COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT MID-TERM EVALUATION Accompanying the document Report on the Mid-term Evaluation of the Programme for Environment and Climate Action (LIFE)
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  SWD(2017) 355 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT MID-TERM EVALUATION Accompanying the document Report on the Mid-term Evaluation of the Programme for Environment and Climate Action (LIFE)  {COM(2017) 642 final} - {SWD(2017) 356 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

LIST OF TABLES AND FIGURES ........................................................................................................... 4 

1 

INTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................. 7 

2.  BACKGROUND TO THE INITIATIVE .......................................................................................... 8 

2.1.  The LIFE programme's objectives ............................................................................................. 9 

2.2.  Problems that LIFE intends to solve .......................................................................................... 9 

2.3.  The structure of the LIFE programme ....................................................................................... 9 

2.4.  The intervention logic .............................................................................................................. 15 

3.  METHOD ......................................................................................................................................... 16 

4. 

IMPLEMENTATION - STATE OF PLAY ..................................................................................... 19 

4.1.  Grants ...................................................................................................................................... 20 

Traditional projects .......................................................................................................................... 20 

Integrated projects ............................................................................................................................ 24 

Other projects ................................................................................................................................... 26 

Novelties introduced in grant management ...................................................................................... 27 

4.2.  Financial Instruments .............................................................................................................. 27 

5.  ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS ...................................................................... 28 

5.1.  Effectiveness ............................................................................................................................ 28 

Q.1.  What are the outcomes likely to be achieved under LIFE 2014-2020 ................................ 28 

Q.2. 

To what extent does the observed outcome correspond to its objectives and to the EU 
2020 Strategy on sustainable growth? ................................................................................ 30 

Q.3.  What are the factors positively and negatively influencing the delivery of the 

objectives? ........................................................................................................................... 39 

Q.4. 

To what extent is the geographical distribution of projects effective? ................................ 42 

Q.5.  What is the role of LIFE in bridging uneven integration of environmental and climate 

action objectives among Member States? ........................................................................... 44 

5.2.  Efficiency ................................................................................................................................ 47 

Q.6. 

To what extent are the costs (especially management) of the LIFE programme 
justified, given the effects which have been achieved, and are likely to be achieved by 
the end of the LIFE programme? ........................................................................................ 47 

Q.7.  Have the changes made between LIFE+ and the current LIFE programme improved 

efficiency? ........................................................................................................................... 49 

Q.8. 

Is there scope for efficiency gains, simplification and burden reduction? .......................... 50 

5.3.  Coherence ................................................................................................................................ 52 

2 

 
 
Q.9. 

To what extent does the LIFE programme have a coherent structure taking into 
account its two sub-programmes, its priority areas and the various types of 
interventions (internal coherence)? .................................................................................... 52 

Q.10.  To what extent is the LIFE programme complementary and enjoying synergies with 

other  relevant EU funding programmes (i.e. the European Structural and Investment 
Funds - ESIF, Horizon 2020) (external coherence)? .......................................................... 55 

5.4.  Relevance ................................................................................................................................ 60 

Q.11.  To what extent are the programme objectives pertinent to the needs, problems and 

issues addressed? ................................................................................................................. 60 

Q.12.  To what extent do stakeholders support the LIFE interventions? ....................................... 62 

5.5.  EU added value ........................................................................................................................ 63 

Q.13.  What is the additional value resulting from the EU intervention(s), compared to what 

could be achieved by Member States at national and/or regional levels? ........................... 63 

Q.14.   To what extent do the issues addressed by the intervention continue to require action at 

EU level? ............................................................................................................................. 67 

Q.15.  What would be the most likely consequences of stopping or withdrawing the existing 

EU intervention? ................................................................................................................. 68 

5.6.  Project sustainability, impact and/or replicability to date........................................................ 70 

Q.16.  To what extent are the positive effects of projects likely to last after EU funding ends, 
especially the demonstration effect and what is the scope for replication of the 
projects? .............................................................................................................................. 70 

6.  CONCLUSIONS .......................................................................................................................  ...... 74 

ANNEXES ................................................................................................................................................ 76 

Annex 1: Procedural information concerning the process to prepare the evaluation ................................ 77 

Annex 2: Requirements for the Mid Term Evaluation set out in the LIFE Regulation ............................ 79 

Annex 3: Methods ..................................................................................................................................... 81 

Annex 4: Synopsis report on the stakeholder consultation ....................................................................... 85 

Annex 5: Table of assessment of indicators against targets ...................................................................... 91 

Annex 6: Total amount non-deductible VAT reimbursed per Member State ........................................... 96 

Annex 7: LIFE programme's contribution to Sustainable Development Goals ........................................ 97 

3 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
List of tables and figures 

Figure 1.  Structure of the LIFE and LIFE+ programmes ..................................................................... 11 

Table 1. 

Planned allocation of the financial resources by sub-programme and type of activities ....... 12 

Box 1. 

An example of LIFE traditional project on nature and biodiversity ...................................... 13 

Figure 2. 

Intervention Logic Diagram – The LIFE programme 2014-2017 ......................................... 16 

Table 2.  Number of interviews and answers to the surveys and open public consultation ................. 17 

Box 2. 

Monitoring system: how it works .......................................................................................... 17 

Table  3.  LIFE commitment rate – years 2014-2016 ............................................................................ 19 

Figure 3.  LIFE 2014-2015 - distribution of the funds .......................................................................... 20 

Figure 4.  Number of projects financed (years 2014-2015) ................................................................... 20 

Figure 5.  Traditional projects awarded funding out of the total proposals received............................. 21 

Figure 6.  Amount of the traditional projects awarded out of the amount of total eligible proposals (per 
priority area,  2014 and 2015 data) ........................................................................................ 21 

Figure 7.  Legal status of the beneficiaries: data on 2014-2015 traditional projects ............................ 22 

Table 4.  Non-EU funds mobilised by traditional projects per priority area ........................................ 22 

Figure 8. 

Integrated projects awarded funding out of the total proposals and concepts notes received 
(Years 2014 -2015) ................................................................................................................ 24 

Box 3. 

Example of an integrated project: Implementation of an air quality plan for the Małopolska 
Region - Małopolska in a healthy atmosphere (LIFE14 IPE/PL/000021) ............................ 25 

Table 5. 

Integrated projects 2014 and 2015: financial resources ........................................................ 26 

Box 4. 

The definition of the MAWP targets ..................................................................................... 29 

Q.1. 

What is the outcome likely to be achieved under LIFE 2014-2020? .................................... 30 

Box 5. 

Example of a traditional LIFE+ project on information and communication ....................... 31 

Box 6. 

Box 7. 

Box 8. 

Example  of  a  traditional  LIFE+  project  on  environmental  policy  and  governance:  the 
Dyemond Solar project .......................................................................................................... 32 

Framework  service  contracts  for  more  co-operation  with  national  judges  in  the  field  of 
environmental law ................................................................................................................. 33 

Example  of  a  traditional  project  on  Climate  Change  Mitigation.  LIFE  BEEF  CARBON  -  
Demonstration actions to mitigate the carbon footprint of beef production in France, Ireland, 
Italy and Spain (LIFE14 CCM/FR/001125) .......................................................................... 34 

Box 9. 

Example of a LIFE Environmental Governance and Information project ............................ 35 

Box 10. 

The early warning mechanism — Study contract to identify Member States at risk of non-
compliance with the 2020 target of the Waste Framework Directive and to follow-up on the 
exercise to promote compliance ............................................................................................ 35 

Table 6. 

Employment generated by LIFE and LIFE+ projects: .......................................................... 38 

Q.2. 

Q.3. 

Q.4. 

To what extent do the observed outcomes correspond to programme's objectives and to the 
EU 2020 Strategy on sustainable growth? ............................................................................. 39 

What factors are positively and negatively influencing delivery of the objectives? ............. 42 

To what extent is the geographical distribution of projects effective? .................................. 44 

4 

 
 
Box 11. 

LIFE support to Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy ............................................. 45 

Q.5.  

What is the role of LIFE in bridging uneven integration of environmental and climate action 
objectives among Member States? ........................................................................................ 46 

Figure 9.  Costs of various programmes managed by EASME ............................................................. 48 

Q.6.  

To  what  extent  are  the  costs  (especially  management)  of  the  LIFE  programme  justified, 
given the effects which have been achieved, and are likely to be achieved by the end of the 
LIFE programme? ................................................................................................................. 49 

Table 7. 

Transfer from Commission to EASME: estimates and real figures (2014-2016) in EUR. ... 49 

Q.7. 

Q.8. 

Have the changes made between LIFE+ and this LIFE programme improved efficiency? .. 50 

Is there scope for efficiency gains, simplification and burden reduction? ............................ 52 

Figure 10.  Types of activities per priority areas (LIFE 2014-2015) ....................................................... 53 

Figure 11.  Extent of synergies in LIFE projects ..................................................................................... 54 

Q.9.  

To what extent does the LIFE programme have a coherent structure taking into account its 
two  sub-programmes,  its  priority  areas  and  the  various  types  of  interventions  (internal 
coherence)? ............................................................................................................................ 55 

Box 12. 

Example of uptake in LIFE projects of research-funded activities ....................................... 56 

Box 13. 

Example  of  a  LIFE  integrated  project.  LIFE-IP  RBMP-NWRBD  UK  —  Integrated  water 
management approach to delivery of the North West England river basin management plan 
(LIFE14 IPE/UK/000027) ..................................................................................................... 57 

Box 14. 

Example of rural development-funded projects piloted in LIFE ........................................... 58 

Q.10.    

Box 15. 

Q.11.    

Box 16. 

To what extent is the LIFE programme complementary to and enjoying synergies with other 
relevant  EU  funding  programmes  (i.e.  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds  - 
ESIF, Horizon 2020) (external coherence)? .......................................................................... 59 

LIFE  study  contract  on  ‘methods  and  considerations  for  the  determination  of  greenhouse 
gas emission reduction objectives for international shipping’ .............................................. 61 

To  what  extent  are  the  programme  objectives  pertinent  to  the  needs,  problems  and  issues 
addressed? ............................................................................................................................. 61 

Extract from European Economic and Social Committee on the Mid-term evaluation of the 
LIFE programme - — NAT/689............................................................................................ 63 

Q.12.     

To what extent do stakeholders support the LIFE interventions? ......................................... 63 

Box 17. 

Example of a traditional project on environmental governance and information. LIFE-ENPE 
— European Network of Prosecutors for the Environment (LIFE14 GIE/UK/000043) ....... 65 

Q.13.      What is the additional value resulting from the EU intervention(s), compared to what could 
be achieved by Member States at national and/or regional levels? ....................................... 66 

Box 18.  Modelling  of  biophysical  and  economic  impacts  of  EU  water  policy  implementation 
scenarios (hydro-economic modelling) ................................................................................. 68 

Q.14.  

To what extent do the issues addressed by the intervention continue to require action at EU 
level? ..................................................................................................................................... 68 

Box. 19. 

Support  to  the  Commission  on  analysis  of  information  and  related  follow-up  to  the 
fulfilment of the requirements of EU water legislation ......................................................... 69 

Q.15.  

What  would  be  the  most  likely  consequences  of  stopping  or  withdrawing  the  existing  EU 
intervention? .......................................................................................................................... 69 

5 

 
 
Box 20. 

Example of a traditional project on environment and resource efficiency ............................ 70 

Box 21. 

Q.16.    

Example  of  a  LIFE  traditional  project  on  climate  change  adaptation:  climate-resilient 
construction materials with a market potential ...................................................................... 73 

To  what  extent  are  the  positive  effects  of  projects  likely  to  last  after  EU  funding  ends, 
especially the demonstration effect, and what is the scope for replication of the projects? .. 73 

6 

 
 
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

Launched  in  1992,  LIFE  is  the  only  EU  funding  programme  exclusively  dedicated  to  the 
environment, nature protection and climate action, all areas of growing concern to the public. 
For the current 2014-2020 funding period, the LIFE Regulation1 will make approximately EUR 
3.4 billion available to protect the environment and climate. 

During its 25 years of existence, the LIFE programme has been evaluated a number of times. 
The  current  programme  is  the  result  of  these  evaluations  and  has  been  shaped  by  the  lessons 
learnt from the programme’s implementation over the years. 

Following  on  from  the  previous  LIFE+  programme  (2007  -  2013)2,  LIFE  now  tackles  the 
environment and climate actions in two explicit sub-programmes, one for environment and one 
for climate action. 
Under  the  general  guidance  of  the  Better  Regulation  guidelines3,  this  mid-term  evaluation 
explores whether the LIFE programme continues to be relevant in tackling the issues it seeks to 
address. It assesses whether LIFE is operating in an effective and efficient manner and whether 
its provisions are consistent and coherent with other programmes, delivering EU added value in 
the process. Furthermore, pursuant to Article 27(2)(a) of the LIFE Regulation, the Commission, 
in its mid-term evaluation, must report in particular on4: 

the extent to which synergies between the objectives have been reached; 

   whether  the  LIFE  programme  has  contributed  (measured  in  a  quantitative  and 
qualitative  analysis)  to  the  conservation  status  of  habitats  and  species  listed  under 
Directives 92/43/EEC and 2009/147/EC; 

how successful integrated projects have been (or are expected to be) in leveraging other 
EU funds. 

This mid-term evaluation also considers the LIFE programme’s contribution to the Europe 2020 
strategy,  especially  job  creation,  and  to  what  extent  the  LIFE  activities  can  be  sustained  or 
reproduced. 

The  scope  of  the  evaluation  encompasses  all  actions  and  operations  financed  under  the  LIFE 
programme, and in particular (for further details see section 2.3): 

traditional action grants 
integrated projects 
technical assistance projects 
capacity-building projects 

1   Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the 
establishment of a Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) and repealing Regulation (EC) 
No 614/2007, OJ L 347 of 20.12.2013, p. 185. 

2   Regulation (EC) No 614/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 concerning the 

Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE+), OJ L149 of 9.06.2007, p. 170. 

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

4   See Annex 2 for the list of requirements to be reported with the mid-term evaluation of the LIFE programme 

as set out in the LIFE Regulation. 

7 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
                                                            
   preparatory projects 
   operating grants for non-profit making organisations 
   operations  through  financial  instruments  (Natural  Capital  Financing  Facility  and  Private 

Finance for Energy Efficiency) 

   public procurement for support activities. 

This  mid-term  evaluation  has  been  undertaken  at  an  early  stage  of  the  programme’s 
implementation: most projects have not started yet, and few projects have been completed (the 
average duration of a LIFE project is 4 to 5 years). 

As a consequence, the mid-term evaluation has focused mainly on the processes put in place 
(launch of calls, signing of contracts, funding of projects, etc.) to reach the programme’s 
objectives. Where relevant, the evaluation has looked at their expected results and anticipated 
long-term effects more than the results and long-term effects achieved (since they have not yet 
had time to achieve their objectives). In addition, where appropriate, the results of the (earlier) 
LIFE+ projects are used to support and inform the evaluation's findings5. 

However, with more than half of the LIFE+ projects underway, a full analysis of the long-term 
effect of LIFE6, as required by the LIFE Regulation, is premature at this stage. 
This  evaluation  builds  on  the  ‘External  and  independent  LIFE  mid-term  evaluation  report’7, 
(the ‘external study’) carried out by independent contractors. 

Together,  the  external  study  and  the  mid-term  evaluation  respond  to  Article  27  of  the  LIFE 
Regulation  which  requires  the  Commission  to  submit  an  external  and  independent  mid-term 
evaluation  of  the  LIFE  programme  to  the  European  Parliament,  the  Council  of  the  European 
Union, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions. 

2.  BACKGROUND OF THE INITIATIVE 

Major  environmental  and  climate  challenges  have  significant  consequences  for  the  EU’s 
environment and economy if left unaddressed. 
The 7th environmental action plan8 provides the framework for EU action and identifies three 
key objectives: 

1.  protect, preserve and improve the EU’s natural capital; 
2.  turn the EU into a resource-efficient, green, and competitive low-carbon economy; 

5  This  is  required  by  the  LIFE  Regulation,  and  appropriate  given  that  most  of  the  activities  and  procedures 
(traditional  projects,  operating  grants  and  procurement)  of  the  previous  LIFE+  programme  have  continued 
under the current programme. 

6   For  matter  of clarity in  this staff working document  we will  refer  to: LIFE+ when referring  to  the  previous 
programme  (2007-2013)  while  according  to  the  context  the  LIFE  programme  can  mean  the  current 
programme(2014-2020) or the programme in general since its creation in 1992 

7   See ‘External and independent LIFE mid Term Evaluation Report’. 2017. Ecorys and AA. . 

8   Decision  No  1386/2013/EU  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  20  November  2013  on  a 
General Union Environment Action programme to 2020 ‘Living well, within the limits of our planet’. OJ L 
354, 28.12.2013, p. 171-200,. 

8 

 
 
                                                            
 
 
3.  safeguard  the  EU  public  from  environment-related  pressures  and  risks  to  health  and 

wellbeing; 

It also identifies four ‘enablers’: 

1.  better implementation of legislation,   
2.  better information by improving the knowledge base, 
3.  more and wiser investment for environment and climate policy, 
4.  full incorporation of environmental requirements and considerations into other policies. 

2.1.   The LIFE programme’s objectives 

Within  this  policy  framework,  the  LIFE  Regulation  establishes  the  EU’s  instrument  to  fund 
environmental, nature conservation, and climate action projects throughout the EU. 

Its general aims (contained in Article 3) are to: 

1.  help  move  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 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, NGOs and local actors; 

4.  support the implementation of the 7th environmental action plan. 

In this context LIFE provides support to an extremely wide range of stakeholders. They range 
from the private sector (a lead player in production processes) to public institutions (primarily 
responsible  for  legislation  and  governance),  civil  society  organisations  (which  carry  out 
awareness-raising  and  environmental  protection  activities)  and  the  general  public  (which 
benefits from environmental goods). 

2.2.  Problems that LIFE intends to solve 

According  to  its  ex  ante  impact  assessment9,  the  role  of  the  LIFE  programme  is  to  focus  on 
specific problems linked to institutional barriers such as: 

   uneven and inadequate implementation of legislation in Member States; 

   uneven  inclusion  of  environment  and  climate  concerns  in  other  policies  and  Member 

States’ practices; 

inadequate  level  of  awareness  of  and  sharing  of  information  on  environmental  and 
climate change goals; and 

limited support to eco-innovation. 

Because  of  its  limited  size,  the  LIFE  programme  is  not  meant  to  solve  environmental  and 
climate  problems.  Rather,  it  is  meant  to  act  as  a  catalyst  for  developing  and  exchanging  best 
practices and knowledge. The programme’s role is also to build up and improve capacity, speed 

9   Commission staff working paper ‘Executive Summary of the Impact Assessment accompanying the document 
Proposal  for  a  Regulation  on  the  establishment  of  a  programme  for  the  Environment  and  Climate  Action 
(LIFE)’. SEC(2011) 1541 final. 

9 

 
 
  
  
                                                            
up the implementation of EU legislation, and help private players, in particular businesses, to 
test small-scale technologies and solutions. 

2.3.  The structure of the LIFE programme 

The LIFE Regulation replaced the LIFE+ programme, which covered the years 2007-2013. 

LIFE+: the results of the evaluation 

LIFE+ had a budget of EUR 2.1 billion, divided into three components: nature and biodiversity, 
environmental policy and governance, and information and communication. They were used to 
finance action and operating grants and procurement contracts for the development and 
implementation of environmental legislation. 

The EU provided EUR 1.7 million in funding for grant projects under LIFE+. It mobilised more 
than EUR 1.8 million in non-EU funding from other private or public sources. 

Several independent evaluations10 found that, in general, the LIFE+ programme was a 
successful instrument to implement Union environmental policy and legislation, and had 
significant added value11.  

However, the following weaknesses were identified12:  

1.  There  needs  to  be  a  more  strategic  focus.  Given  that  a  minimum  of  78 %  of  the  LIFE+ 
budgetary  resources  were  devoted  to  action  grants,  the  possibility  of  addressing  Union 
environmental  and  climate  policy  issues  depended  on  the  quality  and  quantity  of  the 
applications received (a ‘bottom-up’ approach based on demand for action grant projects). 

2.  The application process and reporting obligations need to be simplified, as underlined by 

stakeholders. 

3.  The objectives of certain strands need to be better defined. This is especially the case with 
environmental  policy  and  governance  and  information  and  communication.  There  also 
needs to be more focus on implementing and creating multipliers to improve the utilisation 
of project results and the transfer of know-how. 

4.  There needs to be more complementarity and synergies with other EU Funds. 

10   “LIFE ex-post evaluation” carried out by COWI in 2009; “LIFE+ mid-term evaluation” carried out by GHK in 
2010; “Combined impact assessment and ex-ante evaluation of the review of the LIFE+ Regulation’ carried 
out by a consortium led by GHK in 2011 and ‘Climate Change in the future multiannual financial framework’ 
carried out by the Institute for European Environmental Policy in 2011. 

11   See  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+)’. 
COM/2013/0478 final. 

12   Ibidem. 

10 

 
 
                                                            
The new features introduced in the LIFE programme 

After analysing options in the impact assessment and consulting stakeholders, the Commission 
included some changes in the new LIFE Regulation compared to the previous LIFE+ 
programme. These are summarised in Figure 1 below. 

The main features introduced in the new LIFE Regulation are: 

1.  a change in the overall objectives, with two additional objectives clarifying the general 
purpose of the LIFE programme (see objective 1 of the LIFE programme), the importance 
of  environmental  and  climate  governance  with  the  involvement  of  all  stakeholders  (see 
objective  3  of  the  LIFE  programme),  and  the  role  of  the  LIFE  programme  in  the 
enforcement  of  environmental  and  climate  policy  and  legislation  (see  objective  2  of  the 
LIFE programme in comparison with objective 2 of LIFE+).      

2. 

two  sub-programmes,  one  for  environment  (under  the  responsibility  of  the  Directorate-
General  for  Environment  with  a  budget  of  EUR  2.59  billion)  and  one  for  climate  action 
(under  the  responsibility  of  the  Directorate-General  for  Climate  Action  with  a  budget  of 
EUR  0.86  billion).  The  creation  of  a  sub-programme  for  climate  action  upgraded  the 
former thematic strand ‘climate change’, which showed a percentage of projects of around 
14 %.  Given  that  the  Commission  intended  to  increase  the  climate-related  proportion  of 
the Union budget to at least 20 % for all policies, it was decided13 that the allocation under 
the LIFE programme would be 75:25 between the sub-programme for environment and the 
sub-programme for climate action. 

Figure 1. Structure of the LIFE and LIFE+ programmes 

13   See COM(2011)500 final ‘A Budget for Europe 2020’. Part II. 

11 

 
 
                                                            
Source: Based on the LIFE and LIFE+ Regulations  

3. 

4. 

two multiannual work programmes (MAWP), which detail the allocation of resources 
between types of funding, the selection process and specific eligibility and award criteria 
for  grants,  and  the  progamme’s  output  and  outcome  indicators.  The  first  MAWP  covers 
2014-2017. The second multiannual work programme covering 2018-2020 is expected to 
be adopted in 2017. 

six  ‘priority  areas’  —  environment  and  resource  efficiency;  nature  and  biodiversity; 
environment  governance  and  information;  climate  mitigation;  climate  adaptation  and 
climate  governance  and  information  —  replace  the  three  LIFE+  ‘components’  — 
environmental  policy  and  governance;  nature  and  biodiversity;  and  information  and 
communication. 

5.  an  overall  budget  increase  from  EUR  2.1  billion  (for  LIFE+  2007-2013)  to  EUR  3.4 

billion (for the LIFE programme 2014-2020). 

6.  a  shift  from  a  pure  bottom-up  approach,  with  the  grants  driven  only  by  demand,  to  a 
flexible  bottom-up  approach  designed  to  better  steer  demand,  with  thematic  priorities 
and specific project topics defined for the environment sub-programme14. 

14   Thematic priorities are defined for water, waste, resource efficiency, environment and health, air quality and 
emissions,  nature,  biodiversity,  environmental  governance  and  information.  See  Annex  III  of  the  LIFE 

12 

ComponentsActivitiesTraditional projectsTraditional projectsOperating grantsOperating grantsProcurementProcurementIntegrated projectsTechnical assistance projectsCapacity building projectsPreparatory projectsFinancial instrumentsActivitiesPriority areas1. To contribute to the shift towards a resource efficient, low carbon and climate resilient economy, to the improvement of the quality of the environment and to halting and reversing biodiversity loss2. To improve the development, implementation and enforce-ment of Union ENV and CLIMA policy and legislation and promote integration and mainstreamining into other policies  and practices3. To support better environmental and climate governance at all levels, including better involvement of civil society, NGOs and local actors4. To support the implementation of the 7th Environment Action Plan1. To contribute to the implementation, updating and development of Community environmentalpolicy and legislation 2. To support the implementation of the 6th Environment Action PlanCLIMATE MITIGATIONCLIMATE ADAPTATIONCLIMATEGOVERNANCE AND INFORMATIONENVIRONMENT POLICY AND GOVERNANCENATUREAND BIODIVERSITYINFORMATION AND COMMUNICATIONPriority areasActivitiesActivitiesComponentsa. Traditional projectsb. Integrated projectsc.  Technical assistance  projectsd. Capacity building projectse. Preparatoryprojectsf.  Financial instrumentsg.  Operating grantsh . Procurement a. Traditional projectsg. Operating grantsh.ProcurementLIFE PROGRAMME 2014-2020LIFE+PROGRAMME 2007-2013ObjectivesObjectivesThematic priorities-Water-Waste-Resourceefficiency, incl. soils and forests, and green and circular economy -Environment and health, incl. chemical and noise-Air quality and emissions including urban environment-Implementation of the Nature Directives-Implementation of the  EU bidoversity Strategy to 2020-Inf., comm .and awareness raising campaigns in line with the 7th EAP -Effective control process and promotion  of compliance in relation to Union legislationENVIRONMENT AND RESSOURCE EFFICIENCYNATUREAND BIODIVERSITYENVIRONMENTALGOVERNANCE AND INFORMATION 
 
 
                                                            
7.  a  minimum  81 %  of  the  overall  LIFE  budget  is  dedicated  to  action  grant  projects, 
which  are  awarded  funding  following  an  annual  call  for  proposals15,  and  to  operations 
financed  through  financial  instruments.  Projects  and  operations  through  financial 
instruments  continue  to  depend  on  the  quantity  and  quality  of  the  applications  received. 
The definition of priorities is expected to improve the programme’s strategic focus. 

Table 1. Planned allocation of the financial resources by sub-programme and type of activities 

Source: MAWP 2014-2017 

8.  A more structured approach to funding consisting of16:  

a.  traditional projects: these are action grant projects to test a new potential best-practice 
or to demonstrate a technique or a method that has not been applied or tested before or to 
support  communication,  dissemination  of  information  and  awareness-raising.  They  must 
include activities to ensure the project’s sustainability and/or replicability. 

Box 1. Example of a LIFE traditional project on nature and biodiversity 

Regulation.  These  are  further  detailed  as  priority  project  topics  in  the  first  MAWP  (2014-2017).  This  is 
expected to ensure the programme’s strategic focus, because the projects will target the priorities identified. 

15   See point 8, items from (a) to (e) and figures 3 and 4 below for more details on the different types of projects 

and forms of funding. 

16   Under  the  LIFE+  programme  only  traditional  projects,  operating  grants  and  procurement/support  activities 

were financed.  

13 

Amount in million EUR% out of the total LIFEAmount in million EUR% out of the total LIFEEnvironment sub-programme Climate action sub-programmeE1 Action grants (item "a" to "e" under point 8)1067.9559%C1. Action grants (item "a" to "e" under point 8)249.9614%E2. Financial Instrument (item "f" under point 8)C2. Financial instruments (item "f" under point 8)- Natural capital financing facility302%- Natural capital financing facility302%Private financing for energy efficiency804%E3. Operating grants (item "g" under point 8)302%C3. Operating grants (item "g" under point 8)8.60%E4. Commission procurement activities and support expenditures (item "h" under point 8)219.212%C4.Commission procurement activities and support expenditures (item "h" under point 8)80.64%Total Env. sub-programme1347.1575%Total Climate action sub-programme449.1625%Ceilings included in the LIFE Regulation:A minimum of 81% of the overall financial resources available has to be devoted to action grants and financial instruments (E1+C1+E2+C2)                                                                                                                                                                                                                     A minimum of 55% of the resources assigned to action grants and financial instruments (E1+E2) has to be devoted to nature and biodiversity 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                             
LIFE EUROTURTLES — Collective actions to improve the conservation status of the EU 
sea turtle populations (LIFE15 NAT/HR/000997) 

EU contribution: €3 793 167.00  

Thematic priorities: Nature conservation 

Coordinating beneficiary: Croatian Natural History 
Museum (research institution) 

External link: http://www.euroturtles.eu/ 

This project focuses on the conservation of two priority sea turtle species, the loggerhead turtle 
(Caretta caretta) and the green turtle (Chelonia mydas). Several important cross-country measures 
are planned to reduce the impact of anthropogenic threats at nesting sites and fishery-related threats 
in foraging grounds. These include the extension of marine Natura 2000 network sites in Croatia 
and Italy to include current turtle ‘hot-spot’ areas, and the improvement of turtle management in 
Croatia, Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Malta and Slovenia. The project is expected to protect more than 
700 nesting sites annually and, by working with the fishing industry, reduce turtle by-catch and 
ensure that more than 2 000 turtles accidentally caught in fishing nets are saved from death. It will 
also establish an EU network for sea turtle conservation based on common objectives and methods. 

b.  integrated projects — new type of intervention introduced by the LIFE Regulation: 
these are action grant projects that act as a catalyst to implement environmental or 
climate plans or strategies on a large territorial scale. These plans and strategies are 
required by specific EU environmental or climate legislation, established pursuant to 
other EU acts or developed by Member State authorities. Under the sub-programme 
for environment, they focus on the implementation of specific directives related to 
nature,  water,  waste,  and  air.  Under  the  sub-programme  for  climate  action,  they 
address  climate  mitigation  and  climate  adaptation.  They  must  involve  multiple 
stakeholders  and  leverage  complementary  financing  by  including  climate  and 
environment objectives into other policy areas. They are awarded funding following 
a two-step procedure17. 

c.  technical assistance projects (new type of project): these provide, by way of action 
grants,  financial  support  to  help  applicants  prepare  integrated  project  applications, 
and in particular to ensure that those projects comply with the timing, technical and 
financial  requirements  of  the  LIFE  programme  in  coordination  with  other  EU, 
national, regional or private funds. 

d.  capacity-building projects  (new type of project): these provide, by way of action 
grants, funding for selected Member States to improve their capacity to participate 
more effectively in the LIFE programme. According to the eligibility criteria in the 

17   The applicant first submits a concept note summarising the key information of the project (context, objectives, 
actions  and  resources,  potential  beneficiaries  and  stakeholders,  long-term  sustainability,  major  risks  and 
constraints), a full copy of the plan or the strategy that the project is aimed to implement and a financial plan. 
To be eligible for LIFE financing, the integrated project has to cover a large geographical area, mobilise other 
funds,  involve  all  key  stakeholders  and  aim  at  implementing  specific  environmental  and  climate  plans  or 
strategies. If the concept note is retained, the applicant is invited to submit a full proposal, following a written 
question  and  answer  phase  to  allow  applicants  to  clarify  doubts.  This  is  assessed  taking  into  account  the 
technical and financial coherence of the action, the extent and quality of its contribution to the objectives, the 
extent to which the proposed project will mobilise other funds (beyond the minimum eligibility criterion) and 
the project’s potential to achieve results in other policy areas, create synergies with these policies and integrate 
environmental and climate action objectives in them. 

14 

 
 
 
                                                            
LIFE Regulation, 15 Member States are eligible to receive such funds under the first 
MAWP. 

e.  preparatory  projects  (new  type  of  intervention):  these  are  identified  by  the 
Commission in cooperation with Member States to support specific needs related to 
the  development  and  implementation  of  EU  environmental  or  climate  policy  and 
legislation.  Such  projects  implement  environmental  priorities  defined  each  year. 
Member States are consulted and their comments taken on board as appropriate. 

f.  operations funded by financial instruments (new types of projects): implemented 
by  the  European  Investment  Bank,  these  instruments  fund  projects  in  energy 
efficiency and natural capital. 

g.  operating  grants:  these  help  to  finance  the  operations  of  NGOs  working  on 
environmental  and  climate  issues  at  European  level.  The  aim  of  the  funding  is  to 
enable  NGOs  to  participate  more  in  environmental/climate  policy-making  and 
implementation. 

h.  Commission  procurement  and  support  activities.  Through  the  procurement 

activities, the Commission finances: 

the preparation and/or development of environmental and climate action policies 
and related legislation (such as the definition of the circular economy package); 

technical assistance to Member States for the implementation and enforcement of 
environmental and climate action policies and related legislation (i.e. peer 
reviews, joint inspections, definition of national plans, etc.); 

   support for the EU’s role in international fora (e.g. preparatory work for the 2015 

United Nations Climate Change Conference in Paris, COP21); 

   other activities for environmental and climate action policies and related 

legislation (e.g. communication, IT, etc.).   

