027.php4 

•  TNO et al. (2006)  Review and Analysis of the Reduction Potential and costs of 

Technological and other Measures to reduce CO2 emissions from Passenger Cars.  
TNO, IEEP and LAT.  Brussels. October 2006. 

• 

ten Brink, P. (2010) Mitigating CO2 Emissions from Cars in the EU (Regulation (EC) 
No 443/2009)   Chapter 6 in Oberthuer S. and Pallemaerts M. (Eds) The New Climate 
Policies of the European Union, Brussels University Press, Brussels 

1.3.2 

Implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives in Belgium (Flanders) 

•  Decleer, K. (2008). Ecological Restoration in Flanders. Mededelingen van het 

Instituut voor Naturuur- en Bosonderzoek INBO M.2008.04, Brussel, Belgium, 160 
pp. 

•  Department Leefmilieu, Natuur en Enegie (LNE), 2010. Economic Valuation of 

Ecosystem Services. 

•  http://www.lne.be/themas/beleid/milieueconomie/engelse-brochure-economische-

waardering-van-esd  

•  De Nocker L., Liekens I., Broekx S., Bulckaen D., Smets S. and Gauderis J. (not 
dated) Natte Natuur in het Schelde-estuarium – Een verkenning van de kosten en 
baten. Using a cost-benefit analysis to select the optimal flood protection measures.  
VITO 

•  Gantioler S., Rayment M., Bassi S., Kettunen M., McConville A., Landgrebe R., 

Gerdes H., ten Brink P. (2010) Costs and Socio-Economic Benefits associated with the 
Natura 2000 Network. Final report to the European Commission, DG Environment on 
Contract ENV.B.2/SER/2008/0038. Institute for European Environmental Policy / 
GHK / Ecologic, Brussels  

• 

• 

INBO (2010) State of Nature in Flanders, Biodiversity Indicators 2010, Report of the 
Research Institute for Natura and Forest, INBO.M.2010.3 
http://www.inbo.be/files/bibliotheek/40/213740.pdf  

IEEP and Alterra (2010). Reflecting environmental land use needs into EU policy: 
preserving and enhancing the environmental benefits of “land services”: soil sealing, 
biodiversity corridors, intensification / marginalisation of land use and permanent 
grassland. Final report to the European Commission, DG Environment on Contract 
ENV.B.1/ETU/2008/0030. Institute for European Environmental Policy / Alterra 
Wageningen UR. 

180

 
 
 
•  Jacobs (2004). Environment Group Research Report: An Economic Assessment of the 
Costs and Benefits of Natura 2000 Sites in Scotland, 2004 Final Report, The Scottish 
Government. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47251/0014580.pdf  

•  Liekens I., Schaafsma M., Staes J., De Nocker L., Brouwer R. en P. Meire (2009) 
Economische waarderingsstudie van ecosysteemdiensten voor MKBA. Studie in 
opdracht van LNE, Afdeling Milieu-, Natuur- en Energiebeleid, VITO, 
2009/RMA/R308. 

1.3.3 

Implementation of species specific conservation measures (UK) 

•  Dickie, I., Hughes, J. and Esteban, A. (2006) Watched like never before: the local 

economic benefits of spectacular bird species. A report by RSPB. 
https://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/watchedlikeneverbefore_tcm9-133081.pdf  

•  GHK (2006) UK Biodiversity Action Plan: Preparing Costings for Species and Habitat 

Action Plans Costings Summary Report. Revised Report to Defra and Partners. 
http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/economics/foodfarm/reports/documents/Biodiversit
y.pdf  

•  JNCC (1995) A framework for Otter conservation in the UK: 1995-2000. 
http://www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/pubs99_FrameworkforOtterConservation.pdf  

•  Laycock, H., Moran, D., Smart, J., Raffeilli, D. and White, P. (2009) Evaluating the 
cost-effectiveness of conservation: The UK Biodiversity Action Plan,  Biological 
Conservation, Vol. 142, 12, p3120-3127.  

•  Maclean, N. (2010) Silent Summer: the state of wildlife in Britain and Ireland, 

Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.  

•  Molloy, D. and Rollie, C.J. (2010). The Galloway Kite Trail: Economic impacts 

within Dumfries & Galloway. RSPB Scotland, Edinburgh.  

