REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS accompanying the mid-term evaluation of the LIFE programme
Date: 2017-11-06
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, EU financial instrument, EU programme, biodiversity, climate change policy, environmental cooperation, environmental law, environmental protection, waste management

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 6.11.2017  COM(2017) 642 final  REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT, THE COUNCIL, THE EUROPEAN ECONOMIC AND SOCIAL COMMITTEE AND THE COMMITTEE OF THE REGIONS accompanying the mid-term evaluation of the LIFE programme {SWD(2017) 355 final} - {SWD(2017) 356 final}  
 
 
1. 

Introduction 

The  LIFE  programme  2014-2020  is  the  EU’s  funding  instrument  for  the  environment  and 
climate action. LIFE’s general objective is to help implement and develop EU environmental 
and climate policy and legislation by co-financing projects with European added value. 
Under the general guidance on better regulation guidelines1, this mid-term evaluation explores 
the  LIFE  programme’s  relevance  and  EU  added  value.  It  looks  at  whether  the  programme 
continues  to  be  relevant  in  tackling  the  issues  it  seeks  to  address  while  adding  value  in 
relation  to  what  Member  States  would  have  achieved  acting  alone.  The  evaluation  also 
assesses whether LIFE is achieving this in an effective and efficient manner and whether its 
provisions are consistent with other programmes. 

This  report  summarises  the  main  findings  of  the  evaluation,  draws  conclusions  and  makes 
recommendations  for  follow-up  action.  It  is  accompanied  by  a  Staff  Working  Document 
showing the evaluation findings in more detail. 

2. 

Background 

Launched  in  1992,  the  LIFE  programme  has  been  evaluated  a  number  of  times  over  its  25 
years of existence. The current Programme (2014-2020) is the result of these evaluations and 
incorporates the lessons learnt from the implementation of previous programmes. 

The  current  LIFE  Regulation  (EU)  No  1293/2013  establishes  the  EU’s  financial  instrument 
supporting environmental, nature conservation and climate action projects across the EU. 

Its general objectives are to: 

1.  contribute  to  the  shift  towards  a  resource-efficient,  low-carbon  and  climate-resilient 
economy,  improve  the  quality  of  the  environment  and  halt  and  reverse  biodiversity 
loss; 

2.  improve the development, implementation and enforcement of EU environmental and 
climate  policy  and  legislation,  and  act  as  a  catalyst  for,  and  promote  the  integration 
and  mainstreaming  of,  environmental  and  climate  objectives  into  other  policies  and 
practices; 

3.  support  better  environmental  and  climate  governance  at  all  levels,  including  better 
involvement  of  civil  society,  non-governmental  organisations  (NGOs)  and  local 
players; 

4.  support the implementation of the 7th Environmental Action Programme. 

The budget for the current LIFE programme is EUR 3.4 billion. 

Given its size, the LIFE programme is not meant to solve environmental and climate problems 
but act as a catalyst for accelerating changes. 

1  SWD(2015) 111 final, Commission Staff Working Document, Better Regulation Guidelines. 

2 

 
 
                                                            
3.   Methodology 

The mid-term evaluation covers the programme’s first two years (2014-2015) and is largely 
based  on  the  external  study  by  an  independent  consultant  (study  required  by  the  LIFE 
Regulation).  The  study  was  conducted  between  March  2016  and  January  2017.  It  relied  on 
extensive  desk  research  and  data  and  indicators  from  the  project  databases  specifically 
designed to manage LIFE proposals and projects. 
A consultation of the main stakeholder groups2 was also carried out with five complementary 
surveys and more than 120 interviews, and a public consultation was organised. 

The mid-term evaluation analyses the new features of the LIFE programme, looking at how 
these  are  accepted  by  LIFE  stakeholders,  and  the  preliminary  results  in  comparison  with 
initial expectations. 

4.  

Implementation - state of play 

As shown in the figure below, the activities that consume the major share of the budget are 
traditional  and  integrated  projects,  followed  by  procurement/administrative  support  and 
financial instruments. 

