COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT IMPACT ASSESSMENT Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013
Date: 2018-06-01
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, EU financial instrument, EU programme, biodiversity, climate change, climate change policy, environmental cooperation, environmental protection, quality of the environment, sustainable development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 1.6.2018  SWD(2018) 292 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT  IMPACT ASSESSMENT  Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) and repealing Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013 {COM(2018) 385 final} - {SEC(2018) 275 final} - {SWD(2018) 293 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ........................................... 5 

1.1.  Scope and context ......................................................................................................... 5 
1.2.  Lessons  learned  from  the  previous  LIFE+  programme  (2007-2013)  and  the 

current LIFE programme (2014-2020) ......................................................................... 7 
1.2.1.  Consultation activities ..................................................................................... 11 

2.  THE OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................ 12 

2.1.  Challenges for the LIFE programme for the next MFF .............................................. 12 
2.1.1.  Key features of the current LIFE Programme ............................................................. 12 
2.1.2.  Key challenges and opportunities facing LIFE ........................................................... 13 
2.1.3.  Potential gaps and synergies with other EU programmes ........................................... 14 
2.2.  Expected impacts of an unchanged LIFE programme (baseline) ............................... 15 
2.3.  Objectives of the LIFE programme post 2020 ............................................................ 15 
General and specific objectives for the future LIFE programme ............................................ 16 
Seizing opportunities for optimising the performance of the LIFE programme ...................... 17 

3. 

PROGRAMME STRUCTURE AND PRIORITIES ........................................................ 18 

3.1.  Programme priorities .................................................................................................. 18 
3.2.  Critical mass ............................................................................................................... 19 
3.3.  The EU added value of LIFE ...................................................................................... 20 
3.4.  Possible  enhancements  to  the  scope  and  structure  of  the  future  LIFE 

programme .................................................................................................................. 21 
3.4.1  Extend the scope of the LIFE programme to include capacity-building projects related 
to clean energy by adding a sub-programme on Clean Energy Transition .................. 22 

3.4.2.  Extend the scope of the LIFE programme to improve mainstreaming for nature and 

biodiversity .................................................................................................................. 26 

3.4.3.  Extend eligibility of LIFE to the EU's Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs) 
specifically for nature and biodiversity actions within the Environment sub-
programme .................................................................................................................. 27 
3.5.  Conclusions................................................................................................................. 28 

4.  DELIVERY MECHANISMS OF THE INTENDED FUNDING.................................... 29 

4.1.  Possible enhancements to funding mechanisms ......................................................... 29 
4.1.1.  Expand the scope and scale of Strategic Integrated Projects (SIPs) ............................ 29 
4.1.2.  Targeted support to upscale and replicate successful projects .................................... 31 
4.1.3.  Address the unbalanced participation of candidates from some Member States to LIFE 

calls for proposals through a reinforced network of LIFE contact points and targeted 
capacity-building actions ............................................................................................. 32 
4.1.4.  Increase the co-financing rate ...................................................................................... 33 
4.1.5.  Systematically define and develop synergies with other instruments ......................... 33 
4.1.6.  Financial Instruments delivered through a central fund. ............................................. 35 
4.1.7.  Improving the strategic focus of the programme by simplifying the Regulation and the 
MAWP. ....................................................................................................................... 36 

1 

 
 
 
 
 
4.2.  Conclusions................................................................................................................. 37 
4.3.  Programme management ............................................................................................ 38 

4.3.1.  Package of measure to reduce the administrative burden for the 

applicants/beneficiaries ............................................................................................... 38 
4.3.2.  Streamlined procedures for the implementation of the EU budget .............................. 39 

5.  HOW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? .................. 39 

5.1.  Lessons learned related to the existing monitoring and evaluation framework .......... 40 
5.2.  Monitoring and evaluation framework for post 2020 indicators ................................ 42 
5.2.1.  How the outcomes and impact/catalytic role of the programme will be assessed ....... 43 
5.2.2.  The timetable and the evaluations of the LIFE Programme 2021-2027 ...................... 44 

ANNEXES ..................................................................................................................................... 47 

2 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

BaU 

Business as Usual scenario 

BEST Initiative 

Voluntary Scheme for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Territories of 
European Overseas 

CAP 

European Common Agricultural Policy 

Transition to Clean 
Energy Programme 

The part of Intelligent Energy Europe which could be transferred into LIFE 

CF 

COSME 

DG 

EAFRD 

EASME 

EFSI 

EIB 

EIC 

EIT 

EMFF 

ERDF 

Cohesion Fund 

Europe’s programme for small and medium-sized enterprises 

General Directorate of the European Commission 

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 

European Agency for Small and Medium Enterprises 

European Fund for Strategic Investments 

European Investment Bank 

European Innovation Council 

European Institute of Innovation and Technology 

European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 

European Regional Development Fund 

Horizon Europe 

The 9th (post 2020) Research and Innovation (R&I) Framework Programmes- 

GHG 

IEE 

IMPEL 

Green House Gases 

Intelligent Energy Europe 

European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of 
Environmental Law 

IPs 

Integrated projects (LIFE 2014-2020) 

LIFE+ Programme 

Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE+) – years 2007-2013 - Regulation 
(EC) No 614/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007 
concerning the 

MAWP 

MFF 

MTE 

NCPs 

N2000 

Multi Annual Work Programme 

Multi-annual Financial Framework 

Mid-term Evaluation of the LIFE Programme 2014-2020 

National Contact Points 

Natura 2000 

Nature Directives 

Birds Directive: Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the 
Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds and Habitats 
Directive: Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of 
natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora 

3 

 
NEC Directive 

National Emission Ceilings (NEC) Directive (2016/2284/EU) 

NGO 

OCTs 

ORs 

SDGs 

SF 

SIPs 

R&I 

TFEU 

Non-governmental organisations 

Overseas Countries and Territories 

Outermost Regions 

Sustainable Development Goals 

Structural Funds 

Strategic Integrated Projects (post 2020 LIFE) 

Research and Innovation 

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union. 

4 

 
 
1. 

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT 

1.1. 

Scope and context 

This  impact  assessment1  accompanies  the  Commission  proposal  for  the  future  LIFE 
Programme  for  the  Environment  and  Climate  Action  2021-2027  and  satisfies  the 
requirements of the Financial Regulation in respect of preparing an ex-ante evaluation.  

All  current  and  future  EU  generations  are  affected  by  environmental  and  climate 
problems,  which  impact  on  health,  quality  of  life,  and  the  availability  and  status  of 
natural  resources,  implying  social  and  economic  costs.  The  EU  is  a  global  leader  for 
environmental protection and climate action and - as confirmed in the President Juncker's 
2017 State of the Union address2 - wants to enhance this role3.  

As  highlighted  in  the  Commission  communication  on  the  "Next  steps  for  a  sustainable 
European future"4, the 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development and the 17 Sustainable 
Development  Goals  constitute  an  essential  guiding  principle  and  the  contribution 
provided by the EU policies shall be assessed during the future EU multi-annual financial 
framework  (MFF).  The  Commission  communication  on  "A  new,  modern  Multiannual 
Financial Framework for a European Union that delivers efficiently on its priorities post-
20205" acknowledges the citizens' expectations for their health, the environment and the 
climate.  It  identifies  the  European  added  value,  enhanced  performance,  simplification 
and flexibility as the keys to a modern and effective EU budget. 

At EU level, large investments in environmental and climate actions are primarily funded 
by  major  funding  programmes  (mainstreaming),  in  particular  the  cohesion  funds, 
agriculture  and  rural  development  funds,  maritime  and  fisheries  funds,  the  research  & 
innovation programme as well as external policy instruments.  

The  LIFE  programme  is  the  only  EU  fund  entirely  dedicated  to  environmental  and 
climate  objectives,  addressed  at  present  through  two  sub-programmes.  With  its  modest 
budget (currently amounting to EUR 3.5 billion for the period 2014-2020 – 0.3% of the 
EU  budget),  it  targets  a  niche  between  EU  programmes  supporting  research  and 
innovation  on  the  one  hand  and  EU  programmes  financing  large-scale  deployment  of 
measures on the other hand (see Figure 1 below).  

As  Figure  1  illustrates,  the  first  stage,  research/innovation,  involves  primary  research 
that  enhances  scientific  knowledge  and  technical  demonstration  to  prove  viability  of 
innovations. LIFE does not cover this area apart from small-scale research activities that 
support other objectives in projects. LIFE mainly finances actions that come under: 

the  demonstration/best  practice  stage,  including  testing,  demonstrating  and 
piloting the effectiveness of new technologies, approaches or policies as methods 
for policy implementation.  

1  

2  
3  

4  
5  

This impact assessment follows a special template developed for the future EU programmes with the aim to 
assess how the EU added value of the programmes can be enhanced. 
https://ec.europa.eu/commission/state-union-2017_en  
An analysis of the continued need for action in the various environmental policy areas and on climate change 
to  ensure  compliance  with  the  relevant EU  legislation, the Paris Agreement and the implementation  of the 
Energy Union is presented in Annex 4. 
SWD(2016) 390 final 
See COM(2018) 98 final.  

5 

 
  
                                                      
the  facilitating exploitation/upscaling/awareness stage to  prepare  the  ground for 
the large-scale deployment of appropriate technical and policy-related solutions.  

LIFE  also  contributes  to  the  large-scale  funding  of  green  solutions,  where  access  to 
funding  constitutes  the  main  barrier  for  the  large-scale  deployment  of  a  technology, 
approach or policy, which has already proved to be effective. Its contribution is via two 
currently pilot financial instruments Private Finance for Energy Efficiency (PF4EE) and 
Natural Capital Finance Facility (NCFF), that only operate at a relatively small scale. 

Figure 1. The coverage of LIFE and other major EU programmes and funds 

Source: European Commission 

While  LIFE  activities  tackle  certain  problems  directly  on  the  ground,  the  programme's 
main  impact  is  indirect  through  its  catalytic  role:  the  support  for  small-scale  actions 
intended  to  initiate,  expand  or  accelerate  sustainable  production,  distribution  and 
consumption practices by supporting: 

the development and exchange of best practice and knowledge; 

the  building  up  of  the  capacities  and  speeding  up  the  implementation  of 
environmental and climate legislation and policies; 

stakeholders in testing small-scale technologies and solutions; and 

the mobilisation of funding from other sources. 

On 2 May 2018, the European Commission adopted its proposals for a new Multiannual 
Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027. Under these proposals, the LIFE programme 
will have a budget of EUR 5 450 million over this period.  

This impact assessment report reflects the MFF proposals and focuses on the changes and 
policy choices which are specific to this instrument.  

6 

 
  
 
  
  
  
  
Among other things, it analyses the integration of part of the Intelligent Energy Europe 
(IEE)  programme6  into  the  future  LIFE  Programme  as  a  separate  window  on  ''Clean 
Energy Transition'' (see option 3.4.1 in chapter 3). 

Moreover,  it  provides  an  assessment  of  the  option  for  the  establishment  of  dedicated 
envelopes for biodiversity and the management of the Natura 2000 network7. 

1.2.  Lessons  learned  from  the  previous  LIFE+  programme  (2007-2013)  and  the 

current LIFE programme (2014-2020)  

The  final  evaluation8  of  the  LIFE+  Programme  (2007-2013)  concluded  that  the 
programme was successful in promoting the implementation of the EU’s environmental 
policy  and  legislation  with  significant  EU  added  value.  However,  it  also  identified  a 
number  of  shortcomings.  The  vast  majority9  of  these  were  addressed  by  introducing 
changes  to  the  design  of  the  current  LIFE  Programme  (2014-2020).  For  example,  the 
need to ensure that the projects supported had sufficient strategic focus was addressed in 
the  new  programme  by  shifting  from  a  pure  bottom-up  approach  to  a  more  flexible 
approach, with specific thematic priorities and project topics defined for the Environment 
sub-programme. Likewise, the need for further simplification in the application process 
and reporting obligations was addressed by introducing a two-step application procedure 
for the integrated projects, waiving the requirement to submit an external audit certificate 
and/or a VAT certificate and streamlining the system to enable applicants to submit their 
proposals electronically (e-proposal). Further details on these changes and their rationale 
are provided in Annex 3.  

The  effectiveness  of  these  changes  was  explored  in  the  recent  mid-term  evaluation  of 
LIFE (MTE)10. While the evaluation was undertaken at an early stage of the programme 
implementation, when only the 2014 and 2015 projects had started, it confirmed that the 
programme is on track to be effective11, efficient and relevant and that it is providing a 
contribution  to  the  Europe  2020  strategy.  Furthermore,  most  stakeholders  see  LIFE  as 
being a very important instrument for addressing environmental and climate priorities.  
The  lessons  learned  from  the  MTE  and,  where  relevant,  recommendations  from  other 
reviews  of  the  LIFE  programme,  are  summarised  below.  They  concern  three  aspects: 
programme  relevance,  coherence  and  coverage;  effectiveness  and  catalytic  effect;  and 
efficiency  and  simplification.  Some  of  the  conclusions  have  already  been  taken  into 
account in the implementation of the current programme. 

6  

7  

8  

9  

10  

11  

This  impact  assessment  concerns  a  Programme  for  the  Environment  and  Climate  Action,  including  Clean 
Energy and will analyse the option to include activities identified as "Clean Energy Transition" according to 
the option in section 3.4.1. below. 
This analysis of this option was requested by various stakeholders, including the European Parliament in the 
resolution  of  14  March  2018  on  the next  MFF: Preparing the  Parliament’s position on  the  MFF post-2020 
(2017/2052(INI)) - P8_TA-PROV(2018)0075. For further information see par. 2.1.1. below. 
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. 
As  described  in  Annex  3  the  vast  majority  of  the  identified  shortcomings  have  been  addressed.  Potential 
remaining gaps may concern the development of greater synergies and coherence with national, regional, and 
local programmes in Member States, and addressing liquidity problems for the NGOs that received operating 
grants due to issues related to the speed and timing of payments. 
EC (2017) Report on the Mid-term Evaluation of the Programme for Environment and Climate. SWD(2017) 
355 final. Ecorys (2017) Support for an external and independent LIFE Mid Term Evaluation Report 
Basing on the analysis of the Key Performance Indicators used to assess the performance of projects. 

7 

 
                                                      
1. Relevance, coherence and coverage 

  The LIFE programme and its general objectives are relevant and are targeting 
the  EU’s  existing  environmental  and  climate  policy  priorities.  Also,  the  six 
Priority Areas defined in the LIFE Regulation12 are responding to the needs. 

  Around  13%  of  the  LIFE  projects  impact  more  than  one  thematic  area13.  These 
'overlaps'  are  synergetic:  taking  into  account  the  interdependence  of  natural 
resources, multipurpose projects are more effective. Their expected combined 
impact is rewarded with bonus points during the evaluation of proposals.  

  The  small  budget,  the  breadth  of  policy  objectives  targeted  and  the  new 
challenges imply that not all the thematic areas could be addressed adequately by 
the end of the programming period. A critical mass to trigger a change on all 
environmental  and  climate  issues14  would  require  a  substantial  increase  of 
the budget.  

  Reducing  the  thematic  scope  of  the  programme  would  have  critical 
consequences  in  addressing  one  or  more  of  the  programme’s  priorities  (e.g. 
resource  efficiency,  the  quality  of  water  and  air,  greenhouse  gas  emissions 
reduction, marine conservation, etc.).  

  Synergies  have  been  found  between  the  projects  financed  by  LIFE  grants  and 
projects  financed  by  grants  from  other  EU  programmes  (e.g.  demonstration 
projects under Horizon 2020), as the programmes, while having distinct goals and 
being different in size and nature have inter-related activities. In some areas (i.e. 
nature  and  biodiversity  including  marine  ecosystems)  the  Programme  plays  a 
unique and essential role. Synergies and complementarities have been observed in 
particular with research and rural development programmes. Still, the systematic 
development of synergy mechanisms could offer space for improvement. 

2. Effectiveness and catalytic effect 
What the Programme is delivering: 

 

In general, the various types of grants (for standard projects, integrated projects, 
technical  assistance  for  integrated  projects,  preparatory  projects  and  NGO 
support) appear to be effective delivery mechanisms. 

  The  integrated  projects,  which  coordinate  the  implementation  of  actions  on  a 
large  territorial  scale,  have  shown  a  significant  potential  to  enhance  the 
catalytic  effect  of  LIFE15.  LIFE  financing  of  EUR  251.7  million  to  integrated 
projects  under  the  present  programme  in  the  period  2014-2016  is  expected  to 
mobilise  investments  on  environmental  and  climate  action  of  about  EUR 

12  

13  

14  

15  

The  priorities  areas  are:  Environment  and  Resource  Efficiency,  Nature  and  Biodiversity,  Environmental 
Governance and Information, Climate Mitigation, Climate Adaptation, Climate Governance and Information. 
The  LIFE  thematic  priorities  concern  water,  waste,  resource  efficiency,  environment  and  health,  climate 
mitigation and adaptation. For instance, some nature and biodiversity projects impacted positively on water 
quality, the marine environment and climate adaptation. 
These views were echoed by a recent study. See European Parliament (November 2017) “Implementation of 
the 7th Environment Action Programme – Mid-term review”, Brussels, European Union 2017 
In their motion for resolution on the LIFE mid-term review - under adoption at the time of finalisation of this 
impact  assessment  -  the  European  Parliament  has  recognised  the  important  potential  of  the  integrated 
projects. 

8 

 
                                                      
5.7 billion  in  total,  thus  for  each  LIFE  euro  spent  a  further  22  euros  from  other 
sources is expected to be used in a coordinated way for environment and climate 
objectives16. 

  The pilot financial instrument for energy efficiency, Private Finance for Energy 
Efficiency instrument (PF4EE) is aimed at building up the capacity of financial 
institutions  to  develop  and  test  specific  loan  products  targeting  private  sector’s 
investments  in  energy  efficiency  measures.  It  has  shown  a  good  uptake  and  the 
possibility,  after  the  pilot  phase,  to  enable  up-scaling  of  the  piloted  energy 
efficiency loans via relevant financial instruments mobilised by EU programmes, 
in particular under the future EU Invest Fund. The Committee of the Regions has 
called  on  the  LIFE  programme  to  achieve  greater  complementarity  between 
PF4EE and other relevant financial instruments17. 

  The  pilot  financial  instrument  for  natural  capital,  Natural  Capital  Financing 
Facility  (NCFF),  provides  loans,  equity  and  guarantees  to  nature  and  climate 
adaptation  measures  that  can  generate  revenues  or  save  costs.  It  is  intended  to 
establish a pipeline of replicable, bankable operations that will serve as a "proof 
of concept" to demonstrate to potential investors the attractiveness of operations 
directly  addressing  biodiversity  and  climate  adaptation  objectives.  It  has 
registered  a  slow  uptake  because  of  the  need  to  adapt  banking  practices  for 
assessing the returns of such investments combined with the need to improve the 
quality  of  the  project  applications.  Several  adjustments  have  been  made  as  a 
follow-up  of  the  LIFE  mid-term  evaluation  to  increase  the  visibility  of  the 
instrument  and  to  operationalise  the  technical  assistance  facility.  The  project 
pipeline  has  improved  as  a  result.  One  of  the  recommendations  still  to  be 
addressed is to complement this financial support with targeted grants (blending). 

  Public procurement contracts are considered a valuable delivery mechanism 
for  providing  targeted  support  for  the  preparation  of  environmental  and  climate 
legislation  and  policies  and  their  implementation/enforcement.  They  have  an 
important catalytic effect. 

What more could be done: 

  More targeted steering of projects towards key priorities could enhance the 
focus  and  performance,  in  particular  for  the  Environment  sub-programme, 
where  thematic  priorities  are  defined  in  the  Regulation  for  a  period  of  seven 
years.  This  may  pose  a  challenge  for  new  priorities  emerging  during  the  seven-
year programming period (such as have been in the current programming period 
the  Circular  Economy  and  the  related  sectors18,  for  example  plastics),  or  other 
priorities which are not adequately targeted by projects (selected following a calls 
for proposals on the basis of a bottom-up approach).  

16  

17  

18  

See  Report  on  the  Mid-term  Evaluation  of  the  Programme  for  Environment  and  Climate  Action  (LIFE). 
SWD(2017) 355 final and annex 5.  
ENVE-VI/016,  Opinion,  Mid-term  evaluation  of  the  LIFE  programme,  Committee  of  the  Regions.  121st 
plenary session, 8-9 February 2017. 
The Circular Economy Action Plan adopted in December 2015  - COM(2015)614 – identifies 5 cross-sector 
key 
and 
Innovation&Investments&Monitoring)  as  well  as  5  Key  sectors  (Plastics,  Food  Waste,  Construction  and 
Demolition,  Bio-mass  and  biobased  produts,  Critical  Raw  Materials)  that  need  to  be  addressed  to  set  in 
motion the transition to a circular economy in the EU. 

(Production,  Consumption,  Waste  Management,  Secondary  Raw  Materials 

areas 

9 

 
                                                      
  There  is  a  low  participation  of  beneficiaries  from  some  Member  States  which 
risks weakening the catalytic effect of the programme (see Annex 8)19. The use of 
national  allocations  has  proven  not  to  be  effective  in  targeting  this  problem:  it 
resulted in a reduced participation from the countries which had participated more 
before without improving the participation of the others. It has been discontinued 
since 2018.The capacity-building grants introduced in 2014 seem to have mixed 
results but it is too early to reach any firm conclusion. New ways of mitigating 
an uneven participation of Member States should be sought. 

  The greater the replication of project results, the greater the catalytic effect 
of LIFE. A 2016 report20 on LIFE + projects observed that, although about three 
quarters  of  projects  have  good  potential  for  replication,  there  is  space  for 
improvement  in  actual  replication.  The  beneficiaries  mention  that  the  main 
barriers to replication are a lack of: financial means, decision makers’ interest and 
sense  of  urgency,  specific  information  and  communication  of  transferable 
solutions, and investment-planning capacity.  

3. Efficiency and simplification 

  The  delegation  of  management  from  the  Commission  to  the  Executive 
Agency  for  Small  and  Medium-sized  Enterprises  (EASME)  delivered  cost 
savings and improved the efficiency of the programme, because it introduced 
economies  of  scale  for  implementing  the  large  number  of  homogenous  and 
standardised operations needed to manage grants.  

  LIFE  is  relatively  efficient  compared  to  other  EU  programmes.  It  costs,  in 
relative terms, significantly less to manage LIFE than other similar programmes 
(e.g. COSME21 and Horizon 202022). The management practices characterised by 
the  use  of  external  support  for  project  monitoring  has  resulted  in  a  very  high 
project success rate and a very low error rate23 (0.25% in 2017 - the lowest across 
all  the  EU  programmes).  However,  there  might  be  a  potential  for  further 
improving  efficiency  though  adjustments  of  certain  programme  management 
aspects, such as the monitoring of projects. 

  A  potential  risk  of  lacking  continuity  and  loosing  input  from  projects  for 
policy-making  and  vice-versa  due  to  the  delegation  of  management  from  the 
Commission  to  EASME  was  mitigated  by  transferring  key  human  resources 
from  the  Commission  to  EASME  and  by  defining  a  strong  policy-integration 
strategy.  

19  

20  

21  
22  

23  

It should be noted that in terms reaching EU environmental and climate policy objectives, it is not necessarily 
decisive where the coordinating LIFE beneficiary is situated. 
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. 
Europe’s programme for small and medium-sized enterprises 
See  Report  on  the  Mid-term  Evaluation  of  the  Programme  for  Environment  and  Climate  Action  (LIFE). 
SWD(2017) 355 final. The figures included in the interim evaluation of Horizon 2020 do not contradict this 
statement.  The  information  provided  is  that  the  level  of  administrative  expenditure  “stays  below  the  level 
observed in FP7 and below the stated target of 5% of the overall budget”. For comparison, this figure in the 
LIFE Programme for the period 2014-2020, is 2.4% including all EASME's expenditures.   
The error rate identifies the amount that is considered at risk and is well below the materiality benchmark 
threshold  of  2 %,  which  represent  the  ceiling  above  which  missing  or  incorrect  information  in  financial 
statements is considered to have an impact: it means that it was EUR 0.25 for every EUR 100 spent in 2017. 

10 

 
                                                      
  Beneficiaries  find  administrative  burden  too  high.  Thus,  there  is  a  need  to 
simplify the application and reporting process. Some simplification measures 
have already been introduced and others are being tested. 

1.2.1.  Consultation activities 

As  part  of  the  LIFE  mid-term  evaluation  a  wide  range  of  consultation  activities  were 
conducted. They included a 12-week public consultation with more than 250 responses, 
six specific surveys with more than 200 responses, and over 150 interviews (and, where 
relevant,  site  visits)  of  key  stakeholder  groups,  including  project  beneficiaries,  project 
coordinators, external monitoring experts and financial instruments’ stakeholders.  

The key messages from these consultation activities, described in more detail in Annex 2, 
are  included  in  the  lessons  presented  in  the  previous  section  and  have  been  taken  into 
account for the definition of the options.  

Box 1: Summary of key messages from stakeholders consulted under the MTE of LIFE 

  95% of the respondents to the public consultation confirmed the need to have an EU programme for the 

environment and climate.  

  Stakeholders  emphasised  that  the  transnational  nature  of  LIFE  plays  an  important  role  in  the 

programme’s effectiveness. 

  Stakeholders  highlighted  that  LIFE  is  one  of  the  few  EU  funds  that  supports  the  restoration  and 

maintenance of biodiversity and thus plays an important role in funding nature conservation. 

  Stakeholders welcomed the phasing out of national allocations but emphasised the usefulness of national 
contact  points.  At  the  same  time,  stakeholders  highlighted  that  there  are  large  differences  between 
Member States in terms of their capacity and performance.  

  The  large  majority  of  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  considered  that  all  the  different  types  of 
interventions covered by LIFE are relevant for an EU programme for the environment and climate.  

  The majority of stakeholders considered LIFE to be both internally and externally coherent.  
  Stakeholders agreed that LIFE acts as a catalyst. Nevertheless, the consultation activities showed that this 

potential should be further exploited.  

  The LIFE Programme was considered to be relevant by stakeholders to address the needs and problems in 
the  area  of  climate  and  environment.  At  the  same  time,  the  need  for  prioritisation  and  the  potential 
inclusion of a more ‘top-down’ approach was highlighted. 

