COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL Final evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 614/2007 concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE+)
Date: 2013-06-28
Institutions: European Commission
Subjects: EU financing, air quality, environmental protection, noise pollution, reduction of gas emissions, waste management

EUROPEAN 
COMMISSION 

Brussels, 28.6.2013  
COM(2013) 478 final 

COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

Final evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 614/2007 concerning the Financial Instrument 
for the Environment (LIFE+) 

EN 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
  
 
COMMUNICATION FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL 

Final evaluation of Regulation (EC) No 614/2007 concerning the Financial Instrument 
for the Environment (LIFE+) 

1. 

INTRODUCTION 

The  LIFE  Programme  is  the  EU's  only  financial  instrument  having  as  its  sole  focus  the 
implementation of Union policy and legislation for the environment. It was launched in 1992 
and is now in its fourth programming period under the LIFE+ Regulation (EC) N°614/2007.1 
This  Regulation  covers  the  period  2007-2013  and  foresees  a  financial  envelope  of  €2.17 
billion. 

Three types of interventions are possible under LIFE+: 

• 

• 

• 

Action  grants,  representing  78%  of  the  budget.  Grants  are  awarded  in  three 
programme  strands:  Nature  &  Biodiversity,  Environment  Policy  & 
Governance, and Information & Communication; 

Operating grants for NGOs, representing 3% of the budget; 

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

According to Art.15 (2) & (3) of the Regulation, the Commission prepared: 

– 

– 

a  mid-term  review,  submitted  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the  LIFE+ 
Committee in September 2010;2 

a  proposal  for  a  successor  Programme  to  LIFE+,  submitted  to  the  European 
Parliament and the Council in December 2011;3 

In December 2012, the Commission published the outcome of a study with conclusions and 
recommendations on the LIFE+ programme and its implementation.4  

The  evidence  and  opinions  collected  and  analysed  in  the  final  evaluation  demonstrated  that 
there  have  not  been  any  major  changes  in  the  nature  and  implementation  of  the  LIFE+ 
Programme  or  in  the  quality  of  its  results  since  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  2010.  Thus  the 
conclusions of the mid-term evaluation are still generally valid. However, the final evaluation 
presents  evidence  of  continued  improvements  in  Programme  implementation  since  the 
previous  evaluations.5  In  the  following  sections,  this  Communication  presents  the  observed 

1 
2 
3 

4 
5 

OJ L 149, 09.06.2007. 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/evaluation/index.htm#mte2010 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/about/documents/COMM_PDF_COM_2011_0874_F_ 
EN.pdf?reference=IP/11/1526&format=PDF&aged=0&language=EN&guiLanguage=en 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/about/documents/121214_conclusions.pdf 
See:  EPEC  (2008)  available  at  https://ec.europa.eu/dgs/environment/pdf/epec_report_life.pdf;  SEC 
(2008) 2633 FINAL COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT on the implementation of the 
programme  for  financial  support  to  European  non-governmental  organisations  primarily  active  in  the 

EN 

2 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
                                                 
achievements, as well as the remaining challenges and weaknesses in the LIFE Programme. 
The Commission's proposal for a successor instrument for 2014-20 already seeks to address 
the identified challenges and weaknesses.  

2. 

ACHIEVEMENTS AND CHALLENGES 

2.1. 

Achievements 

LIFE+  has  served  as  an  effective  tool  to  promote  the  implementation  of  the  priorities 
established in the 6th Environmental Action Programme (6EAP)6. The Programme has played 
a significant role in increasing awareness of, good governance for, and public participation in 
the  implementation  of  EU  environment  policy  and  legislation.  The  evaluations  confirm  that 
LIFE+ has been "a successful instrument with significant EU added value".7  

Over the twenty years of the Programme and in addition to "quantified benefits estimated at 
some €600 million a year", LIFE has led to  

• 

• 

Improved  conservation  and  restoration  of  some  4.7  million  hectares  of 
land; 

Improved water quality over an area of approximately 3 million hectares;  

•  More healthy air quality for some 12 million people;  

• 

• 

waste prevention of some 300,000 tonnes and recycling of a further 1 million 
tonnes; 

1.13 million tonnes reductions of CO2 emissions per year. 

These  achievements  have  been  accomplished  through  the  implementation  of  almost  50,000 
project  actions,  including  the  acquisition  of  194  million  hectares  of  land  for  the 
implementation of the Natura2000 network, over 95,000 training sessions, 6.1 million people 
targeted by communications, and 1.2 million pupils and students involved. 