The budget amounts fulfil the ceiling laid down in the Regulation that at least 81% has to be 
dedicated to action grant projects and, where appropriate, financial instrument operations. 

Figure 1 — LIFE 2014-2015 — distribution of funds 

a.  Grants 

The demand for funding traditional projects appears to be extremely high. The average ratio 
between  proposals  submitted  and  projects  awarded  is  9  to  1,  ranging  from  12  to  1  for  the 
priority  area  environmental  governance  and  information  to  5  to  1  for  climate  change 
mitigation. 

2   Project  beneficiaries,  experts  from  the  monitoring  team,  unsuccessful  applicants,  national  contact  points 

(NCPs) and national focal points (NFPs), Commission, EASME and EIB officials. 

3 

Traditional projects438,25  M EUR52%Integrated projects156,35  M EUR19%Other projects16,13 M EUR 2%Financial instruments80,00  M EUR9%Procurement and administrative support129,48 M EUR15%Operating grants19,50  M EUR2% 
 
 
                                                            
Grants  are  awarded  to  a  wide  range  of  different  organisations:  from  businesses  large  and 
small  (44 % in  total,  out  of which 33 %  are small and  medium–sized enterprises)  to private 
non-commercial organisations (24 %) and public bodies (32 %). 

Integrated projects3 have been included for the first time under the current programme. From 
the very beginning, demand for integrated projects has exceeded the available resources in all 
steps  of  the  award  process.  Out  of  66  concept  notes  presented,  15  projects  were  awarded 
funding in 2014-2015. 

Proposals received for integrated projects for 2014 and 2015 represent a LIFE and non-LIFE 
co-financing  request  totalling  EUR  283  million.  This  co-financing  should  facilitate  the 
coordinated use of about EUR 3.6 billion in total.  

Fourteen capacity-building projects were put in place to support activities that help Member 
States  build  their  capacity  to  participate  more  effectively  in  the  LIFE  programme.  All  the 
eligible Member States submitted a proposal, except one. 

Novelties introduced in grant management: 

In  2014  the  Executive  Agency  for  Small  and  Medium–sized  Enterprises  (EASME) 
was entrusted with the management of operating and traditional grants, and capacity-
building  projects  under  the  two  sub-programmes,  and  integrated  and  technical 
assistance projects under the sub-programme for climate action. 

   To  monitor  project  outcome  and  impact,  a  comprehensive  set  of  quantitative  and 
qualitative  indicators  was  included  in  the  LIFE  multiannual  work  programme 
(MAWP)  for  2014-2017.  Values  for  these  indicators  are  collected  at  a  project  level 
and  used  to  estimate  the  project’s  expected  environmental and  climate impact  in  the 
award phase and to monitor and assess its ongoing results as it is being implemented. 
They are also aggregated so that the programme’s performance can be evaluated. 

b.  Financial instruments 

Two  pilot  financial  instruments  –  the  Natural  Capital  Financing  Facility  (NCFF)  and  the 
Private  Finance  for  Energy  Efficiency  (PF4EE)  —  have  been  introduced  in  the  current 
programme to test innovative approaches. 

The PF4EE supports investments to implement the Member States’ energy efficiency action 
plans through financial intermediaries. 
So far4, six agreements have been signed with local intermediary banks under the PF4EE. In 
the beginning, PF4EE expected investment in energy efficiency projects to total as much as 
EUR 540 million. But taking into account these results and other agreements in the pipeline 
under scrutiny, the European Investment Bank (EIB) now estimates investments will amount 
to  EUR  1  billion  (EUR  430  million  from  EIB  and  EUR  570  million  from  financial 
intermediaries). The initial EUR 80 million funding from LIFE is thus expected to result in a 
leverage effect of 12.5. 