  The  majority  of  the  respondents  to  the  public  consultation  confirmed  that  the  Programme  has  an 
important  EU  added  value  because  it  supports  the  coherent  development,  implementation  and 
enforcement  of  EU  environment  and  climate  policy  and  legislation  (98  %  of  respondents);  it  tackles 
environmental  and  climate  problems  more  efficiently  (98  %  of  respondents);  it  preserves  EU 
environmental resources which, even if unevenly distributed across the EU, benefit the EU as a whole (94 
%  of  respondents);  it  contributes  to  EU-wide  sharing  of  'best  practices',  knowledge  transfer, 
demonstration, and awareness raising (99 % of respondents).  

  Stakeholders  had  strong  views  on  the  need  for  further  simplification,  and  the  excessive  administrative 

complexity of the programme was criticised.  

  The high potential of integrated projects was emphasised by stakeholders.  
  With  regards  to  financial  instruments,  stakeholders  highlighted  the  need  for  grant  blending  and  further 
technical assistance. Some stakeholders also questioned the relevance and effectiveness of the NCFF.   
  The importance of the involvement of NGOs in environmental and climate policy was highlighted by the 
stakeholders  who  replied  to  the  consultation  activities  pointing  the  relevance  of  the  LIFE  operating 
grants.  

Source:   Ecorys (2017) Support for an external and independent LIFE Mid Term Evaluation Report 

For  this  impact  assessment,  it  was  not  considered  necessary  to  organise  a  new,  broad 
public  consultation.  Still,  further  opinions  on  the  LIFE  mid-term  evaluation  results  and 

11 

 
the  future  of  the  LIFE  Programme  were  received  from  environmental  NGOs  and  some 
consultation activities to discuss the challenges and opportunities of the programme were 
undertaken with relevant stakeholders (see Annex 2).  

These  consultations  confirmed  the  conclusions  of  the  LIFE  mid-term  evaluation  and 
provided new insights relating to the options for the new LIFE programme. A summary 
of these points is presented in the box below. 

Box 2: Summary of key points from other stakeholders  
  A wide range of environmental NGOs highlighted the importance of the LIFE Programme in funding 
environmental issues even if the current budget of the programme only represents 0.3% of the total EU 
MFF.  At  the  same  time,  they  called  for  more  than  a  3-fold  increase  of  the  future  LIFE’s  budget, 
arguing that LIFE should receive at least 1% of the total EU post-2020 MFF. 

  Given the need to increase nature conservation efforts and the importance of LIFE’s role in supporting 
biodiversity,  some  NGOs  called  to  dedicate  50%  of  the  future  LIFE  programme  to  Nature  and 
Biodiversity.  Furthermore,  several  stakeholders  called  for  the  creation  of  a  large  dedicated  Nature 
Fund, possibly within the LIFE umbrella.  

  The  need  to  increase  co-financing  rates  was  also  highlighted,  particularly  to  facilitate  participation 
from  the  Member  States  which  are  participating  less.  Furthermore,  NGOs  emphasised  the  need  to 
reduce  administrative  burden  on  project  applicants  in  order  to  increase  the  effectiveness  of  the 
programme.  

2. 

THE OBJECTIVES 

2.1.  Challenges for the LIFE programme for the next MFF 

2.1.1.  Key features of the current LIFE Programme 

The  LIFE  programme  is  directly  managed  by  the  European  Commission  (DG 
Environment and DG Climate Action), although the implementation of some components 
has been delegated to EASME. The European Investment Bank (EIB) manages the two 
financial instruments associated with the LIFE programme 2014-2020. 

The  budget  for  the  current  Environment  sub-programme  is  EUR  2.59  billion  and  it 
targets  the  following  Priority  Areas:  environment  and  resource  efficiency;  nature  and 
biodiversity,  including  terrestrial  and  marine  ecosystems;  environment  governance  and 
information. The budget for the current Climate sub-programme is EUR 864 million and 
it targets the following Priority Areas: climate mitigation; climate adaptation and climate 
governance and information. 

The  setting  of  strategic  priorities  differs  between 
the  sub-programmes.  The 
Environment sub-programme is quite prescriptive in the Regulation and the Multiannual 
Work  Programmes  (MAWP),  whereas  the  Climate  sub-programme  enjoys  a  greater 
flexibility, allowing, in the yearly call for proposals, the identification of key priorities in 
line  with  the  latest  policy  developments,  e.g.  the  implementation  of  the  2015  Paris 
Agreement on Climate Change.  
LIFE currently has three24 main types of delivery mechanisms (Article 17). These are: 
grants  (action  and  operating),  financial  instruments  and  public  procurement 
contracts.  An  overview  of  the  intervention  logic  and  key  features  of  the  delivery 

24  

The  Regulation  also  allows  other  interventions  to  be  used  in  addition  to  these  three,  for  the  purpose  of 
achieving the general objectives. 

12 

 
                                                      
mechanisms is set out in Annex 5. As mentioned in Section 1.2, the final evaluation of 
the LIFE+ Programme (2007-2013) identified several shortcomings, the vast majority of 
which have  been  addressed in  the design of the current  LIFE Programme (2014-2020). 
This includes changes to the action grants delivery mechanism. 

The catalytic effect of the standard 'traditional' LIFE projects is to demonstrate suitable 
technologies  or  methodologies  for  implementation  of  EU  environment  and  climate 
policy,  which  can  subsequently  be  deployed  at  large  scale,  funded  by  other  sources, 
including  the  main  EU  funds.  The  LIFE  integrated  projects  and  technical  assistance 
projects are dedicated to facilitating the development, implementation and coordination 
of  large-scale  actions  including  by  bringing  together  stakeholders  and  by  using 
investment plans that mobilise funding from other sources. Likewise, the objective of the 
financial  instruments  currently  being  financed  under  LIFE  is  to  test  the  possibility  to 
improve  the  leveraging  of  funds  for  environmental  and  climate  objectives.  Similarly, 
support  to  the  definition  of  policy  and  legislative  targets,  to  the  exchange  of  good 
practices, and to the EU role of global leader in international fora, financed through the 
LIFE procurement activities, further contributes to the catalytic effect of the programme.  

Replication  of  results,  including  through  promoting  synergies  with  other  EU 
programmes, increases the catalytic effect of LIFE and enhances the added value of 
EU  spending  overall.  For  this  reason,  LIFE  projects  are  required  to  establish  a 
replication  plan  (After  LIFE  plan).  Furthermore,  projects  appearing  to  have  a  large 
replication  potential  are  closely  monitored  and  beneficiaries  are  advised  about  other 
funding  instruments  (e.g.  the  Horizon  2020  SME  Instrument  or  regional  development 
schemes)  or  private  investors  which  might  provide  additional  funding  for  up-scaling. 
Moreover, LIFE also magnifies the impacts of other EU programmes by taking forward 
their results, particularly through awarding bonus points for project applications that take 
up results from Horizon 2020 or previous research programmes. 

It  is  challenging  to  determine  the  full  impact  of  the  LIFE  programme  because  of  its 
catalytic effect.  The full  effect of  a LIFE project often  materialises 5-7 years  after the 
project has been completed, and may manifest itself in societal transformations that are 
hard to measure. 

2.1.2.  Key challenges and opportunities facing LIFE 

The key challenges and problems to be addressed by the future LIFE programme remain 
largely  unchanged  compared  to  the  current  programme,  as  illustrated  in  the  needs 
analysis of Annex 4 and summarised below: 

  The  urgent  need  of  transforming  society  to  a  clean,  circular,  energy-efficient, 
low-carbon  and  climate-resilient  economy,  with  a  high  level  of  environmental 
protection and of halting and reversing biodiversity loss.  

 

 

 

Insufficient  availability  and  use  of  efficient  environmental,  climate-friendly  and 
low-carbon methods across different sectors.  

Insufficient knowledge, know-how and information. 

Insufficient levels of compliance with EU environmental and climate policy and 
legislation, and weak environmental and climate governance at all levels. 

13 

 
However,  as  highlighted  by  the  World  Economic  Forum  in  its  2018  Report  on  Global 
Risks25 the urgency  of facing up to  systemic challenges  has intensified, in particular in 
the field of environmental degradation and climate change.  

In order to adequately address these systemic problems and failures, both environmental 
and  climate  mainstreaming  as  well  as  targeted  funding  are  needed.  Furthermore,  as 
mentioned in Annex 4, allocations to integrated projects should be scaled up by at least 
four-fold  to  achieve  increased  replication  and  large-scale  deployment,  particularly  as 
regards  mainstreaming  of  nature  and  biodiversity  objectives  into  other  financing 
programmes/instruments. 

These  challenges  are  developing  rapidly  over  time,  which  accentuates  the  need  for 
having  a  LIFE  programme  which  is  sufficiently  flexible  to  target  the  evolving  needs 
throughout the programming period as well as having a sufficient critical mass of finance 
to catalyse real societal transformation.  

In designing the new LIFE Programme, there is a need to address the specific challenges 
mentioned  in  Section  1.2  above,  as  well  as  to  address  the  cross-cutting  objectives 
flexibility,  focus  on  performance,  coherence  and  synergies,  simplification,  which  are 
mentioned  in  the  Commission  Communication  on  "A  new,  modern  Multiannual 
Financial Framework for a European Union that delivers efficiently on its priorities post-
202026"..  

2.1.3.  Potential gaps and synergies with other EU programmes 

An  analysis  of  potential  gaps  and  synergies  with  other  EU  programmes  is  presented  in 
Annex 6. In general, it confirms the conclusions from the LIFE mid-term evaluation that 
overlaps in financing stages related to implementation and development of environment 
and climate policy are synergetic. Nevertheless, if potential synergies could be exploited 
more  systematically,  this  would  enhance  the  performance  of  all  the  programmes. 
Moreover,  considering  the  similar  objective  and  stage  in  the  shift  to  a  greener  Europe 
(see Figure 1) targeted by the LIFE Climate sub-programme and the IEE part of Horizon 
2020, integrating the IEE programme into the future LIFE Programme could increase the 
coherence of the EU budget27.  

At  the  same  time  the  analysis  shows  some  gaps  related  to  the  financing  of  specific 
environmental, climate and energy objectives, in particular regarding: 

  Conservation  of  biodiversity  and  sustainable  use  of  ecosystem  services  in  the 
EU's Outermost Regions (ORs) and Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs), 
which is presently supported through the BEST initiative28.  

  Nature and biodiversity, where several evaluations and assessments (notably the 
mid-term review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 and the Nature Fitness 

25  
26  
27  
28  

https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-report-2018 
See COM(2018) 98 final.  

For the distinction see Figure 1 “The coverage of LIFE and other major EC programmes and funds”. 

The  financing  comes  from  past  pilot  projects  and  a  2018  preparatory  action.  The  preparatory  action  was 
required  by  the  Budgetary  Authority  and  can  be  renewed  for  a  maximum  of  three  consecutive  years. 
According to the Financial Regulation, a preparatory action is designed to prepare a proposal for the adoption 
of future actions. For more information see: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/best/index_en.htm. 

14 

 
                                                      
Check),  and  a  recent  study29  highlighted  the  shortcomings  of  the  current 
integration approach to nature and biodiversity financing.  

2.2.  Expected impacts of an unchanged LIFE programme (baseline) 

The  continuation  of  the  LIFE  programme  in  its  current  format,  and  scale,  in  the  next 
MFF would likely see a similar outcome as that described in the mid-term evaluation and 
in  Annex  5.  However,  this  would  result  in  sub-optimal  effectiveness  in  reaching  the 
programme’s  overall  objectives,  particularly  when  considering  the  emerging  new 
challenges including for circular economy and the plastics strategy, as well as the needs 
for nature protection, including in the marine environment.  

Thus,  positive  environmental  impacts,  highlighted  by  previous  evaluations,  would 
continue  to  be  delivered  in  each  of  the  programme’s  thematic  areas:  air  quality  and 
emissions;  biodiversity;  climate  change  adaptation,  climate  change  mitigation; 
environmental and health; nature; resource efficiency; waste and water. 

While  the  programme  would  continue  to  act  as  a  catalyst  to  promote  changes  in  the 
development  and  implementation  of  environmental  and  climate  policies,  it  is  not 
expected  to  reach  its  full  potential  as  a  catalyst    without  seizing  the  opportunity  to 
address  the  specific  challenges  mentioned  in  section  1.2  above,  as  well  as  the  cross-
cutting MMF objectives. In particular, some gaps would remain in the funding of certain 
environmental and  climate challenges. Furthermore,  the continuation of the programme 
in its current format would not ensure extensive coherence between the LIFE programme 
and other EU funds.  

Without  an  increase  in  funding  for  certain  environmental  and  climate  challenges,  the 
scale of action taken may be insufficient to address the associated problems sufficiently 
(see Annex 4). The funding of nature projects is one such example30. Likewise, there may 
be gaps in financial support for some of the new and increasingly urgent environmental 
and climate challenges. 

Prioritisation  between  the  various  strands  of  LIFE  is  not  possible  because  there  is  no 
hierarchy  of  objectives  in  environment  and  climate  policy.  Furthermore,  multiple 
interlinked  priorities  are  addressed  by  more  than  one  strand  of  the  programme,  which 
makes  prioritising  one  strand  above  another  impossible.  Thus,  if  the  scope  were 
broadened without an increase in budget, the funding available for all existing activities 
would have to be consistently decreased and the needs described in Annex 4 would not 
be adequately addressed. 

The  programme  will  continue  to  support  existing,  and  promote  new,  jobs  in 
environmental  and  climate  fields  as  well  as  supporting  the  development  of  skills, 
knowledge, and innovation31. 2.3. 

Objectives of the LIFE programme post 2020  

29  

30  
31  

for 

for 

the 

report 

future.  Final 

Kettunen, M. et al., Integration approach to EU biodiversity financing: evaluation of results and analysis of 
options 
(Project 
ENV.B.3/ETU/2015/0014), Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussels/ London, January 
2017. 
See Annex 4 – Needs analysis for a more detailed estimate. 
For the contribution of LIFE to employment see the Staff Working Document for the Mid term Evaluation, 
pp.39-40 as well as ‘LIFE past, present and future contribution to employment and economic growth. LIFE 
effectiveness and replicability’ NEEMO 2016. 

the  European  Commission 

(DG  ENV) 

15 

 
                                                      
General and specific objectives for the future LIFE programme 

On the basis of the key challenges to be addressed by the LIFE Programme, the general 
objective for the future LIFE Programme is: 

Box 3: General objective of the LIFE Programme 2021-2027 

To  contribute  to  the  shift  towards  a  clean,  circular,  energy-efficient,  low-carbon  and 
climate-resilient  economy,  including  through  the  transition  to  clean  energy,  to  the 
protection  and  improvement  of  the  quality  of  the  environment  and  to  halting  and 
reversing biodiversity loss, thereby contributing to sustainable development. 

The general objective of the next LIFE Programme has been simplified but not changed 
in  substance  compared  to  the  current  LIFE  Programme,  which  has  four  general 
objectives.  Furthermore,  while  a  contribution  towards  a  transition  to  clean  energy  is 
already  covered  by  the  current  objectives,  this  transition  is  mentioned  explicitly  in  the 
future  objective  in  order  to  reflect  the  appropriateness  of  considering  the  activities 
discussed under Option 1 in Section 3.4.1.  

In  response  to  the  general  objective,  the  implementation  of  the  Programme  will  be 
optimised  in  terms  of  coverage  and  delivery  mechanisms  (see  Sections  3  and  4),  by 
pursuing,  in  line  with  the  cross-cutting  objectives  of  the  MFF,  greater  efficiency 
(simplification  and  flexibility),  an  improved  coherence  and  better  synergy  with  other 
programmes as well as increased effectiveness. 

Although the new programme will not explicitly mention 'priority areas,' its actions will 
continue to address all topics covered by the current priority areas, as they are relevant 
according  to  the  results  of  the  mid-term  evaluation.  Moreover,  to  take  into  account  the 
possible integration into LIFE of the transition to clean energy, an additional focus has 
been  added  on  energy  efficiency  and  renewable  energy.  As  a  result,  the  following 
specific objectives have been set as follows:  

Box 4: Specific objectives of the LIFE Programme 2021-2027 

1.  To  develop,  demonstrate  and  promote  innovative  techniques  and  approaches  for 
reaching  the  objectives  of  the  Union  legislation  and  policy  on  environment  and 
climate  action,  including  the  transition  to  clean  energy,  and  to  contribute  to  the 
application of best practice in relation to nature and biodiversity. 

2.  To  support  the  development,  implementation,  monitoring  and  enforcement  of  the 
relevant  Union  legislation  and  policy,  including  by  improving  governance  through 
enhancing capacities of public and private actors and the involvement of civil society. 

3.  To  catalyse  the  large-scale  deployment  of  successful  technical  and  policy-related 
solutions  for  implementing  the  relevant  Union  legislation  and  policy  by  replicating 
results, integrating related objectives into other policies and into public and private 
sector practices, mobilising investment and improving access to finance. 

The  specific  objectives  are  consistent  with  those  established  by  the  present  LIFE 
Regulation,  but  they  have  been  consolidated,  giving  more  focus  to  replication  and  the 
triggering  of  large-scale  deployment.  This  responds  to  the  findings  of  the  MTE.  The 
present LIFE Regulation has several specific objectives for each of its six priority areas, 
which are partly repetitive.  

Through  these  specific  objectives,  LIFE  should  continue  to  contribute  to  a  societal 
transformation  through  its  catalytic  effect  targeting  the  implementation  of  EU  climate 
and  environment  policy  goals,  including  compliance  with  the  relevant  EU  acquis.  The 

16 

 
main source of EU finance for environmental, climate and energy action must continue to 
come from other EU programmes (mainstreaming).  

Seizing opportunities for optimising the performance of the LIFE programme  

To  address  the  cross-cutting  objectives  of  the  future  MFF  and  take  advantage  of  the 
lessons  learned,  the  new  LIFE  programme  aims  at  achieving  four  operational  goals, 
which are presented below together with the issues/opportunities to be addressed and the 
relevant  parts  of  the  programme  –  coverage,  delivery  mechanism,  programme 
management – in which they will be addressed.  

Box 5: Operational challenges and opportunities in line with the MMF cross-cutting 
objectives 

 Operational goals 

Issues addressed 

Relevant part of LIFE 

1. To avoid gaps and 
ensure coherence with 
other EU programmes 

• Lack of finance for action on 
nature and biodiversity in the EU 

Programme coverage: geographical 
and technical scope; delivery 
mechanism 

• Lack of finance for biodiversity in 
ORs and OCTs. 

• Opportunity to improve the 
coherence with IEE  

Limited flexibility to provide funds 
for new and key environmental and 
climate priorities and launch 
strategically focused calls. 

Delivery mechanism: strategic 
flexibility 

2.  To 
strategic focus of LIFE 

improve 

the 

3.  To  improve  LIFE's 
and 
performance 
catalytic role 

Unbalanced accessibility for 
beneficiaries in different Member 
States 

Delivery mechanism: Improve 
awareness and know-how in Member 
States     

Build on LIFE project successes 
and improve synergies with other 
EU programmes 

Delivery mechanism: increase 
effectiveness /sustainability of 
projects 

Under-utilised potential for 
Strategic Integrated projects 

Delivery mechanism: scope of 
integrated projects, and specific 
project type for nature mainstreaming. 

Opportunity to improve the 
leverage effect 

Delivery mechanism: improve the 
implementation of the financial 
instruments 

4: To increase the 
efficiency and simplify 
the management of LIFE 

Potential opportunities to improve 
specific elements of the programme 
management 

Programme management: 
management costs 

Potential opportunities to improve 
specific elements of the monitoring 
and evaluation processes 

Programme management: monitoring 
and evaluation  

Potential opportunities to simplify 
the application procedures for 
certain beneficiaries 

Programme management: application 
procedures 

17 

 
 
 
 
 
3. 

PROGRAMME STRUCTURE AND PRIORITIES 

3.1. 

Programme priorities 

Fundamentally, the priorities of the LIFE programme 2021-2027 remain unchanged from 
the  present  programme,  namely  to  support  the  development  and  implementation  of  the 
EU's environment and climate policy, through catalytic actions that improve compliance 
on the ground at all levels. 

The operational challenges and the options to change the programme in order to address 
them are described in the box below. 

Box 6: Operational challenges to the LIFE programme and corresponding options 

Operational challenge 

Options to address the challenges 

Potential to cover gaps and to 
increase the coherence with other EU 
Funds. 

Lack of flexibility to focus 
strategically on the latest key 
priorities, in particular under the 
Environment sub-programme and 
lack of flexibility to use the best mix 
of delivery mechanisms due to 
different spending ceilings in the 
LIFE Regulation. 

Potential for further systematically 
enhancing the performance and 
catalytic effect of the different 
delivery mechanisms, including  
improving synergies with other EU 
programmes, further facilitating 
replication, improving accessibility to 

  Business as Usual (BAU) 

  Extend the scope of the LIFE programme to 
include capacity building projects related to 
renewable and sustainable energy (the Clean 
Energy Transition Programme as far as not 
retained in Horizon Europe, excluding market 
uptake of first of a kind innovations) 

  Extend the scope of the LIFE programme to 
improve mainstreaming for nature and 
biodiversity  

  Extend the scope of the LIFE programme to 
include large scale deployment activities for 
nature 

  Extend full eligibility of LIFE to the EU's 

Overseas Countries and Territories across all sub-
programmes 

  Extend eligibility of LIFE to the EU's Overseas 
Countries and Territories specifically for nature 
and biodiversity actions within the Environment 
sub-programme 

  BAU 

  Expand the scope and scale of integrated projects  

  Reduce the priority areas 

  Removal of thematic priorities and activities from 

Annex III of the Regulation for the Environment 
sub-programme  

  Remove prohibition of further pre-allocation in the 
MAWP or annual calls and reduce number of 
budget ceilings in the Regulation  

  Financial Instruments delivered through a central 

fund 

  BAU  

  Systematically define and develop synergies with 

other instruments 

  Targeted support (e.g. technical assistance) to 
upscale and replicate successful results 

  Replace capacity building projects with a 

18 

 
 
LIFE funds for beneficiaries across 
the different Member States; 

reinforced network of LIFE contact points 

 

Increase the co-financing rate 

Potential for enhancing further the 
efficiency of the management of 
LIFE; including simplification and 
reduction of administrative burden 
on beneficiaries 

  BAU 

  Further delegation of management responsibilities 

to EASME 

  Retraction of management responsibilities from 

EASME 

  Allocation of grants to selected organisation 
without the need for a call for proposals 

  Reducing budget lines 

  Package of measures to simplify the life of 

applicants/beneficiaries (e.g. simplified costs 
options, output based payments, two-step approach, 
cascading grants, etc.) 

As  can  be  seen  in  their  description  in  Annex  8,  these  options  are  not  alternatives,  but 
rather measures that are assessed individually and can function in synergy. In Annex 8, 
the  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  coherence  of  each  one  of  these  options  has  been 
analysed  and  some  of  them  have  been  discarded.    Many  of  the  options  can  be 
implemented  without  a  net  increase  to  the  budget;  where  additional  budget  would  be 
required this is described in annex 8 and below.  

Given the synergistic nature of the EU's environment and climate policies that underlie 
the  LIFE  programme  and  the  fact  that  it  is  not  appropriate  to  establish  a  hierarchy 
between  the  different  environmental  and  climate  policy  areas,  in  case  the  budget  is 
lowered, there will be a proportional reduction of the budget for the sub-programmes and 
thus a general reduction in funding for all activities covered by the LIFE programme. 

3.2.  Critical mass 

As  described  above,  the  programme's  main  impact  arises  from  its  catalytic  actions  to 
promote the substantial societal transformation required to achieve the full range of EU's 
environmental, climate and clean energy objectives.  

Annex 4 describes the overall level of change required for each thematic area covered by 
the Programme, based on the scale of the problems to be addressed. Given that the role of 
LIFE is to catalyse change, in order to reach the overall goals, a critical mass is required 
not  only  in  LIFE  but  also  in  other  financing  sources  which  are  'mobilised'  by  LIFE 
actions.  Any reduction from the present levels of financing would spread the funding too 
thinly across different thematic areas, for the full catalytic effects to be realised. 

Therefore, any expansion of thematic coverage or any new emerging priority will need to 
be  accompanied  by  an  adequate  funding  increase32  or  by  the  definition  of  negative  or 
limited  priorities.  The  concept  of  negative  priorities  is  difficult  to  apply  in  the 
environmental  and  climate  spheres  there  is  a  demonstrated  interdependence  among  the 
different  priorities  (e.g.  air,  water,  nature  and  biodiversity,  resource  efficiency,  climate 
mitigation, etc..). 

32 

The source of funding may depend on the nature of expansion. For those areas where the scope of the LIFE 
programme is expanding to address gaps or improve synergies with other programmes, some funding may be 
made  available  through  budget  transfers  from  the  relevant  programmes.  However,  in  cases  where  the 
expansion is to address new priorities, or scale up activities, this would require a new source of funding. 

19 

 
 
 
                                                      
The specific unmet needs in the area of nature and biodiversity indicate that the critical 
mass needed, including to promote coordinated used of complementary funding sources, 
is significantly more than presently allocated.  

Further  elements  on  an  appropriate  level  of  support  for  the  different  priority  areas, 
defining also the need for the Strategic Integrated Projects, are provided in Annex 4. 

3.3.  The EU added value of LIFE 

The EU added value of the LIFE Programme is recognised by almost all stakeholders and 
the  general  public.  Its  approach  is  unique  as  it  is  specialised  in  catalytic  interventions 
primarily  targeting  issues  concerning  environmental  protection  and  climate  action. 
According to the MTE, LIFE is fulfilling its role as a catalyst by sharing best practices 
and supporting actions to accelerate change. 

Highlighting its catalytic role, LIFE responds to cross-border environmental challenges, 
which  a  Member  State  is  unlikely  to  address  alone  or  which  would  risk  leading  to  a 
duplication of efforts by Member States. 

The programme's  value  added  stems from its support to  EU environmental and climate 
policy development, as well as its support to activities enhancing the ability to meet EU 
environmental and climate objectives across the EU. More homogenous implementation 
is achieved because LIFE represents an EU-level platform for sharing best practice and 
for the demonstration of more efficient solutions as well as by giving priority to projects 
that can be replicated at a wider scale in the EU33. 

LIFE  allows  a  better  sharing  of  responsibility  and  promotes  solidarity  for  the 
management/conservation  of  EU  environmental  assets,  which  are  usually  public  goods, 
which  are  not  evenly  distributed  across  the  EU.  Their  associated costs  and  benefits are 
not normally reflected in the market and, as a consequence, there is the need to ensure a 
sharing of associated burden.  