•  Rayment and Dickie (2001) Conservation Works. RSPB. Sandy. 

•  http://www.rspb.org.uk/policy/Economicdevelopment/economics/local_economies/ind

ex.asp 

•  Rayment, M., Pieterse, M., Graugaard, J. and Buisson, R. (2010) The Costs of 

Implementing the UK BAP – 2010 Update. A final report submitted by GHK to Defra.  

•  RSPB (2008) Case studies as an annex to the Parliamentary Briefing on Scotland’s 

biodiversity 
http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/BiodiversityAnnexRSPBScotlandCaseStudies_tcm9-
181721.pdf 

•  RSPB (2010). The State of our birds. http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/sukb2010_tcm9-

262382.pdf 

•  Wildlife Trust (2009)The Otters are back! Natural World, Summer 2009. . 

181

 
 
 
1.3.4  Forest Fires prevention (Portugal) 

•  Autoridade Florestal Nacional, 2010. Relatório Provisório de Incêndios Florestais - 
Fases Alfa, Bravo, Charlie e Delta. Lisboa // 1 de Janeiro a 15 de Outubro de 2010. 
RP10/2010 http://www.afn.min-
agricultura.pt/portal/dudf/relatorios/resource/ficheiros/2010/20101015-AFN-RP10.pdf  

•  Autoridade Florestal Nacional, 2007. Incêndios florestais – Relatório de 2007. 

Relatório DFCI (Versão provisória – fases Bravo e Charlie). 

•  Bassi, S., Kettunen, M., Kampa, E. and Cavalieri, S. (2008) Forest Fires: Causes and 

Contributing Factors to Forest Fire Events in Europe Study for the European 
Parliament Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety under contract 
IP/A/ENVI/FWC/2006-172/LOT1/C1/SC10. 

•  GHK, 2006. Strategic Evaluation on Environment and Risk Prevention Under 

Structural and Cohesion Funds for the Period 2007-2013 - National Evaluation Report 
for Portugal Main Report. 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/evalstrat_env/pt_
main.pdf  

•  Joint Research Centre (JRC), 2004. Forest Fires in Europe 2003. 

http://effis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/fire-reports  

•  Joint Research Centre (JRC), 2010. Forest Fires in Europe 2009. 

http://effis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/fire-reports  

•  Mendes, A. M. S. C., Feliciano, D., Tavares, M. and Dias, R., 2004. The Portuguese 
Forest. Country level report delivered to the EFFE Project – Evaluating Financing in 
Forestry in Europe. 

•  Ministerio da Agricultura, do Desenvolvimento Rural e das Pescas (MADRP), 2010. 

Relatório Intercalar PRODER - 1º Semestre de 2010 

•  http://www.proder.pt/PresentationLayer/conteudo.aspx?menuid=1693&exmenuid=15

35 

•  Pereira, H.M, Domingos, T. and Vicente, L. (eds), 2004. Portugal Millennium 

Ecosystem Assessment: State of the Assessment Report. Centro de Biologia Ambiental, 
Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa. 

•  Presidência Do Conselho De Ministros, 2006. Resolução do Conselho de Ministros 
n.o 65/2006. Diário da República—I Série-B N.o 102—26 de Maio de 2006 (page 
3511-3559) 

•  Santos, F.D., K. Forbes, and R. Moita (eds) (2002) Climate Change in Portugal, 
Scenarios, Impacts and Adaptation Measures - SIAM Project. Gradiva, Lisboa. 

182

 
 
 
1.3.5 

Implementation of the IPPC Directive 

•  EC (2007): EC(2007)1679 – Impact Assessment: Accompanying document to the 

proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial 
emissions COM(2007)843 final, Brussels, 21/12/2007 

•  EC (2010): Industrial Emissions – Prevention and control of Industrial Emissions, 

website of the DG Environment, last accessed 06/12/10. Available from: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/stationary/index.htm 

•  ENTEC (2007):Assessment of options to streamline legislation on industrial emissions 
and analysis of the interactions between the IPPC Directive and possible emission 
trading schemes for NOx and SO2, report for the European Commission, buy ENTEC 
Ltd, July 2007 

•  Defra (2007): Mid-term review of the UK’s implementation of the Pollution 

Prevention and Control Regulations, UK Department for Environment, food and Rural 
Affairs, April 2007. 