3   These  are  projects  which  implement  environment  or  climate  strategies  required  by  Union  legislation  on  a 

large territorial scale 

4   January 2017 

4 

 
 
  
 
                                                            
The  NCFF  is  designed  to  demonstrate  that  natural  capital  projects  can  generate  revenue  or 
save costs. It intends to establish a pipeline of replicable, bankable operations that will serve 
as  ‘proofs  of  concept’  and  demonstrate  to  potential  investors  the  attractiveness  of  such 
operations directly addressing biodiversity and climate adaptation objectives. 

Since  the  launch  of  the  instruments  in  February  2015,  the  EIB  scrutinised  a  significant 
number of potential operations. The first operation has been signed in April 2017 and two or 
three further operations are expected for the remainder of 2017.  

Several  potential  operations  that  were  scrutinised  did  not  materialise  in  particular  due 
difficulties to develop the business case. This confirms the challenges identified in the ex-ante 
assessment.  

Greater  use  of  the  NCFF  technical  assistance  facility,  more  targeted  promotional  and  other 
support activities are being implemented to improve the number of operations financed. 

5. 

 Evaluation 

This section provides a summary of the evaluation. More details are available in the related 
Staff Working Document.5 

a.  Effectiveness 

Results  are  not  available  at  this  early  stage  of  the  programme's  implementation.  However, 
there is evidence that the anticipated results of the projects and activities being implemented 
are addressing all the programme’s objectives. 

According to the results of the external study, ongoing projects are expected to contribute to 
"effectiveness" in a number of ways, including by: 

improving the conservation status of habitats, species and Natura 2000 sites; 
reducing the adverse effects of chemicals on health and the environment for about 1.6 
million people over 5 years; 
reducing  energy  consumption  (about  600 000 MWh  per  year)  based  on  best  practice 
solutions; and 
increasing the production of energy from renewable sources (about 500 000 MWh per 
year from different sources). 

From  a  preliminary  analysis  of  the  2014  and  2015  ongoing  projects,  it  emerges  that  they 
already address 70% of the target milestones to be achieved for 2017, as indicated in the first 
MAWP. These anticipated results provide assurance that the LIFE programme 2014-2020 is 
on track to contribute significantly to its general outcomes. 

First  findings  from  the  evaluation  and  some  evidence  from  the  previous  LIFE+  programme 
confirm that the current LIFE programme is playing its role well. It is acting as a catalyst for 
funding, sharing best practices and supporting actions to improve and accelerate changes. 

The  programme  supports  the  Europe  2020  strategy  by  financing  projects  expected  to 
contribute  to  resource  efficiency  and  sustainable  growth  and  promote  innovation.  It  is  also 
financing  projects  expected  to  contribute  to  employment,  which  is  an  important  additional 
benefit to the LIFE programme’s primary aims. 

5   SWD(2017)XXX. 

5 

 
 
  
  
  
  
                                                            
Some of the most recent policy developments, whose preparatory works have been financed 
by LIFE, namely the circular economy package adopted in 2015, the 2030 climate and energy 
framework  adopted  in  2014,  the  implementation  of  the  Paris  Agreement  ratified  in  2016  as 
well  as  the  EU's  adaptation  strategy  are  expected  to  contribute  to  shaping  the  future  of  the 
European economy in the coming decades. 

The  key  features  of  the  programme  are  having  a  positive  influence  on  the  delivery  of  the 
objectives can be summed up as follows: 

the programme is flexible and able to rapidly respond to emerging needs and priorities; 

it has a wide range of stakeholders, who appreciate the programme for the relevance and 
quality of its actions that concretely address local needs; and, 

the mix of actions is particularly effective. It is a combination of activities based on the 
lessons  learnt  from  25  years  of  experience  —  such  as  traditional  projects  —  with  new 
actions  —  such  as  integrated,  capacity-building  and  technical  assistance  projects  and 
financial instruments — which are expected to increase its effectiveness. 