LIFE focusses on relatively small-scale projects providing one-off investment needed in 
a  specific  area,  eliminating  initial  barriers  and  testing  new  approaches  which  in  turn 
catalyse broader actions and mainstreaming of environmental and climate policy into the 
major EU spending instruments.  

Through  strategic  integrated  projects,  and  the  new  strategic  nature  projects,  the 
Programme  will  create  synergies  across  EU  and  national  funds  which  ease 
implementation of the relevant EU legislation.  

Furthermore,  LIFE  finances  those  actions  and  measures  that  would  otherwise  be 
inadequately  financed  by  Member  States  alone.  Certain  pieces  of  EU  environmental 
legislation,  such  as  the  Habitats  Directive  and  the  National  Emission  Ceilings  (NEC) 
directive, specifically acknowledge the need for EU finance to meet their objectives34.  

33  

34  

2016 Annual Management and Performance Report for the EU Budget, COM(2017) 351 final 

See article 8 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC and article 7 of Directive 2016/2284/EU.. 

20 

 
                                                      
3.4. 

Possible  enhancements  to  the  scope  and  structure  of  the  future  LIFE 
programme  

The internal structure and scope of the present LIFE instrument is generally considered 
sufficiently  fit-for-purpose  albeit  there  is  room  for  broadening  its  scope  and  size,  and 
reflecting  the  possible  expanded  scope  in  the  area  of  transition  to  clean  energy  (see 
section 3.4.1) and nature (see section 3.4.2) through dedicated sub-programmes. Indeed, 
as described in Annex 6, there are potential gaps in meeting the needs for environment 
and  climate  finance  in  the  various  EU  instruments  as  well  as  opportunities  to  enhance 
synergies between them. 

To address these challenges and better meet the related operational goal of avoiding gaps 
and ensuring coherence with other EU programmes, several options relating to potential 
changes  in  the  scope  and  structure  of  the  LIFE  programme  were  identified  and  then 
screened in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. Annex 8, section 1 presents 
the  relevant  options  and  the  results  of  the  screening.  The  most  promising  options  are 
summarised in Box7 below. They are further analysed in sections 3 and 4. 

Box 7: Options retained after initial screening 

In accordance with the methodology described in annex 7, the impacts of the options are 
considered taking into account environmental, social and economic factors, however only 
those impacts which differ from the status quo are mentioned.  In practice, and in view of 
the fact that the options were conceived with the purpose of improving the effectiveness 
of  the  LIFE  programme  to  meet  its  environment  and  climate  policy  goals,  most  of  the 
observed net impacts concern environmental factors. 

21 

 
 
3.4.1  Extend the scope of the LIFE programme to include capacity-building projects 
related  to  clean  energy  by  adding  a  sub-programme  on  Clean  Energy 
Transition 

This  option is  introduced  to  respond  to  the  operational  challenge  to  increase coherence 
between EU instruments and further develop synergies between the funded actions. 

This  option  would  involve  extending  the  scope  of  projects  supported  through  LIFE  to 
include  the  capacity-building  activities  of  the  Intelligent  Energy  Europe  Programmes 
(IEE)35, along with the necessary funding. Focusing on energy efficiency and small-scale 
renewables that contribute to climate mitigation, the relevant activities would be funded 
under a new Clean Energy Transition sub-programme. 

Their objective is to enable socio-economic transformation for transition to clean energy 
in  Europe,  especially  with  those  regions,  sectors  and  actors  who  need  to  catch  up  (e.g. 
cities,  coal  and  carbon-intensive  regions  in  transition,  islands).  The  transition  to  clean 
energy  is  an  essential  contribution  to  the  mitigation  of  climate  change  with  co-benefits 
for  the  environment  and  in  line  with  the  LIFE  framework.  These  activities  address  the 
different elements of the market environment by developing and spreading best practice 
in policy implementation, mobilising investments, improving skills, creating favourable 
market  conditions  for  technology  deployment  and  providing  support  to  socio-economic 
transformation and addressing vulnerabilities. 

Lessons learnt: 

The evaluation of IEE and the integration in Horizon 2020 under the Societal Challenge 
3, did not reveal major weaknesses and confirmed the effectiveness of the funded actions. 
The  integration  of  the  Clean  Energy  Transition  sub-programme  in  LIFE  is  expected  to 
lead to improvements and address the shortcomings of the current approach as presented 
in Annex 9, section 9.3. The main shortcoming, which will be addressed, is the different 
focus  of  the  R&I  framework  programme  which  does  not  specifically  aim  at  supporting 
capacity building activities.  

The  integration  of  IEE  III  into  Horizon  2020,  with  different  objectives,  clients  and 
funding  logic,  has  proved  to  be  difficult  and  the  current  proposal  is  to  continue  these 
activities  under  a  better  suited  framework.  The  inclusion  of  IEE-like  actions  under  the 
R&I  programme  followed  the  logic  of  installing  a  comprehensive  programme  covering 
all steps from basic research to market uptake and deployment. However, in the report on 
the  first  results  of  Horizon  2020  on  energy  efficiency36  the  evaluators  point  out  that 
mainly large consortia are funded, too little support is given for the applicants and that 
the impact on national policies could be improved. Also, higher barriers to participation 
in  Horizon 2020  than in  IEE  actions  are  mentioned  (see  Annex  9  9.2.2.  Lessons learnt 
from the current MFF for the details). 

Conclusions for the next MFF: 

35  

36  

Activities  addressing  the  market  uptake  of  energy  innovation,  building  on  the  Intelligent  Energy  Europe 
(IEE) programme 2007-2013, are presently part of Horizon 2020 - Energy Challenge (Societal Challenge 3). 
The  Commission  committed  in  its  Declaration  on  Horizon  2020,  to  dedicate  at  least  15%  of  the  Energy 
Challenge  budget  to  Intelligent  Energy  Europe  III  Programme.  See  the  Declarations  of  the  Commission 
(2013/C 373/02) annexed to Horizon 2020 regulation (EU) N°1291/2013 

Ricardo AEA, CE Delft (2017): Report on the first results of Horizon 2020 on energy efficiency and system 
integration – Final report 

22 

 
                                                      
The Horizon Europe programme does not specifically cover 'capacity building' 

1. 
activities in its scope 

The  R&I  programme  objective  is  to  fund  excellent  research  and  innovation, 
supporting pioneers who will show the way. But the EU has also the responsibility to 
help  laggards  and  followers  'catching  up'  by  building  the  capacity  in  order  to  quickly 
narrow the gap. There is also a need to address specific  barriers hampering the wide 
uptake  of  the  existing  clean  energy  solutions.    For  the  massive  market  roll-out, 
'expected impact' and 'quality of implementation' criteria should outweigh the criterion of 
'scientific excellence', which has less of relevance for capacity building.  

Based  on  this  conclusion  the  unsuitability  of  the  R&I  framework  for  capacity 
building  is  confirmed  in  the  R&I  FP  proposal  for  the  next  MFF,  where  the  clear 
demarcation is  made  in  the Horizon Europe  Impact Assessment between a 'first-of-the-
kind market uptake of innovation' and 'capacity building for a large-scale market uptake'.  

As  stated  in  the  Horizon  Europe  impact  assessment  improving  market  uptake  of 
innovative solutions is a broad concept encompassing various activities, which help R&I 
-driven innovation to succeed on the market and create new value for market players and 
consumers/citizens alike. However, market uptake goes beyond research and innovation. 
Therefore, activities under the Framework Programme alone cannot suffice to incentivise 
broad  market  uptake  and  dissemination  of  innovative  solutions.  Other  EU  programmes 
need  to  also  play  a  key  role  (see  Horizon  Europe  Impact  Assessment  Annex  7  on 
Synergies). 

2.  Bringing  the  clean  energy  capacity  building  and  deployment  activities  under  the 
LIFE programme will increase the coherence of the European funding landscape 

As  research  and  innovation  activities  would  rest  with  Horizon  Europe,  the  clear 
distinction between excellent research and innovation, including market uptake of first 
of a kind innovations, on the one side and supporting the catching-up and rolling-out 
processes by capacity building, removing barriers and shaping market on the other side 
leads  to  improving  the  coherence  of  EU  funding  landscape.  This  coherence  would 
allow  the  Clean  Energy  Transition  sub-programme  to  tailor  its  interventions  more 
closely  to  the  often  limited  capacity  of  catch-up  actors  and  territories  and  lower  the 
barriers for participation in the programme (see Annex 9 for a comprehensive review 
of barriers to energy efficiency uptake). 

3. LIFE provides the best suitable framework and the potential for synergies while the 
differences  in  the  implementation  know-how  will  be  mutually  enriching  when 
integrating the Clean Energy Transition sub-programme.  

a.  Programme coherence and avoidance of overlaps: 

LIFE  provides  a  suitable  regulatory  environment,  taking  into  account  its  intervention 
logic,  legal  base  and  delivery  mechanisms  aiming  to  implement  EU  environment  and 
climate  policy.  The  LIFE  programme  offers  the  possibility  to  host  the  clean  energy 
capacity building that contributes to climate mitigation in a clearly structured but at the 
same time flexible framework. Installing the Clean Energy Transition sub-programme in 
LIFE would ensure that potential theoretical overlaps between LIFE and the present IEE 
III are avoided (see annex 6 for a discussion) and that gaps between the two programmes 
are filled.  

b.  Synergies and multiplier effects:  

23 

 
Joining  forces  would  enable  synergy  effects,  which  can  be  triggered  by  the  projects 
implemented under the common framework (tackling energy efficiency, greenhouse gas 
emissions and local air pollutants at the same time). Such a synergetic action between the 
projects  and  the  underlying  policies  is  already  observed37,  like  in  the  case  of  the 
Covenant  of  Mayors  initiative,  and  it  will  be  further  strengthened38.  There  is  also  a 
potential for exploiting synergies between actions supporting capacity building for clean 
energy  transition  on  the  one  hand  and  strategic  LIFE  integrated  projects  focusing  on 
implementing climate mitigation plans at a larger scale. These synergies could be more 
easily  exploited  if  these  actions  were  funded  under  the  same  programme  (see  also 
Appendix  3  to  Annex  9,  summarising  some  examples  of  the  existing  synergies  in  the 
projects and initiatives for environment, climate and clean energy). 

c.  Further development of the implementation know-how: 

The  clean  energy  transition  enabling  actions  funded  under  IEE  and  its  continuation  in 
Horizon  2020  have  developed  their  own  implementation  intelligence,  know-how  and 
close  interactions  with  policy-making,  which  are  exemplary  across  all  the  centrally-
managed  EU  funding  activities.  This  precious  experience  needs  to  be  preserved,  while 
the  implementation  modalities  and  instruments  available  in  LIFE  are  definitely  worth 
exploring.  This  justifies  the  integration  of  Clean  Energy  Transition  as  a  separate  sub-
programme, which would allow differences in implementation approaches and facilitate 
clear communication to the stakeholders.  

Implementation knowledge cross-fertilization would be facilitated by the fact that both 
LIFE and IEE activities in Horizon 2020 are implemented by EASME and the frequent 
interactions  and  common  initiatives  (e.g.  common  projects  feedback  workshops)  are 
already in place between the units implementing both programmes. 

d.  Simplification potential:  
The evaluation of IEE type of actions under Horizon 202039 suggests that there is a clear 
potential  for  simplifying  the  presently  complex  application  procedures.  The  review 
showed  that  the  Horizon  2020  framework  favours  bigger  projects  and  large  consortia, 
putting  forward  resource-intensive  research  and  innovation  efforts.  This  crowds  out 
smaller participants and projects. In consequence there is not only a need for simplified 
administration on the side of the Commission, but also the need to guarantee simple and 
open  access  to  the  programmes  for  the  potential  beneficiaries,  especially  catching-up 
actors with limited capacities (see Annex 9.3.3. Simplification efforts for details). 

Assessment of the integration option: 

37  

38  

39  

Please see the examples provided in Annex 9 Appendix 3:  Examples of synergies in the projects and 
initiatives for environment, climate and clean energy 
ICF  International,  LDK,  Hinicio  (2015):  Evaluation  of  Intelligent  Energy  Europe  Projects  Supporting 
Sustainable Energy Communities. Final report. ICF review the relation of IEE support for communities and 
the  Covenant  of  Mayors.  Apart  from  quantifying  the  multiplier  effects  generated  by  the  programmes  (e.g. 
set-up and signing of SEAPs) they identify investments triggered by a sample of 30 projects (€8.3bn, p. 91), 
RES  production  of  935.000  toe/yr.;  primary  energy  savings  of  1,938,000  toe/yr.  and  7,700,000  tCO2eq. 
reduced (p. 92). The consortium estimates based on a survey that by the end of the projects some 5,470 jobs 
and  17,373  jobs  by  2020  resulted  through  the  projects.  78%  of  survey  respondents  confirmed  that  the 
respective project would not have been implemented in the absence of IEE funding (figure 43, p. 96). 
Ricardo AEA, CE Delft (2017) 

24 

 
                                                      
The  Horizon  2020  sustainable  energy  capacity  building  projects  are  currently  managed 
by  EASME  and  currently  sit  within  the  Horizon  2020  budget  programme  with  an 
allocation ~€135 million per year40. A planned expansion of the allocated annual budget 
for these projects to ~€171 million could include the policy support and capacity building 
for  renewables  Particular  focus 
the 
implementation of the climate and energy package in the Member States, as a key enabler 
for acceleration of the technological, financial and social transformation. 

to  capacity  building  related 

is  given 

to 

This  option  would  extend  the  current  thematic  coverage  of  LIFE  to  explicitly  include 
capacity building for policy implementation and investment mobilisation for the uptake 
of  existing  technologies  related  to:  energy  efficiency  and  small-scale,  distributed 
renewable  energy41  sources  for  climate  mitigation.  The  option  will  not  include  projects 
on biofuels.  

The  option  would  not  require  any  change  to  the  current  management  modes,  delivery 
mechanism and type of projects financed under LIFE. 

Table 3.1:  Assessment of option 1 

Relevant conclusions from screening results 

Effectiveness 

+ Greater concentration of financial resources would improve capacity to have a 
greater catalytic effect. 

Coherence 

+ Increased coherence in the overall MFF structure since the actions to be financed 
under this extension correspond better to those already financed by LIFE as regards 
their size, nature and objectives, as compared to the other projects financed under the 
framework programme for research and innovation. 
+ Increased synergies42 in energy, environmental and climate policies implementation 
on the ground and improved coherence of the EU funding landscape. 

Impact assessment (qualitative assessment) 

Economic 
impacts 

Social impacts 

+  Potential  accrued  economic  impact  due  to  the  integration  into  LIFE,  although  the 
activities were already in place under a different programme. 
+ Increased number of beneficiary groups43 

Environmental 
impacts 

+ Potential accrued environmental impact due to the integration into LIFE, although 
the related activities were already in place under a different programme. 

Conclusions 

Greater  positive  impacts,  in  particular  on  ensuring  coherence  and  synergies.  Potential  negative 
implementation-coherence impact and increased administrative burdens. 

40  

41  

42  

43  

The figure corresponds to annual funding allocated to capacity building activities in Horizon 2020- Societal 
Challenge 3 based on the current programming period 2018/2019. 
Not to be covered under this programme large-scale investment in renewable energy infrastructure (e.g. wind 
farms, hydro power plants). 

With the implementation of clean energy policies, environmental vulnerabilities such as local air pollutants 
are often addressed as well. The same is true for economic synergies, such as the creation of jobs. Whereas 
these  economic  and  environmental  indicators  have  not  been  systematically  addressed  by  the  present 
programmes indicators, several projects have identified these co-benefits. 

To target a wider range of beneficiaries, which are at present underrepresented under Horizon 2020 where 
the support is given mainly to large consortia. . Especially higher barriers and a complex application process 
are  reported  in  surveys.  These  impediments  can  be  expected  to  be  significantly  higher  with  disfavoured 
regions  and  actors.  Ricardo  AEA,  CE  Delft  (2017):  Report  on  the  first  results  of  Horizon  2020  on  energy 
efficiency and system integration – Final report. 

25 

 
                                                      
3.4.2.  Extend the scope of the LIFE programme to improve mainstreaming for nature 
and biodiversity 

This  option,  as  the  one  to  finance  large  scale  deployment  activities  for  nature  and 
biodiversity  which  was  discarded  during  the  preliminary  screening  (see  Annex  8)44, 
intends to address, at least partially, the unmet needs in the area of nature and biodiversity. 

Under  this  option,  LIFE  would  include  a  specific  sub-programme  for  'nature  and 
biodiversity'  covering  both  the  terrestrial  and  marine  environment.  This  'nature  and 
biodiversity' sub-programme would consist of a reinforced centrally managed component 
funding  actions  similar  to  those  presently  implementing  the  Nature  and  Biodiversity 
priority area of LIFE through 'traditional' standard  action projects, as well as  funding a 
new type of dedicated strategic nature projects.   

The strategic nature projects (SNPs) would reinforce the implementation of Union nature 
and  biodiversity  objectives  through  mainstreaming  these  objectives  into  other  policies 
and funding instruments. These projects will support the implementation of programmes 
of  action  for  each  Member  State,  including  the  coordination  of  finance  available  for 
large-scale  nature  and  biodiversity  actions,  with  a  particular  focus  on  the  Natura  2000 
network  and  the  implementation  of  the  prioritised  action  frameworks  established 
pursuant to the Habitats Directive45. 

This  option  does  not  change  the  objectives  of  LIFE,  nor  does  it  significantly  alter  the 
structure  of  delivery  mechanisms  of 
the  Programme.  This  option  would  be 
complemented  by  actions,  particularly  under  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural 
Development  (which  presently  provides  75%  of  EU  funding  for  nature),  the  European 
Regional  Development  Fund/Cohesion  Fund  and  the  European  Maritime  and  Fishery 
Fund,  that  target  direct  investments  in  nature  conservation  and  biodiversity  or  that 
contribute  indirectly  to  protecting  nature  and  biodiversity.    The  effectiveness  of  this 
approach  is  therefore  dependent  on  adequate  allocation  of  funding  under  these  other 
instruments. 

Table 3.2: Assessment of option 2 

Relevant conclusions from screening results 

Effectiveness 

++ This option would be an effective, targeted solution having the conservation 
of nature as overarching objective. 

+  It  would  facilitate  the  smooth  transfer  of  best  practices  developed  in  the 
classical LIFE actions to large scale implementation actions implemented in the 
Member States. 

+ Uptake of the funds for nature actions, which has sometimes been sub-optimal 
under the CAP and Structural Funds, would be enhanced due to a greater role 
for the environment authorities who would be better placed to ensure uptake. 

Impact assessment (qualitative assessment) 

Economic impacts 

-  Planning and coordination effort needed from the environment authorities. 

Social impacts 

++  Positive  impact  on  governance:  the  establishment  of  dedicated  managing 

44  

45  

An  option  to  create  a  large  shared  managed  fund  for  nature  under  the  LIFE  programme  was  considered 
during  the  screening  phase  of  this  Impact  Assessment,  but  found  to  imply  a  too  significant  change  to  the 
structure and vocation of the LIFE programme. See Annex 8, section 1. 
Habitats Directive: Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and 
of wild fauna and flora 

26 

 
                                                      
authorities  would  ensure  the  close  articulation  of  actions  with  nature  policy 
activities  in  the  MSs;  it  would  ensure  a  smooth  transfer  of  best  practices 
developed  in  the  classical  LIFE  actions  to  large-scale  implementation  actions 
implemented in the Member States. 

++  Increase  in  nature  and  biodiversity  large-scale  deployment  projects,  direct 
positive impacts 

+  It  will  address  the  gap  in  financing  for  nature  and  biodiversity  in  EU,  and 
would support implementation of EU nature legislation, including in the marine 
environment, in line with findings of the Nature fitness check. 

Environmental impacts 

Other considerations 

Relevance 

EU added value  

+ High EU added value since natural capital is a quintessential EU public good. 

+ Experience with integration of nature and biodiversity in the CAP has so far 
fallen  short  of  expectations46.  The  2017  "Communication  on  the  future  of 
farming and food" recognises the link between agriculture and environment and 
the  need  to  integrate environmental  objectives  as  a  means  to  ensure  coherence 
between policies and to enhance the delivery of natural capital public goods in 
rural areas. The strategic nature projects would specifically improve this. 

Mainstreaming 
coherence 

and 

Conclusions 

Effective  targeting  of  support  for  financing  for  nature  and  biodiversity,  with  positive  social  and 
environmental impacts. Potential small negative economic impacts as a result of increased administrative 
burden. Coherence with mainstreaming approach. 

3.4.3.  Extend  eligibility  of  LIFE  to  the  EU's  Overseas  Countries  and  Territories 
(OCTs)  specifically  for  nature  and  biodiversity  actions  within  the  Environment  sub-
programme  

This  option  would  involve  a  change  in  the  Article  6  provision  of  the  LIFE  Regulation, 
allowing  the  eligibility  of  projects  on  nature  and  biodiversity  in  OCTs  countries  under 
the same conditions as the ones in the EU.  
The BEST scheme47 has addressed a gap related to the financing for biodiversity in the 
Outermost Regions (ORs) and in the OCTs.   It has allowed substantial synergies and its 
financing should be continued.  

In the absence of a specific legal basis, the financing of this scheme is decided each year 
by the Budgetary Authority: in 2018 a preparatory action has been financed. According 
to the Financial Regulation, a preparatory action is designed to prepare a proposal for the 
adoption  of  future  actions  and  cannot  be  renewed  for  more  than  3  consecutive  years. 
There  is  therefore  the  need  to  provide  a  (more)  stable  financing  framework  for  the 
continuation of BEST in the next MFF. 

The external development instrument, the regional funds or the LIFE Programme could 
constitute such framework. However, given the need to include both ORs and OCTs, the 
eligibility  rules  of  the  concerned  programme,  whatever  it  will  be,  would  need  to  be 

46   

47  

ECA special report No 21/2017:  Greening: a more complex income support scheme, not yet environmentally 
effective. 
The BEST – voluntary scheme for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Territories of European overseas 
–  initiative  aims  to  support  the  conservation  of  biodiversity  and  sustainable  use  of  ecosystem  services 
including  ecosystem-based  approaches  to  climate  change  adaptation  and  mitigation  in  the  EU  Outermost 
Regions (ORs) and Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs). 

27 

 
 
                                                      
changed.  Taking  into  account  the  type  of  actions  (small-scale  grants)  and  the  specific 
sector  (biodiversity),  the  LIFE  Programme  seems  to  be  the  most  suitable  framework, 
subject to additional funding being made available. 

This  option  would  allow  the  continuation  of  the  financing  of  the  BEST  scheme  under 
LIFE under its Nature and Biodiversity sub-programme.  

Table 3.3:  Assessment of option 3 

Relevant conclusions from screening results 

Effectiveness 

+  Secured  future  for  the  BEST  initiative,  supporting  the  financing  of  small-
scale demonstration projects related to biodiversity in both the OCTs and the 
ORs (which are already eligible under LIFE). 

Impact assessment (qualitative assessment) 

Economic impacts 

Social impacts 

- Additional funding would be needed to support the BEST scheme (8 million 
Euro per year) without displacing finance for other LIFE priorities. 

+ The grassroots organisations that are receiving support  under BEST could 
continue their activity for the protection of biodiversity. 

Environmental impacts 

+  Additional  support  for  biodiversity  hotspots  in  OCTs  and  ORs,  positive 
climate resilience benefits from ecosystem-based adaptation solutions. 

Conclusions 

Potential positive impacts on external coherence of the Programme and on biodiversity in OCTs and ORs 
but there is the need to ensure no overlap with the external development instrument for OCTs. 

3.5.  Conclusions 

The  LIFE  programme  has  a  very  high  EU  added  value  and  its  scope  and  structure  are 
generally suitable to its objectives. This section presents three possible extensions to the 
current scope of the LIFE programme. 

The  option  to  extend  the  scope  to  include  the  energy  efficiency  and  renewable  energy 
actions  presently  financed  under  Horizon  2020  is  clearly  desirable  and  should  be 
implemented  as  a  priority,  provided  the  new  LIFE  Programme  is  equipped  with  the 
necessary funding. 

The  option  to  extend  LIFE  to  further  support  the  mainstreaming  of  nature  and 
biodiversity objectives is a highly viable alternative for better financing of nature.  In line 
with  the  Commission  communication  on  the  post  2020  financial  framework48,.,  this 
would improve coherence  in the overall structuring of the EU budget by facilitating an 
improved mainstreaming approach.   

The integration of the BEST initiative for OCTs (and ORs) is a smaller extension to the 
programme,  which  also  shows  an  overall  positive  impact.  Unless  either  an  external 
instrument or the European Regional Development Fund can finance the entirety of the 
BEST  initiative,  it  should  be  incorporated  into  LIFE,  to  the  extent  that  the  capacity  of 
LIFE to address other priority objectives is not weakened. 

48  

See  the  Commission  Communication  "A  new,  modern  Multiannual  Financial  Framework  for  a  European 
Union that delivers efficiently on its priorities post-2020COM(2018) 98 final.  

28 

 
 
                                                      
4. 

DELIVERY MECHANISMS OF THE INTENDED FUNDING 

The  present  LIFE  instrument  comprises  a  variety  of  delivery  mechanisms  including 
several types of standard action grants, strategic integrated projects, technical assistance 
to  develop  integrated  projects,  preparatory  projects,  operational  grants  for  NGOs,  two 
financial  instruments,  capacity-building  projects  for  certain  Member  States  and 
procurement.  As mentioned in Section 1.2, these mechanisms (also described further in 
Annex  5)  have  been  assessed  as  generally  effective  and  efficient  in  delivering  the 
objectives of the LIFE programme.  It is therefore not appropriate to substantially modify 
the delivery mechanisms or management model of the programme. Elements such as the 
NGO operational grants will be continued in their present format49. However, this section 
explores some possible options for further improving the effectiveness and efficiency of 
the LIFE programme. 

As in  Chapter 3, these options are not  alternatives, but  rather complementary measures 
that  are assessed individually  and could  be  applied in  synergy.  In  accordance with the 
methodology described in Annex 7, only those impacts which differ from the status quo 
are  mentioned  and  most  of  the  observed  net  impacts  concern  environmental  factors  in 
view of the inherent nature of the options. 

4.1. 

Possible enhancements to funding mechanisms 

As  previous  sections  of  this  report  indicate,  several  challenges  and  opportunities  have 
been  identified  in  relation  to  LIFE's  present  funding  mechanisms.  In  particular, 
operational challenges have been established as the basis for further optimisation in view 
of evolving policy needs to improve the performance and catalytic role of LIFE, and to 
improve the strategic focus of LIFE. 