EU added value  
The EU added value of LIFE+ derives from its ability to act as a platform for the exchange of 
best practice and knowledge-sharing, allowing actors across the EU to learn from each others' 
experiences  and  thus  address  environmental  problems  more  effectively.  In  the  Nature  & 
Biodiversity  strand  for  example,  LIFE+  has  helped  creating  collaborative  platforms  that 
enhanced  partnerships  thereby  facilitating  the  transfer  of  best  practice  between  stakeholders 
and  decision-makers.  LIFE+  also  allows  for  a  better  distribution  of  responsibility  and 
solidarity in preserving the EU common environmental good. It acts as a catalyst, providing 

field of environment protection; COWI (2009) Ex-Post Evaluation of Projects and Activities Financed 
under  the  LIFE  Programme;  EC  Court  of  Auditors  (2009)  Special  Report  11/2009  on  "The 
sustainability  and  the  Commission's  management  of  the  LIFE-Nature  Projects";  Arcadis  (2010)  Mid-
term  evaluation  of  the  Implementation  of  the  LIFE+  Regulation;  and  SEC  (2011)  1541  Final 
COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER IMPACT ASSESSMENT accompanying the document on 
the Proposal for a Regulation on the establishment of a Programme for the Environment and Climate 
Action (LIFE). 
OJ L 242, 10.09.2002 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/1_EN_impact 
_assesment_part1_v4.pdf 

3 

   EN 

6 
7 

EN 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                         
one-off  investments  to  eliminate  initial  barriers  to  EU  environmental  and  climate  policy 
implementation,  and  testing  new  approaches.  The  mid-term  evaluation  indicated  that  LIFE 
"continues to be relevant as it is the only EU financial instrument specifically focused on the 
environment".8 

The  high  level  of  EU  added  value  delivered  under  the  Regulation  has  been  achieved  by 
ensuring that: 

• 

• 

• 

Action  grant  projects  were  of  high  quality  individually,  and  their  impact  was 
multiplied  through  dissemination  and  sharing  of  project  results,  reaching  a 
maximum number of policy makers and stakeholders across the EU;  

NGOs  financed  were  enabled  to  play  an  effective  role  in  making  and 
implementing policy; 

Public  procurement  was  well  planned  and  aligned  with  formally  agreed 
priorities. 

However,  the  EU  added  value  was  somewhat  compromised  by  the  system  of  national 
allocations  leading  to  compromises  in  the  quality  of  projects  financed,  and  by  overly  broad 
priorities  which  led  to  insufficient  focus  on  targeted  needs  and  priorities.  Since  the  list  of 
LIFE+  priorities  was  defined  in  the  Regulation,  it  has  not  been  possible  during  programme 
implementation to introduce requirements restricting project finance to specific policy needs 
and priorities. 

Selection process and project monitoring  
The  rigorous  evaluation  and  selection  process  for  LIFE+  projects  has  ensured  that  funded 
projects  are  well-designed  and  therefore  likely  to  be  successful.  External  teams  with  an  in-
depth  knowledge  of  the  language  and  context  of  the  projects  have  provided  regular  on-site 
support and monitoring. Project beneficiaries feel that they have been well supported by both 
this external monitoring team and by the Commission Technical and Financial Desk Officers.9 

NGOs Operating grants 
The aim of this component of the LIFE+ programme is to enable environmental NGOs with a 
European  vocation  to  contribute  to  a  balanced  stakeholder  involvement  in  the  EU  policy 
process. Operating Grants have enabled NGOs to participate in EU working groups, produce 
information and analysis papers, engage in awareness-raising and consultative activities, and 
carry  out  long-term  projects.  The  evaluations  confirm  the  continued  relevance  of  this 
intervention  and  concluded  that  the  NGOs  selected  made  a  necessary  contribution  to  EU 
policy. 

Public procurement  
The Commission uses public procurement to undertake supporting studies and evaluations, to 
hold meetings, workshops and seminars, and to develop and maintain computer systems (e.g. 

8 

9 

SEC  (2010)  1120  COMMUNICATION  FROM  THE  COMMISSION  TO  THE  EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL, Mid-term review of the LIFE+ Regulation, p.5 
MTR, p.9 

EN 

4 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
LIFE website or Natura2000 information system). This component of the LIFE+ Programme 
has also been used to assist the Commission with information, publication and dissemination 
activities that are central to its policy objective. Such contracts have played an important role 
in  achieving  the  Programme's  objectives  despite  their  comparably  small  size  in  the  LIFE+ 
budget.  The  evaluations  show  that  the  expenditure  through  public  procurement  has  been 
appropriate and has responded to the needs of the policy. Outputs have included high profile 
communication  and  outreach;  although  it  is  hard  to  assess  the  real  full  impact  of  such 
measures, they were delivered in line with the required quality criteria and based on strategic 
need. 