Two factors that make delivery of the objectives more challenging are the needs to: 

cope  with  a  large  number  of  priorities  and  new  key  challenges  —  such  as  the  circular 
economy, achievement of the targets for the 2030 climate and energy framework requiring 
substantial innovation, the implementation of the Paris Agreement, the possible review of 
the EU Adaptation Strategy, the need to in implement the Birds and Habitats Directives,6 
the implementation of the 2030 Agenda and the Sustainable Development Goals7 – within 
the limits of the available financial resources, meaning that not all objectives and priority 
areas might be covered by adequate projects; and 

   overcome obstacles — such as beneficiaries’ lack of financial resources and/or the lack of 
capacity/human  resources  for  planning  an  investment  which  limit  the  replicability  and 
transferability  of  project  results  —  by  introducing  customised  or  ad  hoc  accompanying 
measures. 

b.  Efficiency 

The  external  study  has  taken  into  account  the  anticipated  results  of  some  projects  selected 
under  the  2014  calls  for  proposals  and  estimated  that  they  would  contribute  to  a  societal 
benefit  of  EUR  1.7  billion.  This  covers  four  times  the  cost  of  the  overall  LIFE  budget  for 
2014. 

On  the  management  of  the  LIFE  programme,  the  external  study  has  concluded  that  LIFE 
appears to cost less to manage than the other EU funded programmes. This takes into account 
the financial resources allocated to EASME as a percentage of the funds externalised by the 
different programmes. 

It  was  initially  estimated  that  the  transfer  of  management  from  the  Commission  to  EASME 
(‘externalisation’) should have resulted in a EUR 8.2 million efficiency gain over the period 
2014-2020 in comparison with a scenario where the grant management would have remained 
within the Commission. The most recent figures based on the actual costs of EASME in the 

6  The evidence gathered in the recently finalised evaluation of the Birds and Habitats Directives (fitness-check) 
confirmed the Directives’ high relevance and the strategic role that the LIFE programme plays in supporting 
their implementation as well as the need to substantially improve their implementation. 

7  See COM(2016)739 final. 

6 

 
 
  
  
  
  
                                                            
first three years of the programme’s implementation, show that the expected efficiency gain 
should increase slightly. 

All LIFE stakeholders perceive EASME’s work as valuable. 

The  external  study  identified  the  need  to  simplify  LIFE  procedures  for  grants.  It  envisaged 
some  measures  to  reduce  the  burden  for  proposal  submissions,  reporting  requirements  and 
indicators. This will be explored in the next MAWP. The study also identified areas where the 
national  contact  points  could  improve  their  performance,  ensuring  minimum  standards  for 
assistance  in  all  Member  States  and  adopting  a  more  proactive  approach.  The  LIFE 
communication strategy would also need to better target audiences and deliver key messages 
that  were  objective-specific  and  target-specific,  ensuring  more  structured  coordination 
between players.   

c.  Coherence 

Based on preliminary results, the internal structure of the LIFE programme is consistent with 
EU policies and priorities and has allowed addressing ongoing and new challenges. 

The external study found that the ongoing projects often contribute to more than one priority 
area  and  therefore  have  a  combined  effect,  producing  synergies.  For  example,  climate 
mitigation projects often contribute to climate change adaptation, nature and biodiversity, air 
quality and resource efficiency. 

LIFE is designed to be complementary to other EU funding programmes. 

Compared to other EU funding programmes, LIFE is the only programme with environment 
and  climate  action  upfront:  where  other  programmes  address  environment  and/or  climate 
issues,  their  action  responds  to  other  overarching  objectives  (such  as  research  or  rural 
development). This limits potential overlaps. 

The  results  of  the  evaluation  confirmed  that  LIFE  and  Horizon  2020  contribute  to  common 
objectives  in  different  and  in  some  cases  complementary  ways.  During  these  first  years  of 
implementation, they have operated in a mutually reinforcing manner. 

LIFE has a mechanism that encourages LIFE projects to use the results of environmental and 
climate-related  research  and  innovation  that  have  come  out  of  Horizon  2020  and  preceding 
framework  programmes.  By  doing  this,  knowledge  and  solutions  developed,  tested  and 
deployed through EU-funded research activities can be implemented and scaled up. 