9.  A  phasing-out  of  the  national  allocation  system.  National  allocations  defining  the 
distribution of funds among Member States for all projects — other than integrated projects 
— under the sub-programme for environment are included in the LIFE Regulation. They are 
determined  on  the  basis  of  solidarity  and  responsibility-sharing,  taking  into  account  the 
population and natural resources expressed in terms of Natura 2000 sites within a Member 
State18. The final evaluation of the LIFE+ programme showed that: 

a)  national  allocations  did  not  lead  to  a  significantly  more  balanced  distribution  of 

projects across the EU; 

b)  where progress was made in some countries, it was through the efforts of the national 

contact points.   

c) 

the EU added value was somewhat compromised by the system of national allocations 
leading to compromises in the quality of projects financed. 

18   See  Annex  I  of  the  LIFE  Regulation  for  the  specific  criteria  governing  the  definition  of  the  national 

allocations. 

15 

 
 
  
  
                                                            
According  to  the  LIFE  Regulation,  this  system  of  a  geographical  distribution  of  project 
funds  is  applied  under  the  first  MAWP  2014-2017  and  will  no  longer  be  applied  in  the 
2018-2020 MAWP.   

2.4.  The intervention logic 

The  intervention  logic  for  LIFE  2014-2020  is  summarised  in  Figure  2,  for  the  four  key 
objectives  of  the  LIFE  programme,  and  for  the  two  sub-programmes  with  their  respective 
priority areas, activities, and intermediate and final expected results. 

Figure 2 — Intervention Logic Diagram — The LIFE programme 2014-2017 

A minimum of 81 % of the resources devoted to activities is driven by demand, which is steered 
through the MAWP and annual calls. 

Taking into account the actual environmental external factors, environmental and climate issues 
cannot be solved without a change in the mentality and behaviour of producers and consumers. 

16 

ObjectivesSubprogrammesPriorities areasActivitiesTraditional projectsOperating grantsProcurementIntegrated projectsTechnical assistance projectsCapacity building projectsPreparatory projectsFinancial instrumentsInsufficient dissemination of information  about env  and climate  change goalsUneven integration of environment and climate objectives into  other  policies and Member States' practicesUneven and inadequate implementation of legislation in MemberStatesENVIRONMENTAL AND CLIMATE CHALLENGES1. To contribute to the shift towards a resource efficient, low carbon and climate resilient economy, to the improvement of the quality of the environment and to halting and reversing biodiversity loss2. To improve the development, implementation and enforcement of Union environment and climate policy and legislation and promote integration and mainstreamining into other policies  and practices3. To support better environmental and climate governance at all levels, including better involvement of civil society, NGOs and local actors4. To support the implementation of the 7th Environment Action Plan4.1. To protect, conserve and enhance the Union’s natural capital4.2. To turn the Union into a resource-efficient, green, and competitive low-carbon economy4.3. To safeguard the Union's citizens from environment-related pressures and risks to health and wellbeingSUB-PROGRAMME FOR ENVIRONMENTSUB-PROGRAMME FOR CLIMATE ACTIONENVIRONMENT AND RESSOURCE EFFICIENCYNATUREAND BIODIVERSITYENVIRONMENTALGOVERNANCE AND INFORMATIONCLIMATE MITIGATIONCLIMATE ADAPTATIONCLIMATEGOVERNANCE AND INFORMATIONSubstantial improvements to the state of the environment Better solidarity and responsibility sharing in preserving the Union's common  good Contribution to the halt and reverse of biodiversity loss Natura 2000 sites targeted by  activities   restored or brought to adequate management EU ENV/CLIMA policy and legislation developed, implemented and enforced across the EU Roadblocks to efficient implementation of ENV/CLIMA key instruments and plans  removedContribution to the shift towards a resource-efficient, low-carbon and climate resilient economy Improved environmental and climate governance  Improved conservation status of habitats and species targeted by specific  activities Implement of ENV/CLIMA plans, programmes or strategies  targeted by specific activities Interventions suitable for replication or transfer, bridging the gap toward the marketENV/CLIMA synergies with or mainstreaming into other  funding and practices Better governance, dissemination of information and awareness of ENV/CLIMA  Action grants Financial instruments operationsOperating grantsCommission procurementand support Min 81% of the budgetLimited support to eco-innovationIntermediate ResultsExpected Results / ImpactCatalytic  effect 
 
 
 
This change cannot occur through a top-down approach. It requires the active participation and 
involvement of the stakeholders. 

This makes it difficult to predict in advance which activities will provide the intermediate and 
expected results. 

This is why a specific monitoring system was put in place to measure each project’s 
contribution to the specific objectives of the priority areas (see box 2 below for more 
information). 

At this stage, the LIFE programme is implementing the different activities planned (action and 
operating grants,  procurement, operations  funded by financial instruments).  The programme’s 
intermediate results (see Figure 2) are only expected to begin materialising in 2019 - 2020 when 
the first projects are completed. 

3.  METHOD 

This mid-term evaluation is designed to answer the evaluation questions (referred to below in 
paragraph 5 as Q.1 to Q.16) in the Roadmap19. It is largely based on the external study by an 
independent consultant (study required by the LIFE Regulation). 

The  results  of  the  external  study  were  complemented,  where  necessary,  with  background 
information on the state of play from the Commission’s databases that support the programme’s 
management. 

The external study was conducted between March 2016 and January 2017. It relied on: 

   qualitative  assessment  tools,  including  desk  research  based  on  available  documents, 
interviews, stakeholder surveys and a public consultation which ran for 12 weeks; and 

   quantitative  assessment  tools  (based  on  the  indicator  database  and  the  LIFE  projects 
database, which mostly include LIFE+ projects) and the data processing tools designed 
to manage the LIFE proposals and projects. 

The  desk  research  consisted  of  a  review  of  a  certain  number  of  thematic  strategic  documents 
and  reports,  legislative  texts  and  related  accompanying  documents,  and  included  impact  and 
cost-benefit analyses20. It was used as the basis for structuring the external study, informing its 
different parts. 

The external study focused its analysis on those activities that consumed the largest portion of 
the  budget,  i.e.  on  action  grants,  and  particularly  traditional  and  integrated  projects  which 
represent 71 % of the available financial resources (see Figure 3 for additional details). 

Various  complementary  consultation  activities  were  conducted  as  part  of  the  external  study, 
including  a  public  consultation  and  five  specific  surveys  and  over  150  interviews  of  the  key 
stakeholder groups. 

Table 2: Number of interviews and answers to the surveys and public consultation 

19   http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2017_env_001_evaluation_life_mt_en.pdf . 

20   The complete list is included in Annex C of the External and independent LIFE mid-term evaluation report. 

17 

 
 
 
                                                            
In  addition  to  the  consultation  activities  carried  out  during  the  external  study,  the  European 
Economic  and  Social  Committee  and  the  European  Committee  of  the  Regions  provided  an 
opinion on the LIFE programme, which has been taken into consideration. 

The  aim  of  the  consultations  was  to  gather  information  on  the  programme’s  perceived 
relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, EU added value and sustainability. 

Analysis of the qualitative assessment tools was complemented with data from the monitoring 
system (see Box 2) to estimate the expected project results. 

Box 2 — Monitoring system: how it works 

The LIFE monitoring system started in the final year of LIFE+ and was continued and improved to respond to 
the requirements of the new LIFE regulation. It is based on the following: 

the outcome21 indicators and 2017 targets for each thematic priority identified in the MAWP for 2014-
2017; 
a system to catch, at project level, the qualitative and quantitative outcomes measured on the basis of 
a comprehensive list of indicators and related parameters that correspond to each thematic priority. 

For example, the MAWP includes the following list of qualitative/quantitative outcomes and targets for water: 

The data in the indicators database are based on a pre-defined list of environment and climate action output and 
outcome  indicators,  descriptors,  and  related  measuring  units,  which  are  aimed  at  making  the  results 
comparable. 
Every  applicant  is  required  to  describe  the  measurable  effects  of his/her  project  (descriptors),  and,  where 

21   Due  to  the  bottom-up  approach  and  the  great  variety  of  environmental  and  climate  change  challenges 
addressed by the LIFE programme and the limited funds available to address them, the uptake of projects in 
specific areas is uncertain. Quantitative targets cannot be defined ex ante for most of the priority areas covered 
and objectives pursued, with the exception of the thematic priorities for nature. 

18 

Answers to the surveysNumber of answersNumber of answersPublic consultation256Monitoring experts59Project beneficiaries208Unsuccessful applicants10National Contact Points41Project site visits8InterviewsImplementing bodies (Commission, Executive Agency for Small and Medium Enterprises, European Investment Bank, monitoring team)36Project beneficiaries121Thematic priority: WATERQuantitative OutcomesWaterbodies(inland/transitional/coastal)coveredbyongoingorfinalisedprojectsimplementingreplicableortransferableactionssetuptoimprovetheirecologicalstatus* = It is expected that between 2015 and 2017, 6,900 waterbodies throughout the Union will improve their ecological status, 1.4% of them (100) due to a LIFE contribution.Percentageofongoingorfinalisedprojectsimplementingreplicableortransferableactions and progressing towards good ecological status at project level80%2017 targets/ milestones100* 
 
 
  
  
 
                                                            
mandatory, identify the related values. The applicant is encouraged to provide descriptors and, where available, 
also estimate values for indicators of complementary effects of his/her project. 
For  example,  a  project  on  ‘Water’ will  need  to  provide values  for  one  of  the  water-related  indicators.  If  the 
project focuses on ‘Point source pollution’, the applicant will have to choose at least one pollutant (e.g. zinc 
and  its  compounds)  as  a  ‘descriptor’  and  provide  related  values  which  are  expected  to  be  measured  at  the 
outset, at the end, and 3 or 5 years after the end of the project with the corresponding  measuring units. The 
applicant will also have to choose from the related drop down list the targeted source(s) of this pollutant and 
the key type(s) of measures envisaged. 
The  applicant  can  also  provide  complementary  data,  e.g.  on  the  project’s  effects  on  an  endangered  species 
affected by the point source pollution22. 
In the application phase, the values are estimates. On the basis of actual measurements, the baseline values and 
possibly  also  the  estimates  for  the  end  and  beyond  the  project  are  revised  during  the  first  18  months  of  the 
project. The external monitoring experts validate the revised data. 
At the time of the evaluation, the LIFE indicators database contained records of 1 123 on-going and completed 
projects,  of  which  143  are  projects  from  the  current  programme  with  validated  data.  Most  of  the  projects 
providing data were financed under LIFE+23.   

Additional  quantitative  data  have  also  been  sourced  from  two  databases  used  by  the 
Commission  for  the  technical  and  financial  management  of  the  applications24  and  LIFE 
projects25 and a third public online database of LIFE projects26 designed for public consultation.  

Limitations 

This  mid-term  evaluation  is  required  at  a  very  early  stage  of  the  programme  cycle.  It  is 
therefore too soon to provide any actual results of the LIFE programme. This is because: 

   Available  data  relate  to  the  2014  and  2015  calls  for  proposals  and  their  selected  projects. 
Most LIFE-funded projects are still in progress (98 % of the grants awarded since 2014). 

   The financial instruments started very recently (in 2015) and are in a pilot phase. Moreover, 
for  the  Nature  Capital  Financing  Facility  (NCFF),  two  potential  beneficiaries  could  not  be 
interviewed for reasons of confidentiality. 

The  following  mitigation  measures  have  been  used  to  provide  additional  information  for  this 
mid-term evaluation: 

22   More information is available on line. . 

23  

For LIFE+ beneficiaries, this was a voluntary exercise, since the programme previously required beneficiaries 
to report on output indicators (e.g. number of prototypes built), and not outcome indicators (e.g. quantity of 
water cleaned by filtering zinc out of it). . 

24   eProposal  is  a  system  to  create  and  submit  LIFE  proposals  and  is  used  by  the  contracting  authority  when 
selecting  projects  for  funding.  It  includes  information  on  the  proposals  received,  i.e.  objectives,  expected 
results, budgetary information. 

25   Butler is an information system of the Directorate-General for the Environment used to manage and follow up 
on projects co-financed under the LIFE Regulations. It has filtering options for easy searches of LIFE projects. 
It contains all the data on the projects being implemented including the reports, results of the monitoring visits 
by the Commission and the monitoring experts, etc. 

26   The  LIFE  projects  database  is  available  at:  http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/.  It  is  a 
searchable database (i.e. by theme, country, key words, etc.) which includes a short description of each project 
financed by the LIFE programme and the project’s beneficiaries. These databases have been used to complete 
the available information and help interpret data. 

19 

 
 
 
                                                            
   Data  from  the  indicator  database  were  validated  for  the  anticipated  results  of  the  projects 
from the 2014 call for proposals27. These data have been used to estimate the programme’s 
potential effectiveness and efficiency. 

   LIFE  traditional  projects  represent  a  continuation  of  the  LIFE+  traditional  projects. 
Information  on  the  implementation  of  LIFE+  2007-2013  projects  from  the  indicators 
database  has  therefore  been  used  to  perform  comparisons  to  confirm/contradict  the 
anticipated  results  of  the  2014  projects.  This  was  done,  in  particular,  for  the  data  on  job 
creation and project sustainability. 

   The results of each evaluation question (e.g. desk research, qualitative findings based on the 
consultation  process  and  quantitative  findings)  were  compared  to  cross-validate  findings 
and capture different aspects of a specific issue. 

   Where not all data were available for indicators, statistical extrapolations have been made. 

-   For  the  NCFF,  given  that  there  are  no  comparable  measures  in  the  former  LIFE  + 
programme and it was not possible to have contact with perspective beneficiaries because 
the negotiations were on-going, some interviews were conducted with European Investment 
Bank  (EIB)  and  European  Commission  staff.  Moreover,  literature  on  similar  financial 
instruments  and  the  experience  of  other  institutions  (such  as  the  European  Bank  for 
Reconstruction and Development, EBRD) were reviewed. 

4. 

IMPLEMENTATION — STATE OF PLAY 

The following sections mention the state of implementation of the programme’s key activities. 
They are based on data extracted from the Commission’s electronic financial system (ABAC) 
and from the databases on proposals received and projects awarded funding. 

How have the LIFE funds been used? 

Table 4 shows the overall commitment rate for 2014, 2015 and 2016: 

Table 3. LIFE commitment rate — years 2014-2016 

Source: Commission’s financial system 

The  activities  that  have  consumed  a  significant  portion  of  the  budget  are  traditional  and 
integrated  projects,  followed  by  procurement  and  administrative  support  and  financial 
instruments. 

The  budget  amounts  dedicated  to  action  grant  projects  and  financial  instrument  operations 
observe the 81 % ceiling in the Regulation. 

27   Project level indicators were available with related validated values only for the projects from the 2014 call for 
proposals and therefore were the only ones taken into account. The indicators of the projects from the 2015 
call for proposals had not been fully validated at the time of the evaluation. 

20 

 
 
 
                                                            
Figure 3 — LIFE 2014-2015 — distribution of the funds 

Source: Commission’s financial system 

4.1.  Grants 

The following figure shows the number of action grants financed in 2014 and 2015 per type of 
project and includes the operating grants to NGOs. 

Figure 4 — Number of projects financed 
(years 2014-2015) 

Source: Commission’s database on projects 

While  the  average  EU  contribution  per  project  is  EUR  1.5  million,  the  size  of  LIFE  projects 
granted  under  LIFE  range  from  EUR  48 000  for  the  smallest  technical  assistance  project  to 
EUR 13.4 million for the largest integrated project. Given the prevalence of traditional projects, 
the following analysis focuses on these. 

Traditional projects   

Taking into account the available funds across all the priority areas, the demand for traditional 
projects  appears  to  be  extremely  high.  Figure  5  shows  the  number  of  proposals  received  per 
priority area in 2014 and 2015 and the numbers of grants awarded. The average ratio between 

21 

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%0100200300Traditional projectsIntegrated projectsCapacity building projectsTechnical assistance projectsPreparatory projectsOperating grants 
 
 
 
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.   

Figure 5 — Traditional projects awarded funding out of the total proposals received 
(priority area, 2014 and 2015 data) 

Source: Commission’s project database 

Figure 6 — Amount of traditional projects awarded out of total eligible proposals 
(per priority area, 2014 and 2015 data) 

Source: Commission’s project database 

22 

Priority areas /yearsAmount (in EUR million)Project awarded (b)Proposals received (a)%Enviornment and Ressource Efficiency130,503078,054,24%Nature and Biodiversity198,802042,309,73%Environmental governance and information19,50398,584,89%Climate mitigation38,20316,4512,07%Climate adaptation38,60115,9833,28%Climate governance and information6,3052,8011,93%2014 and 2015 
 
 
 
 
 
 
a. Who are the LIFE beneficiaries? 

Grants  are  awarded  to  a  wide  range  of  different  organisations:  from  small  to  large  businesses 
(44 %  in  total,  out  of  which  33 %  are  small  medium  enterprises),  to  private  non-commercial 
organisations (24 %), and public bodies (32 %), as can be seen in the figure below. 

Figure 7 — Legal status of the beneficiaries: 
data on 2014-2015 traditional projects 

Source: Commission’s financial system 

LIFE  project  beneficiaries  must  co-finance  the  project  awarded  EU  funding.  Data  on  this  co-
financing  show  that  total  EU  financing  under  LIFE  of  about  EUR  438  million  mobilised  an 
additional EUR 329 million in external co-financing (43 % of the total project cost — see Table 
4 below). Data per priority area show that the percentage of co-financing ranges from 37 % for 
nature  and  biodiversity  projects  to  49 %  for  projects  under  the  priority  areas  climate  change 
mitigation and the environment and resource efficiency. 

The  maximum  threshold  for  the  EU  co-financing  rate  in  the  LIFE  programme  is  60  %  of  the 
eligible costs for all projects for the duration of the first multiannual work programme (MAWP 
2014-2017)28  However  the  co-financing  rate  is  lower  if  compared  with  other  similar  EU 
programmes,  such  as  Horizon  2020,  societal  challenges  5, where  the co-financing rate is  up to 
70% and for some actions can reach 100%.  

28    LIFE finances a maximum of 60 % of eligible costs for all projects. This rate will be reduced to 55 % in the 
second  MAWP  (2018-2020).  Exceptions  will  be  made  for  the  nature  and  biodiversity  projects  for  priority 
habitats or species (up to 75 %) and capacity-building projects (up to 100 %).  

23 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
Table 4 — Non-EU funds mobilised by traditional projects per priority area: 
data on 2014-2015 traditional projects 

   Source: Commission’s financial system 

b. 

How are the priorities defined? 

The  calls  for  proposals  include  specific  priorities  which  are  defined  differently  in  the 
environment and climate action sub-programmes: 

In  the  environment  sub-programme,  specific  project  topics  which  implement  each 
thematic priority included in Annex 3 of the LIFE Regulation are defined in the MAWP 
and cannot be modified over its entire duration. 

The  thematic  distribution  of  projects  awarded  funding  under  the  sub-programme  for 
environment shows a certain concentration on some thematic priorities and project topics. 
Based  on  the  classification  of  projects  per  thematic  area,  the  highest  thematic 
concentration  of  grants  awarded  is  for  resource  efficiency  projects  implementing  the 
circular economy (23 %) and for nature and biodiversity projects to protect habitats and 
species in Natura 2000 sites (38 %). Although the number of projects financed during the 
first  two  years  is  rather  limited,  it  is  relevant  that  one  thematic  priority  ‘industrial 
accidents’ and about 30 % of the project topics across all the priority areas have not yet 
been targeted by a successful project. 

In  the  climate  action  sub-programme,  the  Commission  specifies  non-binding  key 
priorities  in  the  yearly  call  for  proposals.  For  instance,  the  distribution  of  the  projects 
awarded  funding  in  2014  under  the  sub-programme  for  climate  action  shows  a 
concentration  on  priority  sectors  related  to  land  use,  land-use  change  and  forestry 
(LULUCF),  energy  and  industries.  Other  priority  sectors  concern  urban  adaptation  and 
planning and adaptation in agriculture, forestry and tourism. In 2016, new key priorities 
in the call for proposals triggered a number of proposals on climate strategies, fluorinated 
gases  and  urban  adaptation.  Such  proposals  are  important  given  the  recent  Paris 
Agreement on Climate Change and the Kigali Amendment to the Montreal Protocol29.  

c. 

How are traditional projects selected? 

The eligibility and award criteria applied to select the traditional projects are the result of the 
programme’s 25 years of experience30: 

To  be  eligible  to  receive  LIFE  funds,  the  proposed  initiative  needs  either  to  propose  an 
innovation  (which  is  the  case  of  the  pilot31,  demonstration32  and  best  practices33  projects)  or 

29   The Kigali Amendment is a legally binding international agreement to reduce the consumption and production 
of  hydrofluorocarbons  (commonly  used  in  refrigeration  and  air-conditioning).  Implementation  of  this 
agreement is expected to reduce global warming by 0.5 degrees Celsius by the end of the century. 

30   For a detailed description of the overall award process, see the 2014-2017 multi-annual work programme. 

24 

 
 
 
  
  
                                                            
address shortcomings in communicating the environmental/climate impacts that could hamper 
an efficient utilisation of resources (information, awareness-raising and dissemination projects). 

The  merit  of  an  eligible  proposal  is  determined  by  taking  into  account  the  technical  and 
financial coherence of the proposed action and the extent to which it contributes to the specific 
objectives. In addition, a proposal will score higher if it can demonstrate a specific EU added 
value34 and a catalyst effect by: 

‘improving  integration  of  specific  environmental  objectives  in  other  policy  area’ 
(mainstreaming); 

‘including  a  specific  strategy  aimed  at  replicating  or  transferring  the  projects’  solutions 
and mobilise a wider uptake’ (replicability and transferability); 

‘being  transnational  and/or  ensuring  an  extensive  application  of  green  procurement 
concepts’; 

‘planning  to  take  up  the  results  of  environmental  and  climate-related  research  and 
innovation projects financed by Horizon 2020 or by previous framework programmes’. 

A proposal under the environment sub-programme will also receive additional points if it 
addresses any priority project topics included in the MAWP. 

These  criteria  are  aimed  to  ensure  that  the  programme  is  strategically  focused  because  they 
allow  selecting  well-conceived  projects,  with  a  high  demonstrated  potential  in  terms  of  EU 
added value and catalytic effect.  

Integrated projects   
The  integrated  projects  are  a  new  feature  introduced  by  the  LIFE  Regulation35.  The  LIFE 
Regulation states that a maximum of 30 % of the budgetary resources allocated to action grants 
may  go  to  integrated  projects  with  an  indicative  allocation  of  three  integrated  projects  per 
Member State. 

31   Pilot projects are projects that apply a technique or method that has not been applied or tested before and that 

offers potential environmental and climate advantages compared to current best practices. 

32   Demonstration  projects  are  projects  that  put  into  practice,  test,  evaluate  and  disseminate  actions, 

methodologies or approaches new or unknown in the specific context of the project. 

33   Best practices projects — which apply appropriate, cost-effective and state-of-the-art techniques, methods and 

approaches. 

34   See also the paragraph ‘Novelties introduced in the grant management’ below. 

35   Introduced by the LIFE Regulation, integrated projects tend to be more complex than a traditional project as 
their aim is to act as a catalyst for the implementation of Union environmental or climate plans or strategies on 
a large territorial scale with additional co-funding for complementary actions. 

25 

 
 
  
  
  
  
                                                                                                                                                                                             
Figure 8. Integrated projects awarded funding out of the total proposals and concepts 
notes36 received (Years 2014 -2015) 

Source: Commission’s database on proposals 

Taking  into  account  their  complexity,  the  integrated  projects  have  been  introduced  gradually 
since 2014 under the environment sub-programme (nature and environment projects) and since 
2015 under the climate action sub-programme (mitigation and adaptation projects). 

Their  introduction  has  been  accompanied  by  technical  assistance  projects  to  help  potential 
applicants of integrated projects improve their capacity to plan and manage. 

According  to  the  LIFE  Multi-Annual  Work  Programme,  the  30 %  ceiling  is  expected  to  be 
attained in 2017 and to remain stable in 2018-2020 in view of reaching the indicative allocation 
of three integrated projects per Member State. 

The  demand  for  funding  integrated  projects  has  exceeded  available  resources  from  the  very 
beginning, as can be seen from the figure below, in all the steps of the award process. 

Fifteen integrated projects were selected in 2014-2015: 

   Six  are  supporting  the  implementation  of  prioritised  action  frameworks  developed  in 
Belgium,  Finland,  Italy,  Germany  and  Spain,  pursuant  to  Article  8  of  the  Habitats 
Directive37,  

   Four are implementing river basin management plans developed in Germany, the United 

Kingdom, Sweden and Belgium pursuant to the Water Framework Directive38,  

36   There  is  a  two-step  procedure  for  the  award  of  the  integrated  projects.  The  first  step  is  the  submission  of  a 
concept  note  summarising  key  information  about  the  project.  If  the  concept  note  is  retained,  the  applicant 
proceeds to the second step, which is the submission of a full proposal (see footnote 16 for more information). 
This proposal is assessed to determine the integrated projects which will be awarded a grant. 

37   Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and 

flora (OJ L 206, 22.7.1992, p. 7). 

38   Directive  2000/60/EC  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  23  October  2000  establishing  a 

framework for Community action in the field of water policy (OJ L 327, 22.12.2000, p. 1). 

26 

010203040506070Concept notesFull proposalsProject awarded663615Number of projects  
 
 
                                                            
   Two  in  Italy  and  Poland  (see  Box  3)  are  aimed  at  implementing  and  monitoring  air 
quality plans as defined by Directive 2008/50/EC with the ultimate goal of contributing 
to the national air pollution reduction programmes39, 

   One  in  Finland  is  implementing  waste  management  plans  and  a  waste  prevention 

programme as required by the Waste Framework Directive 2008/98, 

   One  in  Denmark  supports  the  implementation  of  21  municipal  climate  change 

adaptation (CCA) plans and 

   One  in  Germany  aims  to  better  structure  and  optimise  the  implementation  of  the 

country’s climate action programme 2020 and the climate protection plan 2050. 

Box 3. Example of an integrated project 

Implementation  of  an  air  quality  plan  for  the  Małopolska  Region  —  Małopolska  in  a 
healthy atmosphere (LIFE14 IPE/PL/000021) 

EU contribution: 9 914 871.00 € 

Thematic priority: Air quality 

Coordinating 
Region (public local authority) 

beneficiary:  Małopolska 

External 
http://powietrze.malopolska.pl/en/life-ip/ 

link: 

The purpose of this project is to implement an air quality plan in the province of Małopolska in 
Poland, and regional and local air quality policies in the province of Silesia, and adjacent regions 
in Slovakia and the Czech Republic. Specific aims include improving regional cooperation in these 
air  pollution  hotspots,  removing  barriers  to  the  mobilisation  of  funding  to  replace  obsolete  coal 
boilers,  building  local  capacity  (through  ‘eco-managers’  and  a  centre  of  excellence)  and  raise 
awareness about how to improve air quality.  

The  province  of  Małopolska  struggles  with  very  poor  air  quality,  particularly  during  the  winter 
season. Along with Silesia and nearby regions in Slovakia and the Czech Republic, it is one of the 
most  polluted  regions  in  the  EU.  The  major  source  of  air  pollution  in  Małopolska  is  low-stack 
emissions (combustion of solid fuels in obsolete household boilers). 

At the national level, the anti-smog law passed in October 2015 allows local governments to adopt 
their  own  local  air  quality  regulations,  and  set  parameters  for  the  stoves  allowed  to  be  used  in 
particular areas and for the fuels used (including coal). The fundamental barrier at the local level to 
the  effective  implementation  of  Małopolska’s  air  quality  plan  is  a  lack  of  human  resources, 
organisational capacities and necessary know-how in the municipality. 

Barriers  at  the  regional  level  to  the  effective  implementation  of  Małopolska’s  air  quality  plan 
include insufficient financial resources to eliminate low-stack emissions in individual houses and 
to make energy-efficiency improvements in buildings. 

In addition to the budget for the integrated project itself, the project will facilitate the coordinated 
use  of  EUR  799  million  in  complementary  funding  from  the  European  Regional  Development 
Fund  (ERDF),  the  Polish  National  and  Regional  Fund  for  Environmental  Protection  and  Water 
Management, and other national and private funds, as applicable. 

The proposals received for integrated projects for 2014 and 2015 represent a combined total of 
LIFE  and  non-LIFE  co-financing  of  EUR  283  million.  This  co-financing  should  facilitate  the 
coordinated use of about EUR 3.6 billion in total, as shown in table below. 

39   National  air  pollution  reduction  programmes  were  part  of  the  Air  Package  of  18/12/2013  and  further 
developed  in  the  proposal  for  the  National  Emission  Ceilings  Directive,  Annex  III,  Part  2  (National  air 
pollution control programmes). 

27 

 
 
                                                            
Table 5 — Integrated projects 2014 and 2015: financial resources 

Source: Commission’s database on projects 

Other projects 

In 2014 and 2015, the Commission financed 14 capacity-building projects to help countries less 
successful  in  obtaining  grants  under  the  LIFE  programme.  These  projects  are  now  being 
implemented. They cover all the Member States with lower uptake, except one which did not 
submit  any  proposal.  It  is  expected  that,  once  completed,  the  projects  will  help  improve  the 
quality and the quantity of applications from these Member States. 

Technical  assistance  projects  provide  financial  support  to  help  applicants  prepare  integrated 
projects. Seven projects were financed in 2014-2015, two of which under the sub-programme 
for climate action. Three have already led to the successful submission of an integrated project. 

Preparatory  projects  address  specific  needs  for  the  development  and  implementation  of  EU 
environmental or climate policy and legislation. For climate action, one preparatory project has 
been funded on the reporting of emissions and removals from land use. Under the environment 
sub-programme,  five  projects  were  funded  in  2014  -  2015  on  different  topics  of  Commission 
interest. These include the online bird portals data collection for displaying near-real-time bird 
distribution  across  Europe  and  the  financing  of  young  volunteers  doing  nature  protection  and 
climate adaptation activities (European Voluntary Corps — environment strand). 

Novelties introduced in grant management 

The LIFE Regulation introduced two main changes in grant management: 

1.  The transfer of the management of the bulk of grants to the Executive Agency for Small and 

Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) 

Following a cost-benefit analysis, the Commission entrusted EASME with the management 
of the operating grants, the traditional and the capacity-building projects under the two sub-
programmes and the integrated and the technical assistance projects under the climate action 
sub-programme. 

28 

LIFE cofinancingNon-EU cofinancingBelgiumNature201411,407,6033,750,000,000,000,000,000,00169,790,00222,55GermanyWater20148,507,211,020,000,000,000,000,000,0026,550,0043,28FinlandNature201411,987,981,870,140,000,000,000,000,002,250,0524,28ItalyNature201410,005,9475,210,500,000,000,000,000,003,105,80100,56PolandAir20149,915,100,00757,330,000,000,000,000,0037,000,00809,35UKWater201411,997,9910,4521,002,501,000,600,750,00139,5052,50248,28GermanyNature201510,136,7543,1628,200,000,000,000,000,0063,900,00152,13SpainNature201513,4013,880,000,000,0010,3011,000,000,000,0012,0060,58FinlandWaste201511,117,690,231,960,000,000,000,000,007,200,0028,19ItalyAir20159,976,83130,18679,170,000,000,000,000,0041,050,00867,21NetherlandsNature201510,476,980,830,003,400,000,000,000,0050,3290,30162,29SwedenWater20159,7420,299,100,005,440,000,300,170,0056,000,00101,04BelgiumWater20159,758,361,880,000,000,0013,740,0022,67237,990,00294,40DenmarkClima20157,016,400,002,702,680,000,000,000,00180,8011,60211,19GermanyClima20158,1610,8465,1129,9020,080,000,0016,190,00166,566,29323,12153,52129,86372,791.520,9034,1011,3025,6417,1122,671.182,01178,553.648,46PublicPrivateTotalTotal LIFE Integrated projects/ Fund per source (in million EUR)LIFE projectProjectPriority areaYearEuropean Agricultural Fund for Regional European Regional Development FundINTERREGEuropean Social FundEuropean Maritime and Fisheries Horizon 2020European Investment Bank 
 
 
 
The Directorate-General for Environment implements directly the integrated, the technical 
assistance and the preparatory projects under the environment sub-programme as well as the 
ongoing LIFE+ projects. The Directorate-General for Climate Action manages the 
preparatory projects under the climate action sub-programme. 

2.  The  introduction  of  a  system  to  monitor  project  outcome  and  impact  on  the  environment, 

climate change, and societal and economic issues. 

To  assess  impact,  a  comprehensive  set  of  quantitative  and,  where  possible,  qualitative 
indicators  with  related  milestones,  was  included  in  the  LIFE  MAWP  for  2014  –  2017.  A 
system to monitor these indicators has been developed and implemented at project level so 
that the programme’s performance can be evaluated in an objective manner: Box 2 above 
describes how it works. 

The expected environment and/or climate impact of a project’s results is therefore assessed 
during the project selection phase. Specific award criteria are applied for this, and there is a 
minimum  pass  score40.  As  a  consequence,  projects  which  are  not  expected  to  provide  an 
adequate  impact  cannot  be  awarded  a  grant.  A  specialised  monitoring  team  validates  the 
expected impact and then continuously checks this during the project’s implementation and 
after it ends. 

4.2.  Financial Instruments 

Two pilot financial instruments have been introduced to test innovative approaches: 

-  

-  

the  Private  Finance  for  Energy  Efficiency  (PF4EE)  supports  investments  to  implement 
Member States’ energy efficiency action plans through financial intermediaries; 

the  Natural  Capital  Financing  Facility  (NCFF)  is  designed  to  demonstrate  that  natural 
capital  projects  can  generate  revenues  or  save  costs.  It  intends  to  establish  a  pipeline  of 
replicable,  bankable  operations  that  will  serve  as  a  ‘proof  of  concept’  and  demonstrate  to 
potential  investors  that  such  operations  directly  addressing  biodiversity  and  climate 
adaptation objectives are attractive. 