2.2. 

Challenges and actions within the current framework  

2.2.1.  Action grants 

Strategy and coherence 
The LIFE+ Programme has been evaluated as being relevant and needed as it is creating EU 
added  value  for  EU  environmental  policy  development  and  implementation.10  However,  the 
Programme's  objectives  are  not  always  clear  and  sometimes  lack  coherence  with  other  EU 
policies. The lack of a clear strategic approach and critical mass has been identified as a draw-
back of the Programme, stemming mainly from limitations in the Regulation. Consequently, 
implementation  of  the  LIFE+  programme  has  not  been  able  to  reflect  the  evolution  of 
developing  EU  policy  priorities,  especially  for  the  Environment  and  Information  & 
Communication strands. Better strategic and multi-annual planning, and improved flexibility 
concerning  the  choice  and  complementarity  of  financial  instruments  were  recommended  in 
the  evaluations  as  a  way  forward.  Furthermore,  evaluations  concluded  that  the  environment 
and  governance  strand  of  LIFE+  should  focus  more  on  implementation  of  EU  environment 
legislation and the creation of multipliers. 

According  to  Art.9  of  the  Regulation,  LIFE+  should  not  finance  activities  that  could  be 
financed by other EU funds; this prevents using several EU instruments for the financing of 
one single project. However, more synergies and coherence with national, regional, and local 
programmes in Member States would have been beneficial.  

Restrictions  on  funding  activities  outside  the  EU  have  reduced  the  effectiveness  of  the 
Programme  in  addressing  EU  environmental  problems  that  are  driven  by  factors  outside  of 
EU borders.  

The Commission continues its effort to better integrate the outputs of action grants into policy 
development and implementation within the limitations of the current LIFE+ framework. The 
Guide  for  applicants  has  been  substantially  revised,  especially  for  the  Environment  & 
Governance component, in order to provide more focus and better guidance to the potential 
beneficiaries, within the constraints of the LIFE+ Regulation. 

10 

SEC  (2010)  1120  COMMUNICATION  FROM  THE  COMMISSION  TO  THE  EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL, Mid-term review of the LIFE+ Regulation, p.10 

EN 

5 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
The Commission has made sure that no LIFE+ project also received support from other EU 
instruments,  thus  respecting  the  provisions  of  the  LIFE+  Regulation.  However,  the  project 
selection process did favour projects demonstrating synergies with other funds or showing an 
integrated  approach  in  the  use  of  different  funds  by  establishing  selection  criteria  in  the 
manner which leads to additional assessment points for such projects. 

The  Commission  has  also  acted  upon  the  evaluation  recommendations  by  proposing  a  new 
type of project, the "Integrated Projects" under the LIFE+ successor; integrated project would 
have  a  greater  focus  on  the  implementation  of  EU  policy,  over  a  longer  period  and  with 
mobilisation of additional funding. 

The proposed new programme would also introduce the possibility to finance actions outside 
of the EU where necessary to achieve EU environmental or climate objectives. 

Administrative burden 
The  administrative  burden  of  LIFE+  has  increased  over  time  due  to  stricter  application  and 
reporting  requirements,  particularly  related  to  financial  administration,  and  thus  efficiency 
concerns have  been raised. The  split  of the LIFE+ unit  into two  separate units in 2009 also 
appears to have increased the administrative burden for individual desk officers. 

The Commission has made efforts to simplify the procedures and proposed measures for the 
LIFE+ successor to lower the administrative burden.  

Application and selection process 
Procedures  for  project  application  and  selection  were  evaluated  as  being  too  long  and 
complex, needing simplification.  

An online application form was introduced in 2011 to address these concerns. The first pilot 
year showed some initial teething problems, including problems with discrepancies between 
electronic and hard-copies, which needed to be resolved manually. 

The  Commission  has  organised  workshops  for  potential  applicants  after  each  call  for 
proposals  to  explain  the  application  process  and  increase  the  quality  of  applications.  These 
workshops  have  been  especially  focussed  on  countries  with  a  low  number,  and/or  success 
rate,  of  applicants.  The  Commission  has  also  continued  reinforcing  and  improving 
dissemination  activities,  and  increased  efforts  to  attract  non-traditional  LIFE  applicants, 
especially for Biodiversity and new themes under Environment & Governance. 