• 

IEEP (2006): Data gathering and impact assessment for a possible review of the IPPC 
Directive, report for the European Commission by IEEP, BIO, VITO, December 2006 

1.3.6  Nanotechnologies 

•  BauA & VCI (2006): Exposure to Nanomaterials in Germany: Results of the 

Corporate Survey of the Federal Institute for Occupational Health and Safety  (BauA) 
and the Chemical Industry Association (VCI) Available at:  

•  EC (2010): Nanomaterials – summary provided on the European Commission DG 

Environment website, last accessed 04/11/2010, 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/nanotech/index.htm  

•  EC (2010). Budget: Budget breakdown of the Seventh Framework Programme of the 
European Community (EC) (2007-2013) and Euratom (2007-2011) (in EUR million). 
Available from: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/budget_en.html   

•  EC (2009) Information from Industry on Applied Nanomaterials and their Safety – 

Background paper on options for an EU-wide reporting scheme for nanomaterials on 
the market, prepared for the European Commission DG Environment by Milieu and 
RPA consultants, September 2009. Available at: http://www.nanomaterialsconf.eu/   

•  EC (2008): Summary of legislation in relation to health, safety and environment 
aspects of nanomaterials, regulatory research needs and related measures – 
SEC(2008)2036 accompanying document to COM(2008) 366 final: Regulatory 
Aspects of Nanomaterials. 

•  EC (2008). Regulation on Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP) 

(1272/2008/EC) 

•  EC (2006). Regulation on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction 

of Chemicals (REACH) (1907/2006/EC)  

183

 
 
 
•  EC (2006): Technical Assistance for REACH Impact Assessment Updates – 

ENTR/05/100, produced for the European Commission DG Enterprise by Risk & 
Policy Analysts (RPA) consultants, December 2006.  

•  EC (2005): The impact of REACH on the environment and human health, by the 

Danish Technical Institute (DHI) for DG Environment, September 2005 

•  Tillinghast (2003): Asbestos: The current situation in Europe, by Salvator, L., Santoni, 

A., and Michaels, M. For Tillinghurst – Towers Perrin, available at: 

•  Salvatori, L., Santoni, A., Michaels, D. (undated). Asbestos: The current situation in 

Europe. Available from:  
http://www.actuaries.org/ASTIN/Colloquia/Berlin/Salvatori_Santoni_Michaels.pdf  

•  Poland, C.A., Duffin, R., Kinloch, I., Maynard, A., Wallace, W.A.H., Seaton, A., 
Stone, V., Brown, S., MacNee, W. And Donaldson K. (2008) Carbon nanotubes 
introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a 
pilot study, Nature Nanotechnology Vol. 3 pg. 423-428. 

•  UBA (2010): Nanoparticle emission of selected products during their life cycle – 
Summary, by Dr. T. Kulbusch &  C. Nickel  for the Federal Environment Agency 
(Germany). Available from: http://www.uba.de/uba-info-medien-e/4028.html  

1.3.7  Application of high prevention and recycling targets on bio-waste in Hungary 

•  ARCADIS, Eunomia (2010): ‘Assessment of the options to improve the management 

of bio-waste in the European Union’ 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/compost/developments.htm  

1.3.8  Development of windrow composting as a tool to obtain landfill diversion of 

biodegradable waste for the region of Pleven in Bulgaria 

•  ARCADIS and partners, ‘Preparation of solid waste management measures in 
Pazardjik, Pleven and Vidin regions-Bulgaria’, for the Bulgarian Ministry of 
Environment and Water. 

1.3.9  Air emission reduction measures for the Port of Rijeka in Croatia 

•  ARCADIS (2009),”Technical assistance on the development of cost-efficient emission 
reduction measures for the Port of Rijeka Croatia”, prepared for the Department of 
Foreign Affairs of the Flemish Government 

•  ARCADIS (2009), “Real environment related health costs” for the Department LNE 

of the Flemish Government 

1.3.10  Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) 

•  Nera & Accent (2007): Report on the benefits of Water Framework Directive 
programmes of measures in England and Wales, for the UK Department for 
Environment, Food and Rural affairs (Defra) 

184

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
•  EC (2006), SEC(2006)947 Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment, 

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on 
environmental quality standards in the field of water policy and amending Directive 
2000/60/EC,   http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/water-
dangersub/pdf/sec_2006_947_en.pdf 

185