Following an ex ante assessment analysing the potential demand and defining the best possible 
conditions  for  its  financing,  the  Commission  and  the  European  Investment  Bank  (EIB) 
developed and signed specific delegation agreements. 

Subsequently, in the case of the PF4EE, the EIB has started to make agreements with financial 
intermediaries,  which  have  then  to  develop  their  own  portfolio  to  provide  loans  for  energy 
efficiency investments. 

40   Two  award  criteria  concern  the  environmental  impact  under  the  environment  sub-programme:  1.‘EU  added 
value:  extent  and  quality  of  the  contribution  to  the  specific  objectives  of  the  priority  areas’  and  2. 
‘Contribution to project topics’. Considered together, they envisage the attribution of 30 award points out of 
100, with a minimum pass score of 10 points. Under the sub-programme for climate action, two award criteria 
refer to the climate impact: ‘EU added value: Extent and quality of the contribution to an increased climate 
resilience and/or to the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions’ and ‘EU added value: Extent and quality of the 
contribution to the specific objectives of the priority areas of the LIFE sub-programme for Climate Action’. 
They envisage the attribution of 30 award points out of 100, with a minimum pass score of 15 points. See also 
above the paragraph on ‘How are traditional projects selected?’. 

29 

 
 
                                                            
At the outset of PF4EE, the EIB expected there would be support for up to EUR 540 million in 
total  investment.  However,  on  the  basis  of  the  six  agreements  signed  since  2015  with  local 
intermediary  banks  and  in  view  of  the  pipeline,  the  EIB  now  expects  EUR  1  billion  in 
investments  in  energy  efficiency  (EUR  430  million  from  EIB  and  EUR  570  million  from 
financial intermediaries) in 10 Member States. There appears to be a high demand for this type 
of loan. 

The other instrument, NCFF, supports the financing of loans and equity for investments in 
natural capital that help to achieve biodiversity and/or climate change adaptation objectives. 
The aim is to develop a pipeline of projects that encourages greater uptake of such investments 
in the market. 

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

However,  many  potential  operations  that  were  scrutinised  did  not  materialise,  in  particular 
because  of  the  difficulty  of  developing  the  business  case.  This  confirms  the  challenges 
identified in the ex-ante assessment. Greater use of the NCFF support facility to develop more 
operations is planned for example, for promoting urban adaptation projects. 

The  recommendation  to  look  into  how  grants  can  be  used  in  combination  with  other  type  of 
financing tools to make certain operations more viable 

5. 

ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS 

At  this  early  stage  of  the  programme’s  implementation,  it  is  obviously  too  soon  to  present 
actual  results.  Therefore,  the  answers  to  all  the  evaluation  questions  take  into  account,  where 
appropriate, the activities being implemented, their expected outcomes, the processes in place, 
the initial findings and/or the results of the stakeholder consultation.     

The answer to each evaluation question is provided below under the respective evaluation 
criterion. To make it easier to read, the questions are numbered and a summary is presented at 
the end of each answer. 

5.1.  Effectiveness 

Q.1.  What are the outcomes likely to be achieved under LIFE 2014-2020 

LIFE  is  implemented  through  two  multiannual  work  programmes  (MAWP)  covering  2014-
2017 and 2018-2020 respectively. The first MAWP (1 January 2014 to 31 December 2017) was 
adopted on 19 March 2014 by decision C (2014)1709. 

All the calls planned in 2014, 2015 and 2016 were launched as planned, and the relevant budget 
fully  committed  (see  Table  3  above).  This  means  that  all  the  steps  to  implement  the  action 
grants in the first half of the LIFE programme 2014 - 2020 have been taken. 

To  measure  the  likely  outcomes  to  be  achieved  under  the  LIFE  programme  2014-2020,  the 
external study analysed the values of the indicators provided by the project beneficiaries of the 
2014 call for proposals. These indicators were validated by the monitoring team (see Box 2 for 
more information). Although the projects awarded are ongoing and their outcome is expected in 
4-5 years, the outcome is considered to be realistic. 

30 

 
 
The  results  of  this  analysis  were  compared  with  the  target  milestones  indicated  as  target  for 
2017 in the first MAWP. These can be found in the MAWP where for each priority area and 
type  of  project,  qualitative  and  quantitative  outcomes,  indicators  and  targets  have  been 
established in line with Article 24 (2)(c) of the LIFE Regulation. Information on how they have 
been defined appears in Box 4 below. 

Box 4.  Definition of the MAWP targets 

The  2017  targets  in  the  first  MAWP  were  based  on  the  evaluation  of  the  estimated  impact  of  the  LIFE 
programme and defined in consideration of the following: 

the environmental or climate objectives to be reached by each project which will have to be at least 
equivalent to or surpass the objectives set by the relevant Union legislation; 

a  projection  of  the  number  and  scope  of  successful  projects  within  a  priority  area  based  on  the 
estimated number of successful applications submitted. 

Moreover, given that no project was expected to be finished by 2017, the milestones refer to on-going projects 
and ‘consist in having set up the projects in such a way that they can reach the targets by 202041’.. 

Based  on  their  anticipated  results,  the  2014  projects  already  address  70 %  of  each  target 
milestone included in the first MAWP42.  

The tables  reporting the results of the comparison  are included in  Annex 5  — Assessment of 
indicators against targets. 

While it is too early to assess the ambition of the targets, the fact that the planned milestones 
are in some cases exceeded is a positive finding showing that the programme is well on track to 
achieving its expected results. 

Taking  into account the links between  evaluation questions 1 and 2, more information  on the 
expected outcomes of the activities and some specific examples are included in the next section 
on question 2. 

These anticipated results provide assurance that the LIFE programme 2014-2020 is on track to 
contribute significantly to its general outcomes. 

Q.1.   What is the outcome likely to be achieved under LIFE 2014-2020? 

In the absence of actual results, the analysis of the ongoing projects selected in 2014 shows that they already 
address 70 % of each target milestone to be achieved for 2017 as indicated in the first MAWP. 

These  anticipated  results  provide  assurance  that  the  LIFE  programme  2014-2020  will  provide  a  significant 
contributions to its expected outcomes.  

Q.2.  To what extent does the observed outcome correspond to its objectives and to the EU 
2020 strategy on sustainable growth? 

41   Commission Implementing Decision C(2014)1709 of 19 March 2014 on the adoption of the LIFE multiannual 

work programme for 2014-2017. See in particular the annex, p.58. 

42  The  targeted  milestones  are  considered  to  be  achieved  if  the  difference  between  the  actual  results  and  the 

milestone value is ≤ 5 % of the provisional results. 

31 

 
 
  
  
 
 
                                                            
As actual results are not available yet, the expected results of the action grants awarded in 2014 
and the activities which are being implemented and which target directly each general objective 
of the LIFE programme, are presented below together with some specific examples. 

The programme’s contribution to the EU 2020 strategy on sustainable growth is also analysed 
taking into account the activities under implementation and their expected outcomes.   

Objective 1  

to  contribute  to  the  shift  towards  a  resource  efficient,  low  carbon  and 
climate  resilient  economy  and  to  the  protection  of  the  environment 
including biodiversity and Natura 2000  

According  to  the  results  of  the  external  study,  the  ongoing  LIFE  projects  are  expected  to 
contribute to this objective by, inter alia: 

improving the conservation status of 59 habitats, 114 species and 85 Natura 2000 sites; 

reducing  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) by best practice solutions; 

increasing  the  production  of  energy  from  renewable  sources  (about  500 000  MWh  per 
year from different sources); 

targeting  35  million  hectares  with  climate  adaptation  measures  and  developing  best 
practice solutions for adaptation in various areas. 

These anticipated results might appear limited compared to the existing needs and challenges. 
However, as in the case of its predecessor LIFE+, the LIFE programme has a limited size and is 
not designed to solve all environmental and climate problems but to act as a catalyst for change. 
This role of catalyst has been developed over the years along three different dimensions43: 

-  

in terms of disseminating best practice and knowledge (spreading effect), because LIFE 
provides a platform to develop and exchange good practices and knowledge (see Box 5 for 
a concrete example of how this is happening via LIFE+ funded projects), allowing Member 
States and stakeholders to learn from each other about implementing EU legislation; 

Box 5 — Example of a traditional LIFE+ project on information and communication 

ADEME — European day ‘In town, without my car!’ (LIFE99 ENV/F/000459) 

EU contribution: €1 022 923.00  

Thematic priority: Air quality, transport 

Coordinating beneficiary: French National Agency 
for Environment and Energy (national authority) 

External link: http://www.ademe.fr/ 

43   Few examples of the catalyst role of the programme are taken from LIFE+ traditional projects, given that this 

feature of the programme is being developed in continuation with the LIFE+ experience. 

32 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
                                                            
Europeans are very worried about urban pollution and mobility. 
The overall aim of the ‘In town without my car!’ campaign was to encourage public awareness of the need to 
act against pollution caused by the increase in motorised traffic in the urban environment. This involves not 
just fighting atmospheric pollution or noise but also improving the quality of urban life. 
Following  on  from  the  success  of  an  ‘In  town  without  my  car!’  operation  launched  in  France  in  1998,  and 
capitalising on the experience of other European cities, the project aimed to create a Europe-wide day on the 
theme ‘In town, without my car!’ in 2000, financed by national authorities and local communities. 
This  initiative  helped  to  include  environmental  considerations  in  transport  policies,  in  keeping  with  EU 
policies in this area, in particular the Air Quality and Noise Directives. A pilot project was carried out in 1999 
in  a  small  number  of  volunteer  cities,  primarily  in  the  project  partner  countries.  This  initial  operation  was  a 
test, providing feedback for the main operation in 2000. A number of indicators were defined to evaluate the 
pilot  project,  e.g.  city  residents’  level  of  satisfaction,  air  pollution  levels,  measurement  of  traffic  and  noise 
levels. 
On  the  basis  of  this  assessment,  the  theme  day  for  2000  was  launched  at  a  major  European  seminar.  The 
project partners consulted with the EU member countries to organise the European-wide day for 22 September 
2000. 
The initiative had a great success and many cities continue to organise each year a day without cars. 

-  

in terms of attracting other funds, given, for example, that LIFE financing (see Tables 4 
and 5) is used to mainstream environmental and climate objectives into other EU policies 
and  public  and  private  sector  practice.  This  allows  the  informed  inclusion  of 
environmental and climate concerns in the decisions that drive national, local and sectoral 
policy,  plans,  investment  and  related  rules,  while  addressing  the  specific  needs  of 
environmental and climate action. This is the case, for example, of the integrated projects, 
whose aim is to facilitate the implementation of environmental and climate plans and to 
integrate these plans  into comprehensive development strategies. It is also the case of the 
two  financial  instruments  which  are  expected  to  support  private  investments  in  energy 
efficiency  (PF4EE)  and  in  natural  capital  operations.  Such  investments  would  normally 
have  difficulty  obtaining  financing  from  commercial  banks  because  of  their  risk  profile 
(NCFF). 

-  

in  terms  of  supporting  actions  to  improve  and  accelerate  changes  directly  targeting 
environmental externalities, which result in 

(a)  private  costs  of  production  and  consumption  failing  to  account  for  all  the 

environmental costs; 

(b) inadequate  information  on  the  environmental/climate  impact  preventing  efficient 

utilisation of resources, and 

(c)  a  systematic  discouraging  of  investments  in  eco-products/processes,  thus  limiting 

their potential return. 

LIFE intervenes to address these issues by: 

(a)  building up the capacity of the key stakeholders of the production and consumption 

processes (see project in Box 8); 

(b) by  providing  adequate  tools  (legislation,  information,  etc..  —  see  examples  of  the 

LIFE action in Boxes 9 and 15); and 

(c)  by supporting private players, in particular small and medium enterprises in testing 

small-scale technologies and solutions (see the examples in Boxes 6 and 21). 

33 

 
 
 
Box 6 — Example of a traditional LIFE+ project on environmental policy and governance: the 
Dyemond Solar project  

EU contribution: €1 735 846.00  

Thematic priority: renewable energy 

Coordinating beneficiary: NLAB Solar AB 
(private company) 

External link: http://www.dyemondsolar.com/ 

The  overall  objective  of  the  Dyemond  Solar  project  (LIFE  09/ENVSE/000355)  was  to  demonstrate  a  cost-
effective  means  of  producing  transparent  dye-sensitised  solar  cells  (DSCs).  This  was  based  on  patented 
technology that uses one-dimensional photonic crystals to improve the efficiency and colour of solar cells. The 
project aimed to demonstrate a prototype production system at pre-industrial scales which could then serve as 
a  base  model  for  an  industrial-scale  operation.  The  result:  the  solar  technology  led  to  quantitative 
environmental improvements compared with the state-of-the-art technology. There was less embedded energy, 
a lower volume of waste from production, and a reduction of CO2 emissions in comparison with silicon solar 
cells. Moreover, it is expected to reduce the investment and operational costs by 50 %. 
The upgrading of the prototype to an industrial-scale operation has a potential value of over €100 million. The 
process of marketing is still ongoing, and it is not yet possible to determine whether it will be successful. The 
technology itself has many advantages compared to other types of solar panels, like silicon and thin film solar 
cells. 

The activities to develop, implement and enforce EU environmental policy and legislation (see 
objective 2 below) and support better governance (see objective 3 below) further illustrate 
LIFE’s role in moving towards a resource-efficient, low-carbon and climate-resilient economy 
and its contribution to environmental protection. 

Objective 2: 

improve the development, implementation and enforcement of EU 
environmental and climate policy and legislation 

The  external  study  confirmed  that  the  procurement  activities  launched  by  the  Commission  to 
support the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental and climate policy 
and legislation play a key role in achieving the LIFE programme’s second objective, especially 
because they address all stages  of the policy cycle (that  might not  be covered  by demand-led 
activities). 

Evaluations  and  impact  assessments  provide  evidence  to  inform  and  support  the  decision-
making process and are carried out in the preparation phase, before the Commission finalises a 
proposal for a new/ revised policy or legislative act on environment and climate action. These 
studies are carried out with the support of external expertise and directly funded by the LIFE 
programme, under the procurement activities budget line.  

The  LIFE  programme  (and,  partially,  the  LIFE+  programme)  financed,  for  example,  the 
preparatory  and  related  tasks  (such  as  the  impact  assessment,  stakeholders  analysis, 
communication, etc.) for the adoption of the circular economy package. The  package lays the 
basis for ‘closing the loop’ of product lifecycles by improving recycling and re-use. LIFE also 
financed  work  on  the  set  of  proposals  for  ‘Driving  Europe’s  transition  to  a  low-carbon 
economy’, which aims to accelerate the transition to low-carbon emissions in all sectors of the 
economy. 

 Box 7. Framework service contracts for more cooperation with national judges in the field of 

34 

 
 
 
 
 
 
environmental law 

National  judges  play  a  key  role  in  implementing  EU  environmental  law.  The  capacity  of  national  courts  to 
guarantee the correct and efficient application of EU environmental law is an essential factor in addressing the 
legitimate expectations of EU citizens in this domain. 
It has also become more and more obvious that without efficient mechanisms to settle environmental matters at 
national level, enforcement at EU level by the Commission is insufficient for an effective implementation of 
EU  environmental  legislation  across  the  EU.  An  effective  implementation  and  enforcement  of  the 
environmental  law  at  national  level  would  allow  the  Commission  to  focus  on  its  core  activities.  On  the  one 
hand the Commission should concentrate its resources on systemic, serious matters which cannot be addressed 
effectively  at  national  level  or  in  only  one  Member  State.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Commission  should  take 
measures  to  ensure  the  spread  of  knowledge  of  EU  environmental  legislation  at  national  level  and  help  the 
relevant national bodies to address enforcement effectively.   
Appropriate  knowledge  of  EU  environmental  law  is  key  to  this.  Therefore,  the  Commission  launched  the 
‘programme  for  cooperation  with  national  judges  in  the  field  of  environment  law’.  In  the  first  phase  (2008-
2012),  training  materials  for  various  sectors  of  EU  environment  legislation,  were  developed,  and  several 
workshops  with  judges  and  prosecutors  from  almost  all  Member  States  were  organised.  In  a  second  phase, 
additional training in environmental law was offered to national judges. This phase built on the results of the 
first  phase  and  extended  the  programme’s  scope.  Steps  were  taken  to  consolidate  the  partnership  with  the 
national judicial training centres and ensure that the project’s results were shared and disseminated at national 
level. 
So far about 500 judges and prosecutors from the courts of first instance to the supreme courts of all Member 
States have attended the roughly 45 workshops organised. During these pan-EU seminars judges from various 
Member States are able to exchange good practice and compare their experience.  

Box 7 gives an example of how the procurement activities are used to support the enforcement 
of  the  legislation,  by  providing  training  to  judges  and  prosecutors.  Box  10  describes  a  study 
contract  to  inform  Member  States’  decision  making  on  a  new  compliance-monitoring 
mechanism  in  the  Commission’s  proposals  on  waste44.  At  the  level  of  grants,  the  traditional 
projects financed under all priority areas support the implementation or enforcement of specific 
legislative acts. In particular: 

   The nature and biodiversity  projects (a priority area) focus on Natura 2000 and nature 
legislation  (the  Birds  and  Habitats  Directives).  The  evidence  gathered  in  the  recently 
finalised evaluation of the Directives (fitness-check) confirmed the strategic role that the 
LIFE programme plays in supporting the implementation of the Directives. 

-  The  projects  targeting  the  priority  area  environment  and  resource  efficiency  are 
designed  to  make  it  easier  to  develop  and  share  new  solutions  and  best  practices  for 
water,  waste,  resource  efficiency  —  including  soil  and  forests,  green  and  circular 
economy  —  set  out  in  the  Roadmap  for  a  Resource-Efficient  Europe  and  the  7th 
Environment Action programme (see Box 19 below). 

-  Projects  under  the  priority  area  climate  change  mitigation  aim  to  help  develop  and 
implement  climate-related  policy  and  legislation,  and,  in  particular,  contribute  to  ‘a 
roadmap  for  moving  to  a  competitive  low  carbon  economy  in  2050’.  For  this,  the 
projects  focus,  inter  alia,  on  the  emissions  trading  system,  Member  States’  efforts  to 
reduce  greenhouse  gas  emissions  (GHG),  renewable  energy  and  energy  efficiency, 
transport and fuels. Below is an example of an on-going project which focuses on GHG. 

44   See COM/2015/0595 final. Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending 

Directive 2008/98/EC on waste. 

35 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
Box 8 — Example of a traditional project on climate change mitigation 
LIFE BEEF CARBON — Demonstration actions to mitigate the carbon footprint of 
beef production in France, Ireland, Italy and Spain (LIFE14 CCM/FR/001125) 

EU contribution: €3 276 300.00  

Thematic priority: climate mitigation 

Coordinating beneficiary: Institut de l’Elevage 
(national authority) 

External link: http://idele.fr/index.php?id=2487 

Beef production generates 6 % of all human-induced greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. LIFE BEEF CARBON 
is testing and promoting innovative practices to reduce GHG emissions and  increase carbon sequestration in 
beef  farms  in  France,  Ireland,  Italy  and  Spain,  countries  that  together  account  for  32 %  of  the  EU’s  cattle 
population. The project will calculate the beef carbon footprint of over 2000 farms, representing the full range 
of  beef  production  systems.  Carbon  mitigation  plans  will  be  applied  and  evaluated  on  172  beef  farms  as  a 
precursor to the development of national action plans. Implementation of these plans is expected to lead to a 
15 %  reduction  of  the  beef  carbon  footprint  of  the  four  countries  in  10  years.  The  project  will  thus  make  a 
significant  contribution  to  achieving  the  goals  of  the  EU  Effort  Sharing  Decision  on  GHG  emissions  as  it 
relates to agriculture, as well as to the proposed new legislation on integrating emissions from land use in the 
2030 climate and energy framework. 

   The  governance  and  information  projects  under  both  sub-programmes  support  the 
development  of  cooperation  platforms  and  the  sharing  of  best  practices  for  more 
effective  compliance  and  enforcement,  including  training  programmes  for  judges  and 
public  prosecutors  (see  Box  17  for  an  example).  The  projects  also  support  the 
development  of  policies,  e.g.  by  funding  actions  specifically  aimed  at  increasing  the 
level of understanding among stakeholders. 

The 15 integrated projects selected in 2014-2015 (and presented above) help various players in 
Member States implement key plans and strategies required by specific Union environmental or 
climate legislation on a large territorial scale. While these projects have only just started, they 
appear to ensure a systematic and coherent implementation of key environment or climate plans 
by  involving  all  the  players  on  the  ground  and  ensuring  their  integration  in  a  comprehensive 
strategy. 

On  this  basis,  taking  into  account  the  overall  amount  of  resources  involved,  their  results  are 
expected to be much larger than their limited budget would suggest (see Table 5). 

Objective 3. 

support  better  environmental  and  climate  governance  at  all  levels, 
including better involvement of civil society, NGOs and local actors 

The  action  grants  financed  under  the  priority  areas  environment  and  climate  governance  and 
information are specifically aimed at broadening stakeholder involvement and promoting more 
effective compliance with and enforcement of Union environmental and climate legislation (see 
Box  7  for  an  example).  This  is  obtained  through  the  award  process,  e.g.  by  targeting 
information and awareness-raising campaigns, capacity building of key stakeholders, activities 
in  support  of  effective  control  processes  (i.e.  enforcement,  inspections  and  surveillance,  non-
judicial conflict resolution) and measures to promote compliance45. 

The external study confirms that governance is an integral part of many projects, especially in 
nature  and  biodiversity,  water,  and  climate  action  (see  Q9  under  Coherence).  The  analysis  of 

45   For further information, see the priority project topics in the first MAWP, pages 20-24.  

36 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
indicators at project level shows in fact that the beneficiaries are targeting specific outputs and 
outcome  indicators  related  to  environmental  and  climate  governance,  even  if  their  project’s 
main aim pertains to another priority area. On the basis of these indicators, the external study 
estimates that the projects awarded in 2014 and their awareness-raising activities are expected 
to impact dozens of millions of citizens and more than 6 000 stakeholders. 

Box 9. Example of a LIFE Environmental Governance and Information project 

LIFE Legal Actions — Legal Actions on Clean Air (LIFE15 GIE/DE/000795) 

EU contribution: €521 834.00  

Thematic priority: Air pollution 

Coordinating beneficiary: Environmental Action 
Germany (NGO) 

External link: http://www.right-to-clean-air.eu 

The  project  aims  to  empower  and  motivate  EU  citizens  and  NGOs  to  campaign  for  effective  air  quality 
measures.  This  means  providing  information  about  the  sources  and  effects  of  air  pollution  and  potential 
solutions  and  providing  advice  on  the  right  of  citizens  and  NGOs  to  participate  in  decision-making  processes 
and take legal action if necessary when Member States are not in compliance with the Air Quality Directive. 

The  project’s  targeted  awareness-raising  activities  are  expected  to  reach  13  million  citizens  in  seven  EU 
countries, with a particular focus on Germany and the Czech Republic. NGOs and citizens will participate in the 
process  of  revising  Air  Quality  Plans.  LIFE  Legal  Actions  will  also  motivate  political  decision-makers  to 
improve air quality legislation and implementation by advising them on existing national and European funding 
schemes, promoting green public procurement (GPP) as part of a resource-efficient economy, and transferring 
examples of best practice. 

Furthermore,  operating  grants  financed  under  the  LIFE  programme  have  enabled  beneficiary 
NGOs  to  operate  and  thus  to  be  involved  in  shaping  environmental  and  climate  policy,  to 
mainstream climate and environmental policies into other areas and to increase the involvement 
and  knowledge  of  environmental  and  climate  action  priorities  among  citizens  and  EU  policy 
makers. 

The procurement activities contribute to the third LIFE objective by building up the knowledge 
base  on  environmental  and  climate  issues,  necessary  to  underpin  policy  decision-making  (see 
Box 10 for an example). 

About 200 contracts are concluded every year under LIFE to support better environmental and 
climate governance, including stakeholder involvement, at all levels. 

Box 10. The early warning mechanism — Study contract to identify Member States at risk of 
non-compliance with the 2020 target of the Waste Framework Directive and to follow up on 
the exercise to promote compliance 

This is a study on the state of implementation of the 2020 municipal waste recycling target. The purpose is to 
identify Member States at risk of non-compliance with this 2020 target and provide a so-called early warning 
report.  The  study  is  based  on  the  idea  of  a  new  compliance  monitoring  mechanism  included  in  the 
Commission’s  proposals  on  the  waste  targets  review  —  the  ‘early  warning’  which  would  apply  to  the  post-
2020  targets  proposed.  The  study  will  conduct  a  comprehensive  review  of  the  waste  management  policy  of 
these Member States at risk of not meeting the 2020 target. It will include the reasons for underperformance, 
looking at the policy measures introduced or expected to be introduced and how relevant these are in closing 
the  gap  to  the  target.  Based  on  the  results  of  this  study,  detailed,  country-specific  recommendations  will  be 
proposed  to  each  Member  State  at  risk  of  not  meeting  the  target  and  included  in  the  Commission’s  ‘early 
warning report’. 

This would also help to ensure that the initiative receives the visibility it needs to be effective in anticipating, 
ahead  of  the  deadline  for  compliance,  any  difficulties  Member  States  may  have  in  reaching  the  proposed 
targets. 

37 

 
 
  
Objective 4: 

support implementation of the 7th Environment Action Plan (EAP) 

The activities mentioned under the other LIFE objectives also help to implement the 7th EAP, 
because  these  activities  target  the  first  two  objectives  of  the  7th  EAP  as  well  (see  Figure  2 
above). However, the third objective of the 7th EAP refers to safeguarding public health, and as 
concluded  in  the  external  study,  following  the  2014  calls  for  proposals,  no  projects  were 
directly targeting the thematic area ‘environment and health’. 

Support to the EU 2020 strategy on sustainable growth 

According to the LIFE Regulation, the LIFE programme should contribute to the targets of the 
Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth’ (the ‘Europe 2020 strategy’).   

According to the external study, the LIFE programme: 

   directly  contributes  to  the  second  pillar  of  the  EU  2020  strategy  on  ‘Sustainable  growth: 
promoting a more resource efficient, greener and more competitive economy’ by helping 
to sever the link between economic growth and the use of resources. 

contributes to the other pillars of the EU 2020 strategy by making it easier 

to convert new ideas into products and processes (Innovation Union) and 

to develop new skills and jobs (Agenda for new skills and jobs). 

Some of the most recent policy developments financed by LIFE through the 19 % of the budget 
dedicated to procurement — namely the 2030 climate and energy framework adopted in 2014, 
the circular economy package adopted in 2015 and the implementation of the Paris Agreement 
ratified  in  2016  —  are  expected  to  help  shape  the  future  of  the  European  economy  in  the 
coming decades. 

The LIFE programme’s support for the Europe 2020 strategy takes different forms: 

   All the LIFE projects already  funded help to put the EU on a path to  resource-efficiency 
and  sustainable  growth46.  These  are  projects  aimed  at  halting  and  reversing  the  loss  of 
biodiversity, improving resource efficiency, addressing environmental and health concerns, 
moving  towards  a  low-carbon  and  resilient  economy  and  preventing  the  consequences  of 
floods, droughts, the rise of temperatures and sea levels47. 

For example, the ongoing projects funded under the priority area ‘environment and resource 
efficiency’  target  the  effective  implementation  of  EU  environmental  policy  by  the  public 
and private sectors (in particular in the environmental sectors covered by the ‘Roadmap to a 
Resource  Efficient  Europe’)  and  are  facilitating  the  development  and  sharing  of  new 
solutions and best practices. 

46   All  projects  contribute  to  the  EU  2020  strategy  because  all  the  priority  areas  —  biodiversity,  adaptation 
mitigation,  environment  and  governance  and  information  —  contribute  to  resource-efficiency  and/or 
sustainable growth. 

47

In connection with this, ‘The implementation of green recovery measures in the EU’, Cambridge Econometric 
et al (2011)  assessed green measures focused on energy efficiency and climate change  mitigation as part of 
recovery packages. It was found these measures contributed to economic recovery and provided a temporary 
boost to employment. The multiplier effects for green investment were similar to those from any other kind of 
investment and supported the general conclusion for LIFE projects that they support growth and jobs. 

38 

 
 
 
  
  
  
                                                            
  
   A  contribution  to  innovation  is  expected  from  projects  funded  under  all  priority  areas 
aimed  at  developing  policy  or  management  approaches,  best  practices  and  solutions  (so 
called, demonstration and best practices projects — see, for example, Box 6). This includes 
the  development  of  innovative  technologies  for  environment/climate  challenges  and  the 
contribution to innovation is happening by targeting specific types of projects. 

The  external  study  extracts  from  the  indicator  database  that  61 %  of  the  climate  change 
adaptation projects and over 80 % of all the climate change mitigation projects aim to help 
develop  innovative  technologies,  systems  and/or  instruments.  The  external  monitors 
confirmed  that  this  is  the  result  of  more  emphasis  on  the  business  perspective  of  projects 
introduced in recent years. 

Ongoing  projects  to  promote  innovation  and  investments  in  energy  efficiency  and  the 
PF4EE  are  designed  to  help  reduce  energy  demand  and  thus  to  make  the  EU  less  energy 
dependent, which is one of the objectives of the Energy Union. 

Project  beneficiaries  and  external  monitors  affirmed  in  their  interviews  that  the  LIFE 
programme  is  a  source  of  funding  for  innovation.  They  mentioned  that  if  LIFE  stopped 
funding  or  withdrew  it,  one  of  the  consequences  would  be  less  support  for  innovative 
environmental solutions48. 

   Although employment is not the primary aim of the LIFE programme, the external study 
estimates  that  a  total  of  139  projects,  out  of  280,  have  created  jobs  as  a  result  of  various 
LIFE  actions.  This  is  based  on  the  indicators  database  for  2014-2015  projects.  At  the 
beginning  of  these  projects  a  total  of  330  jobs  in  FTE  (full  time  equivalent)  terms  were 
created. But the number of FTE jobs is expected to increase to more than a thousand by the 
end of the projects. 

The employment generated is generally temporary and directly related to the 
implementation of the projects. It consists mainly of researchers and technicians but also 
project managers, assistants, public relations experts, webmasters, accountants, etc. For a 
large number of projects, it is specified that their implementation is not expected to lead to 
the direct creation of permanent jobs. However, the projects are expected to stimulate 
certain sectors and therefore have an indirect positive impact on employment. 

There is also mention of some cases (relatively fewer) where long-term unemployed people 
have been recruited (9 % of all projects reporting employment) including, in 3 projects, 
people with reduced mobility. 

48   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’. 

39 

 
 
                                                            
Table 6 — Employment generated by LIFE and LIFE+ projects:  
average figures per type of projects 

Source: External study 

On average, 2.5 jobs in FTE equivalent were reported at the beginning of the project. This 
is expected to increase to 13.5 FTEs at the end of the project and to 17.8 after the end of 
LIFE funding49.  

By thematic areas, at the end of project implementation, the largest average employment 
per project is reported in integrated projects and climate adaptation projects. If this trend is 
confirmed, it would be suitable to try to understand why these types of projects seem more 
resource-intense than the other ones. 

Employment after LIFE funding of environment projects ends is expected to double 
compared to the employment generated at the beginning (30 FTE). 

These figures are in line with the findings from the stakeholder consultation that show that 
pilot or demonstrative environment projects are more sustainable and also score rather well 
on replicability. Instead, nature and biodiversity conservation projects are mainly 
replicated through non-market mechanisms, and therefore the employment created is not 
always visible. 

49   Other recent research estimates that one average LIFE project contributes to 3 full time equivalents (FTEs) per 
year in the post-implementation phase (or 9 to 15 FTE in total). For every EUR 1 million from the EU budget, 
a LIFE project would generate 2.5 FTEs per year ex post and between 17 and 25 during the implementation 
phase. This has not been specified further per type of grant or priority area. See ‘LIFE past, present and future 
contribution to employment and economic growth. LIFE effectiveness and replicability’ NEEMO 2016. 

40 

At the beginningAt the endBeyondAt the beginningAt the endBeyondTotal average2,513,517,8Total average8,513,28,6Climate change adaptation projects4,825,727,4Climate change mitigation projects2,29,58,2Environment and resources efficiency projects2,414,830,5Environment  projects3,112,210,9Climate governance and information projects050Information projects2,213,22,8Environment governance and information projects1,412,35,5Nature and biodiversity projects2,69,47,8Preparatory projects62,21,3Nature projects17,414,76,2Integrated projects1,226,88,8Biodiversity projects0,612,37LIFE 2014-2020LIFE 2007-2013 
 
 
                                                            
A  comparison  between  the  two  programming  periods  (2007  -  2013  and  2014  -  2020) 
provides interesting findings. 

The external study examined 700 LIFE+ projects which reported on employment creation 
for the years 2007-2013. The study found that the LIFE+ programme helped to create 
56 000 jobs, of which almost 16 000 are sustainable (28 %). 

A  comparison  between  the  previous  and  current  programmes  shows  that  for  the  current 
LIFE programming period a lot more jobs are expected to be created on average in terms 
of FTE after the project ends (17.8 FTE) compared to LIFE+ (8.6 FTE). 