In  the  case  of  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  (ESIF),  complementarity  with 
LIFE is acknowledged in the Common Provisions Regulation and systematically checked in 
all  the  programming  documents  (such  as  the  partnership  agreements  and  the  operational 
programmes). 

Although it is difficult to assess whether, and to what extent, this works at this early stage of 
implementation of all the programmes: 

integrated  projects  are  expected  to  attract  funding  of  some  EUR  1.98  billion  from  other 
EU  programmes  (EAFRD,  ERDF,  INTERREG,  ESF,  EMFF,  H2020)  following  a  LIFE 
investment of EUR 153 million. This means that LIFE has successfully linked a variety of 
EU funding streams in ten Member States which have opted for integrated projects on the 
environmental  aspects  of  nature,  air,  water,  waste  and  for  climate  action  projects 
concerning land-use and adaptation issues. 

7 

 
 
  
some  evidence  suggests  that  this  type  of  mechanism  worked  in  the  past  for  rural 
development  and  INTERREG  projects  that  were  at  first  piloted  under  previous  LIFE 
programmes. 

d.  Relevance 

Evidence  indicates  that  the  LIFE  programme  is  effective  and  efficient  in  tackling  the  key 
priorities  and  in  contributing  to  the  definition  of  the  way  forward  for  new  emerging 
challenges  such  as  the  EU  biodiversity  strategy,  the  2030  climate  and  energy  framework 
requiring  substantial  innovation,  the  implementation  of  the  Paris  Agreement,  the  possible 
review of the EU adaptation strategy and the circular economy. 

As has emerged from the results of the external study, the LIFE programme responds to the 
needs  of  a  wide  range  of  beneficiaries,  who  submit  a  proposal  to  be  financed  by  the  LIFE 
Programme, even if it offers a lower co-financing than other programmes. LIFE in fact allows 
the tackling of issues and problems which are not covered by other programmes.  

According  to  the  results  of  the  stakeholder  consultation,  very  little  of  LIFE  projects' 
achievements would have been launched or realised without the programme’s support. This is 
particularly  true  for  nature  protection  and  biodiversity  conservation,  apart  from  the  Natura 
2000 direct payments to farmers,8 which have a different scope and financing structure, there 
are  no  other  dedicated  funding  sources  than  LIFE,  as  underlined  by  project  beneficiaries 
during the interviews. 

According to stakeholders, discontinuation of LIFE would: 

reduce  Member  States’  capacity,  and  in  some  cases  commitment,  to  pursue  the  EU’s 
objectives for environmental protection and climate action, which would also negatively 
affect employment and economic growth. 

lead to less support for innovative environmental solutions.9 

e.  EU added value 

Based on the external study findings, the LIFE programme is expected to have a strong EU 
added value, because it: 

ensures  the  coherence  between  EU  environmental  and  climate  legislation  and  policies 
which contributes to their implementation and enforcement; 

   promotes more effective knowledge-sharing: by being a platform for the exchange of best 
practices  and  knowledge  on  implementing  EU  legislation  and  policies.  LIFE  allows 
players from across the EU to learn from each other’s experience thus addressing specific 
environmental and climate problems more effectively and efficiently; 

8  Financed under the EAFRD, these payments are directed ‘to compensate the farmers for the disadvantages 
and  restrictions  imposed  in  the  designated  Natura  2000  areas’.  See  Regulation  (EU)  No  1305/2013  of  the 
European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  17  December  2013  on  support  for  rural  development  by  the 
European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  (EAFRD)  and  repealing  Council  Regulation  (EC)  No 
1698/2005. 

9  According  to  LIFE  project  beneficiaries,  there  will  be  ‘less  innovative  pilot  or  demonstration  technical 
projects,  less  environmentally  relevant  innovation  activities  by  SMEs  in  particular’  and  ‘what  would 
disappear  is  the  support  to  provide  solutions  for  pre-testing/pre-commercialisation  (risk-sharing)  of 
innovative environmental solutions’.  