The  Commission  has  shortened  the  duration  of  the  project  selection  procedure  without 
reducing its quality. The e-application system has been functioning well since the 2012 call 
for proposals and the Commission is looking at possibilities to expand the use of electronic 
reporting in project monitoring. 

EN 

6 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Project results and integration 
The  evaluations  propose  that  the  Commission  should  carry  out  more  ex-post  visits  to  the 
projects, even if this is not required by the Regulation. A more systematic ex-post monitoring 
system would be an improvement on current arrangements, as it would provide evidence of 
which  projects  genuinely  achieve  long  lasting  benefits.  This  would  help  ensure  that  project 
results  are  better  utilised  and  integrated  into  policy  making.  More  generally  know-how 
transfer should be improved, especially at EU-level. 

The  Commission  is  now  carrying  out  more  systematic  ex-post  visits,  to  assess  project 
sustainability  and  extract  policy  lessons.  It  has  also  increased  its  efforts  to  integrate  project 
results  into  policy  development  and  implementation  in  the  context  of  workshops  and  panel 
discussions involving project beneficiaries and policy developers. The policy-project links in 
the Nature & Biodiversity strand are already strong but more efforts could still be made in the 
next Programming period, particularly in relation to the Environment & Governance strand.  

Communication and outreach 
Evaluations have recommended that the horizontal outreach and communication of the LIFE 
Programme  could  be  improved  and  the  dissemination  of  project  results  and  knowledge, 
especially at EU level should be reinforced.  

Several  improvements  have  been  made.  The  most  externally  visible  of  these  is  the  updated 
and improved LIFE homepage on the internet. 

The Commission regularly publishes thematic brochures to show how LIFE projects address 
environmental  issues;  three  synthesis  studies  on  water,  waste,  and  air  &  noise  have  been 
conducted and published. 

The Commission has promoted networking by organising regional and EU-wide meetings of 
projects to share experience and technical knowledge. 

Especially  in  the  Nature  &  Biodiversity  strand,  there  has  been  strong  cooperation  and 
knowledge  sharing  among  beneficiaries,  which  has  also  contributed  to  building  scientific 
knowledge  about  nature  conservation  and  biodiversity  thus  contributing  more  widely  to  the 
implementation of Birds and Habitats Directives. 

National organisations and management  
National Contact Points play an important role in ensuring consistency, complementarity and 
coordination of the LIFE+ Programme with national programmes. However, the coordination 
with other, mainly national, sources of funds still seems insufficient. National Contact Points 
indicate that there is scope for mobilising more resources nationally through LIFE+. 

National strategies are seen as important to promote, disseminate and deliver the Programme 
within individual Member States. 

EN 

7 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Each Member State has submitted a very different number of proposals, partly due to previous 
experience with LIFE in the Member State and partly to the assistance provided by National 
Contact Points. This leads to an uneven distribution of funding between the Member States. 
Italy,  Spain  and  Germany  continue  receiving  substantial  amounts  of  LIFE+  support  while 
some of the newest Member States have had a lower rate of success.  

The Commission carries out training sessions to enhance the National Contact Points' role in 
assisting  applicants  and  beneficiaries,  and  has  developed  guidelines  on  communication 
activities. 

While  national  allocations  in  the  Regulation  do  not  seem  to  lead  to  a  significantly  more 
balanced  distribution  of  projects  across  the  EU,  progress  is  being  made  in  some  countries 
through  the  efforts  of  the  National  Contact  Points.  Such  successful  efforts  should  be 
duplicated in other Member States. 

2.2.2.  NGOs Operating grants 

Although the impact of individual NGOs Operating grants is more difficult to assess than that 
of  Action  grants,  it  has  been  recognised  that  the  NGO  grants  programme  offers  high  added 
value  through  a  contribution  to  policy  development  and  implementation.  The  eligibility 
criteria  have  generally  been  considered  as  appropriate,  however  the  requirement  of  having 
members in many countries is perceived as contradictory to the provision that the support can 
only be given to the beneficiary and not to the members. 

The earlier evaluations identified issues relating to the speed and timing of payments causing 
liquidity problems for the NGOs. The mid-term review recommended a shift in the timeframe 
of  the  selection  procedure  or  a  change  to  multiannual  framework  partnership  agreements  to 
address liquidity problems and improve cost efficiency.11  

The  Commission  has  improved  its  feedback  to  NGOs  on  co-financing  decisions,  and  some 
improvements have been made on payment timing, although this has been limited by the time 
needed for the Commission financial procedures. 