However, this finding might be due to the efforts made under LIFE 2014-2020 to ensure 
replicability of results. Or another interpretation could be that LIFE+ projects, which have 
been  completed  and/or  are  near  completion,  could  have  a  better  understanding  of  their 
sustainability after the end of LIFE financing. 

Q.2.   To what extent do the observed outcomes correspond to the programme’s objectives and 
to the EU 2020 strategy on sustainable growth? 

Actual results are not yet available at this stage of the programme’s implementation. 

There is evidence that the anticipated results of the projects and the activities under implementation 
are  addressing  all  of  the  programme’s  objectives.  However,  since  2014  call  there  have  been  no 
projects  awarded  directly  targeting  the  thematic  areas  under  environment  and  health  (one  of  the 
objectives  of  the  7th  EAP)  In  particular,  the  role  of  LIFE  as  a  catalyst  is  built  on  the  lessons  learnt 
from  LIFE+  and  results  from  the  programme’s  ability  to  attract  other  funding,  to  disseminate  best 
practice and knowledge (spreading effect) and to support actions to improve and accelerate changes 
directly targeting environmental externalities. Some evidence from LIFE+ and LIFE confirms that the 
programme is doing well in playing its role of catalyst. 

Initial  findings  from  the  programme’s  implementation  show  that  the  programme  is  supporting  the 
Europe 2020 strategy: 

- by financing projects expected to contribute to resource efficiency and sustainable growth, 

- by promoting innovation and 

- by slightly contributing to employment, although job creation is not one of the primary aims of the 
LIFE programme. 

Some  of  the  most  recent  policy  developments  financed  by  LIFE  —  namely  the  circular  economy 
package adopted in 2015 and the 2030 climate and energy framework adopted in 2014 — are expected 
to shape the future of the EU economy in the coming decades. 

Q.3.  What  are  the  factors  positively  and  negatively  influencing  the  delivery  of  the 
objectives? 

Again, at this early stage of the programme’s implementation, it is not possible to determine the 
factors that are influencing the delivery of the LIFE objectives. 

Some of them are outside EU control (such as extreme weather conditions, the financial crisis, 
etc.) and cannot be addressed by the LIFE programme itself. 

However, the experience of these first years of implementation shows some factors which are 
considered to have a positive and negative influence on the delivery of the objectives. 

41 

 
 
Positive influence 

The  LIFE  programme’s  flexibility  to  address  emerging  challenges  and  priorities,  its  mix  of 
activities  and  the  support  the  programme  has  from  the  stakeholders  are  three  factors  which 
positively influence the delivery of the objectives. 

1.  The LIFE programme is flexible because it can finance projects of different sizes that 
attract small, medium and large enterprises, universities, research centres, national and 
local authorities, civil society and non-governmental organisations. The LIFE 
programme’s recent contribution to the European Solidarity Corps shows that the 
programme’s existing range of activities is able to rapidly respond to emerging needs and 
opportunities. 

2.  The mix of activities combines:  

the experience acquired during 25 years of programme implementation with 
the  new  types  of  actions  introduced  by  the  LIFE  Regulation  to  provide  a  more 
comprehensive  support  (integrated  projects),  specific  assistance  (capacity-building 
and  technical  assistance  projects)  and  to  test  new  forms  of  financing  (financial 
instruments). 

The  traditional  projects  are  managed  in  accordance  with  a  comprehensive  package  of 
specific  procedures  —  based  on  lessons  learnt  from  experience  —  which  enable  the 
project’s life to be followed closely: 

In the award procedure, the applicant is required to identify the project’s expected 
impact of the project, by using specific indicators and descriptors and providing 
during-project and after–project values. 

   From the project’s earliest stages, the external specialised monitoring experts and 
the  EASME/Commission  officials  assist  the  beneficiary  with  the  project’s 
implementation.  Besides  the  reporting,  almost  one  monitoring  visit  per  year  on 
average  is  organised  to  see  how  each  traditional  and  integrated  project  is 
performing, how each is progressing towards the expected impact and concretely 
how the funds are being used. 

According  to  the  initial  findings  for  the  programme’s  first  years  of  implementation,  the 
new  types  of  activities  have  demonstrated  a  strong  potential  to  be  effective,  thus 
confirming the initial expectations: 

Integrated  projects  are  of  a  larger  scale  and  have  a  larger  outreach  than  the 
traditional projects; 

   Financial  instruments  are  pilot  initiatives  designed  to  help  build  the  future  of 

financing energy efficiency and biodiversity/climate adaptation; 

   Technical assistance projects are improving the quality of integrated projects, and 
capacity-building  projects  are  investments  to  enable  countries  under  represented 
in the LIFE programme to participate more. 

42 

 
 
  
  
  
  
The European Economic and Social Committee confirmed this in a recent draft opinion50. 
Taking  into  account  the  information  received  from  its  constituencies,  it  welcomes  the 
LIFE  programme’s  high  degree  of  flexibility  and  adaptability  to  new  challenges  and  the 
experience the programme has gained in recent years. 

3.  The  results  of  the  interviews  with  the  project  beneficiaries  and  the  open  public 
consultation show a positive perception of the quality of the LIFE projects, which are seen 
as  a  concrete  answer  to  existing  needs.  This  positive  perception  is  shared  also  by 
unsuccessful  candidates,  which  also  recognised  LIFE  as  an  important  contributor  to 
biodiversity and nature conservation. 

For more information on the support from the stakeholders, see Annex 4 and the answer to Q12 
below. 

Negative influence 

Given  that  81 %  of  the  programme’s  overall  financial  resources  are  devoted  to  projects,  the 
results  of  the  LIFE  programme  are  highly  dependent  on  the  projects.  This  is  true  for  each 
objective and priority area. The programme’s success will also be determined by the capacity to 
replicate and transfer the project results and thus have a multiplier effect. 

Some issues have been identified which can negatively affect the delivery of the objectives: 

1. 

In  terms  of  coverage,  LIFE  has  supported  the  definition,  agreement  and  development  of 
new emerging priorities — such as the circular economy and the 2030 climate and energy 
framework targets, the implementation of the Paris Agreement ratified in 2016 as well as 
the EU’s adaptation strategy whose importance and ramifications  were unknown when the 
LIFE  Regulation  was  adopted.  These  new  priorities  are  de  facto  being  addressed  by 
limiting the financing for other priority issues. This could represent a problem, particularly 
in  the  near  future,  because  of  the  need  to  adequately  finance  their  implementation  and 
further development.  

Taking  into  account  the  bottom-up  approach  which  cannot  anticipate  the  quantity  and 
quality of the proposals received or the size of the LIFE budget, which was defined when 
the Regulation was adopted, there  is a greater  risk that  not  all  the objectives  and priority 
areas  will  be  adequately  covered  by  projects.  The  competition  for  the  limited  available 
resources is extremely strong. Following the 2014 and 2015 calls for proposals, under the 
sub-programme  for  environment  for  example,  projects  addressing  the  thematic  priorities 
under  environment  and  health  and  30 %  of  the  project  topics  have  not  received  any 
financing. 

Thematic priorities and project topics were introduced  in the current LIFE programme to 
better focus key targets. However, even if it is premature to draw conclusions from the first 
two  years  of  implementation,  some  initial  observations  can  be  made.  Given  the  available 
financial  resources,  the  scope  of  the  priorities  could  be  too  broad  for  a  critical  mass  to 
trigger change on all the environmental and climate issues. 

50   ‘NAT/689 Halbzeitbewertung des LIFE-Programms’. European Economic and Social Committee. Section for 
Agriculture,  Rural  Development  and  the  Environment.  Sustainable  Development  Observatory.  See  Box  16. 
Moreover,  the  ESC  also  signalled  the  following  changes  introduced  in  the  period  2014-2020:  ‘focus  on  the 
countries  with  greater  implementation deficits;  abolition of  national  quotas;  better  investment  opportunities 
for enterprises; greater emphasis on innovation; more synergies with other programmes, starting with the new 
integrated projects introduced in 2014 [..]; use of entirely new environmental financial instruments (PF4EE, 
NCFF), creating a climate dimension’. 

43 

 
 
                                                            
However,  the  thematic  priorities  which  reflect  environmental  needs  in  all  Member  States 
cannot be reduced. There are two main reasons for this: 

a)  a  reduction  would  mean  that  some  aspects  of  the  specific  objectives  would  not  be 
covered; 

b) a reduction could have a drastic impact in the Member State if the thematic priority no 
longer covered reflected specific key needs. 

On  the  project  topics,  besides  the  possibility  of  addressing  any  possible  need,  thought 
should be given to introducing a better focus in the next MAWP. This could be done, for 
example,  by  targeting  specific  project  topics,  to  be  selected  year  by  year  taking  into 
account targeted challenges and the results of previous calls for proposals. 

2.  The  second  risk  is  related  to  the  outcomes  of  the  projects  and  to  the  replicability  and 

transferability of their results.    

The  potential  for  replicability  and  transferability  is  one  of  the  project  award  criteria.  This 
criterion  ensures  the  programme’s  strategic  focus  to  increase  its  EU  added  value  and  its 
catalytic effect. 

Moreover,  during  the  life  of  the  project,  there  is  close  monitoring,  and  platform  meetings 
are  organised  to  encourage  the  exchange  of  experiences  and  best  practices.  This  makes  it 
easier to disseminate and transfer project results. Meetings are also organised with potential 
investors so the beneficiaries can present their investment plans. 

Before the end of the project, ‘after-LIFE Plans’ are drawn up to organise the continuation 
of the activities after LIFE financing ends. 

Despite  these  mitigating  measures,  there  is  the  risk  that  a  project  will  not  produce  the 
expected results. This is particularly the case for nature projects where climatic conditions 
could have an impact on the outcomes and/or duration of a project.   

Indeed, it is not possible to overcome all the obstacles with these measures. This is the case, 
for  example,  when  beneficiaries  lack  financial  resources  and/or  lack  capacity/human 
resources to plan an investment.  Such a situation may  limit the possibility to  multiply  the 
project results. 

The possibility of providing customised accompanying measures for those projects showing 
a  promising  potential  for  replicability  and  transferability  should  be  explored.  More 
information on project sustainability and replicability is provided in paragraph.6.6.   

Q.3.   What factors are positively and negatively influencing delivery of the objectives? 

Although it is not possible  at this stage of the programme’s implementation to definitively determine 
the  factors  influencing  delivery  of  the  LIFE  objectives,  and  given  that  some  of  these  cannot  be 
controlled (such as extreme weather conditions, the financial crisis, etc..), the experience of these first 
years of implementation shows that 

-   On the positive side: 

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

it involves a wide range of stakeholders, who are highly supportive of the programme. 

the mix of activities combines activities based on lessons learnt from 25 years of experience 
— such as traditional projects — with new activities — such as integrated, capacity-building 

44 

 
 
 
  
  
  
and technical assistance projects as well as financial instruments  — which are expected  to 
increase the programme’s effectiveness.      

-   On the negative side: 

given  the  new  emerging  challenges,  the  bottom-up  approach  and  the  available  financial 
resources, there is a risk that not all the priorities will be covered by adequate projects. The 
possibility of more flexible project topics could be explored. 

   Risks  that  the  projects  will  not  deliver  the  expected  outcomes  exists.  However,  a  bulk  of 
measures covering the entire project life cycle is in place to reduce this risk. The introduction 
of customised accompanying measures to overcome the obstacles that limit the possibility to 
replicate/transfer the results of the most promising projects could be explored. 

Q.4.  To what extent is the geographical distribution of projects effective? 

The distribution of LIFE projects between Member States is pursued through three main 
mechanisms: 

(a)  national allocations; 

(b) capacity-building projects; 

(c)  geographical balance for the integrated projects. 

(a)  Indicative  national  allocations  are  established  for  projects,  other  than  integrated  projects, 
under the sub-programme for environment51 during the first multi-annual work programme. 

At  present,  some  Member  States  have  reached  or  are  close  to  reaching  their  quota  of  funds 
according  to  the  national  allocations.  However,  the  system  of  national  allocation  is  not 
exclusive: if funds remain available after the award of a grant to all the successful projects from 
the Member States which have not exhausted their national allocations, they are redistributed on 
the basis of merit. As a consequence, two Member States (Spain, Italy) share more than a third 
of  the  entire  LIFE  budget  allocation  for  traditional  grants  for  2014  and  2015.  This  further 
confirms that the national allocations are not effective in ensuring a more balanced distribution 
of projects. 

Also, Spain and Italy submitted the biggest number of proposals and have a reduced percentage 
of success in comparison to other Member States. As the interviews with project beneficiaries 
have revealed, one of the reasons for such a strong participation from these two countries is the 
lack  of  local  public  funds  for  environment  and  climate  action.  The  proactive  action  of  the 
national contact points is also thought to play a role in Spain and Italy’s active participation. 

National allocations will be abandoned in the second multiannual work programme because, as 
emerged during the impact assessment for the LIFE programme, they ‘have not led to a more 
balanced  distribution  of  projects  across  the  EU  (e.g.  projects  from  Italy,  Spain  and  Germany 

51   These national allocations are determined on the basis of the principles of solidarity and responsibility-sharing. 
They take into account the criteria defined in Annex I of the Regulation and are based on the population and 
natural resources expressed in terms of Natura 2000 sites within the territory of a Member State. 

45 

 
 
  
 
                                                            
receive  most  of  the  funding  under  LIFE+),  [..]  they  may  lead  to  selecting  projects  of  lower 
quality,  which  would  have  an  impact  on  the  effectiveness  of  the  Programme  to  provide  EU 
added  value and  had  a perverse impact on smaller Member States (smaller  allocations do not 
encourage submission of proposals)’52. 

(b) capacity-building projects are aimed at enabling selected Member States53 to build up their 
capacity  to  submit  more  good  quality  projects  by  strengthening  the  role  of  the  network  of 
national players — the national contact points (NCPs) — . 

The NCPs provides institutional support to prepare and implement projects, and their work is 
appreciated. Nevertheless, the consultations carried out for the external study confirm that the 
applicants  across  Europe  receive  varying  degrees  of  support,  depending  on  the  quantity  and 
quality of the resources made available by each Member State. 

There  need  to  be  minimum  standards  for  all  Member  States  on  providing  assistance  for  the 
submission of proposals. Many NCPs also need to adopt a more proactive approach. 

The capacity-building projects have been put in place in anticipation of the phasing-out of the 
national allocations by 2018, mentioned earlier. They are action grants used to finance training, 
capacity-building  activities,  external  expertise, 
information  and 
administrative support.  

the  dissemination  of 

Of the 15 Member States eligible, 14 submitted a proposal which has been financed and is in 
progress.   

(c)  a  geographical  balance  of  integrated  projects,  which  is  to  be  achieved  by  indicatively 
allocating at least three integrated projects to each Member State under both sub-programmes. 

Q.4. To what extent is the geographical distribution of projects effective? 

Two Member States (Italy and Spain) share more than a third of the entire LIFE budget for traditional 
grants for 2014 and 2015. 

There was an uneven distribution of funds among Member States also under the previous programme, 
with Italy, Spain and Germany receiving most of the grants. 

One of the reasons for such a strong participation is the lack of local public funds for environment and 
climate action. The interviews with project beneficiaries confirmed this. Another reason is the role 
played by the NCPs, which are more proactive in some countries than in others. 

However, in view of the phasing-out of national allocations in the second MAWP that were 
introduced in LIFE+, different mechanisms have been put in place to ensure a more equitable 
distribution and greater effectiveness of LIFE funds between Member States. These mechanisms 
include capacity-building projects to boost selected Member States’ capacity to submit more good 
quality projects and a geographical balance of the integrated projects. However being the 

52   See  Commission  staff  working  paper  ‘Impact  assessment  accompanying  the  document  ‘Proposal  for  a 
the  Environment  and  Climate  Action’ 

the  establishment  of  a  Programme 

for 

Regulation  on 
(LIFE)COM(2011)874 final, page 18. 

53   The eligibility criteria for the capacity-building projects are defined in the LIFE Regulation. 

46 

 
 
                                                            
programme’s implementation at its early stage, it is not possible to make definitive statements on the 
effectivity of the projects geographical distribution. 

These mechanisms are expected to start producing some results during the next MAWP (2018-2020).  

Q.5.  What is the role of LIFE in bridging uneven integration of environmental and climate 
action objectives among Member States? 

The situation in the Member States differs widely when it comes to: 

- the availability and use of natural resources and the speed at which they are depleted; 

-  the  degree  to  which  environmental  and  climate  concerns  are  taken  into  account  in  their 
policies.54. 

Addressing  the  uneven  integration  of  environmental  and  climate  action  objectives  is  a  long-
term  challenge  in  a  constantly  evolving  context  where  environmental  and  climate  legislation 
and policies are playing a leading role. 

As  underlined  in  the  reports  of  the  European  Environment  Agency,  ‘emissions  of  specific 
pollutants  to  the  air,  water  and  soil  have  generally  been  reduced  significantly.  These 
improvements are to a substantial degree a result of the comprehensive environment legislation 
established across Europe55’. 

Since  1992,  the  only  dedicated  funding  programme,  which  has  systematically  supported  and 
accompanied environment and climate legislation and policies, is LIFE. 

The  LIFE  programme’s  role  in  bridging  the  uneven  integration  of  environmental  and  climate 
action objectives between Member States is twofold: 

(a)  on the one hand, the programme provides customised solutions designed to respond to 
the  specific  problems  of  each  Member  State  by  taking  into  account  the  existing 
situation; 

(b) on the other hand, it coordinates at EU level the vision, targets and requirements needed 
to define, implement and enforce EU environmental and climate legislation and policies. 

(a)  For  the  customised  solutions,  specific  actions  are  defined  through  a  flexible  bottom-up 
approach  which  takes  into  account  the  local  situation  while  targeting  the  implementation  of 
existing  environmental  and  climate  policies  and  legislation  or  better  governance.  This  is  the 
reason why 81 % of LIFE’s overall financial resources are devoted to grants, which are mainly 
projects conceived by different stakeholders to solve the needs they perceive (see above answer 
to  question  Q.2  for  the  activities  in  support  of  the  second  and  third  objectives  of  the  LIFE 
programme).   

54   The cross- country comparisons in the report ‘The European environment — state and outlook 2015’ present 
some  of  these  differences,  from  air  pollution  to  biodiversity,  greenhouse  gas  emissions  and  resource 
efficiency.  See  for  further  details,  ‘SOER  2015  —  The  European  environment  —  state  and  outlook  2015-
Cross countries comparisons’ European Environment Agency. 

55   Ibidem. Executive Summary. 

47 

 
 
 
                                                            
The integrated projects are also specifically meant to provide examples of good practice for an 
efficient  and  well-coordinated  implementation  of  EU  environmental  and  climate  policy  in 
Member States and regions, with the involvement of all stakeholders. 

(b)  
EU-level coordination is mainly ensured through the procurement activities, which are 
based  on  a  top-down  approach:  the  needs  are  defined  by  the  Commission  with  the  aim  to 
support the coordinated definition, implementation and enforcement of EU environmental and 
climate  legislation.  The  procurement  activities  help  target  uneven  integration  of  environment 
and climate action in the practices of Member States by: 

identifying  targets  for  specific  legislative  acts  or  policies  (see  above  under  Q.1, 
objective  2,  for  the  LIFE  programme’s  contributions  to  the  EU  environmental  and 
climate  policy  and  legislation)  which  take  into  account  the  situation  in  the  different 
Member States (see Boxes 10 and 15 for possible examples). 

   providing  specific  inputs  to  Member  States  on  their  implementation  of  environmental 
and climate policies and legislation and supporting the exchange of solutions and best 
practices (see Boxes 3 and 11 for concrete examples). 

Box 11 — LIFE support to Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy 

The Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy initiative (see 
http://www.covenantofmayors.eu/index_en.html) supports the efforts by local authorities to implement 
sustainable climate and energy policies. LIFE funding is used to run the Covenant of Mayors initiative together 
with funding from Horizon 2020 and the Foreign Policy Instrument. 

By signing up to the Covenant, local authorities commit to implement EU objectives in the 2030 climate and 
energy package: new signatories have to commit to action to support implementation of the EU 40 % 
greenhouse gas-reduction target by 2030 and the adoption of a joint approach to tackling mitigation and 
adaptation to climate change. To date, there are more than 800 signatories that have signed up to implement the 
2030 and climate change adaptation targets. 

The Covenant of Mayors provides capacity-building to local authorities to design and finance integrated 
strategies to reduce CO2 (and possibly other greenhouse gas) emissions and adapt to climate risks.   This 
includes providing information and guidance on funding available from the European budget to support the 
implementation of strategies. 

A concrete example of a capacity-building activity is the twinning programme which offers cities, regions and 
provinces across Europe the opportunity to take part in exchanges to increase local authorities’ capacity and 
knowledge to mitigate and adapt to climate change. There is also a help desk to provide assistance to 
signatories.   

The LIFE action grants for climate change adaptation and integrated projects also encourage implementation of 
projects that implement the Covenant framework. 

Q.5.  What  is  the  role  of  LIFE  in  bridging  uneven  integration  of  environmental  and  climate 
action objectives among Member States? 

The  situation  in  the  Member  States  differs  widely  when  it  comes  to  the  availability  of  natural 
resources  and  defining,  implementing  and  enforcing  environmental  and  climate  legislation  and 
policies. 

EU  environmental  and  climate  legislation  and  policies  are  already  contributing  to  the  integration  of 
environmental  and  climate  objectives  into  Member  States  by  setting  up  a  comprehensive 

48 

 
 
  
 
 
environmental legislative framework. The definition, implementation and enforcement of these set of 
laws have all been supported in a range of ways via the LIFE programme. . 

LIFE’s role in bridging the uneven integration of environmental and climate action objectives between 
Member States is twofold: 

on  the  one  hand,  the  programme  provides  customised  solutions  to  respond  to  the  specific 
(a) 
problems  of  each  Member  State  by  taking  into  account  the  existing  situation.  This  is  done  mainly 
through the 81 % of its resources which are devoted to support bottom-up actions such as grants and 
financial instruments. 

on the other hand, LIFE helps to coordinate at EU level the vision, targets and requirements of 
(b) 
EU environmental and climate action. This is done mainly through procurement activities which aim 
to  support  the  definition,  implementation  and  enforcement  of  EU  environmental  and  climate 
legislation and policies as well as the exchange of solutions and best practices.  

5.2.  Efficiency56 

Q.6.  To  what  extent  are  the  costs  (especially  management)  of  the  LIFE  programme 
justified, given the effects which have been achieved, and are likely to be achieved, by the end 
of the LIFE programme? 

To analyse the programme’s efficiency, the external study estimated the value for money of the 
anticipated results of a series of ongoing LIFE projects from the 2014 call. The estimated value 
for money was compared to the programme’s overall cost. 

In  particular,  the  external  study  estimated  the  benefits  derived  from  the  conservation  of  17 
million  hectares  of  Natura  2000  sites  and  the  reduction  of  489 000  tonnes  of  CO2  (including 
methane  and the reduction of electricity  consumed). The study  used  the social cost of carbon 
(SCC) approach and calculated the quota attributable to LIFE’s financing (i.e. 75 % for nature 
projects  and  60 %  for  climate  change  mitigation  projects  on  the  basis  of  the  related  EU  co-
financing rates). 

On the basis of this estimate, the benefits derived from LIFE 2014 financing the conservation of 
Natura 2000 sites would reach EUR 1.5 billion and the benefits from financing the reduction of 
CO2 would lead to a savings of EUR 0.2 billion for society. 

The relevant projects selected under the 2014 calls for proposals would therefore contribute to a 
societal  benefit  of  EUR  1.7  billion.  This  represents  four  times  the  cost  of  the  overall  LIFE 
budget for 2014 (EUR 405 million) and shows the programme’s high value for money. 

On  the  programme’s  management,  the  cost-benefit  analysis  that  led  to  the  transfer  of 
management of most of the LIFE grants to EASME in 2014 estimated that the cost of managing 

56   The replies to questions Q.6, Q.7 and Q.8 provide an overview of the programme’s efficiency. The first and 
second  questions  concern  the  programme  as  a  whole,  with  the  first  focused  on  the  justification  of  the 
programme’s  costs  in  terms  of  a  cost/benefit  analysis  and  the  second  on  the  state  of  play  of  the  measures 
introduced  to  increase  the  efficiency  of  the  current  LIFE  programme.  The  third  question  considers  aspects 
related to the grant management, which mostly concern the Commission and the applicants/beneficiaries. 

49 

 
 
 
                                                            
the programme would be reduced, compared to managing LIFE+. This has now been confirmed 
by the actual data (see the reply to Q.7). 

Moreover, the analysis included an estimate of the management costs for different programmes. 
This implies that some comparisons can be made57.  

These  results  were  elaborated  to  determine  the  human  and  financial  resources  needed  by 
EASME  in  2014-2020  to  manage  the  implementation  of  each  programme  delegated  to  the 
Agency. 

The data show that LIFE is less costly to manage than other programmes. 

Indeed,  for  the  programmes  managed  by  EASME,  when  comparing  the  costs  of  the  various 
programmes  as  a  percentage  of  the  total  budget  managed,  LIFE  costs  significantly  less  to 
manage than COSME58, EMFF59 and Horizon 202060. This can be seen from the figure below. 

Figure 9. Costs of various programmes managed by EASME 

Source: Analysis based on data from the financial statement of COM(2013)9414. 

57 These comparisons are useful to provide an overall idea of the costs of managing a programme. However, it is 
clear  that  the  comparisons  do  not  have  an  absolute  value,  given  that  each  programme  has  a  different  mix  of 
activities, such as procurement, grants, etc., which have implications for the related workload. 
58   EU programme for the Competitiveness of Enterprises and Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (SMEs). 

59   European Maritime and Fisheries Fund. 

60   The EU Framework Programme for Research and Innovation. 

50 

 
 
 
                                                            
These  costs  are  based  on  the  scenarios  analysed  when  management  was  transferred  from  the 
Commission  to  EASME  and  do  not  include  all  the  costs  necessary  for  the  programme’s 
implementation.  These  are  costs  such  as  those  related  to  the  work  environment  (buildings, 
equipment  and  other  operating  expenditures),  the  other  costs  (experts,  studies,  audits, 
information  and  communication,  IT,  etc.)  and  the  costs  of  supervision  by  the  Commission. 
These  costs are  expected  to  increase  progressively61  and  are estimated  at  EUR  80  million  for 
2014-2020. They therefore represent 3.6 % of the overall amount of EUR 2.25 billion managed 
by EASME for the LIFE programme. 

In terms of utilisation of funds in the projects, the results of ex-post controls on LIFE+ and on-
site  monitoring  of  LIFE  projects  shows  that  the  ‘error  rate’  —  namely  the  amount  that  is 
considered  at  risk  —  is  well  below  the  materiality  benchmark62  threshold  of  2 %  and  is 
declining: it was EUR 2.27 for every EUR 100 spent in 2012, falling to EUR 1.24 in 2015 and 
even further to 0.44 EUR in 2016. 

Q.6.  To  what  extent  are  the  costs  (especially  management)  of  the  LIFE  programme  justified, 
given the effects which have been achieved, and are likely to be achieved by the end of the LIFE 
programme? 

Although it is premature to establish whether the LIFE programme provides value for money at this 
early stage of implementation, the external study has examined a series of projects selected under the 
2014 calls for proposals. The study estimated that the anticipated results of these projects would have 
a societal benefit of EUR 1.7 billion. This would cover four times the cost of the overall LIFE budget 
for 2014. 

Further, on the management of the LIFE programme, the reduction of costs linked to externalisation 
of the management of the programme has exceeded expectations (see the answer to Q.7). 

Moreover, in comparative terms, taking into account the financial resources attributed to EASME as a 
percentage  of  the  funds  transferred  by  the  Commission  to  EASME  for  the  management  of  the 
different programmes, the external study has concluded that the LIFE management structure appears 
to be less costly than the management structure of other EU-funded programmes.  

Q.7.  Have the changes made between LIFE+ and the current LIFE programme improved 
efficiency? 

It is too soon to estimate the impact that the changes introduced in the LIFE programme have 
had on the programme’s efficiency in comparison with LIFE+. 

However, given that the major change to increase the programme’s efficiency was the transfer 
of most of the grant management to EASME, some considerations can be derived from the cost-
benefit analysis. 

61   See table 7 for more details on the estimated and real figures in 2014, 2015 and 2016. 

62   Materiality benchmark is the threshold above which missing or incorrect information in financial statements is 

considered to have an impact. 

51 

 
 
 
  
                                                            
The transfer to EASME is considered to bring efficiency to the management of the programme, 
because  it  allows  for  economies  of  scale  when  implementing  a  large  number  of  homogenous 
and  standardised  operations  to  manage  grants.  It  allows  the  Commission  to  focus  on  policy-
making  and  develop,  implement  and  enforce  EU  environmental  and  climate  policy  and 
legislation. 

in 

the 

financial 

As  mentioned 
accompanying  Commission  Decision 
COM(2013)941463, the results of transferring part of the management of the LIFE programme 
to EASME was expected to bring an overall efficiency gain of EUR 8.2 million in the period 
2017-2020.  This  is  in  comparison  to  a  scenario  where  the  grant  management  would  have 
remained inside the Commission. 

statement 

The  difference  between  the  initial  estimate  and  the  actual  data  on  the  programme’s 
implementation shows a further increase of the efficiency gain for the first  3 years, as can be 
seen in the table below. 

Table 7: Transfer from Commission to EASME: estimates and real figures (2014-2016) in EUR. 

Possible  negative  side  effects  of  transferring  management  to  EASME,  such  as  the  lack  of 
continuity  and  the  loss  of  input  from  projects  for  policy-making  and  vice  versa,  have  been 
prevented. 

This has been done by transferring key human resources from the Commission to EASME and 
by  working  on  a  policy-integration  strategy  which  includes  recurrent and  one-off  activities to 
ensure that: 

- 

- 

policy needs are reflected in the programme and project implementation; 

relevant outputs and findings from projects reach and can be used by policy-makers. 

The  strategy  includes  activities  such  as  training  for  Agency  staff  on  specific  policies,  joint 
thematic  cluster  meetings  with  projects,  shared  reflection  on  policy  needs  in  the  calls  for 
proposals, provision of feedback on project outcomes relevant for policy-making, etc. 

The  transfer  of  most  of  the  LIFE  grants  to  EASME  is  taking  place  in  line  with  the  initial 
planning. Respondents to the public consultation reported that the transfer of grant management 

63   Commission Decision of 23.12.2013 delegating powers to the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized 
Enterprises  with  a  view  to  performance  of  tasks  linked  to  the  implementation  of  Union  programmes  in  the 
field  of  energy,  environment,  climate  action,  competitiveness  and  SMEs,  research  and  innovation  and  ICT, 
comprising, in particular, implementation of appropriations entered in the general budget of the Union. 

52 

Estimated figures/years201420152016Total delegated amount (A)226,840240,444258,638Total management costs (B)3,4765,7277,956Percentage (B/A)1.5%2.4%3.1%Real figures/years201420152016Total delegated amount (A)233,050249,811271,511Total management costs (B)3,0885,6097,170Percentage (B/A)1.3%2.2%2.6% 
 
 
                                                            
to  EASME  was  done  smoothly,  and  different  stakeholders  perceive  the  Agency’s  work  as 
valuable. Thus, externalisation does not seem to be affecting quality. 

Q.7.   Have the changes made between LIFE+ and this LIFE programme improved efficiency? 

As this stage of the programme’s implementation, the major change involves the transfer of part of the 
management of the LIFE programme from the Commission to EASME. 

For 2014-2020 the transfer is expected to result in a EUR 8.2 million gain in efficiency compared with 
a scenario where the grant management would have remained inside the Commission. Initial figures 
for actual costs are already indicating that efficiency gains may be even greater than estimated 

Further, the transfer was done smoothly, and LIFE stakeholders perceive EASME’s work as valuable. 

Lack  of  continuity  and  loss  of  input  from  projects  for  policy-making  and  vice  versa  have  been 
prevented  by  transferring  key  Commission  staff  to  EASME  and  by  promoting  activities  such  as 
training  of  Agency  staff  on  specific  policies,  joint  thematic  cluster  meetings  with  projects,  shared 
reflection  on  policy  needs  in  the  calls  for  proposals,  provision  of  feedback  on  project  outcomes 
relevant for policy-making, etc. 

Q.8. 

Is there scope for efficiency gains, simplification and burden reduction? 

Following  the  LIFE+  evaluation  which  highlighted  the  demand  to  simplify  the  application 
process and reporting, the following simplification measures were introduced: 

a two-step award procedure for the integrated projects; 

a reduced burden to present some certificates; 

a streamlining of the system for the electronic submission of proposals (e-proposal). 

The two-step award procedure for the integrated projects is particularly appreciated by both the 
applicants and the Commission: a complete proposal is submitted only for projects which, after 
a  first  screening,  are  eligible  for  a  grant.  This  simplifies  the  work  of  the  applicant  and  the 
evaluation  and  makes  possible  an  interaction  between  the  Commission  and  the  applicant  to 
strengthen specific aspects of the proposals. 

Recently the requirement to submit an external audit certificate and/or the VAT certificate was 
waived.  Particularly  for  the  audit  certificate,  the  beneficiaries  will  be  able  to  save  time  and 
money  by  no  longer  having  to  contract  out/select/support  the  work  of  an  external  auditor, 
whose  reports  did  not  always  meet  the  Commission’s  expectations.  The  beneficiaries  reacted 
very positively to this simplification. 