8 

 
 
  
  
  
  
                                                            
allows  a  good  degree  of  solidarity  and  responsibility  sharing  as  environmental  assets, 
which are public goods, are unevenly distributed across the EU; 

   provides a better response to trans boundary challenges which are unlikely to be addressed 

by a Member State alone; and 

   has a catalytic and leverage effect by eliminating initial barriers to the implementation of 
EU environmental and climate policy and testing new approaches for future scaling-up. 

Although final results are not available yet: 

tools  are  in  place  to  select  the  projects  with  the  most  relevant  EU  added  value  and  to 
check them in all phases of the project life cycle; 

the EU added value of the programme is confirmed by the results of previous evaluations 
and acclaimed by the overwhelming majority of respondents to the public consultation. 

f.  Project sustainability, impact and or replicability to date 

implementation  procedures  closely  address 

The  programme's 
sustainability/replication of projects throughout their lives. 
A recent report10 shows that on average 83 % of projects are financially sustainable11 after the 
end of LIFE funding. This analysis is based on LIFE+ projects and does not take into account 
improvements  in  the  current  LIFE  programme.  Likewise,  responses  collected  during  the 
survey  reveal  that  the  demonstration  and  transferability  potential  of  the  results  of  LIFE 
projects are for the majority (78%) either good or very good. 

the  potential  for 

the 

Respondents to the public consultation were also asked whether projects under LIFE have led 
to long-term positive effects. Over 80 % of respondents felt that projects had medium or high 
positive long-term effects. 

However,  the  consultations  revealed  that  obstacles  to  a  project  continuing  after  EU  funding 
ends  have  to  do  with  the  beneficiaries  lacking  financial  resources  and  a  lack  of 
capacity/human resources to plan an investment (including e.g. possible loans). There is also a 
lack of initiative by parties involved and a lack of information and communication within the 
programme. 

Although  requiring  ‘After-LIFE’  plans  at  the  end  of  the  project  is  seen  as  a  positive 
improvement, a systematic follow-up of all projects to identify best practices and cost-saving 
measures  and a  comprehensive customised support  for most  promising projects could  allow 
the replication/sustainability potential to further materialise. 

10  Report  on  LIFE’s  past,  present  and  future  contribution  to  employment  and  economic  growth:  LIFE 

effectiveness and replicability NEEMO 2016. 

11  Sustainability  is  perceived  as  the  ability  to  continue or  to follow up on  the  activities  performed  during  the 
project’s life; i.e. the viability of the project after the end of LIFE financing - the continuation or follow-up is 
ensured by the beneficiary itself, its partner or successor. 

9 

 
 
  
  
  
                                                            
6. 

Conclusions 

This  evaluation  comes  at  an  early  stage  of  the  programme’s  implementation:  most  projects 
have  yet  to  start  and  few  projects  have  finished,  given  that  the  average  duration  of  a  LIFE 
project is between 4 and 5 years. The first actual results are expected in 2019-2020. 

This  is  why  the  evaluation  has  focused  mainly  on:  the  processes  put  in  place  to  reach  its 
objectives,  the  ongoing  activities  (such  as  contracts/projects  already  financed)  and,  where 
relevant, their anticipated results. 

Despite these limitations, the external independent evaluation provides reasonable assurance 
that the programme’s implementation is progressing in the right direction. 

The evidence collected so far shows that LIFE programme is:  

the  only  programme  with  environment  and  climate  action  upfront:  other  programmes 
address  environment  and/or  climate  issues  while  responding  to  other  overarching 
objectives; 

a flexible instrument, which finances projects of different sizes and attracts small, medium 
and  large  enterprises,  universities,  research  centres,  national  and  local  authorities,  civil 
society as well as various NGOs. As demonstrated recently with the European Solidarity 
Corps12,  which  foresees  a  specific  environmental  and  climate  action  strand  financed 
through LIFE, LIFE can react very quickly to changing political and societal needs; 

responding  to  existing  needs  and  improving  its  effectiveness.    The  new  features 
introduced by the current LIFE Regulation and especially the sub-programme devoted to 
climate action (which in its annual call for proposals permits newly emerging priorities to 
be financed), and integrated and capacity-building projects have attracted a strong interest 
from  the  stakeholders,  as  shown  by  the  high  demand  of  applications  presented. 
Furthermore, the complementary financial resources mobilised by the integrated projects 
are extremely high, giving evidence that the programme is playing well its catalytic role. 