The Commission has strengthened the focus of yearly priorities in the last call for LIFE+, and 
introduced  an  element  of  external  assessment  to  reinforce  objectivity  in  the  evaluation 
process. The possibility for multi-annual support was proposed for the successor instrument as 
a  means  of  providing  more  stable  support  which  could  allow  longer-term  planning  by  the 
beneficiary NGOs. Enhanced involvement of network members in grant implementation will 
also be promoted. 

11 

SEC  (2010)  1120  COMMUNICATION  FROM  THE  COMMISSION  TO  THE  EUROPEAN 
PARLIAMENT AND THE COUNCIL, Mid-term review of the LIFE+ Regulation, p.8 

EN 

8 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                 
3. 

THE FUTURE OF LIFE+ 

As  noted  above,  many  recommendations  from  the  evaluations  were  incompatible  with  the 
existing  LIFE+  Regulation,  but  have  been  taken  into  account  when  designing  the  future 
instrument. 

In  its  Communication  of  12  December  2011,  submitted  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council,  the  Commission  proposed  to  allocate  €3.2  billion  over  2014  -  2020  to  a  new 
Programme for the Environment and Climate Action – LIFE. The proposed new Programme 
will  build  on  the  success  of  the  existing  LIFE+  Programme  but  will  be  reformed  to  have  a 
greater impact, be simpler and allow more flexibility with an increased budget. 

The main changes proposed are:  

• 

• 

• 

The  creation  of  a  Climate  Action  sub-programme  (€800  million  over  the 
period) with three priorities: mitigation, adaptation, governance and awareness; 

A  better  definition  of  the  Environment  sub-programme  structure  (€2.4 
billion over the period): Biodiversity; Environment; and Governance; 

The  introduction  of  Integrated  projects  (IP)  as  demonstration  projects  to 
achieve  environmental  objectives,  in  particular,  through  the  mobilisation  of 
other  available  EU  and/or  national  funds.  In  particular,  this  will  guarantee  a 
strengthened complementarity and coordination with actions supported by the 
ESI  Funds  in  the  areas  of  nature,  water,  waste,  air  quality,  climate  change 
mitigation and climate change adaptation.  

The sub-programme for Environment will support efforts in the following areas: 

• 

• 

• 

"Environment  and  Resource  Efficiency"  which  will  focus  on  more  innovative 
solutions  for  better  implementation  of  environment  policy  and  integrating 
environmental objectives in other sectors; 

"Biodiversity"  which  will  develop  and  implement  best  practices  to  halt 
biodiversity  loss  and  restore  ecosystem  services,  while  keeping  its  primary 
focus  on  supporting  Natura2000  sites,  especially  via  Integrated  projects 
consistent with Member States Prioritised Action Frameworks; 

"Environmental Governance and Information" which will promote knowledge 
sharing,  dissemination  of  best  practices, and better compliance, in  addition to 
awareness raising campaigns.  

The sub-programme for Climate Action covers the following areas: 

• 

• 

• 

"Climate  Change  Mitigation"  which  will  focus  on  reducing  greenhouse  gas 
emissions; 

"Climate  Change  Adaptation"  which  will  focus  on  increasing  resilience  to 
climate change; 

"Climate  Governance  and  Information"  which  will  focus  on  increasing 
awareness  communication,  cooperation  and  dissemination  on  climate 
mitigation and adaptation actions. 

EN 

9 

   EN 

 
 
 
 
 
Grants to finance projects will remain the Programme's main type of intervention. Operating 
grants for NGOs and other bodies are also proposed, and there will be scope for contributions 
to innovative financial instruments. 

According  to  the  Commission's  proposal,  LIFE  2014-2020  will  adopt  lighter  and  more 
flexible procedures. 

4. 

CONCLUSION 

Although  the  evaluations  have  indicated  scope  for  some  improvements  in  the  LIFE+ 
Programme,  on  balance  it  is  seen  as  effective  and  well  managed.  Where  possible,  the 
identified  weaknesses  have  been  addressed  in  the  final  phases  of  the  present  programming 
period.  Where  the  LIFE+  Regulation  itself  embodied  the  weaknesses,  the  recommendations 
have been taken into account in the design of the proposed LIFE 2014-2020 Programme. 

The Commission believes that the EU budget should continue to assist the Member States and 
the EU as a whole in developing and implementing the EU policies, both through a specific 
instrument for environment and also by mainstreaming environment in the more budgetarily 
significant financial instruments. 

In view of the uneven and inadequate implementation of EU environment and climate policy, 
there is a continued need for a specific instrument for environment and climate intervention. 
The  Commission  proposal  for  new  LIFE  Programme  aims  to  continue  to  build  and  develop 
the programme currently regulated by the successful LIFE+ Regulation. 

EN 

10 

   EN