E-proposal is a useful tool for the applicants to build and submit LIFE project proposals and for 
the Commission/EASME to organise and run the award process. 

According to the beneficiaries, e-proposal has reduced the administrative burden of submitting 
proposals  and  conducting  the  award  process  in  general.  It  has  also  led  to  increased 
communication among applicants/beneficiaries and the Commission/EASME during the award 
phase. However, according to unsuccessful applicants, the submission of proposals is perceived 
to be still too complicated, requiring an unnecessary amount of information from the start. 

It  can  be  concluded  from  the  overall  results  of  the  consultations  process  that,  although  e-
proposals introduced some improvements, there is still a widespread demand to simplify LIFE 
procedures for grants. This came through in the interviews with all stakeholders. 

53 

 
 
 
  
  
  
The requirements on participating in the calls for proposals and managing the projects are based 
on the lessons progressively learnt from twenty five years of implementation of the programme 
but need to be further streamlined. 

Some possible measures envisaged by the external study to reduce the burden include: 

   waiving  for  all  applicants  the  requirement  to  submit  at  the  start  of  the  process  a 
complete proposal by introducing a two-step award procedure for traditional projects for 
priority areas where the demand is particularly high; 

adapting reporting requirements in proportion to the length and complexity of projects 
and  the  value  of  the  grant.  This  would  reduce  the  administrative  burden  for  small 
projects or for projects of a limited duration. A more supportive role of the monitoring 
experts could also be envisaged here; 

simplifying  the  project  topics  and  the  indicators  database,  which  project  beneficiaries 
see as particularly cumbersome. 

Some of these  concerns may be addressed by fine-tuning  internal practices  in  EASME or  the 
Commission. In this context the second LIFE MAWP (2018-2020) to be adopted at the end of 
2017 will offer the opportunity to address some specific concerns such as the methodology for 
project selection and the definition of priority topics and related indicators. 

For  LIFE  communication  activities,  the  external  study  found  that  the  mix  of  actions  is 
reasonably  appropriate  at  project  level.  Moreover,  project  beneficiaries  rate  the  LIFE 
communication activities as ‘good’ or ‘very good’, in particular the LIFE website (75 %) and 
the LIFE best project publications and awards (72 %). 

However, it appears that there is some room for improvement, especially when it comes to the 
Commission’s social media activities, press releases and best practice events. 

The main shortcomings are: 

reliance on passive one-way communication tactics, 

   vague definition of target audiences, 

lack of objective-specific and target-specific key messages, 

lack of structured coordination between the several players involved in the delivery of 
the communication actions, 

absence of a procedure to keep the strategy responsive to the needs of target groups and 
strategic needs, 

lack of an approach based on results-driven communication, and 

emphasis on the type and number of activities rather than on the importance of results-
driven communication. 

These strategic weaknesses potentially reduce the value of all communication activities and risk 
limiting their potential contribution to the LIFE programme’s policy objectives. 

Q.8.   Is there scope for efficiency gains, simplification and burden reduction? 

As  far  as  grant  management  is  concerned,  there  is  still  a  widespread  demand  to  further  streamline 
LIFE procedures, as not all the simplification measures originally proposed by the Commission for the 

54 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
  
 
LIFE  programme  in  2014-2020  have  been  introduced  and  further  improvements  are  possible  in  the 
application process and project management. 

The  external  study,  therefore,  identified  some  measures  to  reduce  the  burden  for  the  submission  of 
proposals,  reporting  requirements  and  indicators.  The  measures  could  be  introduced  by  fine-tuning 
internal practices in EASME or the Commission, or through the second LIFE MAWP (2018-2020). 

Need  for  improvement  was  also  identified  for  the  LIFE  communication  strategy  to  ensure  a  more 
active  and  responsive  approach,  better  targeting  audiences  and  delivering  objective-specific  and 
target-specific key messages.  

5.3.  Coherence 

Q.9.  To  what  extent  does  the  LIFE  programme  have  a  coherent  structure  taking  into 
account  its  two  sub-programmes,  its  priority  areas  and  the  various  types  of  interventions 
(internal coherence)? 

The  internal  structure  of  the  LIFE  programme  is  consistent  with  EU  policies  and  priorities, 
covering the most relevant climate and environmental topics: 

-  The  introduction  of  the  climate  action  sub-programme  and  the  75:25  allocation  of  funds 
between the two sub-programmes have helped to respond to the Union request of increasing 
the climate-related proportion of the Union budget to at least 20 % for all different policies. 

The  level  of  demand  across  the  three  priority  areas  for  climate  action  since  their 
introduction has further demonstrated that the allocation of funds is adequate because: 

It  has  allowed  the  programme  to  respond  to  an  increased  demand  in  absolute  value  for 
climate action projects;  

   There  are  fewer  proposals  in  comparison  to  the  proposals  presented  to  the  other  sub 
programme (13 % of the total demand for projects and 23 % of the project overall up-take) 
and overall value (8 % of the total project demand and 19 % of the overall up-take) to the 
one for the projects under the environment sub-programme priority areas. 

In terms of value, the total of the EU funding request at the proposal level for the calls 2014 
and  201564  presented  under  the  sub  programme  for  environment  was  €3.093.966.224  (the 
total  EU co-financing for  ENV proposals for 2014-2015 was €353.770.241) while  the EU 
funding request at the proposal level for the call for 2014 and 2015 presented under the sub 
programme  for  climate  action  was  €383.049.723  (the  total  EU  co-financed  for  CLIMA 
proposals for 2014-201565 was €83.928.508). 

   The results of the calls for proposals do not show any need to revise the ceiling of 81 % of 
the programme’s budget devoted to projects, which is in line with the 78 % applied under 
LIFE+. In addition, no sign of concern emerged from the public consultation on the 81 % 
ceiling.    

   The  priority  areas  nature  and  biodiversity,  environment  and  resource  efficiency,  climate 
mitigation and adaptation — as defined in the Regulation — are intended to address a range 
of issues of importance to various key stakeholders'. 

64 For traditional projects 

65 Idem 

55 

 
 
 
  
  
                                                            
The priority areas environmental and climate governance and information are a response to 
more  cross-cutting  needs.  They  address  the  market  failure  arising  from  the  lack  of 
information, contribute to compliance with and enforcement of legislation and broaden the 
participation of stakeholders in the consultation on and implementation of policies. 

This difference is reflected in the type of activities financed for each priority area, as shown 
in Figure 10 below. 

Figure 10. Types of activities per priority areas (LIFE 2014-2015) 

Source: Commission’s databases 

For an optimal use of resources and to produce a combined effect, the LIFE Regulation calls for 
cooperation  on  actions  under  the  environment  sub-programme  and  climate  change  adaptation 
and  mitigation  measures  under  the  climate  action  sub-programme.  Moreover,  the  Regulation 
underlines  that  projects  financed  by  the  LIFE  programme  should  help  to  achieve  the  specific 
objectives of more than one priority area. 

In  this  context,  the  external  study  —by  analysing  the  database  of  indicators  —  documented 
cases  of  a  combined  effect,  i.e.  synergies  between  the  priority  areas  and/or  the  thematic 
priorities and confirmed that these synergies are consistent with the objectives per priority area. 
In particular: 

   Nature  and  biodiversity  projects  also  contribute  very  strongly  to  water  and  marine 

environment, climate adaptation and information and governance indicators; 

   Resource-efficiency projects contribute significantly to waste indicators, and waste projects 
contribute a lot to resource efficiency as well as to environment and health indicators and to 
climate mitigation; 

   Climate  mitigation  projects  contribute  a  lot  to  nature  and  biodiversity  and  air  quality  but 
also  to  resource  efficiency  and  climate  adaptation  indicators.  In  turn,  climate  adaptation 
projects also contribute to nature and biodiversity; 

   Water  and  marine  environment  projects  contribute  a  lot  to  climate  adaptation  but  also  to 

nature and biodiversity, resource efficiency and environment and health. 

The figure below shows this synergy: the numbers stated are percentages (the amount is 100 % 
for each row). 

56 

 
 
 
For  instance,  the  first  row  indicates  the  percentage  of  projects  from  other  priority  areas  that 
have contributed to nature and biodiversity indicators. The colours indicate the frequency (i.e. 
in  the  first  row  between  12  to  20  resource-efficiency  projects  have  declared  an  impact  on  at 
least one biodiversity indicator. This represents 6 % of the overall contribution from projects of 
different priority areas to biodiversity indicators). 

Figure 11 — Extent of synergies in LIFE projects 

Source: External study 

Q.9. To what extent does the LIFE programme have a coherent structure, taking into account 
its  two  sub-programmes,  its  priority  areas  and  the  various  types  of  interventions  (internal 
coherence)? 

As this stage of the programme’s implementation, no particular problem of coherence in the internal 
structure of the programme was detected. 

The external  study has documented combined  effects or synergies between the priority areas  and/or 
the  thematic  priorities  based  on  indicators,  finding  that  much  of  the  ongoing  projects  contribute 
strongly to other priority areas. For example, as required by the LIFE Regulation, climate mitigation 
projects  contribute  to  climate  change  adaptation,  nature  and  biodiversity,  air  quality  and  resource 
efficiency. 

Also  the  75:25  allocations  of  funds  between  the  two  sub  programmes  has  been  demonstrated  to  be 
adequate. 

57 

 
 
 
 
 
Q.10.  To what  extent is the LIFE programme complementary and enjoying synergies with 
other relevant EU funding programmes (i.e. the European Structural and Investment Funds 
— ESIF, Horizon 2020) (external coherence)? 

LIFE is the only EU dedicated funding programme for environment and climate action. 

Taking  into  account  its  overall  features  and  as  envisaged  in  the  LIFE  Regulation,  LIFE  is 
designed to be complementary to other EU funding programmes. This is particularly the case 
for  Horizon  2020  (the  framework  programme  for  research  and  innovation),  the  European 
Regional  Development  Fund,  the  European  Social  Fund,  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for 
Rural Development (which work to support economic development across all EU countries, in 
line with the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy) and the European Maritime and Fisheries 
Fund. 

As  this  stage  of  all  the  programmes’  implementation,  it  is  not  possible  to  conclude  on  the 
external coherence of LIFE. Even small changes in how one action is implemented can trigger 
more  or  less  complementarities  with  other  ongoing  actions.  Nonetheless,  the  possible  risk  of 
overlap is limited because the programmes have different scopes. 

In  particular,  the  LIFE  Regulation  mentions  explicitly  the  need  to  develop  synergies  with 
Horizon  2020  and  to  ensure  coordination  to  prevent  double  funding.  Moreover,  it  underlines 
that the LIFE programme should also encourage the uptake of the results of environmental and 
climate-related research and innovation under Horizon 2020.   

In this context, the transfer of the relevant part of the two programmes from the Commission to 
a  sole  executive  agency  represents  the  best  possible  answer  to  this  need  for  synergies  and 
coordination. 
EASME recently undertook an analysis66 to identify areas of synergies and potential overlaps. 

The  analysis  confirmed  that  LIFE  and  Horizon  2020  contribute  to  common  objectives  in 
different  —  and  in  some  cases  complementary  —  ways.  During  these  first  years  of 
implementation, LIFE and Horizon 2020 have functioned in a mutually reinforcing manner. 

Under Horizon 2020, environmental and climate action research is tackled by a series of actions 
and  opportunities  for  collaboration  under  the  societal  challenge  ‘climate  action,  environment, 
resource  efficiency  and  raw  materials’.  Moreover,  specific  activities  could  also  be  financed 
under the societal challenge ‘secure, clean and efficient energy’ or under relevant cross-cutting 
priorities for 2016-2017 (i.e. the circular economy).   

66    Uptake  of  the  results  of  EU-funded  research  projects  in  the  LIFE  NAT  2014-2015  portfolio.  EASME 

Ares(2016)4835449 - 29/08/2016 

58 

 
 
                                                            
Box 12: Example of uptake in LIFE projects of research-funded activities 

The  project  ‘Re-establishment  of  the  Ribbed  Limpet  (Patella  ferruginea)  in  Ligurian  Marine 
Protected Areas by Restocking and Controlled Reproduction’ (LIFE15 NAT/IT/000771 — RELIFE 
project) built upon the experience and the results of two FP7 projects: ENRICH and RESURCH. The 
coordinator of these two projects is also the Scientific Coordinator of RELIFE. The ENRICH project 
aimed  at  optimising  sea  urchin  Paracentrotus  lividus  rearing,  in  order  to  enrich  pre-existing 
aquaculture farms (based on sea bass, bream, and/or different bivalves). RESURCH focused on the 
technology required to make commercial sea urchin production a reality across Europe. Experience 
gained and techniques developed in both projects are expected to be used in P.ferruginea rearing by 
RELIFE. 

The genetic studies to be undertaken in the project ‘Conservation and restoration of mediterranean 
Taxus  baccata  woods  (9580*)  in  the  Cantabrian  Mountains’  (LIFE15  NAT/ES/000790  —  LIFE 
BACCATA)  will  make  use  of  the  outcomes  of  the  FP6  project  EVOLTREE  and  the  Biodiversa-
funded  LinkTree  project.  The  experience  from  these  projects  will  be  integrated  in  the  actions 
planned  in  LIFE  BACCATA.  Lessons  from  this  project  will  help  develop  best  practice  for 
conservation by providing indicators and guidance to LIFE BACCATA. 

‘The rescue of endemic priority plant species Minuartia smejkalii’ (LIFE15 NAT/CZ/000818 — Life 
for Minuartia) project, to be implemented in the Czech Republic, will follow the latest results from 
Horizon 2020 projects dealing with climate change. The project plans to include these results in their 
network. In addition, in the context of its work to model the impact of climate change on Minuartia 
smejkalii, the project plans to use the findings of three FP7 projects on climate change (CCTAME, 
Past4future  and  Carbon-extreme)  as  well  as  data  from  the  Copernicus  climate  change  information 
service and from the EU Climate Adaptation Platform Copernicus service. 

The project ‘Improvement of habitats and population connectivity for endangered amphibians in the 
city-region of Aachen’ (LIFE15 NAT/DE/000743 — Amphibienverbund) will implement the results 
of  the  BiodivERsA-funded  project  RACE  —  Risk  Assessment  of  chytridiomycosis  to  European 
amphibians  —  in  some  of  its  activities.  This  will  particularly  be  the  case  with  compliance  with 
standards on health checks to be performed on the donor population. 

The results of the FP7-funded project SCALES were used to plan the methodology for the location 
of  ecological  corridors  between  protected  areas  proposed  in  the  project  ‘Osprey  conservation  in 
selected SPA Natura 2000 sites in Poland’ (LIFE15 NAT/PL/000819 — LIFEPandionPL). This was 
particularly the case for planning and selecting potential areas for settlement by ospreys. 

The project ‘Conservation and management of freshwater fauna of EU interest within the ecological 
corridors  of  Verbano-Cusio-Ossola’  (LIFE15  NAT/IT/000823  —  IdroLIFE)  plans  to  take  up  the 
lessons  learnt  from  the  implementation  of  the  EU-funded  research  projects  WISER,  MARS, 
REFRESH,  BIOFRESH  and  REFORM.  These  are  projects  on  water  management,  freshwater 
ecosystems  and  climate  change.  Three  of  these  projects  specifically  aimed  to  support  the 
implementation  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive.  Further  links  with  relevant  Horizon  2020 
projects will be pursued. 

However, the possible risk of overlap is limited because of the programmes’ different scopes, 
the  transnational  nature  of  most  Horizon  2020  projects,  its  special  targeted  priorities,  and  the 
different average sizes and lengths of projects67. 

67   Horizon 2020 supports projects with an average EU contribution of around EUR 5 million (societal challenge 
5 — even if in the case of societal challenge 3 the bracket is slightly lower at EUR 3-4 million) and a duration 
of  24-36  months.  In  comparison,  the  average  EU  contribution  for  LIFE  traditional  projects,  which  tend  to 
last  36-48 months, is around EUR 1.5 million. Moreover, in the case of Horizon 2020’s SME instrument, the 
target beneficiaries are small and medium enterprises, while LIFE also targets big enterprises, public and civil 
society organisations. 

59 

 
 
 
                                                            
Respondents to the survey addressed to the LIFE beneficiaries found that the LIFE programme 
is largely coherent with other EU programmes and they saw synergies especially with Horizon 
2020. 
To  encourage  synergies,  LIFE  provides  for  a  mechanism  to  promote  the  uptake,  into  LIFE 
projects,  of  the  results  of  environmental  and  climate-related  research  and  innovation  under 
Horizon 2020 and previous framework programmes for research: during the award process, an 
extra  point  is  granted  to  proposals  that  plan  to  take  up  results  generated  through  EU-funded 
research  projects.  In  this  perspective,  LIFE  gives  an  incentive  to  implement  and  scale  up 
knowledge and solutions developed, tested and deployed through EU-funded research activities. 

According  to  EASME’s  analysis  of  the  results  of  the  2014  and  2015  calls  for  proposals  for 
LIFE  nature,  32 %  of  the  successful  projects  from  the  2015  call  (which  corresponds  to  13 
projects  out  of  the  41  funded68)  linked  their  activities  to  the  results  of  EU-funded  research 
projects.  Moreover,  18 %  (15  projects)  of  all  the  LIFE  nature  projects  financed  in  2014  and 
2015 have planned in some way to take up the results of EU-funded research projects and/or to 
network with them during implementation (see Box 12 for some examples). 

Box 13: Example of a LIFE integrated project 
LIFE-IP RBMP-NWRBD UK — Integrated water management approach to delivery of the North West 
England river basin management plan (LIFE14 IPE/UK/000027) 

EU contribution: €11 988 811.00  
Coordinating beneficiary: Environment Agency 
(national authority) 
One third of the poorest quality rivers in England and Wales is currently found in the North West (England) 
river basin district (NW RBD). A range of factors combine in the NW RBD, which create several significant 
challenges to meeting the requirements of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), such as: 

Thematic priority: Water 
External link: http://naturalcourse.co.uk/ 

high urban population densities located at relatively short distances from the sea; 

   wastewater discharges with high phosphorous concentrations; 

highest trade effluent flows in England and Wales; 

extensive diffuse pollution issues from agriculture and other rural sources; 

historic chemical and metal pollution in river sediments mobilised in high-flow conditions. 

These factors make the NW RBD an ideal location for implementing actions to help improve delivery of WFD 
Annex VII (river basin management plans) and to demonstrate solutions for problems relevant to the rest of 
Europe. 

In particular, the project will address barriers holding back the achievement of ‘good’ ecological status for the 
region’s water bodies, as required by the Water Framework Directive. The project aims to build stakeholder 
capacity,  reduce  policy  conflicts,  identify  water  and  flood  management  measures  that  produce  multiple 
benefits — thus allowing greater use of relevant funds — and improve knowledge of innovative measures such 
as sustainable drainage systems. 

In  addition  to  the  LIFE  integrated  project  budget,  the  project  will  facilitate  the  coordinated  use  of  EUR 
37  050  000  of  complementary  funding  from  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development 
(EAFRD) and European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), EUR 139  500  000 in national public funds and 
EUR 52  500  000 in private sector funds. 

68   Most of them were financed under the 7th framework programme (FP7). 

60 

 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
                                                            
As far as the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) are concerned, the main areas 
of  potential  intersection  are  with  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF),  the 
Cohesion Fund (CF), the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD) and the 
European Maritime and Fisheries Funds (EMFF). 

Box 14: Example of rural development-funded projects piloted in LIFE 

In  Belgium  (Wallonia  Region),  grasslands  /  moors  /  bogs  /  mires  have  been  purchased  and/or 
restored by some 25 LIFE projects, including those still ongoing, using a little over EUR 60 million 
in  EU  money.  Most  of  these  LIFE  projects  involve  removing  shrubs  and  spruce  pine  from  Natura 
2000 priority habitats (bogs, various grasslands, heaths, etc.). The restored areas need to be regularly 
grazed or mowed to prevent them from being overgrown and degraded and to protect the long-term 
sustainability of these considerable investments (EUR 60 million from the EU and almost as much 
from the Wallonia Region). Building on this, the Walloon rural development programme created a 
specific measure for extensive grazing of Natura 2000 sites. 

In  Bulgaria,  LIFE  project  LIFE09  NAT/BG/230  on  red-breasted  geese  successfully  developed  and 
trialled an agri-environment measure specifically for this priority species. National authorities have 
included it in the rural development programme. Apparently, it is well liked by the local farmers, as 
already  in  the  first  year  240  have  applied  for  it.  This  covers  some  18 000  ha  of  wintering  red-
breasted geese habitats, mobilising EUR 1.8 million this year alone (EUR 3.5 million and 40 000 ha 
if  one  includes  the  more  general  wintering  geese  measure).  This  is  a  great  success  for  this  highly 
endangered  species  (the  entire  world  population  winters  in  a  small  part  of  north  east  Bulgaria  and 
feeds in the fields near the coast). 

In Ireland, within measure 16  (cooperation) of the rural development programme an action for the 
hen  harrier  and  fresh  water  pearl  mussel  supports  Natura  2000  implementation.  This  is  because  of 
the  precarious  state  of  the  hen  harrier and  fresh  water  pearl  mussel  and  the  fact  that  there  are  real 
pressures from agriculture and land use on them. This project builds on a LIFE project for the fresh 
water pearl mussel (http://kerrylife.ie/) and another project in the south-west of Ireland that embraces 
the hen harrier (http://duhallowlife.com/raptor-life/ ). Moreover, the Burren project, also in Ireland ( 
LIFE04  NAT/IE/000125),  successfully  piloted  a  conservation  farming  scheme  to  boost  the  high 
nature value of important limestone habitats in the west of Ireland. It laid the foundations for a large-
scale environmental farming initiative for the whole region, which is now underway. The project’s 
overall objective was to develop a blueprint for sustainable agricultural management of the Burren’s 
priority  habitats.  The  project  resulted  in  its  continuation  and  mainstreaming  under  the  (2010-12) 
Burren  farming  for  conservation  programme  (BFCP),  where  EUR  3  million  were  allocated  by  the 
Department  of  Agriculture  and  Food  to  support  high  environmental  value  farming,  with  tourism 
spin-offs. 

In  general,  the  common  provisions  regulation  (CPR)  of  the  ESI  Funds  acknowledges  this 
complementarity and contains a special section (in Annex I.4, common strategic framework — 
see  below)  on  coordination  and  synergies  between  the  ESI  Funds  and  LIFE.The  ESI  Funds 
focus  to  a  significant  extent  on  major  investments  with  benefits  for  smart,  sustainable  and 
inclusive  growth.  LIFE,  on  the  other  hand,  is  more  focused  on  management  approaches, 
environmental  restoration  (especially  for  nature  and  ecosystems)  and  demonstration  of  new 
solutions to environmental and climate problems. Thus, LIFE works as a gap filler, as can be 
seen in Table 4 on integrated projects and from the example in Box 9. 

The  consultation  specifically  mentioned  the  ERDF  as  complementary  to  LIFE  and  a  way  to 
follow up funding of actions piloted in LIFE projects after they end. 

Given  that  they  are  mostly  implemented  in  shared  management  by  national  authorities, 
eligibility  criteria (e.g.  beneficiaries,  types  of  measures  to  be  funded)  vary  from  one  Member 

61 

 
 
 
State  to  another,  depending  on  the  various  programmes  that  are  agreed  with  the  Commission 
and in line with the Funds’ Regulations. 

Complementarity with the LIFE programme is systematically checked in all the programming 
documents  (such  as  the  partnership  agreement  and  the  operational  programmes),  and  where 
necessary, a specific mention is added. 

A link between LIFE and EAFRD has been successfully established for 12 Member States that 
have opted for integrated projects on nature, air and water. This is mobilising a total budget of 
EUR 373 million of which EUR 153 million from LIFE  

For the EMFF, coordinating mechanisms have been  established to ensure that measures (e.g., 
more sustainable  fishing practices) tested by LIFE can  be scaled up by EMFF and to  address 
environmental problems in integrated projects. 

At  this  stage  of  the  programme’s  implementation,  it  is  difficult  to  make  an  appropriate 
assessment on whether this works and to what extent. 

Some  empirical  evidence  of  how  the  complementarity  works  in  practice  can  be  derived  from 
previous LIFE programmes: 

there are several examples of actions funded by rural development programmes, which 
were at first piloted in LIFE (see Box 14 above) 
some beneficiaries of traditional projects69 reported having obtained Interreg funding. 

Q.10.   To what extent is the LIFE programme complementary to and enjoying synergies with 
other relevant EU funding programmes (i.e. the European Structural and Investment Funds — 
ESIF, Horizon 2020) (external coherence)? 

LIFE is designed to be complementary to other EU funding programmes (in particular Horizon 2020). 
But  at  this  stage  of  the  programme’s  implementation,  the  complementarity  and  synergies  cannot  be 
strongly established. 

However,  initial  results  show  that  LIFE  and  Horizon  2020  contribute  to  common  objectives  in 
different  and  in  some  cases  complementary  ways.  The  risk  of  overlap  is  limited  because  of  the 
programmes’  different  scopes,  the  transnational  nature  of  most  Horizon  2020  projects,  its  special 
targeted  priorities,  the  different  average  sizes  and  lengths  of  projects.  Preliminary  findings  provide 
evidence  that  LIFE  is  successful  in  encouraging  the  uptake  of  the  results  of  projects  financed  by 
previous research programmes. Since the 2014 LIFE call for proposals evaluation process, one extra 
point  is  granted  to  projects  that  plan  to  take  up  the  results  of  environmental  and  climate-related 
research and innovation projects financed by Horizon 2020 or by previous framework programmes. 

Data based on the results of the 2015 LIFE calls for proposal show that almost 32 % of the successful 
projects are linking their activities to the results of EU-funded research projects (corresponding to 13 
projects out of 41 funded). This was reported in an EASME study released in August 2016. 

As for ESIF, these funds are mostly implemented in shared management by national authorities, with 
criteria and contents which vary from one Member State to another. They tend to focus to a significant 
extent on major investments with benefits for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth. 

The ERDF is highlighted as being complementary to LIFE, acting as a source of follow-up funding 
after actions piloted in LIFE projects have come to an end. 

69   LIFE00  NAT/F/007277;  LIFE03  NAT/UK/000042;  LIFE03  NAT/SLO/000077;  LIFE05  NAT/D/000056; 

LIFE05 ENV/DK/000155; LIFE07 ENV/D/000222. 

62 

 
 
  
  
                                                            
For  the  EMFF,  coordinating  mechanisms  have  been  established  to  ensure  that  measures  tested  by 
LIFE  (e.g.  more  sustainable  fishing  practices)  are  scaled  up  by  the  EMFF  and  to  address  marine-
related environmental problems in integrated projects.  

5.4.  Relevance 

Q.11.  To  what  extent  are  the  programme  objectives  pertinent  to  the  needs,  problems  and 
issues addressed? 

This  evaluation  question  is  linked  to  Q.14  ‘To  what  extent  do  the  issues  addressed  by  the 
intervention continue to require action at EU level’ and to Q.15 ‘What would be the most likely 
consequences  of  stopping  or  withdrawing  the  existing  EU  intervention’.  To  avoid  repetition, 
more to address this question can be found in the related answers. 

The  fact  that  there  is  a  high  level  of  demand  for  funding  projects  and  at  the  same  time  a 
relatively low level of co-financing compared with other programmes underlines the continued 
interest  in  LIFE70.  Following  the  results  of  the  various  consultations,  the  applicants  choose 
LIFE to submit their proposals even if it meant their projects would be financed at a lower rate 
than in other programmes, because LIFE addresses specific needs which are not addressed by 
other programmes. 

This emerged from the interviews of the beneficiaries and from the questionnaire completed by 
the unsuccessful applicants who consider LIFE funding vital for the realisation of the projects: 
for  example,  one  of  the  respondents  stated  in  the  open  question  section  of  the  public  survey 
that:  ‘I  find that it is  difficult to  find  alternative  funding  programmes  addressing  problems  of 
conservation  and  biodiversity,  i.e.  not  addressed  by  other  funds  on  European,  national  or 
regional level’. 

The  participation  of  a  wide  range  of  beneficiaries  of  LIFE  projects,  which  include  private 
enterprises  (SMEs,  etc.),  public  authorities  and  private  non-commercial  organisations  (see 
Figure 7 above), demonstrates that the programme is capable of answering different needs and 
attracting extremely different stakeholders concerned with climate/environmental policies. 

In  this  respect  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  ‘notes  that  local  and  regional  authorities  are 
amongst  the  main  beneficiaries  of  the  LIFE  programme  and  make  direct  use  of  it  by 
implementing LIFE projects and developing regional and local partnerships. What makes the 
programme attractive to regional and local authorities is the broad range of thematic priorities 
funded, the possibility of cooperating with a large number of stakeholders and the diversity of 
funding models’71. 

The  external  study  shows  that  the  specific  objectives  for  each  priority  area  and  the  thematic 
priorities under the sub-programme for environment are able to address ongoing challenges — 
such as the ones linked to the implementation of the EU biodiversity strategy72 — and recent 

70   On  the  opinion  to  the  European  Commission  on  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  LIFE  (ENVE-VI/016),  the 
Committee of the Regions invites the EC to better align the co-financing rates of LIFE with the rates of other 
both directly and jointly managed EU funding programmes increasing LIFE the co-financing rate in the next 
LIFE programme 

71   ENVE-VI/016, Draft Opinion, Mid-term evaluation of the LIFE programme, Committee of the Regions. 121st 

plenary session, 8-9 February 2017. 

72   The mid-term review of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 concludes that ‘the LIFE programme remains a 

small but highly effective funding source for nature and biodiversity’. 

63 

 
 
 
                                                            
policy  developments,  such  as  the  Sustainable  Development  Goals  (SDG)  —  with  LIFE 
expected to provide a contribution to 11 SDGs (see Annex 7). 

LIFE also contributes to the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, 
because  LIFE  projects  help  to  promote  innovative  environmental  and  climate  technologies, 
develop new beneficial work skills and, to a limited extent, create jobs. 

Box  15.  LIFE  study  contract  on  ‘methods  and  considerations  for  the  determination  of 
greenhouse gas emission reduction objectives for international shipping’ 

On 12 December 2015, the international community agreed in Paris to common objectives to adapt 
to  climate  change  and  mitigate  its  impact.  State  parties  notably  emphasised  the  urgent  need  for 
measures  to  hold  ‘the  increase  in  the  global  average  temperature  to  well  below  2 °C  above  pre-
industrial levels and to pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 1.5 °C above pre-industrial 
levels’.  After  Paris,  discussions  on  greenhouse  gas  reduction  objectives  were  re-opened  at  the 
International  Maritime  Organisation  (IMO).  This  was  triggered  by  submissions  from  the  shipping 
industry of Belgium, Germany, France, Morocco, the Marshall Islands and the Solomon Islands. At 
the  April  2016  session  of  the  Marine  Environment  Protection  Committee  (MEPC),  the  EU,  some 
other developed countries, several small island developing states and a few others supported the calls 
to determine a contribution for shipping to the global efforts to limit climate change and to develop a 
work plan and timetable (as proposed by Belgium and others) to determine shipping’s contribution. 
MEPC adopted a roadmap for the adoption of an IMO comprehensive strategy to reduce greenhouse 
gas  emissions  from  shipping73.  To  define  such  an  emission  reduction  objective  requires  sound 
methodology,  and  a  number  of  issues  (such  as  reduction  potentials  of  technical  and  operational 
measures, cost implications, projections of future growth in world trade, impacts on least developed 
countries, etc.) have to be taken into account to facilitate global agreement.  

The Committee of the Regions, after consultation of its constituency, also confirmed this in the 
recent opinion mentioned above 74 when it said that it ‘believes that the LIFE programme plays 
an  important  role  in  developing  new  solutions  in  the  area  of  environmental  protection  and 
climate,  promoting  eco-innovation  and  building  capacity  for  new  instruments  such  as  green 
infrastructure  and  nature-based  solutions.  The  Committee  of  the  Regions  encourages  the 
Commission  to  continue  this  approach  both  under  the  current  multiannual  programme  and 
after 2020’.    

Procurement  activities  continue  to  support  the  new  and  emerging  needs  related  to  the 
development of the knowledge base and/or related to international development/issues (see Box 
15 for a concrete example). 

Q.11.   To what extent are the programme objectives pertinent to the needs, problems and issues 
addressed? 

As  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  enables  project  beneficiaries  to  tackle  issues  and  problems  which  are  not  covered  by 

73   Although the roadmap does not include specifically a reference to the setting-up of a contribution objective for 
the sector, a number of proposals made in view of the forthcoming meeting at MEPC in July 2017 (sponsored 
by some EU MS, small island developing states, Canada, Japan and key industry representatives) call for the 
inclusion of such a reduction objective in the initial IMO strategy. This is to be developed in 2018, either as a 
binding or aspirational objective. 

74   Ibid. 

64 

 
 
                                                            
other programmes. 

The  objectives  of  the  LIFE  programme  are  highly  relevant  to  ongoing  and  new  challenges  such  as 
those identified in the mid-term review of the EU biodiversity strategy (2015) or in the 2030 Agenda 
for Sustainable Development (in particular, in sustainable development goal 11). 

LIFE also contributes to the Europe 2020 strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth, because 
LIFE  projects  help  to  promote  innovative  environmental  and  climate  technologies,  develop  new 
beneficial work skills and, to a limited extent, create jobs. 

Q.12.  To what extent do stakeholders support the LIFE interventions? 