Options  for  addressing  these  operational  challenges  and  improving  simplification  are 
presented  and  screened  in  Annex  8.    An  overview  of  the  options  assessed  is  also 
presented in Box 6 above.  The most promising options are further considered below. In 
terms  of  project  management  arrangements,  the  present  model  is  considered  to  be  the 
best  option.  Some  measures  related  to  the  reduction  of  the  administrative  burden  are 
included in Annex 9. 

4.1.1.  Expand the scope and scale of Strategic Integrated Projects (SIPs) 

This  option  is  meant  to  improve  the  performance  and  catalytic  role  of  LIFE.    The 
proposed  option  is  an  expansion  in  both  the  scope  and  scale  of  the  integrated  projects 
which  will  be  called  strategic  integrated  projects  (SIPs)  in  the  post-2020  programming 
period.  The  SIPs  are  designed  to  support  Member  State  implementation  of  key 
environmental  or  climate  plans  and  strategies,  so  are  focussed  on  practical  support  to 
policy  implementation.  Since  the  concept  of  integrated  projects  is  proving  effective 
during the present programme, it should be reinforced through both: 

an increase in the SIPs targeting the presently eligible plans (air, water, nature, waste, 
climate  mitigation  and  climate  adaptation)50.  As  regards  waste,  SIPs  would  be 
eligible for both waste management plans and, as a new feature, for waste prevention 

49  

50  

E.g. double funding will be prevented in all cases. The effectiveness and the impact of such mechanisms will 
continue to be assessed during programme implementation (see Chapter 5 for further information)  
At  present  the Regulation  foresees  indicatively  three  integrated  projects  per  Member  State  over  the  7-year 
period. 

29 

 
  
                                                      
programmes,  in  coherence  with  the  overall  aim  of  transitioning  towards  a  circular 
economy and  

an  increase  in  the  scope  of  the  SIPs  under  the  Environment  sub-programme  (to 
include  also  plans  for  national  emissions  ceilings,  noise,  marine  environment  and 
nitrates in accordance with the relevant legislation and policies). SIPs related to the 
marine environment could be developed through LIFE and EMFF funding.  

While the funds allocated for integrated projects in the current programming period have 
been  at  a  level  appropriate  to  piloting  the  concept,  this  level  does  not  allow  full 
realisation of the potential of the mechanism as a tool for improving compliance with key 
climate and environment policies and legislation, and would need to be increased. 

This  would  imply  an  overall  funding  increase  in  the  LIFE  budget  so  as  to  ensure 
continued availability of funding also for other project types.   

Specifically  in  order  to  respond  to  the  considerable  needs  for  financing  in  the  area  of 
nature including the marine environment, identified in the Nature Fitness check, and in 
order to ensure that LIFE can  play the  necessary role in  coordinating actions related to 
nature and biodiversity under the mainstream EU funds, the number of strategic projects 
for  nature  (SNPs)  should  be  significantly  increased  and  their  focus  on  mainstreaming 
should  be  reinforced  (see  section  3.4.4).    Further  information  about  the  critical  mass 
required for SIPs can be found in the relevant section of annex 4. 

Table 4.1:  Assessment of option 4 

Relevant conclusions from screening results 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

+ This effective mechanism for promoting compliance would cover more key 
elements  of  environment  and  climate  policy,  addressing  a  wider  range  of 
implementation challenges. 

+  Cost-efficient  way 
to  ensure  coordinated  use  of  environmental 
mainstreaming in other EU instruments, including financial instruments.  To 
ensure  the  full  potential  of  SIPs  and  SNPs,  however,  the  programming 
process for the mainstream funds needs to be sufficiently flexible to allow the 
financing of complementary actions after SIPs and SNPs are defined.  At the 
very least, the potential for such complementary financing needs to be taken 
into account in the national strategies and programmes for implementing  the 
main funds. 

Impact assessment (qualitative assessment) 

Economic impacts 

+ More potential to mobilise finance from sources other than EU programmes 
for environmental and climate objectives 

- While greater administrative burden can be expected, given that the process 
for  processing  SIPs  is  already  established  the  impact  will  not  be  significant 
but procedures and resources will be required to ensure policy coherence. 

- Additional budget required 

Social impacts 

++ Positive impacts on capacity building / Positive impact is on governance 
and ownership of stakeholders in playing their role 

Environmental impacts 

Other aspects 

Mainstreaming 

+ Potential to achieve greater environmental and climate impacts as a result of 
the targeting of the most pressing environmental and climate issues 

+  Potential  for  better  governance  of  nature  and  biodiversity  given  the  more 
emphasis on this area 

The  success  depends  on  condition  that  the  other  instruments  provide  the 

30 

 
  
expected  levels  of  environmental  mainstreaming  for  complementary actions. 
The large over subscription for such projects limits this risk. 

Conclusions 

Only very minor negative impacts and significant positive impacts on social and environmental aspects.  

4.1.2.  Targeted support to upscale and replicate successful projects 

This is a second option aimed at improving the performance and catalytic role of LIFE. 
LIFE  would  provide  targeted  support  to  facilitate  the  upscaling  and  replication  of 
successful  LIFE  project  results.  It  would  therefore  increase  overall  performance  by 
enhancing  the  impacts  of  the  projects  supported  by  the  programme,  and  focussing  the 
effort on those projects with the greatest potential impact. 

This would include a range of mechanisms such as follow-up technical assistance grants 
to  provide  coaching  and  finance  to  develop  upscaling  and/or  replication  plans  and 
undertake centralised measures to diffuse project results to relevant stakeholders.   These 
technical assistance will be small in size and would not require additional budget overall 
for the LIFE programme. 

Targeted  support  could  help  to  facilitate  access  to  technical  assistance/grants,  e.g. 
following  the  successful  example  of  the  ELENA  facility,  or  blending  or  pilot  financial 
instruments  under  the  centrally  managed  EU  Invest  Fund,  as  a  means  of  enhancing 
sustainability and dissemination of project results.  

In  such  option,  the  overall  existing  focus  on  follow-up  plans  during  project  duration 
would remain and use as a reference for identification of the more promising projects. It 
would be complemented by additional targeted support actions. 

This  approach  will  be  coordinated  with  policy  initiatives,  taking  into  account  and 
building on existing dissemination activities (databases of measures, Country Dialogues, 
Commission-led  networks  such  as  the  Covenant  of  Mayors  for  Energy  and  Climate, 
expert groups, conferences, etc.). It will thus strengthen the link between LIFE and policy 
development. 

Table 4.2:  Assessment of option 5 

Relevant conclusions from screening results 

Effectiveness 

Coherence 

+ Increase support to most promising projects  

+ Increased synergies with other EU programmes 

Impact assessment (qualitative assessment) 

Economic impacts 

+  improved  contribution  to  the  Europe  2020  Strategy  and  in  particular  to 
sustain innovation 

- Increased administrative burden to deal with applications, and also tailoring 
of support to different types of projects 

Social impacts 

+  improved  contribution  to  the  Europe  2020  Strategy  and  in  particular  to 
create and maintain jobs 

Environmental impacts 

Others 

++  Upscaling  of  positive  environmental  and  climate  impacts:  enhanced 
overall impact of LIFE projects through replication and upscaling of positive 
environmental and climate impacts 

Catalytic effect 

+ Improved catalytic effect of the Programme 

31 

 
Conclusions 

Significant positive environmental impacts. Further positive impacts on social aspects and coherence. 
Potential negative economic impacts.  

4.1.3.  Address the unbalanced participation of candidates from some Member States 
to LIFE calls for proposals through a reinforced network of LIFE contact points and 
targeted capacity-building actions 

This  option  is  aimed  at  improving  the  performance  and  catalytic  role  of  LIFE,  notably 
through enhancing participation from different Member States.  

Taking into account the experience of the current national capacity building projects, the 
capacity of the LIFE contact points will be enhanced through the financing of networking 
activities.  Specifically,  it  will  improve  performance  by  focussing  on  those  approaches 
that  have  been  most  effective  under  the  current  programme  at  building  the  capacity  of 
national contact points to support the preparation of high quality proposals.  The funding 
for the network would be managed centrally by the European Commission or EASME, 
and  participation  would  be  open  to  all  Member  States.  The  funding  would  be  used  to 
target  the  specific  capacity  building  needs  of  the  National  Contact  Points  (NCPs), 
including through mutual learning. It would also include a component targeting barriers 
to participation specifically in Member States with a low absorption rate. This evolution 
is in line with suggestions already made by several NCP which have tried to initiate such 
cooperation in the framework of the preparation of the Multi Annual Work Programme 
2018-2020.  It  would  still  lead  to  specific  target  actions  similar  to  the  existing  capacity 
building  projects.  In  turn,  the  increased  capacity  of  the  national  contact  point  will 
enhance  their  role  in  supporting  project  applicants,  leading  to  both  an  increase  in 
participation rates from selected Member States, as well as high quality proposals. 

These activities will be supported using the budget that is currently allocated to capacity 
building projects under the current programme. 

Table 4.3:  Assessment of option 6 

Relevant conclusions from screening results 

Effectiveness 

+/- Expected wider impact than the present capacity building projects, which 
have  shown  only  limited  results  to  date  but  no  evidence  yet  that  it  will 
produce anticipated results 

+ Greater flexibility to target interventions to specific needs 

Impact assessment (qualitative assessment) 

Economic impacts 

Social impacts 

+  Reduced  administrative  burden  associated  with  submitting/processing  of 
application and award than for the capacity building projects for all concerned 
MS 

+ Enhancing ownership, governance and potential involvement of all Member 
States 

+ Positive impacts linked to the possibility to learn from experiences of other 
countries 

Environmental impacts 

No significant environmental impacts.  

Other considerations 

EU added value 

+ Positive impacts linked to the possibility to learn from experiences of other 
countries 

Flexibility  

+ Greater flexibility to target interventions addressed to specific needs 

32 

 
Conclusions 

Positive impacts on education and training, whilst also offering greater flexibility. May require additional 
management time.  

4.1.4.  Increase the co-financing rate 

This  is  the  fourth  option  for  responding  to  the  operational  goal  to  improve  the 
performance  and  catalytic  role  of  LIFE,  notably  through  enhancing  participation  for 
beneficiaries in different Member States51. The maximum EU co-financing rates that are 
included in the LIFE Regulation would be increased and therefore project beneficiaries 
would be required to provide less co-financing. It will therefore improve performance by 
removing one of the barriers to applicants. 

Additional  budget  would  need  to  be  made  available  to  allow  for  an  increase  in  co-
financing rates whilst maintaining the same number of projects to be supported. 

Table 4.4:  Assessment of option 7 

Relevant conclusions from screening results 

Effectiveness 

Coherence 

+/-  Alleviates  one  of  the  barriers  to  participation,  but  increasing  the  co-
financing rate may means that fewer projects can be supported in total unless 
the overall budget is increased.   

+  Potential  for  increased  coherence  if  increased  co-financing  rate  ensure 
greater harmonisation across other programmes  

Impact assessment (qualitative assessment) 

Economic impacts 

- If the overall budget is not increased proportionately, fewer projects can be 
financed, decreasing the total cumulative impact of LIFE interventions. 

Social impacts 

++  Increased  access  of  funds  and  hence  increased  participation  from 
beneficiary groups which have limited co-financing capacity.  

+Alleviates  one  of  the  barriers  to  participation,  and  thereby  encourages 
projects  from  some  of  those  countries  that  currently  have  low  participation 
rates due to lack of resources for co-financing. 

Environmental impacts 

No significant environmental impacts. 

Other considerations 

Quality of projects 

Conclusions 

- Might create false demand and stimulate more applications for lower quality 
projects.  The  rate  of  over  subscription  of  the  on-going  LIFE  programme 
should ensure that this risk will be very limited. 

Would  increase  participation  of  beneficiary  groups  but  this  may  be  at  the  expense  of  a  reduction  in  the 
cost-effectiveness of the programme, as fewer projects would be supported.  

4.1.5.  Systematically define and develop synergies with other instruments 

This  option  also  responds  to  the  operational  goal  to  improve  the  performance  and 
catalytic role of LIFE.   

51  

At present, for most projects, the maximum co-financing rates range between 55% and 60% of total eligible 
costs  of  the  projects.  In  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 the co-financing 
rate. 

33 

 
                                                      
It  would  complement  the  present  practice  of  giving  preferential  treatment  in  standard 
LIFE  project  applications  to  projects  which  build  on  the  result  of relevant  EU  research 
projects (Horizon 2020 or previous programmes)52. The preference could be extended to 
results from other programmes that develop small-scale pilots, such as Interreg.  

More systematic mechanisms would be developed to operationalise synergies with other 
EU  programmes  that  can  support  sustainability,  upscaling  and  replication  of  relevant 
LIFE  results.  One  main  area  of  potential  developing  of  synergies  is  with  the  European 
Institute  of  Innovation  and  Technology  (EIT)  European  Innovation  Council  (EIC)  that 
might support the up-scaling of innovations but also support the objectives of LIFE with 
targeted activities like the ‘EIC challenges’ (innovation  prizes). This  would  include the 
possibility  to  scale  up  the  best  close-to-market  LIFE  projects’  results,  by  channelling 
them towards the EIC mechanisms.  

Moreover, according to the results of the mid-term evaluation, the development of more 
systematic synergies through specific mechanisms would be beneficial with the European 
Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF,  including  the  European  Territorial  Cooperation 
goal), the Cohesion Fund (CF), the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 
(EAFRD)  and  the  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Funds (EMFF),  which  can  support 
the large-scale implementation of project results.  

This  option  would  not  require  any  specific  modifications  to  the  LIFE  legal  base,  but 
would  require  more  coordination  and  control  at  the  level  of  programming  and 
implementation among the concerned DGs and Agencies53. No additional budget will be 
required to implement this option. 

Table 4.5:  Assessment of option 8 
Relevant conclusions from screening results 

Effectiveness 

Coherence 

+ Expected to increase catalytic effect, but scale is uncertain 

+ Will build coherence with other funding programmes. 

Impact assessment (qualitative assessment) 

Economic impacts 

+  Facilitates  the  dissemination  of  new  ideas  and  projects,  supporting 
innovation. 

+ Ensures continued support to promising projects 

Social impacts 

No significant social impacts.  

Environmental impacts 

+  Greater  impact  in  terms  of  environmental  and  climate  policy  goals 
may  be  expected  by  increased  link  of  LIFE  interventions  with  large 
scale implementation. 

52  

53  

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. 
At present, the LIFE Regulation mentions explicitly the need to develop synergies with Horizon 2020 and 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 general, the common provisions regulation 
(CPR) of the ESI Funds acknowledges already this complementarity and actually already contains a special 
section on coordination and synergies between the ESI Funds and LIFE. 

34 

 
                                                      
Other considerations 

EU added value  

+ Clear EU added value in maximising the impact of EU finance 

Conclusions 

Potential positive impacts on innovation and potential to increase coherence with other funds and 
create EU added value. No negative impacts. 

Such an evolution will require some effort to define and operationalise the mechanisms 
but is feasible as long as the legal bases do not prevent such mechanisms. 

4.1.6.  Financial Instruments delivered through a central fund. 

This is the sixth and final option considered to respond to the operational goal to improve 
the performance and catalytic role of LIFE. At present the LIFE Programme operates two 
small-scale pilot financial instruments54. After the pilot phase, thus in the next MFF, such 
instruments  could  be  upscaled  and  delivered  through  a  central  funding  instrument 
(InvestEU Fund) to allow synergy and economies of scale. This up-scaling would require 
additional budget. 

As described in Annex 6 the EU employs a large and increasing number of FIs, several of 
which  could  support  projects  of  a  similar  nature  to  those  targeted  by  LIFE’s  FIs  (i.e. 
PF4EE  and  NCFF).  PF4EE’s  design  features  specify  the  nature  of  support  it  offers,  it 
helps  intermediary  banks  in  Member  States  to  develop  and  offer  specific  loan 
programmes  for  energy  efficiency  projects  and  supports  projects  that  help  achieve  the 
national  energy  efficiency  action  plan  objectives,  plus  Member  State  energy  efficiency 
programme  objectives.  It  offers  a  combination  of  an  EC  guarantee,  an  EIB  loan  and  a 
technical assistance facility. This combination distinguishes it from the majority of other 
instruments that can finance energy efficiency projects, although none of the elements are 
unique. Some potential overlap with EBRD and ERDF loans was highlighted in the Mid-
term  evaluation  of  LIFE,  there  are  also  other  FIs  that  could  support  energy  efficiency 
projects (including the EFSI). However, due to the vast investment needs in energy and 
climate projects that are necessary to achieve the EU’s 2030 objectives, and the relatively 
small  scale  of  PF4EE  the  risk  of  FIs  seeking  to  support  energy  efficiency  projects 
crowding each other out appears minimal.  

The  NCFF  provides  €10  million  of  technical  assistance  and  €50  million  guarantee  to 
support EIB investments of up to €125 million that are intended to contribute to the EU’s 
biodiversity and climate adaptation objectives, financing projects that generate a revenue 
stream from natural capital. This is a new approach and thus no other European FI offers 
a competing service. 

For the future, the creation of the InvestEU Fund as Union-wide investment instrument, 
providing  an  EU  guarantee  with  a  view  to  mobilising  public  and  private  financing  to 
support  various  political  priorities  represents  a  great  opportunity  for  new  synergies.  This 

54  

Private Finance for Energy Efficiency (PF4EE) is a risk haring facility for private sector financial institutions 
looking to invest in energy efficiency projects. The Natural Capital Financing Facility (NCFF) is a debt and 
equity  instrument  -  supports  upfront  investment  and  operating  costs  in  projects  supporting  payments  for 
ecosystem  services  (PES);  green  infrastructure;  biodiversity  offsets;  innovative  pro  biodiversity  and 
adaptation investments. 

35 

 
                                                      
instrument  will be the single entry point for 360-degree project development assistance for 
project promoters. 

The  suggested  structure  of  this  InvestEU  Fund  includes  the  following  four  windows: 
Social,  skills,  and  human  capital;  SMEs;  Research  and  Innovation;  Infrastructure  and 
Climate.  The  InvestEU  Fund  is  expected  to  play  an  important  role  with  financial 
instruments  for  market  related  action,  in  particular  by  supporting  a  thematic  investment 
platform for research and innovation in the Blue Economy.  

Besides the existing financial instruments, the opportunity to finance technical assistance 
and/or blending mechanisms, recommended in the LIFE mid-term evaluation, would be 
explored. 

Table 4.6:  Assessment of option 9 

Relevant conclusions from screening results 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

+ Possibly a larger budget and economies of scale could be available under a 
window in a single instrument 
+ Specificity of the financial instruments in the testing phase offset in the long 
run by improved economy of scale in the use of FIs 
+ Increase support to most promising projects  

Impact assessment (qualitative assessment) 

Economic impacts 

Social impacts 

Environmental impacts 

Others 

+  Improved  contribution  to  the  Europe  2020  Strategy  through  upscaling 
revenue generating solutions 

+  Improved  contribution  to  the  Europe  2020  Strategy  and  in  particular  to 
create and maintain jobs 

+  Upscaling of positive environmental and climate impacts: enhanced overall 
impact  of  LIFE  projects  through  replication  and  upscaling  of  positive 
environmental  and  climate  impacts  from  successful  pilot  FIs,  and  from 
blending 

Catalytic effect 

+ Improved catalytic effect of the Programme 

Conclusions 

Significant  positive  environmental  impacts.  Further  positive  impacts  on  socio-economic  aspects  and 
coherence. InvestEU should include more financing for these up-scaled financial instruments than currently 
foreseen in the existing LIFE program (2014-2020) . 

4.1.7.  Improving the strategic focus of the programme by simplifying the Regulation 
and the MAWP. 

This  option  responds  to  the  operational  goal  to  improve  the  strategic  focus  of  LIFE, 
specifically  including  the  possibility  to  target  specific  new  and  key  policy  priorities,  in 
line  with  the  cross-cutting  objectives  of  the  MFF  to  pursue  budget  flexibility  and 
simplification.  

It involves the removal of: 

   The current list of thematic priorities and related activities under the Environment 
sub-programme  from  the  LIFE  Regulation.  The  thematic  priorities  could  be 
included in the MAWP. 

   The ceilings related to various delivery mechanisms or thematic areas, beyond the 

earmarking by sub-programmes, for biodiversity and for project types.  

36 

 
 
 
 
This option would allow for further earmarking within the MAWP and/or in yearly calls 
for  proposals,  to  target  key  and  emerging  priorities  including  circular  economy  and 
plastics waste. No additional budget will be required to implement this option. 

Table 4.7:  Assessment of option 10 

Relevant conclusions from screening results 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Coherence 

+  Ensures  the  alignment  of  the  MAWP  with  new  and  emerging  policy 
priorities. 

+ Increased possibility to adapt the delivery mechanisms to the demand  

+  Increased  coherence  with  other  EU  policies  as  it  creates  more  room  for 
flexible response to priorities. 

Impact assessment (qualitative assessment) 

Economic impacts 

- Potential negative impacts on applicants because it would de facto decrease 
the  bottom-up  allocation,  which  many  applicants  favour  because  it  allows 
some  predictability  related  to  the  priorities  targeted  in  future  calls.  Only  a 
limited portion of the budget would be thus earmarked for key priorities. 

+ Reduction of the administrative burden linked to the respect of the ceilings 

Social impacts 

No significant social impacts.  

+ Potential for increased environmental impacts 

Environmental impacts 

+ Increased impact on priorities which are not covered with the "pure" bottom 
up approach.  

+ Potential increased impact on new/urgent environmental challenges.   

Conclusions 

Greatest  positive  impacts  relate  to  increased  flexibility.  Some  positive  impacts  on  coherence.  While 
negative economic impacts are expected.  

4.2.  Conclusions 

Most  elements  of  the  present  LIFE  delivery  model  can  be  considered  to  be  fully 
functional at present and do not need any modification.   

Concerning the operational goal to improve the performance and catalytic role of LIFE, 
two  options  were  explored  in  relation  to  improving  the  accessibility  of  LIFE  for 
applicants from all EU Member States.  The option to provide centralised support to the 
entire  NCP  network  instead  of  the  present  national  capacity  building  projects  (for  only 
certain  MSs)  is  assessed  positively.    The  option  of  increasing  co-financing  rates  would 
need to be further considered once the overall shape and budget of the LIFE programme 
for the next MFF will be decided and basing on the demand over time.  It is important 
that the legal base does not prejudge this issue in line with the existing template. 

Several  other  complementary  options  were  considered  to  improve  the  performance  and 
catalytic role of the Programme. Among them, the extension of the SIPs is considered to 
be the most powerful mechanism based on the pilot experience of integrated projects in 
the present LIFE programme.  

The options to enhance replication and to increase both the flexibility of the programme 
and the possibility to target key and emerging issues through simplifying the Regulation 
and  the  MAWP  have  no  serious  negative  implications,  so  should  both  be  introduced. 
Concerning  financial  instruments,  it  would  beneficial  to  upscale  the  current  LIFE  pilot 
instruments under InvestEU in the next MFF (2021-2027). 

37 

 
The options that are not depending on additional budgets should be implemented in any 
event. If the budget is specifically increased to include Clean Energy Transition and/or to 
include a sub-programme for Nature, these options (option 1 and 2) should be included in 
the  structure  of  the  Life  Programme.  If  the  LIFE  budget  is  expanded  in  general,  the 
options 3, 4 and 5 could be implemented.  

4.3. 

Programme management 

The  MTE  concluded  that  current  management  arrangements  of  the  programme  were 
efficient  and  effective.    The  same  conclusion  was  made  with  respect  to  the  monitoring 
and  evaluation  arrangement  of  the  current  programme.  Nevertheless,  some  further 
options  were  considered  as  part  of  the  Impact  Assessment  to  explore  whether  further 
improvements  could  be  made  to  the  programme  management  and  monitoring  and 
evaluation processes.  

4.3.1.  Package  of  measure 
applicants/beneficiaries 

to  reduce 

the  administrative  burden 

for 

the 

This combination of measures is proposed in order to respond to the operational goal of 
introducing  simplification  measures,  where  possible.  This  package  includes  changing 
some  of  the  processes  and  systems  that  are  used  in  the  programme  management, 
including: 

  Taking into account the experience of the ongoing pilot, consider further waiving the 
requirement to submit a complete proposal at the start of the application process by 
expanding  the  use  of  a  two-step  award  procedure  for  standard  projects.  This  has 
already been applied for integrated projects and is being piloted for some traditional 
projects. It would reduce administrative burden for applicants. 

  Adapting  reporting  requirements  in  proportion  to  the  length  and  complexity  of 

projects and the value of the grant. 

  Simplifying the indicators database, based on project focus. 

  Use  of  Simplified  Cost  Options,  payments  based  on  output,  limitation  of  eligible 

costs for grants. 

  Use  of  cascading  grants  with  limited  reporting,  with  the  involvement  of  the 

monitoring team 

  Simplification  of 

the  application  process, 

including  rationalised  forms  and 

supporting documents 

The detailed assessment of the impact of these measures in comparison to the business 
as usual scenario showed the following: 

Table 4.8:  Assessment of measures to reduce the burden for applicants/beneficiaries 

 

Relevant conclusions from screening results 

Efficiency 

+Increased efficiency 

Effectiveness 

+ Increased effectiveness 

Impact assessment (qualitative assessment) 

Economic impacts 

+ Reduced barriers to entry for applicants. 

+ Reduced administrative burden and increase of flexibility for beneficiaries 

38 

 
+ Reduced administrative burden for EASME and EC. 

Social impacts 

No significant social impacts. 

Environmental impacts 

No significant environmental impacts. 

Conclusions 
Greatest positive impacts relate to the reduction of administrative burden.  

4.3.2.  Streamlined procedures for the implementation of the EU budget 

These  measures  respond  to  the  operational  goal  to  introduce  simplification  measures,  where 
possible, and to increase efficiency in the implementation of the programme.  

They include: 

the mention in the Regulation of selected organisations, which regularly  receives grants 
without a call for proposals according to Art.190 of the RAP (e.g. because they have a de 
facto monopoly or the specific administrative power required for the implementation of 
projects  with  special  characteristics)  so  that  grants  can  be  awarded  directly  without  the 
need of an exceptional procedure. This will be restricted to a few organisations, such as 
the IMPEL network and the network of National Contact Points. 

the  reduction  of  the  multiple  budget  lines  linked  to  the  LIFE  Programme  and  used  for 
internal  management  to  one  operational  line  per  parent  DG  while  going  on  with  the 
current system for tracking the funds per priority area. 