   known  for  the  relevance  and  quality  of  its  activities,  which  answer  local  needs  and  are 

visible and appreciated across the EU by stakeholders and the general public; 

expected to provide value for money and so far can demonstrate a direct and measurable 
impact, e.g. on reducing emissions and energy consumption or on protecting biodiversity 
by improving species conservation status; 

extremely  appreciated  for  its  EU  added  value  because  it  ensures  that  EU  environmental 
and climate legislation and policies are applied in a consistent manner across the EU. It is 
also seen to respond to trans-boundary and transnational challenges which a Member State 
is unlikely to address alone. It has allowed a better sharing of responsibility and promoted 
solidarity for the management/conservation of EU environmental assets. It represents an 
EU level platform for sharing best practice and demonstration activities; 

   well positioned to provide a contribution to the economy by:  

incentivising  EU  industry  to  further  develop  green  technology  capabilities, 
which form one of EU’s competitive advantages;  

12  See  COM(2016)942  final.  LIFE  is  contributing  to  provide  opportunities  for  young  people  to  engage  in 
volunteering activities in the environment and climate action field such as biodiversity protection in Nature 
2000 sites, prevention of deforestation and forest fires, etc. 

10 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                                            
   delivering closer to market than other funds; demonstrating solutions for nature 
that  can  be  up-scaled  in  the  market  or  through  other  funds,  thereby  boosting 
green jobs; and  

supporting long-term economic viability and stability by promoting sustainable 
development.  

Some of the recent policy developments initiated in parallel with the programme: such as 
the circular economy package, the 2030 climate and energy framework, implementation 
of the Paris Agreement and possible review of the EU adaptation strategy, will shape the 
EU economy in the coming decades; 

   well managed as demonstrated by its very low error rate. This means that funds are used 
according  to  the  financial  rules  while  delivering  measurable  results  with  a  substantial 
impact  on  the  ground.  This  is  ensured  by  the  monitoring  system,  which  allows  timely 
management decisions. 

11 

 
 
  
7. 

Recommendations 

The evaluation also highlights some recommendations for improvement: 

the  need  to  focus  on  existing  and  new  priorities:  the  circular  economy,  delivery  of  the 
2030  climate  and  energy  framework  especially  by  encouraging  innovation,  the 
implementation of the Paris Agreement, the possible review of the EU adaptation strategy, 
the  achievement  of  the  objectives  of  the  Nature  Directives,  the  implementation  of  the 
2030  Agenda  and  SDGs,  within  available  financial  resources.  These  priorities  will  be 
addressed through fine-tuning the financing per priority area. 

   given  that  not  all  the  originally  envisaged  simplification  measures  proposed  have  been 
introduced  in  current  Regulation,  the  scope  and  demand  for  simplification  of  LIFE 
procedures for grants remain, in particular for the submission of proposals and reporting. 

the communication strategy needs a more active and responsive approach to better target 
audiences  and  deliver  key  messages  that  are  objective-specific  and  target-specific.  It 
would have to ensure more structured coordination between players. 

there  should  be  the  possibility  to  increase  project  replicability  and  transferability  by 
targeting obstacles preventing activities continuing after the project ends (such as lack of 
financial  resources  and  capacity/human  resources  for  investment  planning)  thereby 
developing  a  pipeline  of  projects  for  investment  from  other  Union  and  private  sector 
sources; 

the  national  contact  points  need  a  stronger  role  to  ensure  a  minimum  level  of  service 
across Member States and a more proactive approach. 

These LIFE mid-term evaluation findings will guide the preparation of the next MAWP 2018-
2020 and the post-2020 MFF. 

12