Among  the  LIFE  stakeholders,  EU  citizens  strongly  support  climate  and  environmental 
policies. The 2015 Eurobarometer survey on the environment reported that: 

   95 % of EU citizens surveyed consider that protecting the environment is important to 
them  personally  and  there  is  a  strong  consensus  on  the  importance  of  environmental 
protection in the European Union. 

   Most  Europeans  think  that  decisions  on  the  environment  should  be  made  not  only  at 

national level but jointly within the EU. 

   Over  three  quarters  of  respondents  (77 %)  agree  that  European  environmental 

legislation is necessary to protect the environment in their country. 

   Over  eight  out  of  ten  respondents  (84 %)  believe  that  more  EU  funding  should  be 

allocated to support environmentally-friendly activities. 

The  importance  attributed  to  the  environment  by  EU  citizens  mirrors  the  appreciation  of  the 
LIFE programme: taking into account the different stakeholder consultations for this mid-term 
evaluation,  all  the  stakeholders  are  supportive  of  what  the  LIFE  programme  does75,  because 
they see it as responding to their needs and providing concrete results. 

The results of the open public consultation show that an overwhelming majority of respondents 
(between  94 %  and  99 %  of  256  respondents)  acknowledges  that  the  LIFE  programme 
addresses environment and climate action needs and that the programme is necessary. 

Different stakeholder groups, in  particular the project beneficiaries and LIFE national  contact 
points,  rate  the  importance  of  the  objectives  that  LIFE  pursues  as  very  high.  They  are  of  the 
view that the programme’s objectives and types of activity are very well suited to the needs in 
the different priority areas. 
In  its  recent  opinion76  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  also  supports  the  LIFE  programme’s 
activities  and  ‘believes  that  LIFE  is  a  small  but  flexible  programme,  with  ambitious 
environmental and climate targets which are not covered directly by other EU programmes or 
are implemented in another area by such programmes. With its support for specific projects at 
regional level, the programme is  an excellent catalyst for carrying out other projects and for 
mobilising  national  and  private  funds  [..]The  Committee  of  the  Regions  ‘reiterates  its  strong 
support for LIFE, as an independent, directly managed funding programme, entirely dedicated 

75   In this specific case the ‘LIFE programme’ could also refer to previous programmes, given that the opinion of 

the stakeholders could be related to their experience with previous LIFE programmes. 

76   Ibid. 

65 

 
 
 
                                                            
to the environment and making a significant impact in terms of creating jobs and growth, to be 
continued after 2020, and for a serious increase in its budget’. 
The European Economic and Social Committee also echoes this opinion77, as can be seen in the 
box below. 

Box  16  —  Extract  from  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee  on  the  Mid-term  evaluation  of  the 
LIFE programme — — NAT/689 

‘’ Over the last 25 years, the LIFE programme has been instrumental in European environmental policy, and 
increasingly  in  sustainability  policy  as  well.  It  is  fair  to  say  that  it  has  become  part  and  parcel  of  the  EU’s 
environmental policy, which it has strengthened considerably. […] LIFE projects have 

directly  contributed  to  achieving  direct  and  tangible  successes:  for  example,  certain  endangered 
species  that  are  protected  under  EU  law  have  been  protected  from  outright  extinction  thanks  to 
projects funded by LIFE; 

given local people an illustration of the positive concepts underlying the EU’s environment policy, and 
the  benefits  of  this  policy  for  people,  nature  and  the  environment.  LIFE  has  thus  become  a  kind  of 
‘bridge’ between EU policy and the ‘Europe of citizens and regions’, which is particularly important at 
a time when the added value of Europe is increasingly being called into question. 

The LIFE programme, which is particularly appreciated for its constant adaptation to new challenges, has also 
demonstrated that there is within civil society great deal of potential and a real willingness to get involved in 
implementing  and  developing 
the  EU’s  environmental  and  sustainable  development  policies.  The 
implementation of EU law is far more than just a legislative act that the Member States have to put into effect. 
Environmental and sustainable development policy stands and falls on public acceptance; it must be publicised 
and made transparent, which is another area where LIFE can make an extremely valuable contribution.[..] 

The  implementation  of  the  UN’s  2030  Agenda  (the  SDGs)  in  European  policy  is  one  of  the  major  challenges 
facing the  EU over  the  next  few  years. LIFE  will  need  to  support this process  [..] in order  to  turn  the  much-
discussed integration of environmental and nature protection in other policy areas into a reality.[..] 

The  permanence  of  the  LIFE  programme  is  paramount  to  the  effectiveness  and  credibility  of  the  EU’s 
environmental policies, which must be safeguarded by the horizontal integration of the 7th Environment Action 
programme,  the  UN’s  sustainability  agenda  and  the  Paris  climate  resolutions  into  all  other  European  policy 
areas and funding programmes. The EESC would point out that it has also repeatedly called for a greener and 
fairer European Semester. […] 

Q.12.    To what extent do stakeholders support the LIFE interventions? 

The importance assigned by the stakeholders helps to show that the programme remains relevant.. 

In  line  with  EU  citizen  support  for  EU  action  on  the  environment,  there  is  strong  evidence  of 
stakeholder support for LIFE activities. The main reasons mentioned to justify such support are that 
the programme responds to their needs and provides concrete results. 

The  results  of  the  public  consultation  show  that  the  LIFE  programme  addresses  environmental  and 
climate  action  needs  and  that  the  programme  is  necessary.  This  position  is  further  echoed  by  the 
European Economic and Social Committee and the European Committee of the Regions. 

77   ‘NAT/689 Halbzeitbewertung des LIFE-Programms’. European Economic and Social Committee. Section for 

Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment. Sustainable Development Observatory. 

66 

 
 
 
 
  
  
 
                                                            
5.5.  EU added value 

Q.13.  What is the additional value resulting from the EU intervention(s), compared to what 
could be achieved by Member States at national and/or regional levels? 

The EU added value of the LIFE programme is embedded in its core target and in its approach 
and focus. This makes its activities especially well-suited to environmental and climate needs. 
This EU added value can be summed up as follows: 

1.  more effective knowledge-sharing: as an EU platform to exchange practices and knowledge 
on implementing EU legislation and policies, LIFE enables players across the EU to learn 
from  each  other’s  experience  in  addressing  specific  environmental  and  climate  problems 
more effectively and efficiently. LIFE attracts partnerships that would otherwise be difficult 
to  set  up,  for  example  providing  capacity-building  to  local  authorities  across  Europe  to 
design and finance integrated strategies to reduce CO2 (and possibly other greenhouse gas) 
emissions  and  adapt  to  climate  risks.  This  includes  information  and  guidance  on  funding 
from  the  European  budget  to  support  the  implementation  of  strategies  (see  Box  13  above 
and Box 17 below). There are often economies of scale in undertaking efforts at EU level 
for  capacity  building,  research,  information  and  data  gathering,  knowledge  transfer, 
exchange of best practice (i.e. by making more green technologies available and known, by 
financing peer reviews, by coordinating cooperation between judges, etc.). 

2.  better distribution of solidarity and responsibility sharing: environmental assets are often of 
a public good nature (environment, climate) and are unevenly  distributed across the EU78. 
LIFE  allows  for  a  better  distribution  of  responsibility  and  solidarity  in  preserving  the  EU 
environmental  common  good.  It  does  this  by  assisting  Member  States  that  have  the  most 
valuable  EU  natural  capital,  disseminating  solutions  and  best  practices  and  promoting 
innovative  environmental  and  climate  change  technologies  (see  Box  1  for  a  concrete 
example). 

3.  better response to trans-boundary or transnational environmental problems, which cannot be 
adequately  addressed  by  Member  States  acting  alone:  for  example,  by  financing  the 
preparation of international conferences (i.e. the Paris agreement), LIFE has helped to reach 
important  commitments  at  international  level  on  the  environment/climate  and  avoid 
coordination failures (see the example in Box 15). 

4.  increased  coherence  of  EU  action:  LIFE  ensures  the  coherence  of  EU  environmental  and 
climate legislation and policies, supporting implementation in Member States. LIFE assists 
Member States in progressing towards common targets through positive incentives (i.e. by 
financing  peer  reviews,  coordinating  cooperation  between  judges,  helping  to  enforce 
environmental and climate legislation and policies in Member States, etc. — see Box 7) and 
negative incentives (fines  —  see Box 19).  Several studies  investigated the contribution  of 
LIFE  projects  to  the  implementation,  dissemination  and  further  development  of  EU 
environmental  policies  and  legislation  across  all  stages  of  the  policy  development  and 

78   Article 8 of the Habitats Directive explicitly links the delivery of conservation measures to the provision of 

EU co-financing. 

67 

 
 
 
                                                            
implementation  process  (see,  for  example,  the  studies  on  LIFE  water79,  waste80  and  soil81 
projects). 

5.  catalyst  and  leverage  effects:  LIFE  acts  as  a  catalyst  for  action,  providing  one-off 
investment  needed  in  a  specific  area,  eliminating  initial  barriers  to  the  implementation  of 
EU  environmental  and  climate  policy  and  testing  new  approaches  for  future  scaling-up. 
LIFE helps Member States and stakeholders to accelerate and improve the implementation 
of EU legislation by creating complementarity and synergies between the LIFE programme 
and  other  Union  funding  programmes  and  national  funds  while  levering  additional  public 
and private sector resources (i.e. integrated projects — see Box 4 for a concrete example). 
LIFE  also raises the  visibility  of  EU  environmental  and  climate  action  and  brings  the  EU 
closer to citizens by showing the EU’s commitment to environmental and climate objectives 
and making those objectives more relevant at national and local level (see Box 9). 

In the case of action grants, EU added value is ensured at all the stages of the project life cycle: 

   The EU added  value is analysed  when the project is  awarded the  grant and  represents 
between 50 and 60 points out of a total of 100 points. Projects have to be of high quality 
individually,  and  their  impact  should  have  a  demonstrated  potential  to  produce  a 
multiplier effect through dissemination and sharing of project results. The results should 
reach a maximum number of policy-makers and stakeholders across the EU. 

   During implementation, monitoring experts check and provide impulse to the project’s 
added  value.  Platform  meetings  and  other  initiatives,  such  as  Green  Week,  are  all 
opportunities where projects are invited to share their experience. 

   At the end of the project, after-LIFE plans are also drawn up to ensure that the results 
are sustainable and to define how the project will continue to disseminate the achieved 
results. 

The LIFE programme’s added value is further confirmed by previous evaluations of LIFE+. 

Box 17 — Example of a traditional project on environmental governance and information 

LIFE-ENPE — European Network of Prosecutors for the Environment (LIFE14 GIE/UK/000043) 

EU contribution: €643 439.00 

Thematic priority: Governance and information 

Coordinating  beneficiary:  Environment  Agency 
(national authority) 

External 
https://www.environmentalprosecutors.eu/ 

link: 

Interpol  and  the  United  Nations  Environment  Programme  estimate  the  cost  of  international  environmental 
crime  to  be  $213  billion  per  year.  This  problem  affects  the  EU  as  it  does  other  regions.  High  levels  of 
environmental  crime  can  be  partly  attributed  to  inefficient  and  ineffective  prosecution  and  sanctioning. 
Wildlife  crime  is  notoriously  difficult  to  prosecute  because  the  law  in  this  area  is  complex  and  because 
criminal circles are small, highly organised, closed and hard to penetrate. Chemical pollution and waste crimes 
also adversely impact biodiversity, and many EU rivers are falling short of Water Framework Directive targets. 

79   Contribution of LIFE ENV/INF/NAT projects to the implementation, dissemination and further development 

of EU environmental policies and legislation. Water sector (2012). 

80   Contribution of LIFE ENV/INF projects to the implementation, dissemination and further development of EU 
environmental  policies  and  legislation,  focusing  in  particular  on  resource  efficiency.  Pilot  study  on  waste 
(2012). 

81   Contribution of LIFE ENV/INF projects to the implementation, dissemination and further development of EU 

environmental policies and legislation. Pilot study on soil. 

68 

 
 
                                                            
Additionally,  large-scale  pollution  incidents  are  complex,  requiring  transnational  cooperation  to  successfully 
prosecute. 

LIFE-ENPE is a 5-year project (starting date 2015). Its objectives are to develop its network and to undertake a 
programme  of  support  for  the  operative  work  of  prosecutors.  It  aims  to  improve  compliance  with  EU 
environmental  law  by  addressing  uneven  and  incomplete  implementation  across  Member  States  through 
improvements to the efficiency and effectiveness of prosecutors and judges in combating environmental crime 
and  fostering  a  greater  culture  of  transnational  cooperation  between  prosecutors  and  judges.  The  England-
based  Environment  Agency  (EA)  in  Bristol  runs  this  project,  which  involves  a  consortium  of  four  other 
partners:  the  European  Union  Forum  of  Judges  for  the  Environment  (EUFJE);  the  Irish  Environmental 
Protection Agency; the Office for Serious Fraud and Environmental Crime of the National Public Prosecutor’s 
Office (FP, Netherlands) and the National Environmental  Crimes Unit at the Swedish Prosecution Authority 
(REMA). 

The Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council on the 
Mid-term review of the LIFE+ Regulation82 stated that the programme achieves added value by 
improving the implementation of EU environmental policy at national, regional or local levels 
and by providing EU-wide exchange of information. Most environmental and climate problems 
in fact are of a cross-border nature and cannot be adequately solved by Member States alone. 
Furthermore,  the  Member  States  note  that  LIFE+  has  been  ‘a  successful  instrument  with 
significant EU added value’83, leading 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 in reductions of CO2 emissions per year84. 

The EU added value of the LIFE programme is largely confirmed by the results of the public 
consultation.  The  overwhelming  majority  of  the  respondents  confirm  that  the  programme  has 
significant EU added value because it: 

responds to European and global environment and climate challenges, which are unlikely 
to be addressed by a Member State alone (98 % of the respondents); 

supports  the  coherent  development,  implementation  and  enforcement  of  EU  environment 
and climate policy and legislation, (98 % of the respondents); 

tackles environmental and climate problems more efficiently (98 % of the respondents); 

preserves EU environmental resources which, even if unevenly distributed across the EU, 
benefit the EU as a whole (94 % of the respondents); 

helps  to  leverage  the  funds  for  environmental  protection  and  climate  action  (97 %  of  the 
respondents), 

82   See Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council ‘Mid Term Review of 

the LIFE+ Regulation. COM(2010) 516 final. 

83   See  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+)’. 
COM/2013/0478 final. 

84   Ibid. 

69 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
                                                            
contributes to EU-wide sharing of ‘best practices’, knowledge transfer, demonstration, and 
awareness-raising (99 % of the respondents). 

Q.13.    What is the additional value resulting from the EU intervention(s), compared to what 
could be achieved by Member States at national and/or regional levels? 

Based  on  the  external  study  findings  and  drawing  on  views  of  all  the  stakeholders,  the  LIFE 
programme  improves  the  implementation  and  enforcement  of  EU  environmental  and  climate  policy 
and  legislation  at  national,  regional  and  local  levels  and  promotes  an  EU-wide  exchange  of 
information. By doing this, the programme provides: 

   more effective knowledge-sharing: as the EU platform to exchange practices and knowledge 
on  implementing  EU  legislation  and  policies,  LIFE  enables  players  across  the  EU  to  learn 
from each other’s experience in addressing specific environmental and climate problems more 
effectively and efficiently; 

a better distribution of solidarity and responsibility sharing: environmental assets are often of 
a public good nature (environment, climate) and are unevenly distributed across the EU; 

a  better  response  to  transboundary  or  transnational  challenges  which  are  unlikely  to  be 
addressed by a Member State alone; 

coherence for EU environmental and climate legislation  and policies by analysing  problems 
and  issues  with  a  comparative  view,  defining  common  targets  and  contributing  to  their 
implementation and enforcement;. 

a  catalyst  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. 

Q.14.   To what extent do the issues addressed by the intervention continue to require action 
at EU level? 

EU environmental and climate policy and legislation are delivering substantial improvements to 
the state of the environment. 

However,  major  environmental  and  climate  challenges  remain.  Only  by  addressing  these 
challenges will Europe be able to harness the full potential linked to an efficient use of available 
resources85. 

As  stated  in  the  LIFE  Regulation,  other  EU  funding  programmes  cannot  address  all  specific 
needs relating to the environment and climate action. 

For  example,  the  evidence  gathered  in  the  recently  finalised  evaluation  (fitness-check)  of  the 
EU  Birds  and  Habitats  Directives86  (the  ‘Nature  Directives’)  confirmed  the  strategic  role  that 
the LIFE programme plays in supporting the implementation of the Directives. 

85   See above for the existing potential related to the reduction of the cost of inaction linked to climate change and 

the savings which could be derived by implementing the circular economy. 

86   The  Bird  Directive  is  the  oldest  piece  of  EU  legislation  on  the  environment  and  one  of  its  cornerstones. 
Amended in 2009, it became Directive 2009/147/EC. Habitat loss and degradation are the most serious threats 

70 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
                                                            
‘Apart  from  the  allocation  under  the  LIFE  programme  there  is  no  earmarking  of  funds  for 
nature and biodiversity under different EU funds and that, as Member States are not obliged to 
fully avail of the opportunities for financing Natura 2000 available under different EU funds, 
this  can  result  in  relatively  low  levels  of  allocation  in  the  context  of  national  programmes. 
Furthermore  it  reports  that  limited  information  is  available  about  how  efficiently  the  EU 
available  funding  instruments  are  delivering  outcomes  that  help  achieve  the  objectives  of  the 
Directives. An exception is represented by the LIFE fund, whose projects are closely monitored 
in relation to delivery of results in the implementation of the Nature directives’87. 

LIFE  therefore  remains  the  key  funding  instrument  that  most  focuses  on  supporting 
implementation  of  the  Nature  Directives  (especially  for  Natura  2000)  through  demonstration 
and  best  practice  projects.  The  programme  also  expands  the  knowledge  base  to  enable  more 
informed decision-making on measures and targets. 

Grants and procurement activities under LIFE aim at addressing these needs (see the example in 
the box below). 

According  to  the  public  consultation,  very  little  of  what  LIFE  projects  have  achieved  would 
have been possible without the programme’s support, in particular for nature and biodiversity. 

On this, see also the European Economic and Social Committee opinion in Box 16. 

Box  18.  Modelling  of  biophysical  and  economic  impacts  of  EU  water  policy  implementation 
scenarios (hydro-economic modelling) 

This  contract  will  ensure  the  direct  input  of  crucial  knowledge  and  expertise  in  policy  evaluation  (the 
refit/review  of  the  Water  Framework  Directive)  and  policy  formulation  (future  Water  Framework 
Directive implementation support strategy on which the Directorate-General for Environment will work 
in parallel with the Water Framework Directive review). 

In particular, it will provide the resources to: 

1. continue ongoing hydro-economic modelling work and strengthen it; 

2. ensure  continuous  support  for  the  tender  to  develop  an  integrated  policy  assessment  method  and 
software  linked  to  models  of  the  freshwater  and  marine  environment  and  to  assess  the  economic 
benefits of EU water policy and the costs of its non-implementation (BLUE2 Study). 

Q.14. To what extent do the issues addressed by the intervention continue to require action at EU 
level? 

LIFE is the only EU programme which has a core focus on environment and climate action. 

The  other  EU  funding  programmes  do  not  address  all  specific  needs  relating  to  the  environment  and 
climate action. 

This  makes  LIFE  the  key  funding  instrument  to  address  some  crucial  challenges  such  as  the  existing 
gaps in the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives. 

to the conservation of wild birds, of which 500 species live in Europe and one third of the population is not in 
good  condition.  The  Directive  therefore  places  great  emphasis  on  protecting  habitats  for  endangered  and 
migratory species. It establishes a network of Special Protection Areas (SPAs) including all the most suitable 
territories for these species. Since 1994, all SPAs are included in the Natura 2000 ecological network, set up 
under the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. 

87Commission  staff  working  paper,  Fitness  check  of  the  EU  Nature  Legislation  (Birds  and  Habitats 
Directives),SWD(2016) 472 final, pg. 52. 

71 

 
 
  
                                                                                                                                                                                             
According to the recent fitness-check, LIFE plays a strategic role in implementing the Directives. 

This is confirmed by the results of the public consultation, which highlight that very little of what LIFE 
projects  have  achieved  would  have  been  possible  without  the  programme’s  support,  in  particular  for 
nature and biodiversity. 

Natural  capital  is  not  distributed  equally  across  Member  States  but  it  is  an  EU  common  asset  which 
provides shared benefits. This implies the need of an action at EU level and confirms the relevance of 
the programme for solidarity and responsibility-sharing on natural capital resources. 

Q.15.  What would be the most likely consequences of stopping or withdrawing the existing 
EU intervention? 

The evaluation results of LIFE + highlighted that according to many applicants the programme 
was a key funding mechanism for promoting and implementing nature conservation throughout 
the EU since its primary objective was protecting nature. They noted that in other programmes 
this  objective  was  secondary.  LIFE+  helped  to  adopt  management  plans,  restore  valuable 
habitats,  recover  emblematic  species  and  develop  the  Natura2000  network.  It  also  helped  to 
create collaborative platforms that enhance partnerships and therefore facilitate the transfer of 
best  practice  between  stakeholders  and  decision-makers.  The  biodiversity  strand  was  an 
important instrument to finance the implementation of the biodiversity action plan with a focus 
on the conservation of biodiversity at large88.  

Furthermore,  according  to  most  of  the  external  monitoring  experts  and  national  and  regional 
contact points consulted (97 % and 79 % of 59 and 41 respondents respectively), very little of 
what  the  LIFE  projects  have  achieved  would  have  been  launched  or  achieved  without  the 
programme’s support. This is also confirmed by other stakeholders. 

As underlined by the project beneficiaries during the interviews, LIFE is the EU funding source 
devoted specifically to the environment.  

Two  thirds  of  the  stakeholders  also  believe  that  the  main  consequences  of  stopping  or 
withdrawing  LIFE  activities  would  be  mostly  negative.  According  to  them,  discontinuing  the 
LIFE  programme  would  have  major  consequences,  as  several  environmental  and  climate-
specific  needs  will  be  not  addressed  by  other  EU  financial  instruments.  In  addition,  the 
following issues were mentioned in relation to a discontinuation of the programme: 

   Member  States’  capacity  —  and  in  some  cases  commitment  —  to  pursue  the  EU’s 

objectives on environmental protection and climate action would be reduced; 

the impact on employment and economic growth would be negative; and 
there would be less support for innovative environmental solutions89. 

The  end  of  LIFE  support  would  have  serious  consequences,  particularly  for  NGOs  which 
receive  operating  grants  covering  a  maximum  of  70 %  financing  of  their  annual  work 
programme.  These  organisations  are  of  key  importance  when  it  comes  to  developing 

88   Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council ‘Mid Term Review of the 

LIFE+ Regulation. COM(2010) 516 final. 

89   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’. 

72 

 
 
  
  
                                                            
environmental and climate legislation and policies. Without alternative funds, they would have 
to downsize their activities. 

Box.  19.  Support  to  the  Commission  on  analysis  of  information  and  related  follow-up  to  the 
fulfilment of the requirements of EU water legislation 

The Commission has conducted several assessments of Member State implementation of the Water 
Framework  Directive  and  its  related  directives  on  groundwater  and  priority  substances.  These 
assessments  have  highlighted  many  gaps/shortcomings  in  the  implementation  of  legislation.  In 
response, the Commission published recommendations for improvement in view of the 2016 update 
of the river basin management plans (RBMPs). When these recommendations are not followed up or 
accepted,  the  Commission  undertakes  legal  action  where  necessary.  However,  before  seizing  the 
Court  with  an  infringement,  the  Commission  has  to  conduct  the  pre-litigation  phase  from  the  so 
called  ‘pilots’  to  reasoned  opinions.  In  these  exchanges  with  the  Member  State  concerned,  the 
Commission seeks further detailed or additional clarification on a specific issue or group of issues. 
Pilot  cases  may  also  be  opened  by  the  Commission  following  a  complaint  from  the  public  or  a 
European  institution,  to  which  the  Commission  must  be  able  to  respond.  In  this  context,  large 
amounts of information are exchanged, at times only in the language of the Member State concerned. 
The  Commission  needs  technical  assistance  to  help  assess  the  information  at  issue  and  prepare  its 
reaction to the Member State’s submissions. The Commission also regularly receives complaints or 
petitions that involve analysis of large volumes of information claiming bad implementation of EU 
water  legislation.  The  technical  assistance  should  help  the  Commission  to  assess  whether  such 
complaints are well founded.  

For the procurement activities, the absence of LIFE funds would imply that other possibilities 
would  have  to  be  found  to  finance  the  activities  needed  to  fulfil  commitments  to 
environmental/climate  legislation  and  policies  and/or  to  fulfil  international  commitments  (see 
box  below).  One  may  ask  if  it  would  be  suitable  to  have  such  funding  through  programmes 
whose primary objective is not environment or climate action. 

Q.15. What would be the most likely consequences of stopping or withdrawing the existing EU 
intervention? 

According to the public consultation, very little of what LIFE projects have achieved would have been 
possible without the programme’s support, in particular on nature and biodiversity. 

Discontinuing  the  LIFE  programme  would  have  major  consequences,  as  several  environmental  and 
climate-specific  needs  would  not  be  addressed  by  other  EU  financial  instruments.  In  particular, 
stopping  the  LIFE  programme  would  reduce  Member  States’  capacity  —  and  in  some  cases 
commitment  —  to  pursue  the  EU’s  objectives  on  environmental  protection  and  climate  action  and 
would affect related economic growth and employment. It would also reduce the support to innovative 
environmental solutions 

Stopping or withdrawing the existing LIFE activities would reduce the capacity of NGOs to advocate 
environmental protection and climate action. 

Other  sources  of  funding  would  be  needed  for  certain  procurement  activities  that  allow  the 
Commission to fulfil existing commitments at EU and international level. 

5.6.  Project sustainability, impact and/or replicability to date 

Q.16.  To what extent are the positive effects of projects likely to last after EU funding ends, 
especially the demonstration effect and what is the scope for replication of the projects? 

The  final  evaluation  of  LIFE+  showed  that  ‘many  projects  demonstrated  technical  feasibility 
and to be economically viable, however there is evidence that the demonstration potential being 

73 

 
 
 
present  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 extent90’. 

This is why the current procedures for implementing the LIFE programme pay special attention 
to the potential of projects to be sustainable/replicable in different stages of the project life: 

1.  During  the  award  process,  the  multiplier  effect  of  the  projects,  namely  their  potential  for 
replicability and/or transferability, is assessed on the basis of a specialised award criterion91. 
Projects which do not anticipate results which can be replicated/transferred or which do not 
include an adequate strategy for this replication/ transfer to materialise, will not be awarded 
the grant. For the LIFE environment and climate mitigation projects in particular, this has 
resulted  in  a  shift  toward  close-to-the-market  projects92  which  are  meant  to  contribute  to 
innovative solutions on water, waste, air, chemicals and resource efficiency. This makes it 
possible to promote  innovative eco-products/processes which could be discouraged by the 
market rules (see Box 20 below). 

Box 20. Example of a traditional project on environment and resource efficiency 

LIFE BIOPOL — Production of leather-making biopolymers from biomasses and industrial by-products, 
through life cycle designed processes (LIFE15 ENV/IT/000654) 

Total budget: €3 879 018.00  

EU contribution: €2 147 863.00 

Thematic priority: Waste 

External link: http://www.codyeco.com/biopol.html 

Coordinating  beneficiary:  CODYECO  SPA  (private 
company) 

LIFE  BIOPOL  is  a  close  fit  with  the  goals  of  EU  circular  economy  policy.  It  will  demonstrate 
industrial  symbiosis  by  designing,  building  and  validating  an  industrial  pilot  plant  to  recycle  waste 
biomass from the leather treatment process and agro-food industries, turning it into new biopolymers 
for leather tanning and fat-liquoring applications. 

The  new  process  will  also  allow  the  substitution  of  hazardous  chemicals  currently  used  in  leather 
tanning. 

2.  During  the  implementation  of  the  projects,  platform  meetings  are  organised  to  encourage 
replication and transfer results between beneficiaries or with other stakeholders. In specific 
cases, selected beneficiaries are offered the opportunity to present their investment plans to 
potential investors. Some platform meetings have already taken place. 

90   Ex-Post  Evaluation  of  Projects  and  Activities  Financed  under  the  LIFE  Programme.  Final  Report.  Part  6: 

Conclusions and Recommendations, page 6. 

91   For the award criterion ‘EU added value: replicability and transferability’ 10 points out of 100 can be given, 
with a minimum pass score of 5 points. Replicability and transferability are the potential the project has to be 
replicated  and  transferred  during  and  after  its  implementation.  Successful  replication  and  transferability 
require a strategy that includes tasks to multiply the impacts of the projects’ solutions and mobilise a wider 
uptake. The aim is to reach a critical mass during the project and/or in a short and medium-term perspective 
after the end of the LIFE project. This goes beyond transfer of knowledge and networking. It involves putting 
the techniques, methods or strategies developed or applied in the project into practice elsewhere. 

92   Projects with technology readiness level (TRL) equal or higher than 7. . 

74 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
A  close-to-market  task  force  has  been  set  up  within  the  LIFE  unit  of  EASME.  The  first 
result  is  a  number  of  ongoing  activities  to  reinforce  the  framework  to  help  promising 
projects reach the market by, e.g.: 

creating  a  framework  to  attract  investors  for  the  continuation  of  projects  and  using 
business coaching to help the projects with market uptake; 

   using  the  Europe  Enterprise  Network  (EEN)  to  support  LIFE  close-to-market  projects 

(C2M) and to diffuse information about the LIFE programme93;  

establishing  cooperation  in  the  framework  of  the  European  Fund  for  Strategic 
Investment  (EFSI)  to  tunnel  promising  projects  benefiting  from  various  EU-
programmes,  including  LIFE,  to  the  European  Investment  Project  Portal  (EIPP).  The 
aims is to increase the visibility of projects to possible investors and business partners, 
diversify financing sources, support project screening processes, etc. 

3.  The sustainability/replicability/transferability is also checked/encouraged by the monitoring 
team  and  Commission  officials  just  before  the  end  of  the  project.  The  beneficiaries  are 
asked to draft an ‘after-LIFE’ plan, detailing how the project activities will continue when 
LIFE  funding  ends.  The  impact  of  these  plans  cannot  be  assessed  at  this  stage  of  the 
programme, but the plans have proved to be effective for LIFE+ projects. 

A recent report94 shows that on average 83 % of projects are sustainable95 after the end of LIFE 
funding and three quarters have good potential for replication. 

According to this report, sustainability and replicability are highly correlated and, based on an 
econometric analysis, there are some variables that affect them both such as: 

the number of project partners: a higher number of (associated) partners has a significantly 
negative  impact  on  sustainability  and  replicability,  as  it  probably  complicates  the 
management  of  the  project  after  the  grant  period.  Therefore,  smaller  partnerships  that  are 
easier to manage have a greater chance of successful replication; 

the  level  of  innovation  shows  a  non-linear  (U-shaped)  relation  with  sustainability  and 
replicability.  This  implies  an  optimal  region  of  values  that  maximises  the  variable’s 
influence on the project’s potential to be sustainable and replicable: in a scale of innovation 
of 0 to 9, the peak influence is obtained around a value of 7.4 and, in the case of prototypes, 
a middle value gives the highest positive influence on both sustainability and replicability; 

the  amounts  spent  on  prototypes:  projects  that  either  do  not  focus  on  prototypes  at  all,  or 
focus on them heavily, tend to be both more sustainable and more replicable. Projects that 

93   On-going activities are, for example, the presentation of the LIFE programme and the 2017 call at the EEN 
Environmental  Sector  Group  in  Berlin  (March  2017);  a  presentation  to  EEN  Circular  Economy  Thematic 
Group  in  Brussels  (autumn  2017),  and  ongoing  work  with  the  EEN  communication  team  to  promote  LIFE 
calls and the C2M dimension. 

94   Report on LIFE past, present and future contribution to employment and economic growth: LIFE effectiveness 
and replicability. NEEMO 2016. This analysis is based on LIFE+ projects and does not take into account the 
expected improvements in the current LIFE programme. 

95    Sustainability  is  perceived  as  the  ability  to  continue  or  to  follow  up  on  the  activities  performed  during  the 
project’s life; i.e. it is 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. 

75 

 
 
  
  
  
  
  
                                                            
focus  on  prototypes  heavily  are  the  most  sustainable  and  replicable96.  On  the  contrary, 
projects perceiving any prototype only as a by-product of their primary activities or where 
prototype  construction  is  not  their  primary  point  of  focus  are  the  most  likely  to  be  less 
sustainable and replicable. 

Concerning sustainability and replicability separately, the report97 mentions that: 

-  The duration of the projects exhibits a hump-shaped effect, meaning that extremely short or 

too long lasting projects tend to be less sustainable. 

-  Projects in which personnel costs represent ca. 50 % of the overall budget are, on average, 
more replicable. Reversely, projects either too reliant on the personnel budget or not enough 
are more likely to be less replicable. 

-   In  terms  of  the  economic  sector,  projects  relevant  for  the  manufacturing  and  construction 
sectors  are  significantly  more  sustainable  as  these  are  more  performance  and  output- 
oriented. Similarly, the share of infrastructure costs out of the total costs is positively linked 
to the level of replicability. 