The assessment of these measures in relation to their economic, environmental and social impacts 
in comparison to the business as usual scenario showed the following: 

Table 4.9:  Assessment of measures to make easier the budget implementation 

 

Screening results 

Efficiency 

+ Increased efficiency 

Impact assessment (qualitative assessment) 

Economic impacts 

++  Simplification  –  reduced  burden  for  both  the  applicant  and  the 
Commission  

+ Elimination of the administrative effort needed to move any unspent money 
between budget lines 

Social impacts 

+  Ensuring  the  possibility  of  long  term  development  plan  to  the  beneficiary 
organisations. 

Environmental impacts 

No significant environmental impacts. 

Other considerations 

Transparency 

The organisations which would receive recurrent grants would be clearly 
stated in the Regulation. 

 
Greatest positive impacts relate to the reduction of administrative burden. 

Conclusions 

5. 

HOW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? 

The general and specific objectives proposed in Section 2.3 place greater emphasis on the 
catalytic role of LIFE and its contribution to supporting societal transformation through 
replication and the triggering of large-scale deployment rather than focusing on outputs 
at  project  level.  Moreover  the  transition  to  clean  energy  has  been  added.  Thus,  while 
performance should still be measured at project level (building on the current monitoring 
and  evaluation  framework),  additional  performance  criteria  have  been  identified  to 
strengthen the  monitoring and evaluation of LIFE’s  catalytic effect at programme  level 
(as defined below).  

39 

 
  
  
Box 8: The catalytic effect 

The assessment of the catalytic effect of the Programme is extremely difficult because LIFE funds  small 
and  heterogeneous  projects.  Moreover,  the  related  indicators  need  to  incorporate  the  different  possible 
dimensions of the catalytic effect delivered, which can be: 

   Temporal  (i.e.  in  leading  to  the  replication  of  an  activity  beyond  the  timespan  of  a  LIFE  project) 

AND/OR  

Sectoral (i.e. beyond the sectoral bounds of a LIFE project – a specific technology or practice can be 
tested in another sector/technical context) AND/OR  

   Quantitative (i.e. a "practice" which is generalised) AND/OR 

Spatial (i.e. beyond the geographic bounds of LIFE projects) AND/OR 

Financial (i.e. every LIFE project mobilises external co-financing). 

In  summary,  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  framework  is  designed  to  facilitate  the 
assessment of LIFE’s performance in the following ways:  

2.  Contribution  towards  meeting  EU  environmental,  nature  and  biodiversity  and 
climate targets: measured in quantitative terms (as a direct outcome) using standard 
EU  environmental  indicators,  with  the  metric,  baseline  and  milestone  set  at  project 
level  for  use  as  illustrative  examples  to  assess  progress  at  programme  level  in 
qualitative terms. 

3.  Contribution  towards 

improved  environmental  and  climate  governance: 
measured  in  quantitative  terms  (as  a  direct  output)  by  the  extent  of  LIFE  projects 
supporting  the  development,  implementation,  monitoring  and  enforcement  of 
environmental and climate policies. The contribution to improved environmental and 
climate  governance  is  assessed  at  programme  level  in  qualitative  terms  against  a 
wider policy landscape. 

4.  Contribution towards socio-economic transition: measured at programme level in 
qualitative  terms  (as  an  indirect  outcome)  by  the  extent  of  LIFE’s  catalytic  effect 
according  to  various  dimensions,  including:  temporal  (project  runs  for  an  extended 
time  period),  sectoral  (approaches  or  techniques  are  adopted  across  sectors),  spatial 
(approaches  or  techniques  are  adopted  across  territories),  quantitative  (a  novel  or 
emerging  technique  succeeds  in  becoming  commonplace),  or  financial  (additional 
finance is secured to support large scale deployment). 

The proposed monitoring and evaluation framework reflects the change in focus arising 
from the revised general and specific objectives as well as the lessons learned from the 
current programming period (section 1.2.). Notably, the reporting requirements at project 
level have been simplified and the application of the performance criteria (in qualitative 
terms) has been centralised. The reporting requirements and indicator design that inform 
this framework are set out in section 5.2 below. 

5.1.  Lessons learned related to the existing monitoring and evaluation framework 

The present LIFE Regulation (Article 3.3)  identifies the performance indicators against 
which  the  programme  should  be  assessed  in  relation  to  its  general  objectives.  It  also 
empowers  the  Commission  to  adopt  delegated  acts  to  further  define  the  performance 
indicators in relation to the programme’s priority areas and thematic priorities.  

Given that the MAWP establishes qualitative and quantitative outcomes, indicators and 
targets  for  each  priority  area  and  type  of  project,  no  delegated  act  was  adopted  in  this 
respect.  

40 

 
  
  
  
As specified in the MAWP, the number and scope of successful projects within a priority 
area mainly depend on factors that the Commission cannot influence, e.g. the number of 
eligible  applications  per priority area  and  technical  and  socio-economic  factors.  Hence, 
expected final outcomes have also been defined at a project level in relation to project’s 
objectives and an initial baseline. 

The  existing  qualitative  and  quantitative  outcomes,  indicators  and  targets  primarily 
address issues in a project-centric way and some are focused solely on project outputs, 
outcomes  and  impact  because  action  grants  correspond  to  the  bulk  of  the  funding  (a 
minimum  of  81%  of  the  overall  budget55).  The  system  was  designed  to  assess  project 
results for both programme and policy purposes.  

Consequently, a system of key indicators has been established at project level. It ensures 
a  good  coverage  of  the  grant  monitoring  and  is  a  source  of  information  on  the 
effectiveness  of  the  programme  as  a  whole  since  some  project  level  data  can  be 
aggregated  at  the  programme  level  (albeit  with  some  difficulties,  as  project  baselines, 
metrics, timeframes and reporting vary between projects56). 

Experience has shown the following shortcomings in the system: 

1.  not  only  the  grants,  but  also  the  results  of  other  delivery  mechanisms  (e.g. 
procurement)  should  be  included  in  the  performance  framework  of  the 
programme; 

2.  the project level indicators are too complex and numerous; the collection of data 

is resource-consuming and sometimes of limited use; 

3.  outcome indicators are only available at a late stage in the implementation of the 
programme, taking into account the time needed to put it in place and the multi-
year duration of most projects; 

4.  the  burden  related  to  the  collection  of  data  for  project  level  indicators  is  on  the 

shoulders of the project beneficiaries,  

5.  not all the programme-level indicators defined in the Regulation are measurable; 

6.  the catalytic role of the programme is difficult to capture. 

Moreover, the existing key project indicators would need to be up-dated: 

1. 

2. 

3. 

to  incorporate,  wherever  possible,  the  SDGs  indicators,  to  which  LIFE  is 
expected to contribute; 

to  reflect experience  gained during the first year of operation of the key project 
indicators database, including its suitability to meet policy development needs; 

to ensure, as far as possible, greater harmonisation and comparability at EU level. 
E.g.  the  Commission  is  working  on  cross-cutting  indicators  on  Natura  2000  for 
the ESI funds that will allow tracking the level of EU funding in support of the 
Natura  2000  network  and  marine  protected  areas.  LIFE  should  also  use  these 
indicators. 

55  
56  

This is not supposed to change significantly in the post 2020 programme. 
As for example, under the priority area biodiversity some projects aim at increasing the population size of an 
endangered  species  while  other  at  protecting  the  total  captive  population  at  a  given  number  of  animals, 
therefore the aggregated value related to the increase/protection from the baseline, even in percentage, does 
not make any sense. 

41 

 
                                                      
5.2.  Monitoring and evaluation framework for post 2020 indicators 

The proposed monitoring and evaluation framework for post 2020 LIFE builds directly 
on the existing framework, with some modifications. This general consistency should 
allow continuity in reporting between programming periods and enhance reporting 
through the application of lessons learned.  

At a high level, the changes are summarised as follows: 

  Programme level reporting of process and output indicators established: Extended 
scope of process indicators to include reporting for all delivery mechanisms and 
linked to financial reporting.  

  Reduced number of outcome indicators: use of key project indicators. 
  Reduced reporting burden for the beneficiary: only required to report process and 
outcome indicators, using key project indicators for the latter, where appropriate. 
  Greater robustness and relevance established for impacts: targeted assessment of 

impacts.  

More detail concerning these changes is set out below according to the reporting 
requirements for the monitoring and evaluation framework for the LIFE programme post 
2020 which will be based on the types of indicators mentioned in the following figure. 
The indicators defined for the LIFE programme are aligned with those established for the 
wider MFF. 

Figure 5-1 LIFE Programme: indicators' types and timeline 

Process 
indicators 

Output 
indicators 

Outcome 
indicators 

Impact 
indicators 

Year n 

Year n+9 

They include: 

Process indicators: They measures all the resources mobilised: the financial resources, 
the delivery mechanisms. In  the case of grants they involve data related to  the demand 
per priority area and type of projects, in terms of number and types of applicants, country 
of origin, contribution requested and total project costs, time-to-grant, time-to-pay, error 
rate, etc.. 

Coverage: 

All the interventions 

Availability:   Once a year. Generally at the end of year n. No baseline. 

Burden: 

Commission and the applicants 

Tool: 

A database on information on grant proposals is available (cd. infoview). 

Output  indicators:  they  measure  physical  outputs  (e.g.  number  of  interventions  per 
priority area and delivery mechanism). In the case of grants they include data per project 

42 

 
 
 
 
 
types, number and types of beneficiaries, country of origin, amount of grants and external 
cofinancing). Data will also be collected on the number of LIFE-financed projects which 
include  the  exploitation  and  deployment  of  research  and  innovation  results,  financed 
from Horizon Europe or previous R&I programmes. 

Coverage: 

All the interventions 

Availability:   Once a year. Generally in year n+1. No baseline. 

Burden: 

Commission 

Tool: 

A database on information on grant projects is available (cd. infoview). 

Outcome  indicators:  they  measure  the  direct  results  of  the  interventions  in  terms  of 
deliverables/achievements  (e.g.  a  conference,  persons  informed,  hectares  of  ecosystem 
restored, CO2 emissions reduced, etc.) 

Coverage: 

All the interventions 

Availability:   At  the  beginning  of  the  intervention  in  terms  of  anticipated  results 
(usually,  for  projects,  in  year  n+2)  and  at  the  end  of  each  intervention 
(generally,  for  projects  in  year  n+4)  .  Depending  from  its  duration,  the 
progressive  achievement  of  the  results  is  monitored.  Baseline  to  be 
defined. 

Burden: 

Commission, the beneficiary (in terms of grants) and the monitoring team 

Tool: 

A database on information  on indicators at project level  is available (cd. 
KPIs database). 

Impact indicators: they measure the full impact of the results of the intervention after its 
end,  including  both  direct  and  indirect  impact  and,  in  particular,  the  catalytic  effect  of 
LIFE. 

Coverage: 

Selected  interventions.  They  can  be  meaningless  for  some  interventions 
(i.e. study contracts)  

Availability:   From 3 to 5 years after the end of the intervention. Once, two times for the 

selected interventions. Generally in year n+7/n+9 

Burden: 

Commission 

Tool: 

Ad hoc 

5.2.1.  How the outcomes and impact/catalytic role of the programme will be assessed 

The outcomes and impact of each LIFE project are currently assessed on the basis of a 
system  of  indicators  developed  by  the  Commission.  At  the  beginning  of  a  project,  a 
baseline  is  defined  according  to  the  system  of  indicators,  together  with  the  results 
expected at its end and 3 years thereafter.  

The values are defined by the beneficiaries and checked by a team of external monitoring 
experts  with  experience  in  the  specific  field  and  in  the  concerned  country.  They  are 
validated by the operational officer who is entrusted with the technical supervision of the 
project. During the project, the results are monitored at least every year. 

43 

 
 
 
 
 
At  the  end  of  the  project,  the  beneficiaries  are  required  to  update  the  values  of  the 
indicators,  thus  providing  information  on  the  final  results  of  the  project  (versus  the 
expected ones) and to prepare an after-LIFE plan to define how they intend to sustain and 
replicate the activities and further disseminate the project results.  

The  public  consultation  showed  the  need  to  simplify  and  streamline  these  indicators, 
which were found by the beneficiaries too complex to be managed.  

A  new  evaluation  framework  for  the  projects  with  a  reduced  number  of  outcome  and 
impact  indicators  is  being  defined.  The  work  is  on-going  given  the  need  to  take  into 
account the indicators related to the SDGs and to have a harmonised framework across 
the Commission.  

The  evaluation  framework  is  composed  of  a  system  of  indicators  per  priority  with 
multiple  levels,  plus  some  horizontal  indicators.  For  each  indicator,  the  number  of 
interventions,  the  beneficiaries  and  the  amount  of  the  related  interventions  will  be 
provided. 

This  framework  is  also  intended  to  incorporate  the  results  other  activities,  related  not 
only to grant projects. At the launch of the related procedure, the expected results will be 
defined.  They  will  be  confronted  with  the  final  results  assessed  at  the  end  of  the 
intervention. 

To assess the impact and the catalytic role of the Programme, it is necessary to strike a 
balance between the need to get data and the associated costs. It is therefore proposed to 
combine the following sources: 

1.  a significant sample of projects that can be assessed on the basis of sources and 
tools independent from the project itself (e.g. regional data on air quality57 or data 
from the register of enterprises). These projects will be systematically identified; 

2.  the  data  mentioned  for  each  project  in  the  KPI  database  and  in  the  After-LIFE 
plans, will be checked after one year for the majority of projects and, on sample 
basis, through ex-post missions, after more than one year from project end; 

3.  the  data  provided  by  the  beneficiaries  of  already  ended  projects  on  a  voluntary 

basis58 checked on sample basis and through ex-post missions; 

4.  enquiries of main actors at national and EU level. 

In this way the burden related to the collection of the data will be further shifted from the 
beneficiaries59  to  the  monitors  (monitoring  team,  external  monitors,  EASME  and  the 
Commission). 

5.2.2.  The timetable and the evaluations of the LIFE Programme 2021-2027 

The  timeline  related  to  the  availability  of  indicators’  values  is  showed  on  the  below 
figure.  

57  

58  
59  

An  example  to  clarify  the  idea:  in  the  case  of  an  integrated  project  in  Malopolska,  Poland  for  example, 
regional information on air quality, plus the value of the complementary funds that are mobilised and will be 
mobilised, in Malopolska and adjacent regions for a period of ten years. The same could be done on specific 
pieces of legislation by comparing historical trends and new trends on the key indicators after its entry into 
force. 
Legal constraints impede making this contribution mandatory after the end of the contract. 
The beneficiaries shall keep the ownership of the expected results that they have defined.  

44 

 
                                                      
Figure 5.2 – Timeline on the availability of data for the assessment of the LIFE Programme 

The  monitoring  and  evaluation  framework  of  the  future  Programme  would  have  three 
main building blocks:  

  Continuous monitoring of the programme management and implementation 
through process and output indicators starting from year 2. They allows checking 
of whether the programme is on track and if adjustments need to be made; 

Among  these  indicators  the  ones  mentioned  in  the  following  tables  will  be 
mentioned in the Draft Regulation: 

Output indicators 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

5. 

Number  of  projects  developing,  demonstrating  and  promoting 
innovative techniques and approaches; 

Number  of  projects  applying  best  practice  in  relation  to  nature  and 
biodiversity; 

Number of projects for the development, implementation, monitoring or 
enforcement of the relevant Union legislation and policy; 

Number of projects improving governance through enhancing capacities 
of public and private actors and the involvement of civil society; 
Number of projects implementing 

–  key plans or strategies; 

–  programmes of action for mainstreaming Nature and Biodiversity. 

45 

 
 
 
 
Result indicators 

Result indicators 

1. 

2. 

3. 

4. 

Net change to the environment and climate, based on the aggregation of 
project  level  indicators  to  be  specified  in  the  calls  for  proposals  under 
the sub-programmes for  
– 
– 

Nature and Biodiversity,  
Circular  Economy  and  Quality  of  Life  covering  at  least  the 
following: Air quality, Soil, Water, Waste 
Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation;  
Clean Energy Transition. 

– 
– 
Cumulative  investments  triggered  by  the  projects  or  finance  accessed 
(million EUR); 
Number  of  organisations  involved  in  projects  or  receiving  operating 
grants; 

Share of projects having had a catalytic effect after the end date of the 
project.. 

  Annual  monitoring  of  the  programme  performance  thanks  to  outcome  and 
impact  indicators  starting  from  year  3:  this  allows  assessing  to  which  extent 
the  programme  is  progressing  towards  its  objectives,  based  on  predefined 
baselines and targets;  
Moreover  a  regular  monitor  and  report  on  mainstreaming  of  climate  and 
biodiversity,  including  the  amount  of  expenditure,  will  be  ensured.  The 
contribution  of  the  LIFE  programme  to  the  EU  budget-wide  target  of  25%  of 
expenditure  contributing  to  climate  objectives  shall  be  tracked  through  the  EU 
climate  marker  system.  Biodiversity-related  spending  will  be  tracked  using  a 
specific  set  of  markers  to  quantify  the  commitment  appropriations  expected  to 
contribute  respectively  to  climate  and  to  biodiversity  objectives  over  the  period 
2021-2027 at the appropriate level of disaggregation.  

  Two  fully-fledged  evaluations  of  the  programme  performance  at  mid-term  and 
at  the  end  of  the  programming  period  (upon  completion).  The  evaluations  will 
assess  the  Programme's  effects  on  the  ground  based  on  the  programme 
indicators/targets  and  a  detailed  analysis  of  the  degree  to  which  the  programme 
can be deemed relevant, effective, efficient, provides enough EU added value and 
is  coherent  with  other  EU  policies.  They  will  include  lessons  learnt  to  identify 
any lacks/problems or any potential to further improve the actions or their results 
and to help maximise their exploitation/impact.  

The mid-term evaluation would capture the first anticipated outputs and outcomes 
of  the  LIFE  programme  2021-2027,  as  well  as  some  of  the  final  outcomes  and 
impact of the current LIFE programme and the previous LIFE+ Programme. The 
final evaluation at the end of the programming period would capture the on-going 
and  the  final  anticipated  outcomes  of  the  LIFE  programme  2021-2027  and  the 
final  outcomes  and  impact  of  the  current  LIFE  programme  and  the  previous 
LIFE+ Programme. 

46 

 
 
ANNEXES 

47 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEXES 

Table of contents 

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ......................................................................... 50 

1.1.  Organisation and timing .................................................................................. 50 
1.2.  Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board .............................................. 50 
1.3.  Evidence used in the impact assessment ......................................................... 52 

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION .................................................................. 55 

2.1.  Consultations ................................................................................................... 57 
2.1.1.  Opinion of the Committee of the Regions (CoR) of the LIFE MTE ................. 57 
2.1.2.  Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) of 

the LIFE MTE .................................................................................................. 57 
2.1.3.  Opinions of environmental NGOs .................................................................... 58 
2.1.  Other inputs ..................................................................................................... 57 
2.1.4.  Inputs from relevant units within DG Environment and Climate Action and 

with representatives from other DGs ........................................................................... 59 
2.1.5.  Inputs from EASME .................................................................................................... 59 

ANNEX 3: EVALUATIONS RESULTS .................................................................................... 63 

3.1.  Summary of the mid –term evaluation of LIFE (2014-2020) ......................... 63 
3.2.  Summary of the evaluations of LIFE+ (2007-2013) ....................................... 65 
3.3.  Summary of evaluations of IEE/Horizon 2020 Energy Efficiency ................. 74 

ANNEX 4: NEEDS ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 79 

4.1.  Environmental problems and needs ................................................................. 79 
4.2.  Who is affected by unmet environment and climate needs? ........................... 79 
4.3.  The  need  to  address  the  drivers  of  environmental  and  climate 

problems .......................................................................................................... 80 
4.4.  Sector-specific Needs ...................................................................................... 85 
4.5.  Needs for LIFE Strategic Integrated projects: ................................................. 97 
4.6.  Conclusions ................................................................................................... 103 

ANNEX 5:  DESCRIPTION OF THE PRESENT LIFE PROGRAMME AND THE 

BUSINESS AS USUAL (BAU) SCENARIO ................................................................... 104 

5.1.  Overview of the LIFE Programme since 1992 .............................................. 104 
5.2.  LIFE 2014 – 2020 .......................................................................................... 104 

48 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.3.  Methodology for Assessing the Impact of LIFE under the Business as 

Usual Scenario ............................................................................................... 114 

ANNEX 6.  GAPS AND SYNERGIES ANALYSIS ............................................................... 151 

6.1.  Step one: LIFE and other EC programmes coverage of different stages ...... 151 
6.2.  Step  two:  Potential  overlaps  /  synergies  between  LIFE  and  other  EC 

programmes ................................................................................................... 153 

ANNEX 7: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 166 

7.1.  Step 1: Identification and characterisation of the remaining challenges ....... 166 
7.2.  Step 2: Development of the specific objectives and operational goals ......... 166 
7.3.  Step 3: Identification of the options .............................................................. 166 
7.4.  Step 4: Screening of the options .................................................................... 167 
7.5.  Step 5: Impact assessment of the short-listed options ................................... 168 
7.6.  Step 6: Summary of conclusions ................................................................... 170 

ANNEX 8: DESCRIPTION AND SCREENING OF OPTIONS ........................................... 171 

8.1.  Options linked to programme scope and structure ........................................ 171 
8.2.  Options linked to delivery mechanisms ........................................................ 178 
8.3.  Options related to programme management .................................................. 190 

ANNEX 9:  IMPACT  ASSESSMENT  OF  OPTION  1  -  INTEGRATION  OF 

CLEAN ENERGY TRANSITION PROGRAMME IN LIFE ....................................... 199 

9.1.  Needs analysis ............................................................................................... 200 
9.2.  Lessons learnt from the current and past programmes and assessment 

of the next MFF proposal .............................................................................. 205 

9.3.  Assessment of impacts of the Clean Energy Transition Programme in 

LIFE ............................................................................................................... 207 
9.4.  Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 212 

49 

 
 
 
 
 
 
ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION 

Lead DGs: Directorate Generals Environment (ENV) and Climate Action (CLIMA) 

Commission Work 
Programme reference 
number 

CWP2018-annex1 - 
n° 2 

Short title 

Programme for the Environment and Climate Action 

Foreseen 
adoption 

Spring 2018 
(Commission 
Proposal) 

1.1.  Organisation and timing 

In  December  2017,  an  Inception  Impact  assessment  on  "The  future  of  the  EU  Programme  for 
Environment and Climate Action (LIFE)" was prepared and submitted to the Regulatory Scrutiny 
Board (RSB). An upstream support meeting was then held with the RSB on the 11th of January 
2018. 

As  follow  up  of  the  mid-term  evaluation  findings,  on  December  2017,  an  Inception  Impact 
assessment was prepared "The future of the EU Programme for Environment and Climate Action 
(LIFE)"  and  submitted  to  the  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board  (RSB).  An  upstream  support  meeting 
was then held with the RSB on the 11th of January 2018. 

The  Inter  Service  Steering  Group  (ISSG)  for  the  Impact  Assessment  was  set  up  by  the  SG  in 
February  2018  and  includes  the  following  additional  DGs  and  Services:  SJ,  ECFIN,  GROW, 
EMPL,  AGRI,  ENER,  MOVE,  RTD,  MARE,  REGIO,  SANTE,  NEAR,  DEVCO,  BUDG, 
OLAF, JRC. 

Three  meetings  were  organised  between  February  2018  and  May  2018.  Further  consultations 
with the ISSG were carried out by e-mail.  

The ISSG discussed the Inception Impact Assessment and the main milestones in the process, in 
particular the inclusion of the Energy component and the draft Impact Assessment report before 
the submission to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board. 

This impact  assessment has drawn  extensively on the Mid-term  evaluation of the present  LIFE 
programme,  preparation  of  which  began  on  July  2015  and  ended  in  October  2017  when  the 
Commission  Report  and  the  staff  working  document  were  published  and  submitted  to  the 
European  Parliament  and  the  Council,  as  well  as  to  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  and  the 
European Social and Economic Committee. 

1.2.  Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board 

The  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board  ("RSB")  received  the  draft  version  of  the  present  Impact 
Assessment  report  on  the  21st  of  March  2018.  The  RSB  gave  some  preliminary  indications  of 
what was required through an upstream support meeting. Further to the meeting with the RSB on 
the 11th of April 2018, the RSB gave a positive opinion with reservations on the 13th April 2018. 
The opinion included recommendations, which have been addressed in the revised IA report as 
explained in the table below. 

Comments from the Regulatory Scrutiny Board  

Main considerations 

Further considerations 

How these issues have been addressed in 
the IA Report 

1. The discussions of the 
proposed extensions of 

Concerning the integration of the 
Intelligent Energy Europe (to be 

A more in depth analysis of the options – 
which have been partially re-drafted - has 

50 

 
LIFE’s scope should 
include a critical 
discussion of the 
implications for LIFE’s 
philosophy, structure, 
objectives, delivery 
mechanism, etc. The 
discussion should also 
cover the feasibility of 
integrating those 
programmes into LIFE 
successfully, as well as 
any potential pitfalls. 

moved from Horizon 2020 to 
LIFE), the report should clarify to 
which extent LIFE would need to 
adapt to accommodate this new 
scheme. In particular, the report 
needs to explain the foreseen 
governance of the merged 
programmes. 

been added in Annex 8 and 9, particularly 
related to the options on the extension of 
the LIFE's scope.  

A table has been added providing a full 
list of options that have been assessed 
(section 3.1), along with a  summary 
table of the options retained after initial 
screening (section 3.4). 

Some information have been added in 
par. 3.4.4. However, it was not possible 
to clarify which part of the other 
programmes should be cut, given the 
other IA for the future programme were 
all underway at the timing of writing. 

If it is confirmed, the possibility 
of LIFE becoming also the main 
instrument for financing Natura 
2000 has to be clearly 
acknowledged as a significant 
departure from the current 
philosophy and objectives of the 
catalytic role of this fund, with a 
shift towards shared management. 
The report should also be more 
explicit on the corresponding cuts 
in other programmes that would 
be necessary to provide the 
necessary additional funding. 

2. The monitoring regime 
needs to improve in order 
to become less dependent 
on stakeholder views for 
evaluations. 

The proposed indicators are not 
related to the specific objectives 
and the report does not indicate 
possible steps to better capture the 
catalytic effect of LIFE projects. 