-  Water  projects  show  positive  sustainability,  while  health  sector  projects  are  significantly 
more replicable, probably because their goal usually matches global and currently relevant 
issues which makes it easier to get sufficient financing for them. 

- 

In contrast, energy and waste projects are shown to have a lower level of replication as they 
might  be  constrained  by  institutional  and  legal  boundaries  specific  to  individual  countries 
and the market structure (including disruptions such as a monopoly, lobby, etc.). 

The data on the overall sustainability and replicability are confirmed by the responses collected 
during  the  survey.  They  reveal  that for  the  majority  (78 %)  there is  either  good  or  very  good 
potential for demonstrating and transferring the results of LIFE projects. 

Most  of  the  new  LIFE  projects  analysed  in  the  external  study  are  planning  a  follow-up  by 
transferring project activities to new entities or projects, new sectors or different geographical 
areas. As for the related funds, interviews of about 70 project beneficiaries revealed that 40 % 
of them report that they will/already have attract(ed) funding to further develop project results 
after the end of EU funding. 

Box  21  —  Example  of  a  LIFE  traditional  project  on  climate  change  adaptation:  climate-
resilient construction materials with a market potential 

Total budget  

€2 476 158.00  

Thematic priority: Climate change adaptation 

EU contribution  €1 442 784.00  

External link: http://www.lifeherotile.eu/ 

Coordinating beneficiary:  Industrie  Cotto  Possagno 
S.p.A. (private company) 

The  overall  objective  of  the  LIFE  HEROTILE  project  (LIFE14  CCA/IT/000939)  is  to  design  and 
produce two types of roof tiles (Marseille and Portuguese roof tiles, which cover more than 60 % of 
pitched roofs in Europe) with a shape characterised by higher air permeability through the overlap of 

96   However, this data should be regarded with caution because the substance of high prototype costs is driven by 

only a limited number of projects of the dataset. 

97   Report on LIFE past, present and future contribution to employment and economic growth: LIFE effectiveness 

and replicability. . 

76 

 
 
                                                            
the tiles and improved energy performance through under-tile ventilation. 

The  project’s  ultimate  aim  is  to  demonstrate  that  the  designed  tiles  can  help  cool  buildings  while 
saving up to 50 % of the energy used for cooling. 

The  tiles  are  tested  in  real  environments  in  the  Mediterranean  region  (Italy  and  Israel)  to  compare 
performances with standard rooftop materials. This includes comparing rates of heat disposal in the 
summer season. The next steps include implementation of a pilot plant for tiles production.   

The project has also developed practical and free software for architects and technicians to model the 
energy performance of buildings by changing only the roof configuration.  

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

The consultations revealed, however, that obstacles to a project’s continuation after its end are 
related  to  the  lack  of  beneficiaries’  financial  resources.  This  is  combined  with  a  lack  of 
capacity/human  resources  for  planning  an  investment  (including  possible  loans),  a  lack  of 
interest  and  sense  of  urgency  from  decision-makers  and  a  lack  of  information  and 
communication within the programme. 

Although ‘after-LIFE’ plans are 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  the  most  promising  ones  could  allow  the  replication/sustainability  potential  to 
further materialise. 

Q.16.   To  what extent  are the positive effects of  projects likely to last after EU funding ends, 
especially the demonstration effect, and what is the scope for replication of the projects? 

Following  the  final  evaluation  of  LIFE+  which  showed  a  need  to  understand  the  full demonstration 
potential, considerable attention is paid to project  sustainability and replicability in all phases of the 
project cycle. 

A recent report shows that on average 83 % of projects are sustainable after the end of LIFE funding 
and three quarters have a good potential for replication. 

According  to  this  report,  sustainability  and  replicability  are  highly  correlated  and,  based  on  an 
econometric analysis, there are some variables — such as the number of project partners, the level of 
innovation,  the  investment  in  prototypes  —  which  affect  them  both.  Further  variables  relevant  for 
sustainability or replicability are the duration of the project, the share of personnel costs, the economic 
sector in which they operate. 

This is confirmed by the result of the external study: most of the projects analysed envisage a follow-
up by transferring project activities to new entities or projects, new sectors or different geographical 
areas.  As  for  the  related  funds,  the  interviews  of  about  70  LIFE  project  beneficiaries  revealed  that 
40 % of them report that they will/already have attract(ed) funding to further develop project results 
after the end of EU funding. 

Moreover, the consultations revealed that obstacles to a project’s continuation after EU funding ends 
are  related  to  beneficiaries  lacking  financial  resources.  This  is  combined  with  a  lack  of 
capacity/human resources for planning an investment (including possible loans), a lack of interest and 
a  sense  of  urgency  from  decision-makers  and  a  lack  of  information  and  communication  within  the 
programme. 

In this respect, LIFE projects could have a greater potential for replication, in particular, if there were 
a systematic follow-up of all projects and comprehensive support for the most promising ones. 

77 

 
 
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 this mid-term evaluation has focused mainly on the processes put in place to reach 
the programme’s 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 shows that the LIFE programme is on track to being: 

- 

effective,  because it is well placed to meet the stated targets and deliver on environmental 
and  climate  objectives,  thus  contributing  to  the  Europe  2020  strategy.  Ongoing  projects 
expect  to  reach  70 %  of  the  milestones  envisaged  for  2017.  They  are  doing  this  by,  for 
example,  targeting  the  improvement  of  the conservation  status  of  59  habitats,  114  species 
and 85 Natura 2000 sites. The evidence gathered in the recently finalised evaluation of the 
Birds  and  Habitats  Directives  (fitness-check)  confirmed  the  strategic  role  that  the  LIFE 
programme plays in supporting the Directives’ implementation. 

The  new  features  introduced  by  the  LIFE  Regulation  —  especially  the  sub-programme 
devoted  to  climate  action  and  the  integrated  projects  —  are  seen  to  respond  to  existing 
needs and to improve the programme’s effectiveness. 

efficient, because the projects are expected to provide value for money. It is estimated that 
the benefit to society of some of the projects selected following the 2014 call for proposals 
will  amount  to  EUR  1.7  billion,  which  represents  four  times  the  cost  of  the  overall  LIFE 
budget for 2014.   

Moreover,  the  transfer  of  most  of  the  grant  management  from  the  Commission  to  the 
executive  agency  EASME  is  exceeding  the  expected  efficiency  gain  of  EUR  8.2  million 
initially planned for 2014-2020. 

The complementary financial resources mobilised by the integrated projects are extremely 
high, thus confirming that the programme is playing the role of catalyser very well. 

Taking  into  account  the  low  error  rate,  the  funds  are  being  used  so  far  according  to  the 
rules. 

   relevant, because the ongoing projects address some crucial challenges such as halting the 
loss  of  biodiversity,  deriving  savings  from  the  circular  economy,  reducing  the  costs  of 
inaction related to the consequences and effects of environmental degradation and climate 
change. 

LIFE  is  consistent  with  EU  policies  and  priorities,  covering  the  most  relevant  topics  on 
climate and environment, and being the framework in which some of the most recent policy 
developments — such as the circular economy package and the targets of the 2030 climate 
and energy framework -, have been prepared. It is also contributing to innovation and job 
creation, although these are not its primary aim. 

LIFE is a flexible instrument, which finances projects of different sizes and is able to attract 
large  and  small  enterprises,  universities,  research  centres,  national  and  local  authorities, 
civil society as well as various non-governmental organisations. As demonstrated recently 

78 

 
 
  
with the European Solidarity Corps98, which includes a specific environmental strand, LIFE 
is able to react very quickly on many political and societal needs. 

- 

complementary  to  other  programmes,  as  the  potential  overlaps  are  limited  and  there  are 
documented  synergies:  LIFE  has  encouraged  using  the  results  of  the  projects  financed  by 
research  programmes  and  are  further  developing  and  disseminating  the  results  of  LIFE 
projects via the  European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). 

The  existence  of  synergies  between  the  projects  of  the  different  priority  areas  has  been 
documented. 

Moreover,  the  LIFE  programme  shows  a  substantial  and  unanimously  recognised  EU  added 
value, because it helps to make the application of EU environmental and climate legislation and 
policies  is  consistent  across  the  EU.  It  provides  a  way  to  respond  effectively  to  cross-border 
challenges  which  a  Member  State  is  unlikely  to  address  alone.  Initial  evidence  also  confirms 
that the programme is successfully playing its role of catalyst, promoting activities to exchange 
best  practice  and  knowledge  and  to  improve  the  utilisation  of  project  results  as  well  as  the 
transfer of know-how. 

Projects show a good potential for sustainability and replicability and good value for money, 
as  they  are  addressing  the  reduction  of  emissions  and  energy  consumption  and  promoting 
biodiversity activities by improving species conservation status. 

The evaluation also highlights aspects which need to be improved. This involves: 

- 

- 

simplifying  grant  management  procedures,  in  particular  the  application  and  reporting 
processes; 

increasing the strategic focus of the demand-driven part of the programme, e.g. by targeting 
topics not covered by the projects funded in previous years; 

-  doing  more  to  reproduce  the  projects  and  transfer  their  results,  e.g.  by  developing  the 
capacity to plan and implement investments and addressing the lack of financial resources; 

- 

improving  the  communication  strategy  to  better  target  audiences,  deliver  more  objective-
specific and target-specific key messages and ensure more structured coordination between 
players. 

The results of the LIFE mid-term evaluation exercise will help to improve these aspects under 
the  next  multiannual  work  programme  (MAWP  2018-2020)  and  in  the  next  multiannual 
financial framework. 

98  

 See COM(2016)942 final. 

79 

 
 
                                                            
Annexes 

Annex 1: Procedural information concerning the process to prepare the evaluation ................. 77 

Annex 2: Requirements for the Mid Term Evaluation set out in the LIFE Regulation .................. 79 

Annex 3: Methods ........................................................................................................................... 81 

Annex 4: Synopsis report on the Stakeholder consultation .......................................................... 85 

Annex 5: Table of assessment of indicators against targets .......................................................... 91 

Annex 6: Total amount non-deductible VAT reimbursed per Member State ............................... 96 

Annex 7: LIFE's Programme contribution to Sustainable Development Goals ............................. 97 

80 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 1: Procedural information concerning the process to prepare the evaluation 

Lead DG: European Commission Directorate General Environment, DG ENV 

Co Chef de File: European Commission Directorate General Climate Action, DG CLIMA 

Agenda planning reference: ENV/2017/001 

Organisation: 

Preparation  for  the  evaluation  began  on  July  2015.  The  initial  phase  of  the  evaluation  focused  on  the 
preparation  of the Evaluation  Roadmap that was finalized at the  end of July, after the approval  of the 
Inter-service Steering Group and published in October 201599 by the Secretariat General. Immediately 
after the approval of the Roadmap, the preparation of the terms of reference for carrying out the external 
and  independent  mid-  term  evaluation  of  the  LIFE  Programme  started.    The  drafting  of  the  terms  of 
reference involved a large number of colleagues from different DG ENV units and from DG CLIMA as 
well as the European executive agency on small and medium sized enterprise. Finally it was approved 
by the Inter-service Steering Group in December and a service request under a framework contract was 
launched towards the end of 2015100. The service contract was awarded to a consortium of experts led by 
ECORYS and the contract was signed on March 2016 with duration of ten months (end of the contract: 
21 January 2017) 

The findings come from several major sources: the draft final report of the mid-term evaluation carried 
out  by  the  contractor,  the  impact  assessment  of  the  LIFE  Programme,  two  databases  used  by  the 
Commission  services  for  the  technical  and  financial  management  of  the  applications  and  the  LIFE 
projects  and  the  online  database  of  the  LIFE  projects.    The  indicator  database  was  as  well  a  major 
source.  

A Steering Group of relevant Commission Services was established to oversee the evaluation and had 
contacts  throughout  the  entire  evaluation  period.    The  Steering  Group  was  composed  of  DG  ENV, 
CLIMA, GROW, AGRI, RTD, ECFIN, BUDG, REGIO, ENER, ECHO, SG and EASME.  The task of 
the  Steering  Group  was  to  check  the  key  elements  of  the  service  contract,  to  support  and monitor  the 
evidence gathering and stakeholder consultation process, to review the draft evaluation report as well as 
the  Commission  draft  staff  working  document  and  to  assist  with  the  quality  assessment  of  the 
contractor's evaluation report. 

Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

The Regulatory Scrutiny Board has discussed the file at its meeting on the 15 February 2017 and issued 
a  positive  opinion  on  the  17th  February  2017.101  The  Board  highlighted  aspects  for  improvement: 
addressing  a  number  of  key  shortcomings,  using  the  information  from  the  evaluation  study  and 
incorporating the longer-term results of the LIFE+ programme. 

The  main  considerations  of  the  Board  were  in  relation  to  design  and  methodology,  effectiveness, 
efficiency, simplification, coherence and EU added value. 

All the issues identified by the Board have been taken into account when finalising the Staff Working 
Document 

99 http://ec.europa.eu/smart-regulation/roadmaps/docs/2017_env_001_evaluation_life_mt_en.pdf 

100  SPECIFIC  CONTRACT  No  07.020300/2016/SI2.727892/SER/E.4implementing  Framework  contract 

ENV.F.l/FRA/2014/0063 

101 Ref Ares(2017)892697 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
RSB comment 

Action taken 

Where in the SWD 

Better  explain  and  justify  the 
scope of the mid-term evaluation 
and  why  it  does  not  address  all 
the questions of the MFF 

 To  provide  evidence  as 
to 
whether  and  how  the  LIFE 
Programme  has  achieved  a 
strategic  focus  (e.g.  in  thematic 
priorities, programme structure, 
multiannual work programme).  

To demonstrate the catalytic role 
of the LIFE Programme  

To  provide  a  full  analysis  of  the 
actual 
Programme's 
its 
implementation  costs  or 
simplification 
(e.g. 
lump 
selection 
procedure) 

sums,  VAT, 

potential 

To  explain  the  EU  added  value 
of the LIFE Programme and the 
synergies  with  other  funding 
programmes 

Introduction, 
play, 
state 
effectiveness,  sustainability,  EU 
added value 

of 

Implementation 
Paragraph 5.1 

state  of  play 

Paragraph  2.2.Problems  that  LIFE 
paragraph  
intends 
solve; 
to 
the  LIFE 
2.3.Background  of 
Programme; 
effectiveness 
paragraph 6.1,   

Efficiency 

EU  added  value,  paragraph  6.5. 
and coherence, paragraph 6.3  

The  scope  of  the  MTE  has  been 
made  clearer  and  where  possible 
LIFE  +  examples  have  been 
brought  up  to  support  evidence  of 
the continuity between LIFE+ and 
LIFE. Given that more than half of 
the  LIFE+  projects  are  underway, 
the  long  term  effect  of  LIFE+ 
cannot be fully covered. However, 
where  possible,  the  results  of  the 
LIFE+  project  and  the  anticipated 
long 
term  effect  have  been 
included  in  the  Staff  Working 
Document. 

the  LIFE 

The  effectiveness  part  has  been 
expanded  to  adequately  explain 
Programme 
how 
strategic  focus 
is  ensured.  An 
assessment on the effectiveness of 
the  pre-allocation  of  funding  has 
been also carried out.   

More  information  and  concrete 
examples  have  been  used 
to 
demonstrate  the  catalytic  role  of 
the LIFE Programme in mobilising 
additional  funding  (with  IPs  and 
projects), 
traditional 
LIFE+ 
and 
environmental 
integrating 
climate  objectives 
into  other 
policies  (with  nature  traditional 
projects),  and  in  spreading  good 
in  particular  under 
practices 
effectiveness 
(replicability  and 
continuation) 

The  discussion  of  simplification 
potential  has  been  strengthened 
and  the  analyses  of  the  actual 
implementation  costs  have  been 
reported. 

The section on the EU added value 
has  been  expanded  and  new 
examples  have  been  provided. 
LIFE  +  traditional  projects  have 
the 
been  also  used 
past 
continuity 
with 
of 
Programme. 

to  show 
the 
Examples 

82 

 
 
 
 
synergies  with  other  EU  funding 
programmes have been included in 
the SWD. 

Annex 2: Requirements for the Mid Term Evaluation set out in the LIFE Regulation 

Extract from  the Regulation  (Eu) No 1293/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 
December 2013 on the establishment of a Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) 
and repealing Regulation (EC) No 614/2007 

Recital 38: 

With a view to simplifying the LIFE Programme and reducing the administrative burden for applicants 
and  beneficiaries,  more  use  should  be  made  of  flat  rates  and  lump  sums  without  compromising  the 
eligibility  of  VAT  and  of  permanent  staff  costs  under  the  conditions  laid  down  by  Regulation  (EU, 
Euratom)  No  966/2012.  As  per  current  practice,  the  sum  of  the  public  organisations'  (as  coordinating 
beneficiary and/or associated beneficiary) contributions to the project should exceed by at least 2 % the 
sum of the salary costs of the personnel of national administrations charged to the project. Union funds 
should  not  be  used  to  subsidize  national  budgets,  for  example,  to  cover  VAT  costs.  However,  only 
limited information  is available on the amounts of Union  funds used to cover VAT. The  Commission 
should,  therefore,  provide  an  overview,  in  the  mid-term  and  ex-  post  evaluations  of  the  LIFE 
Programme,  of  VAT  reimbursements  per  Member  State  that  project  beneficiaries  under  the  LIFE 
Programme have requested at the final payment stage. 

Relevant articles: 

Art. 9 

2. [..]The Commission shall review and, if necessary, revise the thematic priorities set out in Annex III 
at the latest by the mid-term evaluation of the LIFE Programme referred to in point (a) of Article 27(2). 

Art. 17 

5.  A  maximum  of  30  %  of  the  budgetary  resources  allocated  to  action  grants  in  accordance  with 
paragraph 4 may be allocated to integrated projects. That maximum percentage shall be re-evaluated in 
the  framework  of  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  LIFE  Programme  referred  to  in  point  (a)  of  Article 
27(2) and accompanied, if appropriate, by a legislative proposal 

Art 20 

2 […]The Commission shall provide an overview, in the mid-term and ex-post evaluations of the LIFE 
Programme,  of  VAT  reimbursements  per  Member  State  that  project  beneficiaries  under  the  LIFE 
Programme have requested at the final payment stage. 

Art. 24,  

4. The Commission shall, by means of an implementing act, review the multiannual work programme at 
the latest by the mid-term evaluation of the LIFE Programme. That implementing act shall be adopted in 
accordance with the examination procedure referred to in Article 30(2). 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Art. 27 

2. The Commission shall submit to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and 
Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions the following reports: 

its  sub-programmes), 

including  qualitative  and  quantitative  aspects  of 

(a)  no  later  than  30  June  2017,  an  external  and  independent  mid-term  evaluation  report  of  the  LIFE 
its 
Programme  (and 
implementation,  the  amount  of  climate-related  expenditure  and  biodiversity-related  expenditure,  the 
extent to which synergies between the objectives have been reached, and its complementarity with other 
relevant Union programmes, the achievement of the objectives of all the measures (at the level of results 
and  impacts,  when  possible),  the  efficiency  of  the  use  of  resources  and  the  Union  added  value  of  the 
Programme,  with  a  view  to  taking  a  decision  on  the  renewal,  modification  or  suspension  of  the 
measures.  That  mid-term  evaluation  report  shall  also  include  a  quantitative  and  qualitative analysis  of 
the contribution of the LIFE Programme to the conservation status of habitats and species listed under 
Directives  92/43/EEC  and  2009/147/EC.  The  evaluation  shall  additionally  address  the  scope  for 
simplification, its internal and external coherence, the continued relevance of all objectives, as well as 
the contribution of the measures under the LIFE Programme to the Europe 2020 Strategy objectives and 
targets  and  to  sustainable  development.  It  shall  take  into  account  evaluation  results  on  the  long-term 
impact of LIFE+. The mid- term evaluation report shall be accompanied by remarks by the Commission 
including the manner in which the findings of the mid-term evaluation shall be taken into account when 
implementing the LIFE Programme, and, in particular, the extent to which the thematic priorities set out 
in Annex III need to be modified. 

The mid-term evaluation report shall contain or be accompanied by a thorough assessment of the extent 
and quality of the demand for, planning and implementation of integrated projects. A special focus shall 
be  given  to  the  realised  or  expected  success  of  integrated  projects  in  leveraging  other  Union  funds, 
taking  into  account,  in  particular,  the  benefits  of  increased  coherence  with  other  Union  funding 
instruments,  the  extent  to  which  stakeholders  have  been  involved  and  the  extent  to  which  previous 
projects under LIFE+ have been or are expected to be covered by integrated projects. 

84 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 3: Methods 

The  external  evaluation  report  covers  in  total  44  evaluation  questions,  however,  the  main  questions 
addressed by the mid-term evaluation are those mentioned in the Roadmap. The evaluation questions are 
structured according to 6 evaluation criteria, namely: Effectiveness, Efficiency, Coherence, Relevance, 
EU added value, Sustainability. They main questions are the following:  

Effectiveness:  

Q.1.  What is the outcome likely to be achieved under LIFE 2014-2020? 

Q.2. 

To what extent does the observed outcome correspond to the objectives?  

Q.3.  What are the factors positively and negatively influencing the delivery of the objectives? 

Q.4.  What is the distributional effectiveness?  

Q.5.  What  is  the  role  of  LIFE  in  bridging  uneven  integration  of  environmental  and  climate 

action objectives among Member States? 

Efficiency:  

Q.6. 

Q.7. 

Q.8. 

Coherence:  

Q.9. 

To  what  extent  are  the  costs  (especially  management)  of  the  LIFE  Programme  justified, 
given the effects which have been achieved, and are likely to be achieved by the end of the 
LIFE Programme? 

Have the changes made between LIFE+ and this LIFE Programme improved efficiency? 

Is there scope for efficiency gains, simplification and burden reduction? 

To what extent does the LIFE Programme have a coherent structure taking into account its 
two  sub-programmes,  its  priority  areas  and  the  various  types  of  interventions  (internal 
coherence)? 

Q.10. 

To  which  extent  is  LIFE  Programme  complementary  and  enjoying  synergies  with  other 
relevant  Union  funding  programmes  (i.e.  the  European  Structural  and  Investment  Funds 
(ESIF), Horizon 2020) (external coherence)? 

Relevance:  

Q.11. 

To  what  extent  the  Programme  objectives  are  pertinent  to  needs,  problems  and  issues 
addressed?  

Q.12. 

To what extent do stakeholders support the LIFE interventions?  

EU Added Value:  

Q.13.  What is the additional value resulting from the EU intervention(s), compared to what could 

be achieved by Member States at national and/or regional levels?  

Q.14. 

To what extent do the issues addressed by the intervention continue to require action at EU 
level?  

85 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
Q.15.  What would be the most likely consequences of stopping or withdrawing the existing EU 

intervention?  

Sustainability:  

Q.16. 

To  what  extent  are  the  positive  effects  of  projects  likely  to  last  after  the  end  of  the 
interventions,  especially  of  the  demonstration  effect  and  scope  for  replication  of  the 
projects?  

The evaluation criteria and evaluation questions assess each a specific aspect of the Intervention Logic 
of the LIFE Programme (although some overlap occurs). The figure below provides an overview of what 
aspect  of  the  LIFE  Programme  and/  or  Regulation  is  analysed  per  evaluation  criteria  and  guides  the 
evaluation process. 

The  evaluation  used  a  balanced  mix  of  qualitative  and  quantitative  methods  (e.g.  desk  research, 
qualitative interviews and quantitative survey findings) are presented. 

Qualitative methodologies 

Desk research 

The desk research carried out in this evaluation relies on a multitude of sources of information. To those 
belong, among others, the following documents: 

  Programme documents – Regulations, MAWP, Programme Statement; 

  Strategy documents - Europe 2020 strategy and 7th Union Environmental Action Programme; 

  Previous LIFE evaluations; 

  LIFE Communication strategy; 

  Data  on  LIFE+  and  LIFE  projects,  including  financial  data  (particularly  needed  for  the 

effectiveness and efficiency analysis); 

  Project applications – characteristics of applicants, concept notes, and full applications; 

  Commission’s methodology on tracking expenditure; 

  Management costs and benchmarks; 

  Relevant socio-economic analyses and studies on Financial instruments; 

 

Information on communication and decision-making procedures; 

86 

 
 
 
 
 

eProposal tool – reports on the system; 

  Delegation agreement with the ЕIB for the financial instruments; 

  Memorandum  of  Understanding  between  EASME,  DG  CLIMA  and  DG  ENV  regarding  the 

grants implemented by EASME. 

In-depth interviews 

Interviews were held with LIFE and LIFE+ beneficiaries, IP project coordinators, Commission Services 
and  EASME  officials,  NEEMO  stakeholders,  Financial  Instruments  stakeholders,  and  other 
stakeholders.  

For  all  stakeholder  groups  specific  interview  guidelines  were  developed  with  questions  to  guide  the 
semi-structured interviews. These questions are generally related to the following issues: 

 

 

 

 

the thematic area of the project; 

financial aspects, and problems during the application process if any; 

sustainability to date; 

impact to date (other than quantitatively derived from the indicator analysis); and 

  opinion 

regarding 

simplification 

of 

any 

aspects 

of 

the 

project 

life 

cycle. 

After all interview exchanges had been transcribed into a common template, the software-tool ATLAS.ti 
to analyse the transcriptions was used. Content analysis is a method utilized to interpret meaning from 
the content of textual data, in order to identify themes and topics and assess the extent to which they are 
emphasised  or  not  in  the  responses.  In  this  case,  it  implied  using  pre-defined  codes  or  labels  that  are 
linked to the evaluation questions prior to analysing how strongly those elements appear in the interview 
responses. Whenever necessary for newly encountered themes, or sub-themes, new codes were created. 
The  interview  results  are  aggregated  and  documented  in  a  structured  manner  to  facilitate  the 
‘triangulation’ and thematic analysis activities. 

More than 120 interviews were conducted with LIFE and LIFE+ beneficiaries for each priority area. The 
beneficiaries  have  been  randomly  selected  using  as  first  criteria  an  equal  split  per  sub-programme 
(similar to LIFE budget distribution, e.g. a higher number of NAT beneficiaries), secondly by an even 
split across all 28 MS and thirdly per MS a distribution across the priority areas.102  

Stakeholder questionnaires 

In addition to the open public consultation, six questionnaires targeting the following stakeholder groups 
were implemented:  

1.  LIFE and LIFE+ beneficiaries; 

2.  National and Regional Contact Points; 

3.  NEEMO monitoring experts;  

4.  Unsuccessful applicants to traditional projects; 

5.  NGOs benefitting from Operating grants; 

6.  LIFE Capacity building project beneficiaries. 

The  development  of  the  questionnaires  consisted  of  the  following  steps.  Firstly  key  questions  mainly 
related  to  general  aspects  of  the  programme  were  developed  and  i.e.  how  stakeholders  are 

87 

 
 
 
 
                                                            
 
involved/informed.  Secondly,  sub-questions  that  varied  between  the  questionnaires  were  elaborated  to 
provide additional in-depth insight on specific issues  

Regarding  the  analyses,  standard  statistical  tools  were  used  to  produce  descriptive  statistics. 
Furthermore,  for  the  beneficiaries,  NCPs,  NEEMO  and  unsuccessful  applicants  a  separate  report  was 
prepared (similar to the public consultation); these are included in the Annex D of the external report. 
The  results  from  the  various  questionnaires  have  been  integrated  in  the  cross-analysis  using  also  the 
results from other actions, e.g. interviews, in order to come to conclusions on each evaluation question. 

LIFE Indicator Database  

The  LIFE  Indicator  Database  was  provided  by  the  external  monitoring  team  NEEMO,  who  is 
responsible  for  the  monitoring  and  control  of  LIFE  projects  and  the  maintenance  of  LIFE  Indicator 
Database  website  (life.idom.com).  To  obtain  the  available  data,  a  relational  database  management 
system (SQL) server was developed and the data were extracted by SQL queries. Additionally, in order 
to facilitate the wider use of the tables for analytical purposes a large excel table was prepared.  

Financial Instruments 

The MAWP 2014-2017 provides the basis for two financial instruments: the Natural Capital Financing 
Facility (NCFF) and the Private Finance for Energy Efficiency (PF4EE). Both are implemented by the 
European  Investment Bank (EIB) on the basis of delegation agreements between  the Commission and 
the ЕIB. For PF4EE three operations have so far been signed. Regarding NCFF no contracts have been 
signed yet although two are in the final negotiations. This implies that for this interim evaluation it is too 
early  to  present  any  findings  on  achieved  results  and  impacts  at  project  level  for  the  financial 
intermediaries and clients or final recipients.  

For this interim evaluation an approach consisting of several elements has been used: 

  Using  the  key  evaluation  criteria  from  Evalsed  and  OECD  DAC  as  leading  and  grouping  the 
evaluation  questions  from  the  European  Commission  (EC)  (from  the  Terms  of  Reference)  as 
much as possible under the main evaluation criteria; 

  Desk  research  and  analysis:  documentation  of  EIB  regarding  the  applications  for  NCFF  and 
PF4EE  was  consulted.  This  included  (where  possible)  delegation  agreements,  applications  of 
intermediaries, eligibility letters, appraisal reports and due diligence reports provided by EIB.. 
Furthermore,  literature  on  similar  financial  instruments  and  experiences  of  other  institutions 
(such as the EBRD) was reviewed; 

  A  theory  of  change  based  upon  economic  analysis  and  causalities  was  designed  in  order  to 
identify  the key outputs,  results,  and  intermediate  and  ultimate  impacts.  For  NCFF  insights  to 
the interviews based upon economic analysis were added, as well as project finance experience 
and specific literature regarding the assessment of relevancy of the instrument; 

 

Interviews.  The  valuators  have  conducted  two  interviews  with  EIB  staff  –  one  for  each 
instrument  –  interviewed  the  technical  assistance  provider  for  PF4EE  (Adelphi  company)  and 
spoke  with  two  intermediary  financial  institutions  for  PF4EE.  These  were  Komercni  Banka 
(from the Czech Republic) and Crédit Coopératif (from France). There were no agreements yet 
signed with intermediaries of NCFF and no beneficiaries have yet been financed and started as a 
result of the Irish Equity Fund.  

88 

 
 
 
 
 
Annex 4: Synopsis report on the Stakeholder consultation  
The stakeholder consultation activities have been undertaken between the mid-June and October 2016. 
Depending  on  the  stakeholder  groups  different  types  of  consultation  activities  were  identified,  as 
envisaged in the consultation strategy: 

  Open Public consultation  

  Interviews with relevant LIFE Programme stakeholders 

  Surveys addressed to specific stakeholder groups 

  Participation at specific events were stakeholders were approached during the following events: 

The annual NCP training organised by EASME on the 2 and 3 June 2016 in Brussels 

The Life Info Day on the 17 June in Brussels 

The Life Committee meeting held on the 5 July 

Platform meetings on specific topics.  

Table 1: Number of interviews and answers to the surveys 

Answers to the surveys 

Public consultation 

Project beneficiaries 

National Contact Points 

Interviews 

Implementing 
(Commission, 
bodies 
Executive Agency for Small and Medium 
Enterprises,  European  Investment  Bank, 
monitoring team) 

Number 
of 
answers 

256 

208 

41 

Monitoring experts 

Unsuccessful applicants 

Project site visits 

Number 
of 
answers 

59 

10 

8 

36 

Project beneficiaries 

121 

Open Public Consultation 
In line with the Better Regulation Guidelines, an open public consultation was launched on the 15th of 
June 2016 to collect through an online survey, the views of citizens and associations of citizens, as well 
as of all other interested stakeholders. The public consultation has been published for 12 weeks on the 
Your Voice in Europe website. In total 256 replies were submitted. 

Moreover,  the  public  consultation  elicited  contributions  from  various  stakeholders.  In  total  35 
documents  were  received,  including  two  from  public  authorities  (the  Coordination  Committee  for 
International  Environmental  Policy  –  CCIEP;  and  the  Autonomous  Region  of  Azores),  three  from 
citizens,  six  from  organisations  registered  in  the  Transparency  register  of  the  European  Commission 
(EDF, VERBUND Hydro Power GmbH, SUEZ Groupe SAS, WWF-UK, the Bulgarian Society for the 
Protection of Birds, Birdlife International), and six from non-registered ones (the Chartered Institution 
of  Wastes  Management,  the  Association  de  la  Ville  et  des  Communes  de  la  Région  de  Bruxelles-
Capitale asbl, Eco Innovation AB, Platform for climate adaptation & disaster risk reduction, The Nature 
Laboratory, and the European Water Platform – WssTP). The responses and contributions of those who 
agreed to publish will be made available to the public. 

89 

 
 
  
  
  
  
 
  
  
  
  
 
Regarding the distribution of the respondents by place of residence, the most represented countries were 
Spain  and  Italy,  followed  by  Belgium,  France,  and  Germany,  whereas  only  a  few  came  from 
Luxembourg, Latvia and Ireland.   

30%

25%

20%

15%

26% 

16% 

10%

8% 

8% 

8% 

2%  1% 

1% 

1% 

0,4% 

4% 

5%

0%

1% 

1%  0,4%  1%  0,2% 

1%  1% 

2%  2%  2% 

2% 

1% 

1% 

2%  2% 

3% 

5% 

The  participation  of  different  stakeholder  categories  was  overall  balanced  with  about  one  third  of  the 
responses  coming  from  private  organisations,  citizens,  and  public  authorities,  and  the  rest  from  other 
entities, including National and Regional Contact Points, European Commission staff, and NGOs. 