Text is added to show how the proposed 
changes relate to the shortcomings 
identified for the current programming 
period, including improved robustness 
and relevance of reporting. 

3. The report needs to 
better motivate the 
proposed changes to the 
delivery mechanisms. For 
example, it is not clear 
whether strengthening 
national contact points 
are meant to increase the 
quality of applications 
and provide support to 
find co-funding, or to 
increase the number of 
applications. 

Text is added to show how the proposed 
changes relate to the shortcomings 
identified for the current programming 
period, including improved robustness 
and relevance of reporting. 

Additional section added to establish the 
link between the proposed objectives and 
the monitoring and evaluation 
framework. 

Extra text has been added to the 
descriptions to explain the rationale for 
the delivery mechanisms. 

A table has been added providing a full 
list of options that have been assessed 
(section 3.1), along with a  summary 
table of the options retained after initial 
screening (section 3.4).  

This table has not been repeated in 
section 4, but instead a reference is made 
to this table. 

The options on simplification have been 
added back into the main report 

At the same time, the report 
should take care not to 
unnecessarily inflate the 
monitoring regime. The report 
should better document other 
characteristics of the programme, 
such as the envisaged synergies 

Additionally, the report should 
briefly clarify which alternatives 
are assessed and which are 
dismissed in annex 8. 

Finally, the report would gain to 
refer more clearly to the analysis 
on the efforts to simplify the 
programme, in particular 
regarding funding applications 

51 

 
 
 
(currently in Annex 10). 

1.3.  Evidence used in the impact assessment  

The  Commission  sought  external  expertise  through  a  contract  for  a  support  study  with 
RICARDO – Energy and Environment. From the deliverables of this contract, the IA report used 
in particular the analysis and methodology of the different policy options. 

o  Ricardo “Support  for an ex ante impact assessment of the post 2020 (LIFE) financial 

instrument for environment and climate”, ongoing 

In  addition,  the  JRC  provided  a  contribution  concerning  the  analysis  of  the  future  indicators  at 
programme level 

The IA report and the options considered in the IA report were developed based on the following 
documents, sources and evidence:  

A  Rocha  et  al.  (2017)  Position  Paper  on  the  EU  LIFE  Programme  in  the  next  Multi-
annual Financial Framework (MFF) 

AC Teon (2012) Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin 
management plans in the EU Task 4 b: Costs & Benefits of WFD implementation 

CoR  (2017)  CoR  opinion:  Mid-term  evaluation of  the  Programme  for  the  Environment 
and Climate Action (LIFE) 2014-2020 

COWI (2009) Ex-post evaluation of LIFE  

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’ 

EASME (2017) Annual work plan 

EC  (2006)  Thematic  Strategy  for  Soil  Protection  -  Impact  assessment  of  the  thematic 
strategy on soil protection 

EC (2011) Impact Assessment. Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation 
on  the  establishment  of  a  Programme  for  the  Environment  and  Climate  Action  (LIFE). 
SEC(2011) 1542 final 

EC (2013) The Declaration of the Commission annexed to the Horizon 2020 Regulation 
(1291/2013) 

EC (2013) Specific financial statement, EASME. 

EC (2014) Commission Implementing Decision on the adoption of the LIFE multiannual 
work programme for 2014-17. (2014/203/EU) 

EC (2014) Financing the energy renovation of buildings with Cohesion Policy funding 

EC (2015) Roadmap for the LIFE Programme 

EC (2015) Summaries of the data on the progress made in financing and implementing 
the  financial  instruments  for  the  programming  period  2014-2020  in  accordance  with 
Article  46  of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1303/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the 
Council 

EC (2015) The State of Nature in the European Union Report on the status of and trends 
for habitat types and species covered by the Birds and Habitats Directives for the 2007-

52 

 
2012 period as required under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive and Article 12 of the 
Birds Directive. COM/2015/0219 final 

EC  (2016)  Fitness  Check  of  the  EU  Nature  Legislation  (Birds  and  Habitats 
Directives). SWD(2016) 472 final 

EC (2016) Qualitative and quantitative outcome indicators for LIFE projects 

EC (2017) A stronger and renewed strategic partnership with the EU's outermost regions. 
COM(2017) 623 final  

EC (2017) Clean Energy Transition Programme Inception Impact Assessment 

EC (2017) Draft General Budget of the European Union for the financial year of 2018. 
Working document Part I. Programme statement of operational expenditure 

EC  (2017)  Inception  Impact  Assessment:  The  future  of  the  EU  Programme  for 
Environment and Climate (LIFE) 

EC (2017) Reflection paper on the EU finances 

EC (2017) Report on financial instruments supported by the general budget according to 
Art.140.8 of the Financial Regulation as at 31 December 2016. COM(2017) 535 final. 

EC  (2017)  Report  on  the  Mid-term  Evaluation  of  the  Programme  for  Environment  and 
Climate Action (LIFE). SWD(2017) 355 final. 

EC  (2017)  Study  for  the  strategy  for  a  non-toxic  environment  of  the  7th  Environment 
Action Programme, prepared by Okopol, Milieu, RPA and RIVM 

EC (2017) The future of food and farming. COM(2017) 713 final 

EC (2018) Commission Implementing Decision on the adoption of the LIFE multiannual 
work programme for 2018-2020. (EU/2018/2010) 

EC (2018) Environment - LIFE: Toolkit. Project management tools: Standard Agreement 
and 
at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/toolkit/pmtools/life2014_2020/guidelines.htm  
[Accessed 2 Mar. 2018]   

Provisions. 

Available 

Common 

[online] 

EC (2018) Toolkit for the key project-level indicators (KPI) under LIFE 

ECA  (2003)  Special  report  No  11/2003  concerning  the  financial  instrument  for  the 
Environment (LIFE), together with the Commission’s replies. OJ C292/1. 

ECA  (2009)  The  sustainability  and  the  Commission’s  management  of  the  LIFE-Nature 
projects. Special report No 11. 

ECA  (2013)  Has  the  environment  component  of  the  LIFE  programme  been  effective? 
Special Report No 15 

Ecorys  (2017)  Support  for  an  external  and  independent  LIFE  Mid  Term  Evaluation 
Report 

EEA (2015) SOER 2015 – The European environment – state and outlook 2015 

EEA (2017) Environmental indicator report 2017: In support to the monitoring of the 7th 
Environment Action Programme. EEA Report No. 21/2017 

EEB (2018) The EEB Memorandum to the Bulgarian Presidency of the European Union 
Including the Ten Green Test 

EESC (2017) EESC opinion: Mid-term evaluation of the LIFE programme 

53 

 
EIB (2017) Energy efficiency in buildings: how to accelerate investments? 

EP  (2016)  LIFE  –  How  to  use  €3.46  billion  for  environment  and  climate  protection. 
Study for the ENVI Committee 

EP  (2017)  Implementation  of  the  7th  Environment  Action  Programme  –  Mid-term 
review 

EPRS  (2017)  Reducing  air  pollution  National  emission  ceilings  for  air  pollutants. 
Briefing EU Legislation in Progress. |European Parliamentary Research Service 

European  Commission  Regulatory  Scrutiny  Board  (2017)  Opinion  Evaluation  /  LIFE 
Programme for Environment and Climate Action 

GHK et al. (2011) Combined Impact Assessment and Ex Ante Evaluation of the Review 
of the LIFE+ Regulation: Options Development 

GHK, Arcadis & Vito (2010) Mid-Term Evaluation of the Implementation of the LIFE+ 
Regulation  

ICF International, LDK, Hinicio (2015) Evaluation of Intelligent Energy Europe Projects 
Supporting Sustainable Energy Communities- Final report 

IEEP  et  al.  (2017)  Integration  approach  to  EU  biodiversity  financing:  evaluation  of 
results and analysis of options for the future  

IUCN (20147) The BEST Initiative 

LIFE Indicators Database 

LIFE Projects Database  

Lopez,  P.D.  (2017)  LIFE  Key  Project-level  Indicators  (KPI).  Presentation  by  the 
European Commission 

Milieu, IEEP and ICF (2016) Evaluation Study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds 
and Habitats Directives 

NABU and BirdLIFE (2017) Additional information to the public consultation on Mid-
term evaluation of the LIFE Programme 

Neemo & EY (2016) LIFE: Contributing to employment and economic growth 

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

Regulation  (EU)  No  1293/2013  on  the  establishment  of  a  Programme    for    the  
Environment    and    Climate    Action    (LIFE)    and    repealing    Regulation    (EC)    No  
614/2007 

Ricardo  and  CE  Delft  (2017)  Report  on  the  first  results  of  Horizon  2020  on  energy 
efficiency and system integration – Final report 

Ricardo, IEEP and Trinomics (2017) Climate mainstreaming in the EU budget: preparing 
for the next MFF 

Trinomics  (2012)  Final  evaluation  of  LIFE+:  Summary  of  conclusions  and 
recommendations 

WWF  (2018)  The  EU  Multiannual  Financial  Framework:  WWF  Position  Paper  on  the 
next EU Budget and its application 

54 

 
 
 
ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION 

As part of the mid-term evaluation of the current LIFE Programme a wide range of consultation 
activities were conducted, including (i) a 12-week public consultation generating more than 250 
responses, (ii) six  specific surveys with  more than 200 responses, and (iii)  over 150  interviews 
(and  where  relevant  site  visits)  of  the  key  stakeholder  groups,  including  project  beneficiaries, 
project coordinators, external monitoring  experts and stakeholders related to the LIFE financial 
instruments.  

A summary of key stakeholder messages from the above consultation activities is presented in the 
box below: 

Box 0-1: Summary of key messages from stakeholders consulted under the MTE of LIFE 

  95% of the respondents of the public consultation confirmed the need to have an EU programme for the 

environment and climate.  

  Stakeholders emphasised that the transnational nature of LIFE plays an important role in the 

programme’s effectiveness. 

  Stakeholders highlighted that LIFE is one of the few EU funds that specifically supports the restoration 

and maintenance of biodiversity and thus plays an important role in funding nature conservation. 

  Stakeholders welcomed the phasing out of national allocations but emphasised the usefulness of national 
contact  points.  At  the  same  time,  stakeholders  highlighted  that  there  are  large  differences  between 
Member States in terms of their capacity and performance.  

  Between  72%  and  96%  of  respondents  considered  that  all  types  of  interventions  covered  by  LIFE  are 

relevant for an EU programme for the environment and climate.  

  The majority of stakeholders considered LIFE to be both internally and externally coherent.  
  Stakeholders also agreed that LIFE acts as a catalyst nevertheless the consultation activities showed that 

this potential should be further exploited.  

  The LIFE Programme was considered to be relevant by stakeholders to address the needs and problems in 
the  area  of  climate  and  environment.  At  the  same  time,  the  need  for  prioritisation  and  the  potential 
inclusion of a more ‘top-down’ approach was highlighted. Some stakeholders also suggested putting less 
restrictions on thematic focus in the Regulation. 

  The majority of the respondents of the public consultation undertaken in the framework of the mid-term 
evaluation  confirmed  that  the  programme  has  an  important  EU  added  value  because  it  supports  the 
coherent  development,  implementation  and  enforcement  of  EU  environment  and  climate  policy  and 
legislation (98 % of respondents); it tackles environmental and climate problems more efficiently (98 % 
of respondents); it preserves EU environmental resources which, even if unevenly distributed across the 
EU, benefit the EU as a whole (94 % of respondents); it contributes to EU-wide sharing of 'best practices', 
knowledge transfer, demonstration, and awareness raising (99 % of respondents).  

  Consulted  stakeholders  had  strong  views  on  the  need  for  further  simplification,  and  the  excessive 

administrative complexity of the programme was criticised.  

  The high replication potential of integrated projects was emphasised by stakeholders.  
  With regards to financial instruments, consulted stakeholders highlighted the need for grant blending and 
further  technical  assistance.  Some  stakeholders  also  questioned  the  relevance  and  effectiveness  of  the 
NCFF.   

  The importance of the involvement of NGOs in environmental and climate policy was highlighted by the 

stakeholders who pointed to the relevance of the LIFE operating grants.  

Source: Ecorys (2017) Support for an external and independent LIFE Mid Term Evaluation Report 

Although  it was  not  considered  necessary  to  organise  a  new,  broad  public  consultation  for  this 
impact assessment, further opinions on the MTE results and the future of the LIFE Programme 
were  received  from  environmental  NGOs  and  some  consultation  activities  to  discuss  the 
challenges  and  opportunities  of  the  programme  were  undertaken  with  relevant  stakeholders, 
including  relevant  units  within  DG  Environment  and  DG  Climate  Action,  as  well  as 

55 

 
representatives  from  other  DGs  taking  part  in  the  Inter-Service  Steering  Group  meetings,  and 
with EASME.  

These  consultations  provided  further  justification  for  the  conclusions  of  the  MTE  but  also 
provided  new  insights  into  the  future  direction  of  the  LIFE  programme.  A  summary  of  these 
points is presented in the box below while Annex 3provides more detailed information. 

Box 2-2: Summary of key points from further discussions  

  A  wide  range  of  environmental  NGOs  highlighted  the  importance  of  the  LIFE  Programme  in 
funding environmental issues even if the current budget of the programme only represents 0.3% of 
the  total  EU  MFF.  At  the  same  time,  they  called  for  a  significant  increase  in  the  future  LIFE’s 
budget. Overall, they argued that LIFE should receive at least 1% of the total EU post-2020 MFF. 

  Given  the  need  to  increase  nature  conservation  efforts  and  the  importance  of  LIFE’s  role  in 
supporting  biodiversity,  some  NGOs  called  to  dedicate  50%  of  the  future  LIFE  to  the  Nature  and 
Biodiversity  priority  area.  Furthermore,  several  stakeholders  called  for  the  creation  of  a  large 
dedicated Nature Fund, possibly within the LIFE umbrella.  

  The need to increase co-financing rates was also highlighted, particularly to facilitate participation 
from  the  MS  which  are  participating  less.  Furthermore,  NGOs  emphasised  the  need  to  reduce 
administrative burden on project applicants in order to increase the effectiveness of the programme.  

  Discussions with Commission services highlighted the importance to consider flexibility within the 
programme, synergies between LIFE and other EU funds, the potential for replicability, the need to 
understand  critical  mass  and  the  difficulties  inherent  in  assessing  the  full  catalytic  effect  of  the 
programme. The current unbalanced participation from certain Member States and beneficiaries was 
also highlighted. 

  An interview in EASME covered a number of points relating to the management and scope of LIFE. 
In  particular,  the  lack  of  value  that  would  represent  delegating  procurement  contracts  to  EASME 
was  confirmed.  Using  a  two-stage  application  process  and  using  E-Grant  were  seen  as  positive 
developments. Regarding the scope of LIFE, an inclusion of the former Intelligent Energy Europe 
(IEE) parts from Horizon 2020 into LIFE would be beneficial in terms of coherence and size of the 
Programme and it would lead to management synergies within EASME. 

2.1.  CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES 

As  indicated  in  the  main  report,  as  part  of  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  current  LIFE 
Programme  extensive  consultation  activities  took  place  which  included  a  12-week  long  public 
consultation,  six  specific  surveys  targeting  relevant  stakeholders  and  more  than  150  interviews 
with a wide range of LIFE stakeholders.  

Given  the  above,  it  was  not  considered  necessary  to  undertake  a  new  and  wide-ranging  public 
consultation. Nevertheless, a limited set of further consultation activities were undertaken. This 
included  some  discussions  on  the  potential  challenges  and  opportunities  relevant  to  the  LIFE 
including  relevant  units  within  DG 
programme  post-2020  with  relevant  stakeholders, 
Environment  and  DG  Climate  Action,  representatives  from  other  DGs  taking  part  in  the  Inter-
Service Steering Group (IISG) meetings, and with EASME. 

In  addition,  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  and  the  European  Economic  and  Social  Committee 
have adopted specific opinions on the future of the LIFE Programme after having acknowledged  
the results of the mid-term evaluation and  certain environmental NGOs have prepared position 
papers outlining their views on the funding priorities under the next MFF, which included some 
views  on  the  LIFE  programme.  While  this  evidence  is  biased  towards  the  views  of  a  single 
stakeholder group, so cannot be considered representative, the options are still useful  

56 

 
 
2.1.1.  Opinion of the Committee of the Regions (CoR) of the LIFE MTE 

The  Committee  of  the  Regions  in  its  opinion60  on  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  LIFE 
Programme provided the following conclusions: 
  Reiterated its strong support for the LIFE Programme and called for its continuation with a 

significantly increased budget in the post-2020 MFF. 

  Called for the increase of funds for the Nature and Biodiversity priority area and indicated 
the  need  to  significantly  increase  the  programme’s  contributions  to  the  Natura  2000 
network. 

  Recommended to strengthen the Climate Action sub-programme of LIFE. 
  Recommended to reinforce LIFE’s role in tackling uneven implementation and enforcement 

of the EU environmental acquis in the Member States. 

  Recommended  the  further  implementation  of  the  (strategic)  integrated  projects  and  the 

Governance and Information priority areas. 

  Called for the increase of co-financing rates under the future LIFE programme. 
  Called for revisiting the decision on the phase out of national allocations. 
  Called for the introduction of further simplification of the application procedures for project 

applicants. 

  Called  the  Commission  to  assess  the  opportunities  for  LIFE  to  support  large-scale 

deployment. 

  Called  the  Commission  to  assess  the  role  of  the  financial  instruments  of  the  LIFE 
programme  with  the  aim  to  attract  investors  related  to  the  Environment  and  Resource 
Efficiency priority area.   

2.1.2. 
the LIFE MTE 

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) of 

The European Economic and Social Committee in its opinion61 on the mid-term evaluation of the 
LIFE Programme provided the following conclusions: 

  Reiterated its support to retain and further develop the LIFE Programme. 

  Acknowledged  the  important  role  of  the  LIFE  programme  in  supporting  EU 
environmental policy. Particular emphasis was put on LIFE’s role in directly achieving 
direct  and  tangible  environmental  impacts  and  in  supporting  EU  citizens  to  understand 
and accept EU environmental policy. 

  Highlighted LIFE’s role in identifying inconsistencies in EU policy decisions in relation 

to environmental and climate objectives.  

  Called for the need for LIFE to support the Sustainable Development Goals.  

  Recommended that the future LIFE should be the main instrument for funding the Natura 

2000 network and that appropriate funds are earmarked for this.  

60  

61  

CoR (2017) CoR opinion: Mid-term evaluation of the Programme for the Environment and Climate Action 
(LIFE) 2014-2020 
EESC (2017) EESC opinion: Mid-term evaluation of the LIFE programme 

57 

 
                                                      
  Recommended to further assess how LIFE projects could be better replicated. 

  Recommended  to  establish  a  clearer  distinction  between  LIFE  and  Horizon  2020 

projects, i.e. to not provide LIFE funding for conventional research projects.  

  Recommended to further develop the Climate Action sub-programme, in particular with 

a focus on adaptation actions.    

2.1.3.  Opinions of environmental NGOs 

Since the publication of the mid-term evaluation of LIFE a set of position papers on the direction 
of the future LIFE Programme were published by a set of environmental NGOs. They included: 
-  A  joint  statement  from  17  environmental  NGO  members62  of  the  European  Habitats 
Forum63; 
   A position paper on the post-2020 MFF by WWF64; 
   A joint position paper by NABU and BirdLife on the MTE65; 
   The EEB’s Memorandum on the Bulgarian Presidency66. 

2.1.3.1 The need to significantly increase the future LIFE budget 

All environmental NGOs emphasised the important role LIFE plays in supporting environmental 
and climate objectives in the EU. Given the programme’s importance and the continued need to 
tackle environmental and climate challenges the NGOs argued that the LIFE Programme should 
be continued in the future MFF. In addition, all NGOs agreed that the programme’s budget needs 
to  be  significantly  increased.  LIFE  currently  represents  0.3%  of  the  EU  budget.  The  member 
NGOs of the European Habitats Forum suggested increasing this share to 1%. At the same time, 
EEB in its note on suggested priorities for the Bulgarian EU Presidency presented an argument 
for a ten-fold increase in LIFE’s budget.   

NGOs not only argued for the overall increase of the LIFE Programme but to also increase the 
dedicated budget to the Nature and Biodiversity priority area. NGOs re-iterated the importance of 
LIFE  in  funding  biodiversity  conservation  and  also  pointed  to  the  continuous  conservational 
challenges  within  the  EU. Members  of  the  European  Habitats  Forum  argued  that  50%  of  LIFE 
should be dedicated to LIFE while earlier in a joint position paper BirdLife and NABU suggested 
a 10% increase in funding for nature.  

2.1.3.2. 

The need to increase co-financing rates 

A  need  for  an  increased  co-financing  rate  was  emphasised  by  all  NGOs.  They  argued  that  in 
order to overcome the financial challenges project beneficiaries facing co-financing rates need to 
be increased to 75%. They argued that in some cases co-financing rates could be even increased 
to 90%, for instance in the case of those projects that target species which are considered to be in 
an unfavourable-bad status under the Habitats Directive. 

62  

63  

64  

65  

66  

Including BirdLife, EEB and WWF whose individual opinions are also presented in this section. While most 
individual opinions are similar to those included in the case of the amount by which the LIFE programme is 
suggested to be increased is different. Such differences are highlighted in the sections below.  

https://www.eurosite.org/wp-content/uploads/LIFE-EHF-Position-Dec-2017.pdf  Published 
2017. 

in  December 

http://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.net/downloads/WWF_-_MFF_position_paper_-_January_2018.pdf  
Published in January 2018.  

Not available online. Published in 2017.  

Not available online. Published in January 2018.  

58 

 
                                                      
2.1.3.3. 

The need to reduce administrative burden for applicants 

All NGOs highlighted that currently project applicants have to face complex and time-consuming 
processes and there is a need to reduce administrative burden. They specifically highlighted the 
need to introduce the two-step application process more widely under the programme.  

2.1.3.4. 

The need to support 'traditional' standard projects more widely 

WWF  emphasised  the  need  to  increase  support  for  'traditional'  standard  projects  which  have  a 
bottom-up  approach  and  thus  have  potential  to  bring  LIFE  projects  “closer  to  citizens”.  WWF 
suggested to provide a 50% earmarking within action grants for 'traditional' standard projects.  

2.2.  Other inputs 

2.2.1.  Inputs  from  relevant  units  within  DG  Environment  and  Climate  Action  and 
with representatives from other DGs  

The below sections provide a summary of the main points raised by Commission services in 
reflection on the future of the LIFE Programme.   

The need to ensure synergies between LIFE and other funds   

While  the  MTE  of  the  LIFE  Programme  highlighted  that  there  are  synergies  already  in  place 
between  LIFE  and  various  other  financial  programmes,  DGs  within  the  European 
Commission  indicated  that  these  synergies  should  be  further  explored  and  supported  whenever 
possible.  Specific  references  were  made  to  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  (EDRF) 
and the Research and Innovation Framework Programme 9 (Horizon Europe).  

In relation to research and innovation, the possibility to include the sustainable energy component 
of Horizon 2020 in the future LIFE Programme was discussed and it was concluded that given 
the suitable nature, objectives and intervention logic of this part of Horizon 2020 this could be a 
viable option for the post-2020 LIFE.   

The need to ensure a critical mass 

Commission  services  emphasised  the  need  to  reflect  on  the  “critical  mass”  that  is  needed  to 
effectively implement the future LIFE Programme. This reflection needs to take account of the 
identified needs. It was also highlighted that it is important to consider the need for flexibility in 
view of the critical mass identified.  

The need to foster project replicability 

The importance to continue replicating successful LIFE projects was highlighted. For instance, it 
was emphasised that an important feature of LIFE is that it can support projects which can then 
be replicated by the Structural Funds at later stages.  

Other issues 

In  addition  to  the  above  issues,  Commission  services  called  for  the  need  to  address  the 
unbalanced access to LIFE funds for beneficiaries within the Member States. This was asked to 
be addressed by relevant delivery mechanisms. 

Finally,  the  need  to  assess  how  to  deal  with  the  participation  of  third  countries  in  the  LIFE 
Programme was requested.  

2.2.2.  Inputs from EASME 

The  discussion  with  EASME  focussed  on  the  management  cost  implications  of  the  options  for 
changing the scope of LIFE and also covered the options relating to reducing the administrative 
burden. The interviewee was also able to offer some personal input based on his long experience 
of the LIFE programme.  

59 

 
Validity of current role of EASME in LIFE 

EASME  do  the  management  of  virtually  all  LIFE  projects,  including  the  integrated  projects. 
They don’t do procurement and some preparatory projects, and they felt that there would be little 
to gain from them taking these on. Procurement is policy driven and from EASME’s experience 
in other programmes (COSME and EMFF) putting this type of action into an agency does not add 
value. 

NGO funding 

The  interviewee  felt  that  the  annual  budget  structure  is  a  constraint,  but  this  is  required  by  the 
financial regulations. He stated that the current two-year funding approach is enabled by signing 
a framework type contract with the recipients, however he did not feel that it generates that much 
of an administrative saving. The interviewee felt that longer framework partnership agreements 
should be considered 

Simplification 

On the benefits of a two-stage application approach, EASME doesn’t have calculations on this, 
but the justification is to reduce applicant time. The interviewee felt that an approximate estimate 
of  the  time  savings  would  be  that  a  full  proposal  takes  2-3  person  months  of  man  days,  which 
costs at least €10k, but could be as much as €30-40 k. In contrast preparing a short (outline (stage 
one))  proposal  should  take  no  more  than  2-3  weeks  and  cost  €5k  at  most.  The  interviewee 
thought applicants with a long history of success, who know the programme well, would not like 
this idea, because it loses some of the advantage their experience gives. However, this was not 
the case, as Birdlife (a very successful applicant) were very enthusiastic as it would allow new 
applicants  to  approach  LIFE.  The  interviewee  felt  that  a  two-stage  approach  would  almost 
definitely  result  in  more  applications.  EASME  asked  DEVCO  about  their  experience  and  the 
conclusion  was  extremely  positive  The  interviewee  raised  one  down  side,  with  the  question  of 
how the concept notes should be evaluated. There is a risk of being more subjective in evaluating 
them as it would be difficult to have detailed criteria that would justify an approval of a certain 
top  ranked  percentage.  This  risk  may  be  addressed  by  carefully  designing  the  concept  note 
structure and associated guidelines The interviewee stated that the two-stage application process 
is  already  used  in  parts  of  Horizon  2020,  and  that  the  approach  is  expanding  to  other 
programmes. For  example, DG EAC also use a two-stage process. He felt that it works best in 
programmes that have lots of proposals, or where the level of detail (required for the full bid) is 
very high. 

The interviewee stated that other potential simplifications for the full proposals include reusing 
the  text  entered  for  the  concept  note  and  reducing  the  level  of  detail  in  the  application  forms. 
EASME  are  assuming  responsibility  for  the  IT  for  LIFE  and  in  due  time,  will  have  sufficient 
capacity to make the changes required. to the existing IT tools to introduce these simplifications 
The intention is to move to the E grant tool by 2020 (as used by most other programmes). This is 
intended to become a single portal to access all EU financial programmes. This switch might lose 
a few specificities (to LIFE), but efforts will be made to keep the best (and most useful) things. 

Moving some of the energy parts of Horizon 2020 

The  interviewee  felt  that  the  positive  elements  of  this  option  are  that  it  would  boost  the  LIFE 
budget and quality and the EASME LIFE and Horizon 2020 Energy units are close in terms of 
approach  and  interests.  He  also  felt  that  taking  some  of  the  energy  projects  (the  former  IEE 
programme) out of Horizon 2020 would give more flexibility to the projects it supports. It would 
also address the feeling that these projects get ‘lost’ in Horizon 2020. He felt that there could be 
some  extra  costs  of  moving  the  Horizon  2020  energy  projects  into  LIFE.  For  example,  if  the 
monitoring  approach  for  the  Horizon  2020  projects  is  adjusted  to  be  the  same  as  for  the  LIFE 
projects it will mean more national monitors are required, though the required growth would not 
be entirely linear. The project negotiation process would also add extra costs. On the positive side 
the interviewee stated that according to ex-post audits there is a lower error rate in LIFE projects 

60 

 
(currently  some  0.25%)  than  Horizon  2020  projects.  He  felt  that  the  project  revision  process 
helps with this as do the national monitors. The interviewee felt that if the LIFE approach were 
applied to the Horizon 2020 projects the extra administrative costs would be largely offset by a 
lower error rate. 

Third countries and outermost regions 

The interviewee stated that Article 5 allows associated counties to participate in any programme 
if they sign an agreement and contribute to the budget of that programme. For LIFE that hasn’t 
been taken up, largely because the likelihood of these countries getting back their contribution is 
low.  A  system  to  guarantee  that  at  least  a  share  of  that  money  would  be  reinvested  in  the 
countries that contributed might be considered to make the scheme more appealing. 

The  interviewee  stated  that  Article  6  of  the  LIFE  programme  allows  actions  to  be  supported 
anywhere in the world if they are necessary to deliver results in the EU. An obvious example is 
helping migratory birds in their wintering countries. This approach could be expanded to include 
problems  clearly  caused  by  the  EU  -  e.g.  illegal  ship  recycling  in  Asia.  However,  this  is  an 
exceptional  approach,  so  clear  evidence  of  EU  relevance  would  be  needed  on  a  case  by  case 
basis. 

Unequal geographic distribution of LIFE participation: 

The interviewee felt that there is historical evidence that the approach of a certain percentage of 
the  total  number  of  'traditional'  standard  projects  for  each  MS  is  a  distortive  element.  The 
evidence shows that it in no way helped low performing MSs to increase their share of take from 
LIFE.    The  only  way  is  to  work  patiently  on  the  real  causes  in  each  MS  ,  but  also  in  every 
economic  or  social  sector.  He  felt  that  there  is  arguably  some  merit  in  having  a  geographical 
distribution factor for integrated projects, on the basis of numbers of projects per MS, rather than 
share of budget per MS. 

General scope 

In the traditional grant area, the interviewee felt that the bottom up approach to sourcing projects 
is the main success factor of LIFE. He agreed that the current mix between priorities  and bottom 
up ideas should be maintained and improved striking the right balance between predictability and 
flexibility and between EU policy priorities and local capacity and perception of where problems 
lie.  The  budget  for  these  projects  could  easily  be  doubled  to  better  match  the  historic  level  of 
demand  and  absorption..  He  also  agreed  that  Integrated  projects  could  be  expanded  to  cover 
additional  themes e.g. energy, noise, marine, etc.) and be regarded as a primary  mainstreaming 
method  for  the  Commission,  but  again  this  would  require  a  significant  budget  increase.  With 
regard  to  preparatory  projects,  their  overall  budget  is  small,  but  these  are  important  top-down 
projects driven and may justify a certain increase. 

The interviewee felt that the current balance of objectives between the Regulation and the annual 
program appears a good solution as it allows some flexibility year to year. In general, all parts of 
LIFE appear worthy of retention (scope and approach) with the exception of the capacity building 
element, and the country allocation approach. The current single MS capacity building approach 
should  be  replaced  by  one  or  two  grants  addressing  the  support  of  the  whole  network  of  LIFE 
National Contact Points 

Monitoring and Evaluation 

With regard to the option of changing the approach to Monitoring and Evaluation, by bringing it 
back  into  the Commission and doing  it all from Brussels. The interviewee felt that this change 
would not only be very difficult in view of the staff figures we would be looking for (100-150), 
but  more  important  we  would  kill  the  most  visible  and  appreciated  special  feature  of  the  LIFE 
program: the network of professional monitors. In every evaluation or audit across the years, this 
special  feature  has  been  prized  by  beneficiaries,  member  States  and  even  EU  institutions.  
Internalising this staff in EASME could be materially possible, but they would never be able to 

61 

 
ensure  the  proximity,  the  language  coverage  and  the  logistic  flexibility  that  the  LIFE  monitors 
bring.  

62 

 
 
 
ANNEX 3: EVALUATION RESULTS 

3.1. 

Summary of the mid –term evaluation of LIFE (2014-2020) 

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. 

The mid-term evaluation 

As required by the LIFE Regulation, the mid-term evaluation builds on the external study ‘Mid-
term analysis of the LIFE Regulation’, carried out by independent contractors.  

The  mid-term  evaluation  was  carried  out  at  an  early  stage  of  the  programme's  implementation. 
This means that most projects were not started yet, and few projects were completed (the average 
duration of a LIFE project is 4 to 5 years).  

For these reasons the mid-term evaluation focused mainly on the processes put in place (launch 
of calls, signing of contracts, funding of projects, etc.) to reach the LIFE programme's objectives. 
Where  relevant,  the  evaluation  looked  at  their  expected  results  more  than  the  results  achieved. 
Moreover  a  comparison  was  done  with  the  previous  programme  (its  outputs  are  used  as  a 
reference)  because  most  of  the  activities  and  the  related  procedures  ('traditional'  standard 
projects,  operating  grants  and  procurement)  continue  to  be  as  they  were  under  the  LIFE+ 
programme. 

3.1.1.  Main findings 

Overall, the mid-term evaluation provided reasonable assurance that the LIFE programme is on 
track to be: 

 

effective,  because  it  is  well  placed  to  meet  its  targets  and  deliver  on  environmental  and 
climate objectives and contribute to the pillars of the Europe 2020 strategy.  

Ongoing  projects  from  the  2014  calls  for  proposals  are  expecting  to  reach  70%  of  each 
milestone envisaged for 2017, for example, by targeting better conservation of 114 species, 
59 habitats and 85 Natura 2000 sites. 

Activities  are  in  place  to  fulfil  all  the  general  objectives  and  to  contribute  to  resource-
efficiency, innovative technologies and, in a limited way, employment. 

Some  of  the  most  recent  policy  developments  have  been  financed  by  LIFE  -  namely  the 
circular  economy  package  adopted  in  2015  and  the  2030  climate  and  energy  framework 
adopted in 2014, the implementation of the Paris Agreement ratified in 2016 as well as the 
EU's adaptation strategy -. 

efficient, because the projects are expected to provide value for money. It is estimated that 
the benefit to society of some of the projects from the 2014 call for proposals will amount to 
EUR 1.7 billion. This figure alone represents four times the cost of the overall LIFE budget 
for 2014. 
The transfer of most of the grant management from the Commission to the executive agency 
EASME is well on track and it is expected to produce an overall gain in efficiency, above 
the EUR 8.2 million gains initially planned for 2014-2020.  
relevant,  because  the  ongoing  projects  are  addressing  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 climate change. 

complementary  to  and  works  in  combination  with  other  programmes  (thus  producing 
synergies).  As  confirmed  by  the  analysis  of  areas  with  similar  objectives,  the  fact  that  the 
different  programmes  do  not  have  the  same  primary  focus  means  that  there  is  little 

 

 

 

63 

 
possibility  of  overlapping.  Initial  findings  also  show  that  the  LIFE  programme  has 
encouraged  using  the  results  of  the  projects  financed  by  research  programmes.  It  has  also 
encouraged taking advantage of the European Structural and Investment Funds, in particular 
through the integrated projects. 

Moreover,  the  LIFE  programme  showed  a  substantial  and  unanimously  recognised  EU  added 
value, because it helps to make the application of EU environmental and climate legislation and 
policies  consistent  across  the  EU.  It  allows  a  better  sharing  of  responsibility  and  promotes 
solidarity  for  the  management/conservation  of  EU  environmental  assets.  Some  evidence  also 
confirms that the programme is  successfully playing its role as  catalyst, promoting  activities to 
exchange best practice and knowledge and to improve the utilisation of project results as well as 
transfer of know-how. 

The evaluation also highlighted 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 helped to improve these aspects under the 
next  multiannual  work  programme  (2018-2020)  and  will  be  addressed  in  the  next  multiannual 
financial framework. 

3.1.2.  RSB Opinion 

On February 2017 the Regulatory Scrutiny Board gave a positive opinion on the evaluation of the 
staff working document (SWD) on the mid-term evaluation, with observations on how the SWD 
could  still  be  further  improved.  These  recommendations  were  taken  into  account  and  several 
changes were made in the final version of the SWD.  

Main considerations:  

The Board notes that the Commission services undertook the mid-term evaluation at an early stage of 
the implementation of the programme (2014-2020). Therefore information on the actual impacts of 
projects is not yet fully available.  

The  Board  gives  a  positive  opinion,  but  considers  that  the  report  should  be  adjusted  in  order  to 
address  a  number  of  key  shortcomings,  using  the  information  from  the  evaluation  study  and 
incorporating the longer-term results of the LIFE+ programme:  

(1) The scope of the evaluation is unclear. It does not cover all questions of relevance for the next 
Multi-annual  Financial  Framework  (MFF).  It  is  unclear  whether  its  focus  encompasses  the 
whole programme or only its new features.  

(2) The report does not provide evidence as to whether and how the LIFE programme has achieved a 
strategic  focus  (e.g.  in  thematic  priorities,  programme  structure,  Multi  Annual  Work 
Programme). 2  

(3)  The  report  does  not  demonstrate  the  catalytic  role  of  the  LIFE  programme  in  mobilising 
additional funding, integrating environmental and climate objectives into other policies, and in 
spreading good practices.  

64 

 
(4) The report does not provide a full analysis of the programme's actual implementation costs or its 

simplification potential (e.g. lump sums, VAT, selection procedure).  

(5)  The  report  does  not  sufficiently  explain  the  EU  added  value  of  the  LIFE  programme  and  the 

synergies with other funding programmes. 

3.2. 

Summary of the evaluations of LIFE+ (2007-2013) 

3.2.1.  Summary of the final evaluation of LIFE + 
The  final  evaluation67  of  the  LIFE+  Programme  (2007-2013)  conclude  that  the 
programme was successful in promoting the implementation of the EU’s environmental 
policy  and  legislation  with  significant  EU  added  value.  However,  it  also  identified  a 
number  of  shortcomings  concerning  the  action  grants  and  the  NGO  operating  grants. 
These  challenges  are  presented  below  in  two  sections;  the  first  shows  those  that  were 
addressed in the design of the current LIFE Programme (2014-2020), and how this was 
achieved,  according  to  the  Mid-term  evaluation  (MTE)  68  of  LIFE.  The  second  section 
presents those challenges that do not appear to have been explicitly addressed.  

The  following  challenges  of  the  LIFE+  Programme  (2007-2013)  were  identified  in  its 
final evaluation and were addressed in the current Programme: 

1.  There was a need for a more strategic focus. A minimum of 78% of the LIFE+ 
budget  was  devoted  to  action  grants,  so  its  success  in  addressing  EU’s 
environmental  and  climate  policy  issues  was  strongly  influenced  by  the  quality 
and  quantity  of  the  applications  received,  given  the  ‘bottom-up’  approach  of 
responding to the demand for action grants. 
The LIFE Programme (2014-2020) addressed this issue by:  
a)  Shifting  from  a  pure  bottom-up  approach  to  a  flexible  bottom-up  approach, 
which could better steer demand, with specific thematic priorities and project 
topics defined for the Environment Sub-programme. 

b)  Dedicating a minimum of 81% of the LIFE budget to action grants projects, 
funded via an annual call for proposals, and to operations grants, financed by 
financial instruments. While both projects and operations still depend on the 
quality and quantity of the application, the definition of priorities is assumed 
to have improved the Programme’s strategic focus. 

2.  LIFE+  stakeholders  indicated  that  the  application  process  and  reporting 

obligations should be simplified. 
The LIFE Programme (2014-2020) addressed this issue by: 
a)  Shifting to a two-step application procedure for the integrated projects. 
b)  Waiving the requirement to submit an external audit certificate and/or a VAT 

certificate. 

67  

68  

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. 

EC (2017) Report on the Mid-term Evaluation of the Programme for Environment and Climate. EC (2017) 
Report on the Mid-term Evaluation of the Programme for Environment and Climate Action (LIFE). 
SWD(2017) 355 final. 

65 

 
  
                                                      
c)  Streamlining  the  system  to  enable  applicants  to  submit  their  proposals 

electronically (e-proposal). 
  However,  despite  the  adjustments  mentioned  above,  the  MTE  of  LIFE 
(2014-2020) indicated that stakeholders still found the application process 
and  the  reporting  requirements  burdensome  and  that  they  need  to  be 
simplified. 

3.  The LIFE+ Programme objectives were not always clear and certain strands were 
lacking definition, especially the ‘Environmental Policy and Governance’ and the 
‘Information and Communication’ parts.  
The LIFE Programme (2014-2020) addressed these issues by: 
a)  Changing  the  overall  objective  and  adding  two  additional  objectives 
(Objective  (a)  and  (c)  contained  in  Article  3(1)  of  the  LIFE  Regulation69), 
which clarify the general purpose of the LIFE Programme, the importance of 
environmental  and  climate  governance  involving  all  stakeholders,  and  the 
role  of  LIFE  in  the  enforcement  of  environmental  and  climate  policy  and 
legislation. 

b)  Creating  a  sub-programme  for  climate  action,  which  upgraded  the  thematic 

strand ‘climate change’ during the LIFE+ Programme.  

4.  There  was  a  need  to  better  utilise  project  results  and  transfer  know-how  by 

focusing on implementing and creating multipliers. 
The LIFE Programme (2014-2020) addressed this issue by: 
a)  Making the potential for replicability and transferability of project results one 

of the project award criteria. 

b)  Close  monitoring  and  organising  of  platform  meetings  during 

the 
implementation  of  the  project,  which  makes  it  easier  to  disseminate  and 
transfer project results. 

c)  Drawing  up  ‘after-LIFE  Plans’  to  organise  the  continuation  of  project 
activities  and  enhancing  the  ex-post  monitoring  visits  two  years  after  LIFE 
financing ends.  

5.  A lack of complementarity and synergies with other EU Funds. 
The LIFE Programme (2014-2020) addressed this issue by: 
a)  The LIFE regulation explicitly highlights the need to develop synergies with 

Horizon 2020 

  EASME’s  analysis70  confirmed 

that  LIFE  and  Horizon  2020 
contribute  to  common  objectives  in  different  ways,  reinforcing  each 
other. 

b)  The common provisions regulation (CPR) of the ESI Funds contains a section 
that promotes coordination and synergies between the ESIF and LIFE, and in 
particular  the  ERDF  was  mentioned  in  the  Mid-term  evaluation  as 
complementary to LIFE.  

69  

70  

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, 

Uptake of the results of EU-funded research projects in the LIFE NAT 2014-2015 portfolio. EASME 
Ares(2016)4835449 - 29/08/2016 

66 

 
                                                      
6.  Restrictions  on  funding  activities  in  countries  not  directly  participating  in  the 

LIFE+ Programme reduced the Programme’s effectiveness 
The LIFE Programme (2014-2020) addressed this issue by: 
a)  Adding 

the  regulation  of 

in 

that 
interventions  in  countries  outside  the  EU  and  participation  of  legal  persons 
based 
in  activities  financed  under  LIFE  should 
exceptionally be possible. 

the  currently  running  programme 

those  countries 

in 

7.  There was an uneven distribution of funding between the Member States.  Italy, 
Spain and Germany received disproportionally more amounts of LIFE+ support, 
while newest Member States had a lower rate of success 
The LIFE Programme (2014-2020) addressed this issue by: 
a)  Introducing  ‘capacity-building  projects’,  which  aim  to  provide  financial 
support  to  enhance  the  capacity  of  Member  States,  including  national  and 
regional  contact  points,  to  participate  more  effectively  in  the  LIFE 
Programme. 
  However, the MTE of the currently running programme indicated that the 
uneven  distribution  of  funds  among  Member  States  remains,  with  Italy, 
Spain and Germany receiving most of the grants. 

The  following  weaknesses  of  the  LIFE+  Programme  (2007-2013)  were  identified  in  its 
final  evaluation  but  do  not  appear  to  have  been  explicitly  addressed  in  the  next 
Programme: 

1.  There  was  room  for  more  synergies  and  coherence  with  national,  regional, 

and local programmes in Member States.  

2.  There  were  liquidity  problems  for  the  NGOs  that  received  operating  grants 

due to issues related to the speed and timing of payments. 

Based  on  the  opinions  that  small  and  new  MS  NGOs  are  not  frequently  supported) 
trialling  the  inclusion  of  a  stream  of  funding  to  support  new  member  state  and  small 
NGOs. 

3.2.2.  Programme coverage and Thematic choices 

Results  of  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  the  LIFE+  Programme  (2007-2013)  suggested  a  need  to 
increase the strategic focus of the programme. This was re-iterated by the impact assessment for 
the  2014-2020  LIFE  Programme,  which  stated  that  the  “MTE  argued  that  LIFE  could  be 
improved, particularly in terms of a more strategic, multiannual approach that better articulated 
and  translated  the  strategic  EU  priorities,  especially  in  relation  to  the  implementation  and 
integration  of  environmental  policy,  as  the  basis  of  programme  activity”.  The  need  for  a  more 
strategic  approach  was  considered  in  the  Impact  Assessment  (IA,  2011)  of  the  various  policy 
options for the post-2014 LIFE Programme 

With  regard  to  future  thematic  choices,  the  IA  (2011)  considered  the  contemporaneous 
environmental  issues  and  environmental  policy  requirements.  The  IA  identified  that  major 
environmental issues were well defined and subject  to ongoing monitoring and research by the 
European Environment Agency (EEA) and periodically presented by theme and Member State in 
the State of Environment report. The issues were briefly summarised with regard to three policy 
areas: 

 

“The  physical  environment”,  primarily  related  to  nature  and  biodiversity  and  including 
climate change impacts 

67 

 
  
 
 
 

 

“The existing acquis”, including air quality, freshwater management and implementation of 
the Water Framework Directive; and 

“Resource  efficiency  and  decoupling”  in  terms  of  resource  use  (including  climate  change 
mitigation) and waste.  

Essentially,  the  IA  recognised  a  continuum  of  environmental  issues  from  those  specifically 
concerning the state of the environment, stock of environmental assets and associated ecosystem 
services to those more generally related to resource efficiency and decoupling of resources. The 
IA  noted  that  there  was  also  a  continuum  between  the  need  to  further  develop  environmental 
policies  (supported  by  public  procurement  of  service  contracts)  and  policy  implementation 
(largely supported by LIFE programme’s action grants). However, against this backdrop, none of 
the  responses  to  the  IA’s  stakeholder  survey  supported  restricting  LIFE  to  addressing  one 
particular  environmental  issue  or  policy  and  general  consensus  was  that  it  was  difficult  to 
prioritise individual themes because of the extent of interactions between all of them. This was 
also  the  view  of  75%  of  respondents  to  a  Committee  of  the  Regions  survey,  although  the 
remainder  were  in  favour  of  prioritising  climate  change,  management  of  the  Natura  2000 
Network and the Habitats and Birds Directives. A separate survey conducted by the EC’s LIFE 
Unit in “Your voice in Europe”, also identified that 60% of respondents felt that the Commission 
should  set  thematic  environmental  priorities,  especially  for  nature  and  biodiversity,  although  a 
wide range of other environmental policy areas were also flagged as important.  

3.2.3.  Territorial choices 

The IA (2011) identified that the main territorial concern was the extent to which third countries 
should benefit from LIFE finding, in what ways and whether activities beyond the EU should be 
eligible. Three arrangements were considered in terms of potential scope:  

 

 

 

“Exclusively EU” 

“Minor  allowances  for  third  country  involvement”  (e.g.  clear  transboundary  issues  which 
affect implementation of a specific EU environmental policy) 

“Greater  integration  of  third  countries”  based  on  defined  needs  and  thematic  focus,  given 
Treaty  requirements  for  international  action  and  importance  of  global  and  European 
neighbourhood  environmental  problems.  It  was  noted  that  this  would  require  cooperation 
between  DG  ENV  and  former  DG  RELEX  and  DG  DEV  and  could  weaken  development 
policy coherence. 

Stakeholders  across  all  consultations  associated  with  the  IA  generally  supported  potential  for 
LIFE to fund activities outside the EU provided the EU benefited. Most stakeholders also felt that 
the indicative 15% share of LIFE+ funds ear-marked for transnational projects was reasonable. 

3.2.4.  Options assessment 

One of the five options (Option 5) assessed by the IA (2011) considered narrowing the thematic 
focus of the LIFE programme to implementation of Article 8 of the Habitats Directive, to secure 
the  effective  management  and  stewardship  of  the  Natura  2000  network  and  the  related 
biodiversity policy agenda. The assessment of this option concluded that expansion of the Nature 
component  would  provide  increased  benefits  from  wider  biodiversity-related  activity,  Nature 
activities should not be overly constrained by a focus on Natura 2000 sites, and that associated 
projects should be larger with broader scope and scale.  

The preferred option arising from the IA (Option 3) had a thematic focus reflecting the general 
objective  of  developing,  updating  and  implementing  EU  environmental  policy,  i.e.  addressing 
emerging  problems  of  EU  scale  across  the  whole  of  the  environmental  acquis.  This  included 
action outside the EU where it provided EU added value, in cooperation with former DG RELEX 
and DG DEV. The ex-ante evaluation of this preferred option suggested that there would be no 
negative  distributional  effects,  as  environmental  problems  (e.g.  pollution)  disproportionately 
affect lower income households. 

68 

 
Ultimately, a “flexible bottom-up” approach was introduced, i.e. inclusion of thematic priorities 
under the Environment sub-programme.  

3.2.4.1. 

The need to increase catalytic role 

LIFE+ MTE 

The  MTE  indicated  that  LIFE+  played  an  important  catalytic  role  in  leveraging  MS  funds  that 
would otherwise not be allocated. It also noted that among MS, while national funding for Natura 
2000  strongly  varied,  there  was  generally  a  heavy  reliance  on  EU  financing  instruments. 
However, the LIFE+ MTE noted that while the programme was relevant to the specific objectives 
and effective at project level, it was not fulfilling its potential to realise EU added value due to 
lack  of  a  strategic  approach  to  the  programme.  It  neither  fully  reflected  EU  policy  needs  in 
programme activity nor fully used project results in support of policy  needs. While all projects 
were required to disseminate results and there was some synthesis of lessons by project by theme, 
the  MTE  noted  that  there  was  limited  effort  was  made  to  build  networks  between  projects  and 
stakeholders that might apply and replicate project results more widely. The MTE advocated that 
LIFE+  could  be  improved  by  a  more  strategic,  multi-annual  approach  to  programme  activity 
reflective  of  the  EU’s  strategic  priorities,  especially  in  relation  to  implementation  and 
mainstreaming of environmental policy, as well as by improving project’s knowledge transfer to 
different stakeholders. 

LIFE IA 2011 

The  LIFE  IA  (2011)  identified  three  options  that  it  identified  as  having  extensive  catalytic 
potential: 

 

 

 

Option  3  –  Strategic  programming  option  –  expanding  the  planning  and  delivery  of  the 
financial  instrument.  This  option  continued  with  a  specific  financial  instrument  for  the 
environment  (LIFE)  but  that  was  more  strategically  focused  and  linked  directly  to  DG 
ENV’s  policy  priorities  and  work  programmes.  The  option  differed  from  the  LIFE+ 
instrument by having a greater emphasis on: establishing strategic priorities in the MAWP 
based  on  DG  ENV’s  well-defined  needs;  increasing  its  catalytic  potential  and  synergies 
with  other  financial  instruments  by  increasing  multiplication  and  replication,  leveraging 
additional funding and expanding use of project results. The option proposed that LIFE’s 
catalytic effect would be increased through developing projects, for example, to: improve 
peer-to-peer  mutual  learning  networks  between  competent  authorities;  maximise  the 
contribution of other EU financial instruments to environmental goals; serve as pilots for 
subsequent  mainstreaming  under  the  Cohesion  Policy  of  CAP;  improve  synergies  with 
other financial instruments, given LIFE’s relatively limited resources; encourage increased 
cross-working between financial instruments (i.e. as integrated projects). 

Option 4  – Restricted activities option  – focusing  on a limited  set of activities. This was 
based on Option 3 but with a reduced range of activities by excluding specific information 
and communications activity and eco-innovation. The thematic focus reflected the general 
objective  to  develop,  update  and  implement  EU  environmental  policy  across  the  whole 
acquis.  Territorial  focus  was  on  the  EU  except,  minorly,  where  there  were  specific 
transnational interests. The option had the same emphasis as Option 3 on maximising the 
catalytic value of LIFE. 

Option 5 – Restricted thematic (Nature) option – focusing the instrument on the statutory 
area requiring co-finance. This was a thematically focused version of Option 3 intended to 
meet  the  legal  obligations  to  co-finance  the  Natura  2000  network  and  to  address  climate 
change. 