Likewise, the distribution of responses per thematic area was overall balanced, with a slight predominance of 
nature  and  biodiversity,  climate  change,  natural  resources  management  and  water,  and  few  respondents 
coming from the area of noise, industry, health and chemicals. 

Other consultation activities: 

In  addition  to  the  public  consultation,  six  complementary  surveys  were  carried  out  in  parallel,  targeting 
specifically the following stakeholder groups:  

  LIFE and LIFE+ project beneficiaries; 

  National and Regional Contact Points (the survey was distributed during a specific workshop for NCP’s 
and some of the main results were presented during a workshop for the LIFE Committee); 

  External monitoring experts (NEEMO);  

  Unsuccessful applicants to traditional projects; 

  NGOs benefitting from Operating grants; 

  LIFE Capacity-building project beneficiaries. 

90 

 
 
 
  
The  surveys  consisted  of  a  series  of  specific  questions  addressing  the  criteria  of  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
relevance, coherence, EU added value, sustainability. The respondents were asked to indicate, for most of the 
questions  on  a  predefined  scale,  to  which  extent  they  agreed  to  a  specific  statement.  The  surveys  also 
included a number of open questions to allow the respondents to further express their opinion on the LIFE 
Programme. 

Feedback on the Roadmap: 

received 

individual 

feedback  was 

An 
(http://ec.europa.eu/smart-
regulation/roadmaps/docs/2017_env_001_evaluation_life_mt_en.pdf).  The  comment  was  treated    as  not 
strictly  related  to  the  mid-term  evaluation  roadmap  as  the  comment  was  addressed  to  the  next  LIFE  multi 
annual work programme (2018-2020). The feedback will be assessed in the context of the preparation of the 
LIFE multi annual work programme instead, as the subject of the request was to give more relevance to the 
status of the invertebrate species of the Habitat Directive, under the sub programme for Environment. 

Roadmap 

the 

on 

Summary  of  all  the  consultation  activities  undertaken  between  mid-June  and  October  presented  for 
each key evaluation criteria: 

Effectiveness 

The results of the interviews with the project beneficiaries confirm a positive perception of the quality of the 
LIFE projects, which are seen as a concrete answer to local needs and further identify a "quality mark" for 
the  projects  awarded  with  a  LIFE  grant,  which  makes  it  easier  for  them  to  mobilise  additional  resources 
afterwards.  According  to  the  beneficiaries  interviewed,  LIFE  is  known  for  delivering  results  and  having  a 
substantial impact on the ground. 

Efficiency 

While overall the costs for the management of the LIFE Programme were deemed to be relatively low by the 
majority  of  stakeholders  (also  compared  to  other  EU  funding  programmes),  other  stakeholders  argued  that 
the  set-up  with  external  monitoring  contractors  acting  as  a  kind  of  “third”  layer  of  management  increases 
overall costs and that the internalisation of these tasks and costs into the workings of EASME might be more 
efficient.  The  analysis  of  the  consultation  activities  has  overall  highlighted  that  there  is  room  for  realising 
efficiency  gains  if  the  external  contractor  for  monitoring  and  communication  and  EASME  streamline  their 
cooperation. 

The decision to phase out national allocations over a 4-year period, as seen in the 2014-2017 MAWP, was 
much welcomed by NCPs. However, the distribution of LIFE projects across  thematic priorities and across 
Member  States  and  regions  is  not  balanced,  as  shown  by  clustering  of  countries  that  specialise  in  either 
Nature or Environment projects, and by a significant number of Nature funds that are directed to regions of 
low conservation priority (e.g. in Northern or Central Europe), while Southern and Eastern States may have 
been underfunded.  

LIFE  is  a  funding  programme  that  is  close  to  the  market  and  that  demonstrates  technical  and  commercial 
solutions. Private sector participation to LIFE calls for proposals and (co-)funding mobilised by the private 
sector can still be improved according to various stakeholder target groups.  

The roles of all main stakeholder groups in the implementation of the LIFE Programme are overall clear and 
sufficiently distinct from each other (only the role of EASME, although being perceived as overall effective, 
needs  to  be  further  communicated).  Some  stakeholders  pointed  out  that  that  there  is  some  overlap  in  the 
distribution  of  tasks  among  EASME  or  the  Commission  on  the  one  hand,  and  the  external  contractor  for 
monitoring and communication, on the other. As resulted from the survey, the beneficiaries are particularly 
satisfied  (over  90%.)  with  the  extensive  support  received  from  the  external  contractor  for  monitoring  and 
communication  during  all  project  stages.  NCPs  are  considered  overall  as  useful  in  particular  during  the 
application  phase  with  critical  remarks  made  only  by  individual  project  beneficiaries,  however  large 
differences in capacity and performance exist across  Member States. The EIB appeared  rather  unknown to 

91 

 
 
 
 
the consulted stakeholders. The  majority of beneficiaries is  also  not aware of  the existence  and role of the 
external communication consultants. 

With regards to the LIFE Communication activities, despite the fact that improvements are needed, project 
beneficiaries  rate  it  as  “good”  or  “very  good”.  Particular  high  appreciation  is  given  to  the  LIFE  website 
(75%) and the LIFE best project publications and awards (72%). 

Coherence 

The majority of the stakeholders found that LIFE is both internally and externally coherent. Indeed for some 
parts of the LIFE Programme, such as Nature and Biodiversity, LIFE is the only source of funding at Union 
level and thus is highly coherent with the remaining EU programmes as it fills a niche.  

Found project overlaps in topics are perceived positive by more than 51% of the beneficiaries who took part 
to  the  survey,  indicating  that  they  are  not  undesired,  but  rather  lead  to  complementarities  and  synergies. 
Especially  where  a  project  builds  on  the  results  and  experiences  of  previous  projects,  or  a  second  project 
replicates the results of a previous project in a new location with the challenges it faces, an overlap in topic is 
occasionally found.  

Concerning  external  coherence  with  other  EU  programmes,  according  to  stakeholders,  overlaps  between 
LIFE and H2020 and the ERDF are found not to lead to deadweight, but to synergies. The programmes have 
distinct  goals  and  activities,  yet  these  are  interrelated  and  mutually  consistent  suggesting  they  are  highly 
coherent. Increased emphasis on the business perspective of LIFE projects is in line for the EU 2020 Strategy 
and it has allowed an increased involvement of the private sector, which looks at LIFE as a continuation of 
the support received under the CIP-Eco-innovation. 

The majority of stakeholders (more than 51%) agree that LIFE functions as a catalyst, providing a source of 
funding  projects  that  can  later  be  funded  by  other,  larger  EU,  national  or  regional  funds.  However,  the 
analysis of the consultation activities also highlight that the potential catalytic role is not fully exploited at 
present  and  should  be  further  enhanced,  bridging  the  gap  to  larger  EU  funds,  i.e.  ERDF  (including 
INTERREG). 

The European Regional Development Fund (ERFD) is specifically mentioned as being complementary, and 
as a source for follow-up funding after the LIFE Programme. This means that the LIFE Programme is very 
coherent with the ERDF and its sub-programmes (including INTERREG). This is in contrast to the national 
level, where across the EU there are few national programmes focused on LIFE themes. 

Relevance 

The  results  of  the  open  public  consultation  shows  that  an  overwhelming  majority  of  respondents  (between 
94% and 99%) agreed that the LIFE Programme is relevant and it addresses needs, problems and issues in the 
area  of  environment  and  climate  action  at  regional,  national  and  EU  level,  especially  for  countries  where 
(national) budgets are insufficient to address these issues. This is especially found to be the case in the areas 
of biodiversity, habitat protection, sustainable resource use and preventing/ adapting to climate change.  

Where at programme level LIFE is seen by most stakeholders as “a very important instrument to adapt to and 
focus on environmental and climate priorities” and considered fully relevant for EU 2020 Strategy and the 
7th EAP, at project level relevance is not always undisputed. A limited budget and broad policy goals means 
that not all policy objectives can be addressed in an equal manner (pointing to a need for prioritisation), and 
replication and dissemination is often insufficient. Furthermore, some individual stakeholders also noted that 
improvement is needed in terms of the project topics implementing the thematic priorities which, according 
to an observer where often “badly written/designed, responding more to a short term policy priority need that 
LIFE is not designed to deliver”.  

As noted before, in many of these areas, LIFE is largely perceived  by stakeholders to be the most relevant 
source  of  funding  for  their  activities  (85%  of  the  unsuccessful  applicants  stated  that  it  is  difficult  to  find 
alternative  funding  programmes  addressing  problems  of  conservation  and  biodiversity).  LIFE  is  overall 

92 

 
 
 
 
considered  to  be  an  important  instrument  in  supporting  the  second  pillar  of  the  EU  2020  Strategy  on 
sustainable  growth,  and  its  projects  result  in  jobs  and  in  the  development  of  new  work  skills.  This  is 
supported  by stakeholders’ acknowledgement  of the  increased  emphasis put on the business perspective  of 
projects. 

Finally,  different  stakeholder  groups,  in  particular  the  project  beneficiaries  and  the  LIFE  National  Contact 
Points, rate the importance of the objectives that LIFE pursues as very high, and deem that the programme’s 
objectives and types of interventions are very well suited to the needs in the different priority areas. 

EU added value 

In the open public consultation the stakeholders largely acknowledged (95%) the catalytic role that LIFE is 
playing  for  better  solidarity  and  responsibility-sharing  in  preserving  the  common  good  of  the  Union's 
environment  and  climate,  leading  to  a  less  costly  implementation  of  environmental  and  climate  change 
policies, in particular for the implementation of Natura 2000 and of the EU Biodiversity Strategy. Notably, 
the  added  value  of  the  Programme  lies  in  the  EU  co-funding  that  enables  project  beneficiaries  to  deliver 
results that in most cases would either not be realised at national, regional and/or at local level, or would be 
pursued at slower pace and on a lesser scale, especially in MS that have fewer financial mechanisms in place 
or when these mechanisms are difficult to access.  

In  addition,  the  overwhelming  majority  of  the  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  confirm  that  the 
programme has an important EU added value because it:  

responds to European and global environment and climate challenges, which are unlikely to be 
addressed by a Member State alone (98% of the respondents); 

supports the coherent development, implementation and enforcement of Union environment and 
climate policy and legislation, (98% of the respondents); 

tackles environmental and climate problems more efficiently (98% of the respondents); 

   preserves  EU  environmental  resources  which,  even  if  unevenly  distributed  across  the  EU, 

benefit the EU as a whole (94% of the respondents); 

contributes to leveraging the funds for environmental protection and climate action (97% of the 
respondents),  

contributes  to  EU-wide  sharing  of  'best  practices',  knowledge  transfer,  demonstration,  and 
awareness raising (99% of the respondents). 

Many beneficiaries noted during the interviews that the enforcement of Union policy and legislation is one of 
the core tasks of the LIFE Programme, which is fulfilled effectively.  

The consultation also highlighted that the main consequences of stopping or withdrawing the existing LIFE 
interventions would be mostly negative, reducing MS’ capacity – and in some cases commitment – to pursue 
the  Union’s  objectives  in  the  area  of  environmental  protection  and  climate  change,  but  also  negatively 
affecting employment and economic growth. 

Furthermore according to the majority of the external monitoring experts and of the National and Regional 
Contact Points consulted (respectively 97% and 79%) very little of what LIFE projects have achieved would 
have  been  launched  or  realized  without  the  programme’s  support,  in  particular  for  nature  protection  and 
biodiversity conservation.   

Stakeholders  also  believe  that  the  main  consequences  of  stopping  or  withdrawing  the  existing  LIFE 
interventions  would  be  mostly  negative,  including  the  reduction  of  Member  States'  and  NGOs'  capacity  to 
pursue the Union's objectives in the area of environmental protection and climate action or the failure of the 
Commission  to  meet  the  commitments  taken  on  the  basis  of  EU  environment  or  climate  legislation  or  at 
international level. 

93 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
  
Sustainability  

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. 

However, according to the beneficiaries, the main barriers for the replicability of project results, are linked to 
the  lack  of  financial  means,  to  the  lack  of  interest  and  sense  of  urgency  from  decision  makers,  to  lack  of 
specific  information  and  communication  on  transferable  solutions  and  applications  or  business  models,  as 
well as to the lack of capacity/human resources at project level. 

The replication potential of LIFE project results by the private sector is perceived as significant, but could be 
further  enhanced.  According  to  interviews  with  beneficiaries  the  private  sector  uptake  could  be  improved 
through raising of awareness about results and by providing specific financial support.   

The  recently  introduced  After-LIFE  plans  are  considered  by  stakeholders  as  a  positive  step  in  improving 
sustainability of the LIFE programme.  

As for the related funds, during the external study, the interviews of about 70 project beneficiaries revealed 
that 40% of them report that they will/already have attract(ed) funding to further develop project results after 
the end of EU funding. 

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

According to LIFE project beneficiaries, especially LIFE Environment projects contribute significantly to job 
creation and (sustainable) growth, as the thematic areas industry, resource efficiency and waste management 
appear to have higher chances for commercialisation of project results (products or methods). Nature projects 
lead  to  a  limited  increase  in  direct  employment  after  ending  of  LIFE  funding  and  mainly  contribute  to 
indirect job creation through preservation or restauration of recreation areas. Half of the LIFE Climate Action 
projects are expected to contribute to job creation. The impact of information and awareness raising on job 
creation was found difficult to quantify, as job creation will to a large extent be indirect and linked to creation 
of networks. 

94 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 5: Table of assessment of indicators against targets 

A. LIFE 2017 MILESTONES 

NATURE AND BIODIVERSITY INDICATORS  

Table 1 Data on the indicators of LIFE Programme (2014, 2015 call for proposals) and 

LIFE+ Programme (based on a sample of projects) 

Comparison item 

to 

improve 

finalised 
Percentage  of  ongoing  or 
projects 
the 
set  up 
conservation  status  within  the  meaning 
of  Council  Directive  92/43/EEC  on  the 
conservation  of  natural  habitats  and  of 
wild  fauna  and  flora  and  Directive 
2009/147/EC  on  the  conservation  of 
wild birds 

Percentage  of  habitats 
targeted  by 
ongoing  or  finalised  projects  that  are 
progressing 
improved 
conservation status 

towards 

an 

LIFE 
2015 projects) 

(2014, 

LIFE+  (sample  of 
2007-2013 projects) 

2017 Milestone 

98% 

98% 

100 % 

46% 

63% 

10 % 
the 
habitats targeted 

of 

species 

Percentage  of 
targeted  by 
ongoing  or  finalised  projects  that  are 
progressing 
improved 
conservation status 

towards 

an 

Percentage of Natura 2000 sites targeted 
by ongoing or finalised projects that are 
progressing 
improved 
conservation status 

towards 

an 

66% 

30% 

26% 

21% 

10 % 
species targeted 

of 

the 

of 

the 
10 % 
Natura 
2000 
sites/ha of Natura 
2000 
sites 
targeted 

Contribution  of  other  projects  to  Nature 
and Biodiversity indicators 

Climate  Change 
Actions 
(53%) 
Water (24%) 

Information 
awareness 
Governance 
Water (17%) 

- 

and 
(22%); 
(21%) 

AIR QUALITY MILESTONES 

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Table 10 Data on the indicators of LIFE Programme (2014, 2015 call for proposals) and 

LIFE+ Programme (based on a sample of projects) 

Comparison item 

Percentage  of  ongoing  or  finalised 
projects  implementing  replicable  or 
transferable  actions  and  progressing 
towards  reaching  or  surpassing  the 
relevant  Union  air  quality  target  on 
project level 

- 
in  Air  Quality  zones  where 
pollutant  levels  are  above  targets 
established  by  law:  projects  foresee 
to  reach/surpass 
targets  on 
project levels; 

these 

- where Air Quality policies are being 
developed and implemented: projects 
foresee  to  develop  new  measures, 
methods or techniques that can serve 
as  models 
policy 
development. 

for  Union 

projects 

Persons  covered  by  ongoing  or 
implementing 
finalised 
transferable  actions 
replicable  or 
progressing 
reaching  or 
towards 
surpassing  the  relevant  Union  air 
quality target. 

Contribution  of  projects 
areas to Air indicators 

in  other 

Source: Indicator database and own calculations 

LIFE  (2014,  2015 
projects) 

LIFE+ 
2007-2013 projects) 

(sample  of 

2017 
Milestone 

77% 

63% 

80% 

38% (66% if only air 
are 
projects 
accounted) 

43%  (58%  if  only  air 
projects are accounted) 

77% 

63% 

99% 

99% 

Climate 
actions 
(34%);  Environment 
(17%); 
and  heath 
Waste (13%) 

Climate actions (30%); 
Environment and heath 
(14%);  Waste  (14%); 
Governance (15%) 

- 

- 

CHEMICALS AND NOISE INDICATORS MILESTONES 

Table 2 Data on the indicators of LIFE Programme (2014, 2015 call for proposals) and 

LIFE+ Programme (based on a sample of projects) 

(2014,  2015 

LIFE 
projects) 

LIFE+  (sample  of 
2007-2013 projects) 

2017 
Milestone 

76% 

86% 

80% 

Comparison item 

Percentage  of  ongoing  or  finalised 
projects 
implementing  replicable  or 
transferable  actions  and  progressing 
towards  reaching  or  surpassing 
the 
relevant  Union  chemical  substance 
target on project level 

96 

 
 
 
 
Comparison item 

(2014,  2015 

LIFE 
projects) 

LIFE+  (sample  of 
2007-2013 projects) 

2017 
Milestone 

78% 

99% 

or 

finalised 

Percentage  of  persons  covered  by 
ongoing 
projects 
implementing  replicable  or  transferable 
actions set up to reduce adverse effects 
of 
and 
on 
environment,  including  estimates  over 
the long term effects - after 3 or 5 years 

chemicals 

health 

Contribution  of  projects  in  the  other 
sectors  to  the  reduction/substitution  of 
chemicals  

(40%); 
Water 
Climate 
Change 
Actions  (20%)  and 
Resource  efficiency 
(20%) 

(36%) 

and 
Waste 
Water 
(21%), 
Resource  efficiency 
(13%) 

- 

- 

Percentage  of  ongoing  or  finalised 
implementing  replicable  or 
projects 
transferable  actions  and  progressing 
towards  reaching  or  surpassing 
the 
relevant Union noise reduction target on 
project level 

Percentage  of  ongoing  or  finalised 
implementing  replicable  or 
projects 
transferable  actions 
targeting  noise 
reduction  progressing  towards  reducing 
noise exposure by at least 3 dB 

or 

Number of the persons benefitting from 
projects 
ongoing 
implementing  replicable  or  transferable 
actions set up to reduce noise levels by 
at least 3 dB 

finalised 

67% 

71% 

80% 

33% 

43% 

- 

4.000 

10.000 

Source: Indicator database and own calculations. 

RESOURCE EFFICIENCY INDICATORS MILESTONES  

Table  3  Data  on  the  indicators  of  LIFE  Programme  (2014,  2015  call  for  proposals)  and  LIFE+ 
Programme (based on a sample of projects) 

Comparison item 

Percentage  of  ongoing  or  finalised 
projects 
implementing  replicable  or 
transferable  actions  and  progressing 
towards  implementing  aspects  of  green 
circular economy 

Percentage  of  additional  companies 
covered by ongoing or finalised projects 
implementing  replicable  or  transferable 
actions  set  up  to  implement  green 
circular economy 

(2014,  2015 

LIFE 
projects) 

LIFE+  (sample  of 
2007-2013 projects) 

2017 
Milestone 

76% 

75% 

80% 

77% 

77% 

- 

97 

 
 
 
 
Comparison item 

Percentage  of  ongoing  or  finalised 
projects 
implementing  replicable  or 
transferable  actions  and  progressing 
towards  maintaining  or  improving  soil 
functions 

Percentage  of  ongoing  or  finalised 
implementing  replicable  or 
projects 
transferable  actions  and  progressing 
towards 
the 
implementation 
European Forest Strategy 

of 

Percentage  of  ongoing  or  finalised 
projects 
implementing  replicable  or 
transferable  actions  set  up  to  provide 
data  for  the  European  Forest  Data 
Centre (EFDAC) 

Contribution  of  other  projects 
to 
resource  efficiency  (not  including  soil 
and forest) 

Contribution  of  other  projects 
resource efficiency – Soil 

to 

Contribution  of  other  projects 
resource efficiency – Forest 

to 

(2014,  2015 

LIFE 
projects) 

LIFE+  (sample  of 
2007-2013 projects) 

2017 
Milestone 

91% 

71% 

80% 

67% 

65% 

80% 

70% 

100% 

80% 

Change 
Climate 
Actions 
(29%); 
Waste  (24%),  Water 
(22%) 

Change 
Climate 
Actions 
(30%); 
Waste  (36%),  Water 
(12%) 

Climate 
Actions 
Nature 
Biodiversity (22%);  

Change 
(56%); 
and 

Nature 
Biodiversity 
Climate 
Actions 
Governance (19%) 

and 
(26%); 
Change 
(21%); 

Nature 
Biodiversity 
Climate 
Actions (35%) 

and 
(43%); 
Change 

Nature 
Biodiversity 
Climate 
Actions (12%) 

and 
(66%); 
Change 

- 

- 

- 

WASTE INDICATORS MILESTONES 

Table  4  Data  on  the  indicators  of  LIFE  Programme  (2014,  2015  call  for  proposals)  and  LIFE+ 
Programme (based on a sample of projects) 

Comparison item 

Percentage  of  ongoing  or  finalised 
projects 
implementing  replicable  or 
transferable  actions  and  progressing 
towards adequate waste management 

Percentage  of  municipalities  or  regions 
covered by ongoing or finalised projects 
implementing  replicable  or  transferable 
reach  adequate 
to 
actions  set  up 

(2014,  2015 

LIFE 
projects) 

LIFE+  (sample  of 
2007-2013 projects) 

2017 
Milestone 

76% 

65% 

80% 

89% 

78% 

- 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
Comparison item 

management of waste 

Contribution  of  other  projects  to  waste 
indicators 

(2014,  2015 

LIFE 
projects) 

LIFE+  (sample  of 
2007-2013 projects) 

2017 
Milestone 

and 
Nature 
(23%); 
Biodiversity 
Resource  efficiency 
(23%); Water (17%) 

Climate 
actions 
(18%)  Nature  and 
Biodiversity 
(16%); 
Resource  efficiency 
(16%); Water (16%) 

WATER  INDICATORS  MILESTONES  

Table 5 Data on indicators of LIFE (2014) and LIFE+ Programme (based on sample of projects) 

Comparison item 

LIFE 
projects) 

(2014 

LIFE+ 
2007-2013 projects) 

(sample  of 

2017 
Milestone 

implementing 

finalised 
Percentage  of  ongoing  or 
projects 
replicable  or 
transferable  actions  and  progressing 
towards good ecological status at project 
level 

63% 

61% 

80 % 

Number  and  percentage  of  water  bodies 
(inland/transitional/coastal)  covered  by 
ongoing 
projects 
implementing  replicable  or  transferable 
actions 
their 
to 
ecological status 

finalised 

improve 

set  up 

or 

49 (70 total) 

245 (627 total) 

70% 

41% 

100103  

Contribution  to  water  indicators  or  to 
improvement  of  water  bodies  by 
projects,  funded  in  other  sectors  (non-
water) 

Nature 
and 
biodiversity  (48%), 
actions 
Climate 
(28%), 
Waste 
(10%) 

Nature 
biodiversity 
Waste (9%) 

and 
(62%), 

- 

Table  25  -  Percentage  of  increase  of  stakeholders  and  citizens  targeted  by  awareness-raising  projects 
implementing replicable or transferable actions becoming aware of the environmental policy objectives 
pursued by these projects as measured in ex-ante and ex-post surveys (carried out by LIFE projects or 
other entities) (2014 call for proposals) and LIFE+ programme (based on a sample of projects) 

LIFE (2014 projects) 

LIFE+  (sample  of  2007-2013 
projects) 

2017 Milestone 

567% 

510% 

25% 

Source: Indicator database and own calculations. 

103   It is expected that between 2015 and 2017, 6,900 waterbodies throughout the Union improve their ecological 

status, 1,4% of them (100) due to a LIFE contribution 

99 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                            
Annex 6: Total amount non-deductible VAT reimbursed per Member State 

The  following  amounts  of  VAT  reimbursements  per  Member  State,  requested  by  beneficiaries  at  the 
final stage can be reported: EUR 181.135,72 

It should be noted  that very few (19) final reports have been  processed until  the date of this report in 
relation to the LIFE programme 2014-2020. 

Breakdown per Member States 

AT                                     €4.403,37      

BE                                     €88.731,21     

CZ                                     €5.056,09 

DE                                     €15.563,80 

IT                                     €22.983,51 

NL                                     €24.315,67 

SE                                      €7.007,70 

UK                                     €13.074,37 

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex 7: LIFE's Programme contribution to Sustainable Development Goals 
LIFE is at the heart of the SDGs, taking into account their strong environmental and climate dimensions.  

The LIFE programme supports SDG 2. "End hunger, achieve food security and improved nutrition, and 
promote sustainable agriculture" because it encourages an environmentally friendly agriculture, in view 
of the protection, preservation and improvement in the quality of water, air and soil and the protection of 
bio-diversity.  

To improve resource efficiency in food production and reduce impact on water resources, LIFE is also 
promoting sustainable nutrients management in agriculture.  

Moreover,  the  National  Emission  Ceilings  Directive  for  air  pollutants,  the  Member  States'  targets  to 
reduce Greenhouse Gas  emissions as  well as the proposal to integrate the land use sector into the EU 
2030  Climate  and  Energy  Framework  are  aimed  at  incentivising  Member  States  to  take  additional 
sustainable action in their agriculture sectors. 

On  SDG  3  "Ensure  healthy  lives  and  promote  well-being  for  all  at  all  ages",  with  environmental 
stressors  having  significant  impacts  on  health,  LIFE  complements  Member  States'  action  through 
legislation and other initiatives on environment related health problems, which are linked to air quality, 
industrial emissions, chemicals, waste and water.  

Examples include the 7th Environment Action Programme, the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, or the 
rules on the sustainable use of pesticides which underline the link with health policy aspects.  

The  EU  Chemicals  Policy  also  covers  regulation  on  persistent  organic  pollutants;  trade  in  hazardous 
chemicals; fluorinated gases; and hazardous waste. The so-called "REACH" framework aims to improve 
the protection of human health and the environment from the risks that can be posed by chemicals, while 
enhancing the competitiveness of the EU chemicals industry.  

In view of SDG 6 "Ensure availability and sustainable management of water and sanitation for all", the 
EU water policy is a cornerstone of the LIFE Programme and provides for a framework to address water 
protection  and  achieve  good  ecological  status  for  inland  surface  waters,  transitional  waters,  coastal 
waters and groundwater. It comprises regulation including on drinking water, bathing water and urban 
waste  water,  prevention  of  pollution  caused  by  nitrates,  industrial  emissions,  pesticides  and  persistent 
organic pollutants.  

The  transition  to  a  circular  economy  should  also  lead  to  greater  resource  efficiency  for  example  by 
improving the conditions for water re-use in several sectors. 

Through  the  circular  economy  package,  LIFE  addresses  economic  and  environmental  concerns  by 
maximizing  efficiency  in  the  use  of  resources,  and  thus  contributes  to  SDG  8  "Promote  sustained, 
inclusive and sustainable economic growth, full and productive employment and decent work for all".  

Moreover,  the  7th  Environment  Action  Programme  confirms  that  EU  prosperity  and  healthy 
environment  stem  from  an  innovative,  circular  economy  where  nothing  is  wasted  and  where  natural 
resources are managed in a sustainable way, and biodiversity is protected, valued and restored. 

LIFE  also  contributes  to  SDG  9  "Build  resilient  infrastructure,  promote  inclusive  and  sustainable 
industrialization and foster innovation": 

The  2030  Climate  and  Energy  Policy  Framework  strives  for  a  competitive  low-carbon  and  climate-
resilient  economy  and  the  EU  Strategy  on  Adaptation  to  Climate  Change  identifies  resilient 
infrastructure  as  a  priority  action  area  under  the  strategic  objective  of  mainstreaming  adaptation 
measures.  

The circular economy fosters eco-innovation and sustainability objectives. 

As regards as SDG 11 "Make cities and human settlements inclusive, safe, resilient and sustainable", 
the 7th Environment Action Programme has as a horizontal priority objective to make the Union's cities 
more sustainable.  

101 

 
 
Other  environmental  and  climate  policies  and  legislation  are  vital  for  sustainable  urban  development 
such  as  Noise  Legislation,  the  EU's  Biodiversity  and  Green  Infrastructure  Strategies,  Drinking  Water 
and Urban Wastewater Treatment, the framework on energy performance of building, the strengthen of 
the resilience of urban settings through climate related risks.  

Urban energy consumption generates about three quarters of global carbon emissions. Therefore, cities 
play a crucial role in terms of energy and climate policy (the Clean Air Package, Air Quality, etc..). The 
EU Covenant of Mayors for Climate and Energy is a bottom-up local and regional action for tackling in 
an  integrated  manner  climate  change  mitigation  and  adaptation,  and  access  to  secure,  sustainable  and 
affordable energy. 

Moreover,  the  circular  economy  package  contributes  to  this  SDG  under  many  aspects,  such  as  by 
addressing  sustainable  waste  sorting  and  recycling  and  by  shifting  energy  consumption  onto  more 
sustainable pathways. 

In  view  of  reaching  SDG  12  "Ensure  sustainable  consumption  and  production  patterns",  resource 
efficiency  and  circular  economy  actions  aim  to  decouple  economic  growth  from  resource  use  and 
environmental  degradation.  By  covering  the  whole  cycle  from  production  and  consumption  to  waste 
management, they are at the core of the LIFE actions under the priority areas Environment and Resource 
Efficiency.  

Moreover,  the  7th  Environment  Action  programme  has  as  a  key  objective  to  turn  the  Union  into  a 
resource-efficient,  green,  and  competitive  low-carbon  economy.  Another  related  key  objective  is  to 
safeguard EU citizens from environment-related pressures and risks to health and wellbeing.  

Concerning  SDG  13  "Take  urgent  action  to  combat  climate  change  and  its  impacts",  climate  change 
mitigation and climate change adaptation are two priority areas of the LIFE programme. The 2015 Paris 
Agreement is a historically significant landmark in the global fight against climate change; a success for 
the world and a confirmation of the EU's path to a low-carbon and climate resilient economy. With the 
support  of  LIFE,  ambitious  2020  and  2030  targets104  have  been  set  up  to  reduce  greenhouse  gas 
emissions, improve energy efficiency and increase the share of renewable energy. Renewable energies 
and energy efficiency play an increasingly important role in tackling climate change.  

The EU Emissions Trading System (ETS) is a key tool for cutting greenhouse gas emissions from large-
scale facilities in the power and industry sectors, as well as the aviation sector.  

The EU Strategy on Adaptation to Climate Change provides a framework and mechanisms to improve 
the preparedness of the EU for current and future impacts of climate change, thus contributing to a more 
climate-resilient society.  

On  SDG  14  "Conserve  and  sustainably  use  the  oceans,  seas  and  marine  resources  for  sustainable 
development", the 7th Environment Action Programme sets the objective to protect the Union's natural 
capital to, inter alia, reduce the impact  of pressures  on marine  waters, in order to achieve or maintain 
good environmental status. 

The Birds and Habitats legislation complement the Marine Strategy Framework by protecting 5% of the 
EU sea area through a network of Marine Protected Areas part of 'Natura 2000'. 

Moreover,  to  tackle  marine  litter  and  pollution,  LIFE  supports  a  wide  set  of  instruments,  including 
regulation on waste management and prevention, port reception facilities for ship generated waste and 
cargo residues.  

104   For  the  period  up  to  2020,  the  Europe  2020  Strategy  aims  at  cutting  greenhouse  gas  emissions  by  20%,  at 
meeting  20%  of  the  EU's  energy  demand  with  renewables,  and  at  increasing  energy  efficiency  by  20%  by 
2020. The 2030 Climate and Energy Policy Framework aims to achieve a greenhouse gas emissions reduction 
of 40%, a renewables' share of at least 27% in the EU's energy mix, and an increase of energy efficiency by at 
least 27% (with a view to 30%) for 2030. 

102 

 
 
                                                            
As  regards  as  SDG  15  "Protect,  restore  and  promote  sustainable  use  of  terrestrial  ecosystems, 
sustainably  manage  forests,  combat  desertification,  and  halt  and  reverse  land  degradation  and  halt 
biodiversity loss", the  environmental  acquis provides a high level of protection  in areas such as water 
quality and nature conservation, though the development and implementation of the Birds and Habitats 
Directives and of the Natura 2000 network.  

The  EU  Forest  Strategy  has  as  one  of  its  key  principles  global  forest  responsibility,  promoting 
sustainable production and consumption of forest products.  

The  circular  economy  offers  an  opportunity  for  modernising  the  economy,  making  it  more  green  and 
competitive. It also contributes to lower carbon dioxide emission levels and energy savings as well as 
decreased air, soil and water pollution. It focuses on resource efficiency and minimising waste and has a 
strong  potential  in  terms  of  new  jobs  and  growth  and  for  stimulating  sustainable  consumption  and 
production patterns. 

Finally, by supporting the compliance and enforcement of environmental and climate legislation and the 
access to justice on environmental matters in Member States, LIFE is contributing to SDG 17 " Promote 
peaceful and inclusive societies for sustainable development, provide access to justice for all and build 
effective, accountable and inclusive institutions at all levels". 

103