69 

 
In addition to address Environment, the LIFE Regulation 2014-202071 subsequently introduced a 
sub-programme  for  Climate  Action.  In  relation  to  the  Environment  sub-programme,  the 
Regulation  identified  three  priority  areas  –  Environment  and  Resource  Efficiency;  Nature  and 
Biodiversity; Environmental Governance and Information -. These encompass thematic priorities 
and associated activities set out in Annex III to the Regulation. The multiannual work programme 
(MAWP) for 2014-2017 also contained a non-exhaustive list of project topics implementing the 
thematic priorities under the Environment sub-programme. The Regulation also sets three priority 
areas  for  the  Climate  Action  sub-programme  –  Climate  Change  Mitigation,  Climate  Change 
Adaptation,  Climate  Governance  and  Information.  In  contrast  to  the  Environment  sub-
programme, no thematic priorities are established. Instead relevant policy areas are mentioned in 
the MAWP and key priorities are further detailed in the yearly calls for proposals. 

3.2.4.2. 

Delivery mechanisms 

Historically,  the  main  delivery  mechanism  for  the  LIFE  budget  programme  has  been  action 
grants, and this remains true for the current programming period (2014-2020) (e.g. GHK, 2011; 
Ecorys,  2017).  Their  design  has  evolved  overtime  in  response  to  the  issues  encountered  and  to 
improve implementation of the LIFE budget programme across all Member States (see below). 
The  main  issues  identified  through  previous  evaluations  include:  complex  application  and 
implementation  processes;  low  visibility  of  the  budget  programme;  territorial  imbalances 
concerning access to the budget programme (linked to low levels of interest and weak capacity to 
develop  high  quality  project  applications);  low  transparency  in  the  project  award  process; 
inadequate  monitoring  at  programme  level;  low  sustainability  of  projects;  and  weak  catalytic 
effect  (related  to  dissemination  as  well  as  design  aspects  of  operating  grants)  (COWI,  2009; 
ECA, 2009; Trinomics, 2012; 2014; Trinomics, 2012; European Parliament, 2016). 

In  response  to  the  issues  identified,  there  has  been  a  stronger  focus  on  improving  capacity 
building  and  dissemination  with  a  good  degree  of  success.  Particularly  -  efforts  to  establish 
‘mutual learning’ through the Commission website toolkits and communication tools as well as 
the annual Best Projects exercise to share best practice. It is also observed that external and inter-
project  communication  within  the  programme  has  improved,  e.g.  better  website  and  project 
database, platform meetings, themed brochures and conferences and clustering of projects.  

A  key  ongoing  challenge  appears  to  be  territorial  imbalances  relating  to  uptake.  With  national 
allocations  deemed  ineffective  (and  having  unintended  adverse  effects  on  competition  within 
certain  Member  States),  the  conclusions  from  previous  evaluations  pointed  to  the  need  for 
strengthened  capacity  building  through  targeted  delivery  mechanisms  (as  established  by  the 
capacity building and technical assistance projects in  the current programming period) together 
with  greater  stakeholder  engagement  in  project  design  (as  established  through  integrated 
projects). 

Table 3-1: Overview of issues encountered through previous evaluations 

Issues 

Source 

Actions taken to address issues  

comparison 

Application  process  too  time-consuming 
(in 
budget 
programmes  in  particular);  time  taken  to 
sign  a  LIFE  contract  can  be  delayed  by 
up to a year 

other 

to 

COWI  (2009); 
(2009); 
ECA 
Ecorys (2012) 

Guidance  developed  and  annual  templates  for 
project applications 

Promotion of active knowledge sharing at EU 
level 

Overtime  it  is  observed  that  the  electronic 
the 
application 

reduced 

process 

has 

71  

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)  (OJ  L  347,  20.12.2013,  p. 
185); http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2013.347.01.0185.01.ENG. 

70 

 
                                                      
Issues 

Source 

Actions taken to address issues  

administrative burden.  

Project 
requires 
implementation 
considerable human resources (staff costs 
between  18.5  and  83.5%  of  action  grant 
costs) 

ECA (2014) 

Insufficient  transparency  in  the  award 
criteria  in  the  selection  process;  in  some 
cases  applications  were  being  approved 
despite failing to meet key criteria (cross 
reference with low project sustainability – 
e.g.  Box  1,  ECA,  2009).  Particularly  an 
issue  as  increasing  level  of  rejected 
project applications 

COWI  (2009); 
(2009; 
ECA 
2014); 
European 
Parliament 
(2016) 

Monitoring is at the project level; none at 
programme  level.  Potential  identified  to 
expand  the  use  of  electronic  reporting  in 
project monitoring. 

COWI  (2009); 
(2014); 
ECA 
Ecorys (2012) 

Details  set  out  in  the  MAWP  concerning  the 
award criteria 

Ongoing  challenge;  particularly  as  rejection 
rate  has  increased  with  1/6  or  1/7  applicants 
awarded  action  grants  between  2014-2017 
(previously this was 1/5 or 1/4). 

Framework  established  for  output  and  result 
indicators at programme level 

COWI  (2009); 
European 
Parliament 
(2016) 

Efforts  to  establish  ‘mutual  learning’  namely 
through  the  Commission  website  toolkits  and 
communication  tools  as  well  as  the  annual 
Best Projects exercise to share best practice. 

Additional  delivery  mechanisms  established, 
namely capacity building, IPs and TAs 

COWI  (2009); 
(2009; 
ECA 
2014); 
European 
Parliament 
(2016) 

Most notably actions took effect in LIFE+. 

Overtime it is observed that external and inter-
project  communication  within  the  programme 
has  improved,  e.g.  better  website  and  project 
database, 
themed 
platform  meetings, 
brochures  and  conferences  and  clustering  of 
projects.  

ECA 
2014) 

(2009; 

Low  visibility  of  the  budget  programme 
in  certain  Member  States  -  accompanied 
by low level of interest by Member State 
competent authorities; and weak capacity 
project 
develop 
to 
applications  

quality 

high 

in  national 

Low  level  of  dissemination  of  project 
results; namely the mode of delivery (i.e. 
via  manuals  which  are  often  available 
only 
languages,  and  not 
systematically  made  available  online  – 
especially  where  websites  close  once  a 
finished).  Examples  of 
project 
incomplete communication plans found. 

is 

to 

paid 

attention 

to  be  missing 

Insufficient 
the 
sustainability  of  LIFE  projects;  often 
found 
in  project 
management  plans  (e.g.  Box  4,  ECA, 
2014).  Failure  to  identify  and  target 
where  there  has  been  a  good  level  of 
replicability  (e.g.  projects  led  by  groups 
of companies). 

Unbalanced  territorial  coverage  linked  to 
low  EU  co-financing  rates  where  public 
national  funding  is  insufficient  to  allow 
access to the budget programme; and low 
capacity  to  develop  high  quality  project 
applications.  

GHK 
(2011); 
Ecorys (2012) 

EU  co-financing  rates  increased  for  all  action 
grants.  Up  to  100%  co-financing  for  capacity 
building projects (for which eligibility is based 
on LIFE absorption rate and national GDP per 
capita) 

National allocations have been ineffective 
in  addressing  this  –  mainly  found  to  be 
magnifying competition between projects 
in the same country  

ECA (2014) 

Phasing out of national allocations 

71 

 
 
 
 
Issues 

Source 

Actions taken to address issues  

Disproportionately  high  EU  co-financing 
rates for operational grants 

GHK (2011) 

EU  co-financing  rates  for  operating  grants 
decreased 

targeting  of  operating 
Inappropriate 
grants. E.g. could support NGOs involved 
in  the  shaping  of  policy;  could  target 
capacity building for small/new NGOs. 

(2011); 
GHK 
Ecorys (2012) 

3.2.4.3. 

Programme Management 

The management arrangements for the LIFE programme have evolved over time as lessons have 
been learned from previous programming phases. A brief summary of the main issues identified 
in previous evaluations, and the relevant actions taken to address the problems, are summarised 
below. The table should not be considered comprehensive as other actions may have been taken 
which have not been summarised in the relevant reports. 

Table 3-2: Overview of issues encountered through previous evaluations 

Issues 

Source 

Actions taken to address issues  

Source 

Management structure 

Room  for  improvement  in  the  role  of  the 
in  programme 
national 
management, through their contact, support 
and advice to applicants 

focal  points 

COWI 
(2009) 

GHK 
(2010) 

Ecorys 
(2012) 

in 

the 

Capacity  building  projects  were 
2014-2020 
introduced 
programming  period  to  build  the 
capacity of Member States, including 
LIFE  national  or  regional  contact 
points,  with  a  view 
to  enabling 
Member  States  to  participate  more 
effectively in the LIFE Programme. 

Opportunities 
improve 
existing 
efficiency  by  the  Commission  outsourcing 
the  receipt,  eligibility  check,  selection  and 
award phases of the selection procedure  

to 

COWI 
(2009) 

Delegation of the management of the 
majority of grants to EASME 

Ecorys 
(2012) 

Some potential for duplication of tasks e.g. 
checks  are  performed  by  the  monitors  are 
sometimes repeated by the LIFE Unit. 

GHK 
(2010) 

Application process 

Further  improvements  can  be  made  to 
application  guidance 
application 
forms, e.g., by simplifying and digitalising 
application forms 

and 

COWI 
(2009) 

Additional  guidelines  for  applicants 
was prepared 

GHK 
(2010) 

The  application  for  LIFE+  funding  is 
perceived  to  (still)  be  fairly  onerous,  with 
further opportunities for simplification 

GHK 
(2010) 

An  on-line  application  form  was 
introduced 
in  2011,  which  after 
initial  teething  problems,  allowed  an 
efficient selection process from 2012.  

Ecorys 
(2012) 

Appraisal and selection process 

For the sake of independence, transparency 
the 
and  harmonisation  of  procedures, 

ECA (2003)  Greater  involvement  of  independent  GHK 

72 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
evaluators in the selection procedure. 

(2010) 

COWI 
(2009) 

Ecorys 
(2012) 

should 

Commission 
the 
possibility  of  entrusting  the  evaluation  to 
outside experts. 

consider 

Selection  of  projects  was  a  slow  process 
with  cumbersome  application  procedures 
further 
benefit 
which 
optimisation and outsourcing of tasks 

could 

from 

for 

improvements 

in 
Opportunities 
including  faster 
management  processes 
response  time  from  the  Commission  (e.g. 
evaluation  of  applications  and  of  payment 
requests)  and  higher  flexibility  (including 
the  use  of  funding,  broader  scope  of 
implementation,  budget 
eligible 
amendments  and  other  modifications 
needed throughout the project).  

topics, 

Monitoring and selection 

On-the-spot  checks  should  be  stepped  up, 
if need be by employing outside auditors. 

ECA (2003)  Current system of ex post monitoring 
visits  was  started  in  2009  to  provide 
more  in-depth  ex  post  visits  than 
those  focussed  on  creating  a  project 
profile  for  communication  purpose 
(which  had  been  produced  since 
2001). 

Ecorys 
(2012) 

More  systematic  ex  post  monitoring 
system  would  be  an  improvement  on 
current arrangements – as it would provide 
evidence  of  which  projects  genuinely 
achieve long lasting benefits. 

Ecorys 
(2012) 

File  sharing  arrangements  used  currently 
are considered by some as outdated. 

GHK 
(2010) 

Administrative  burden  has  increased  for 
monitoring  and  selection  over  time.  This 
increased  number  of 
arises 
applications,  the  requirement  for  more 
detailed technical and financial monitoring. 

from  an 

Ecorys 
(2012) 

Administrative  burden  has  increased  for 
beneficiaries over time as stricter rules and 
procedures have been enacted. 

Ecorys 
(2012) 

Administrative  burden  has  increased  for 
the Commission. Increase in the workload, 
and the number of projects per desk officer 
that  have  to  be  managed  by  Commission 
staff 

Ecorys 
(2012) 

Monitoring indicators 

While  the  monitoring  of  the  individual 
projects  was  very  detailed,  there  was  no 
reporting on how the LIFE instrument was 

COWI 
(2009) 

73 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
performing at programme level. 

the  agreed  monitoring 
The  use  of 
indicators  framework,  including  the  full 
use  of  result  indicators  does  not  appear  to 
have been implemented systematically 

GHK 
(2010) 

Communications 

of 

Lack 
communications 

horizontal 

outreach 

and 

(previous 
evaluations) 

(Ecorys, 
2012) 

Updated and improved homepage on 
the internet. Publishing more tailored 
thematic  brochures,  the  organisation 
of  thematic  conferences  to  exchange 
experience  and  disseminate  project 
results,  production  of 
thematic 
reports  for  policy  uptake,  clustering 
of  projects,  compulsory  obligation 
for project networking, and creating a 
discussion forum for LIFE+ projects  

3.3. 

Summary of evaluations of IEE/Horizon 2020 Energy Efficiency 

3.3.1.  Evaluation overview 

The  IEE/Horizon  2020  Energy  Efficiency  activities  and  specific  sub-sections  of  them 
(e.g.  building-related  projects)  have  been  reviewed  in  various  evaluations.  These 
comprise: 

  COWI (2016): Evaluation of the BUILD UP Skills initiative under the Intelligent 

Energy Europe Programme 2011-2015. Final report. 

  Deloitte  (2011):  Ex-ante  evaluation  of  a  successor  of  the  “Intelligent  Energy  – 

 

Europe II” (2007-2013). Final report. 
ICF (2015): Evaluation of building projects under the Intelligent Energy Europe 
II Programme. Final Report. 

  PWC  (2016):  Evaluation  of  the  Project  Development  Assistance  implemented 
Intelligent  Energy  Europe.  Final  Report.  Specific  contract 

under 
the 
ENER/C3/2013-426 

  Ricardo  AEA,  CE  Delft  (2017):  Report  on  the  first  results  of  Horizon  2020  on 
report.  Contract 

energy  efficiency  and 
integration  –  Final 
ENER/C3/SER/2015 -659/SI2.729305/2015- 665/SI2.731474 

system 

Whereas these studies deal with the individual analysis of the IEE/Horizon 2020 Energy 
Efficiency, their overall macroeconomic effect is often not clearly addressed. In order to 
close  this  gap,  the  overall  evaluations  of  reaching  the  overall  EU  sustainable  energy 
goals,  notably,  the  30%  energy  efficiency  objective  in  2030  can  serve  to  identify 
investment  needs  as  well  as  economic,  social  and  environmental  impacts.  These 
evaluations comprise: 

 

 

Impact  Assessment  for  the  Proposal  for  a  Directive  of  the  European  Parliament 
and  of  the  Council  amending  Directive  2012/27/EU  on  Energy  Efficiency. 
SWD(2016) 405 final 

Impact  Assessment  for  the  amendment  of  the  Energy  Performance  of  Buildings 
Directive, SWD(2016) 414 

 

Impact Assessment for the recast of the Renewables Directive, SWD(2016) 418 

74 

 
 
 
 
 
 
  Ricardo AEA, CE Delft (2016): Study evaluating progress in the implementation 
of Article 7 of the Energy Efficiency Directive. ENER.C3.dir(2014)3156530 

  Energy Efficiency Financial Institutions Group (EEFIG) Final Report, February 

2015. 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/Final%20Report%20EEFI
G%20v%209.1%2024022015%20clean%20FINAL%20sent.pdf.  

3.3.2.  Major findings addressed by the evaluations and impact assessments 

The following table lists the major findings of these evaluations that are relevant for evaluating 
the different options under this Impact Assessment. 

Table 3-3: Overview of the relevant findings from previous evaluations 

Source 

A 

Financing 
Sustainable 
European 
Economy, 
Interim  Report, 
High-Level 
Expert  Group on 
Sustainable 
Finance 

IA EED (2017) 

Issues 

Opportunity costs of missing support for massive uptake of energy efficiency 

Energy transition requires large investments in order to mitigate climate change, 
reduce  import  and  fossil  fuels  dependency,  and  support  coal  regions  in 
transition. The latest estimates put the annual investment gap associated with the 
achievement of the 2030 energy and climate goals at EUR 177 billion between 
2021 and 2030, totalling EUR 1.77 trillion for the period. The biggest gaps relate 
to investment in energy efficiency in buildings where it amounts to -74% 

Without investment needs covered, EU economy would miss up to 1% increase 
in  GDP  over  the  next  decade.  Specifically  the  energy  efficiency  target  of  30% 
will  increase  economic  growth,  leading  to  an  increase  in  GDP  of  around  0.4% 
(€70 billion). Greater energy efficiency will help European companies improve 
their  competitiveness  by  keeping  their  costs  down,  with  electricity  prices  for 
household  and  industry  expected  to  be  reduced  on  average  from  161  to  157 
€/MWh.  It  will  create  local  business  opportunities  and  jobs,  with  an  estimated 
400,000  additional  jobs  in  all  sectors  by  2030,  especially  in  the  construction 
sector,  including  by  increasing  the  demand  for  skilled  manual  labour.  Finally, 
pollution control costs & health damage costs should be reduced by €4.5  – 8.3 
billion  and  energy  security  will  be  greatly  improved,  reducing  gas  imports  by 
12% in 2030 

Environmental impacts: carbon intensity of the EU's economy will be 43% lower 
in 2030 than now  and renewable electricity representing about half of the EU's 
electricity generation mix . The 30% energy efficiency target represents a drop 
in  final  energy  consumption  of  17%  compared  to  2005.  It  will  contribute  to 
reduction of CO2 emissions and will also lead to improvements in air quality. 

IA  EED  (2017); 
IA 
II 
RED 
(2016) 

Overall  social  impacts:  up  to  900,000  new  jobs,  as  estimated  in  the  impact 
assessments  of  the  revised  legislation  and  indicated  in  Communication  on  the 
CE4AE.  In  particular,  buildings  renovation  could  increase  employment  in  the 
construction sector by up to 5%, translating into 700.000 additional jobs. 

IA  EED  (2017); 
IA EPBD (2016) 

Evaluation of IEE/Horizon 2020 Energy Efficiency performance 

Impacts in terms of energy savings and deploying renewable energies can be  Ricardo  AEA, 

75 

 
 
 
CE Delft (2017) 

ICF (2015) 

COWI (2016) 

ICF 
Deloitte (2011) 

(2015); 

IEE 
database 

project 

mapped by comparing Horizon 2020 and IEE achieved impacts. Ricardo AEA, 
CE  Delft  (2017):  Even  when  scaled  up  to  the  same  number  of  projects,  the 
saving  and  renewable  figures  are  considerably  higher  during  the  project  phase 
for the IEE projects.  For example, the 70 IEE projects triggered 38,034 GWh/yr. 
savings  during  lifetime,  vs.  88  GWh/yr.  for  the  Horizon  2020  CSA  projects 
during  project  lifetime.  Along  the  same  line,  the  46 IEE  projects  lead  to  2,136 
GWh/yr.  of  renewables  produced  versus  114  GWh/yr.  for  the  evaluated  29 
Horizon 2020 projects. See Ricardo AEA, CE Delft (2017), table 22, p. 34. 

Mass  rollout  of  existing  good  practices  in  the  building  sector:  With  IEE  II 
building programmes, ICF identify 370 training sessions to 16,000 people, more 
than  750  case  studies  and  study  visits  and  a  total  of  25  tools,  toolkits  or 
databases. The outreach is estimated to have addressed over 1.3m people, more 
than  2,500  stakeholders  (see  table  4.1,  p.  31  for  details).  It  estimates  that  a 
sample of projects targeting the building sector led to some 200,000 toe primary 
energy savings/yr. (12m toe/yr. by 2020); 93,000 toe RES  generated (1.8m toe 
by 2020); €1bn invested (€25bn estimated by 2020) and 840,000t of CO2eq./yr 
(35m t CO2eq/yr by 2020). An extrapolation to all 60 IEE II buildings projects 
would  lead  to  540,000  toe  primary  energy  savings/yr.  (40m  toe/yr.  by  2020); 
450,000 toe RES generated (10m toe by 2020); €6bn invested (€270bn estimated 
by  2020)  and  2mt  of  CO2eq./yr  (160mt  CO2eq/yr  by  2020),  see  pp.  32  and 
Annex 5 (section A5.1). 

Capacity  building/social  impact  in  the  building  sector:  The  BuildUP  Skills-
Initaitive targets 7.6m workers (craftsmen and on-site workers) which make up 
57%  of  the  construction  sector.  A  survey  on  capacity-building  activities  shows 
the  most  important  outcomes  of  the  initiative  for  the  stakeholders  per  country 
(table  3,  p.  46),  showing  that  a  large  majority  of  countries  gained  overview  of 
the situation in the sector, found the reach-out (creation of platform) helpful and 
used  the  roadmaps  provided.  Performance  indicators  are  suggested  to  evaluate 
the  performance  of  future  pillar  II  projects  (training  etc.,  see  p.  62  of  main 
report) which can be used to define the impacts under this area. 

Capacity building through networking: ICF review the relation of IEE support 
for  communities  and  the  Covenant  of  Mayors.  Apart  from  quantifying  the 
multiplier  effects  generated  by  the  programmes  (e.g.  set-up  and  signing  of 
SEAPs) they identify investments triggered by a sample of 30 projects (€8.3bn, 
p. 91), RES production of 935.000 toe/yr.; primary energy savings of 1,938,000 
toe/yr. and 7,700,000 tCO2eq. reduced (p. 92). The consortium estimates based 
on a survey that by the end of the projects some 5,470 jobs and 17,373 jobs by 
2020  resulted  through  the  projects.  78%  of  survey  respondents  confirmed  that 
the respective project would not have been implemented in the absence of IEE 
funding (figure 43, p. 96). 

Availability of good practice examples for up-take by disfavoured actors or 
catching up regions: The IEE project database lists 16 projects related to clean 
energy  in  island  settings  (e.g.  Promoting  best  practices  to  support  energy 
efficient  consumer  behaviour  on  European  islands  –  PROMISE,  Removal  of 
non-technological  barriers 
technology  across  southern 
to  Solar  Cooling 
European islands – SOLCO, Enhancing efficient implementation of sustainable 
energy  action  plans  in  European  islands  through  reinforcement  of  smart 
multilevel governance – SMILEGOV, among others). The IEE project database 
lists  33  projects  tackling  various  aspects  of  energy  poverty  (e.g.  Energy 
Ambassadors,  Reduce  Energy  and  Change  Habits  –  REACH,  European  fuel 
Poverty  and  Energy  Efficiency  –  EPEE,  Actions  in  low  income  households  to 

76 

 
PWC(2016) 

improve  energy  efficiency  through  visits  and  energy  diagnosis  –  ACHIEVE, 
among others). 

Financial  leverage/fiscal  multiplier  of  IEE/Horizon  2020  support:  Impacts 
can  be  estimated  against  PWC  (2016):  Evaluation  of  the  Project  Development 
Assistance  implemented  under  the  Intelligent  Energy  Europe.  Final  Report  : 
Total expected investments triggered of € 5.4b; 4.1 GWh/yr energy savings; 1.34 
GWh/yr RES production, 1.5 Gt CO2eq.-reductions/yr (pp. 108). 

At  the  time  of  this  evaluation,  EIB-ELENA  counted  41  signed  projects  with  a 
total  contribution  of  72.865.683  euro  which  are  committed  to  mobilise 
4.663.727.736  euro  of  investments.  This  spectacular  result  in  terms  of 
investment mobilisation of the EIB-ELENA facility represent the leverage over 
1:60. 

According  to  the  evaluation  study:    The  PDA  facilities  played  a  role  in 
strengthening the uptake of energy efficiency investments, across the time when 
the Energy Efficiency Directive (EED) (2012/27/EU) was issued and, therefore, 
when there was a need of putting energy efficiency to the attention of public and 
private operators. 

Integration of IEE into Horizon 2020  

Need  to  encourage  larger  participation:  Recommendation  to  reconsider 
lowering the level of EU support provided to some types of projects in order to: 
a. Increase  the  availability  of  funds  to  support  more  projects  in  each  call  
and  address  the issue of a large number of even good proposals being  rejected . 
This can also be  enhanced  by  providing  c learer  and  more  descriptive  calls  
to    ensure    proposals    address  the  challenges  .  b.  Increase  EU  leverage    c. 
Increase funding for calls supporting smaller projects . 

Ricardo  AEA, 
CE 
Delft 
(2016), p. 13. 

Recommendation  to  simplify  application  procedure  while  at  the  same  time 
reintroducing  the  possibility to  negotiate  project  framing  through  the  executive 
agency in order to recalibrate project proposals. Clear need for better support for 
the applicants (survey of unsuccessful Horizon 2020 participants) 

Widening access to funding has not been achieved with Horizon 2020: A key 
objective  of  the  Horizon  2020  programme  was  to  widen  access  and  increase 
stakeholder engagement  while ensuring that it still attract the most appropriate 
beneficiaries.  In  relation  to  the  latte  r,  the  survey  responses  suggest  that  the 
programme only partly targets the best and most appropriate beneficiaries  (41.5 
%  of  total  respondents  said  yes).  Even  among  programme  participants 
themselves there is  significant scepticism  – particularly among IA participants  
–  with  more  than  55.3  %  indicating  that    Horizon  2020  is  only  somewhat 
successful in that respect  

Horizon  2020  tends  to  support  large  consortia,  which  excludes  smaller 
beneficiaries and smaller project proposals. 

Processes  with  Horizon  2020  are  too  complex.  Surveyed  simplification 
measures  address  a)  reductionof  administrative  costs  during  application;  b) 
reduction of administrative costs during project; c) increase project flexibility; d) 
improve participant portal (IT tool). 

77 

Ricardo  AEA, 
CE 
Delft 
(2016),  pp.  84 
and 87 

Ricardo  AEA, 
CE 
Delft 
(2016), pp. 90 

Ricardo  AEA, 
CE 
Delft 
(2016),  pp.  90-
91 

Ricardo  AEA, 
CE 
Delft 
(2016), pp. 98 

 
 
Impact on national policies: Strong impact of IEE II programmes on national 
policies  whereas  Horizon  2020  was  surveyed  to  have  a  low  impact  on 
national/regional policies and programmes (69%) 

Ricardo  AEA, 
Delft 
CE 
(2016), pp. 107 

78 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 4: NEEDS ANALYSIS 

Despite  numerous  benefits  brought  by  EU  environmental,  clean  energy  and  climate  policy,  the 
Union’s 2050 long-term vision – to live well within the planet’s ecological limits, as set out in the 
7th  Environment  Action  Programme  (7EAP),  is  far  from  being  achieved.  Environmental 
problems are expected to continue to exist post-2020, as several of the 2020 targets are unlikely 
to be met, and new problems emerge due to human activities. 

4.1.  Environmental problems and needs 

The European Environment Agency (EEA) in its State of the Environment72 and environmental 
indicator73  reports  provides  a  comprehensive  assessment  of  the  European  environment’s  state, 
trends  and  prospects.  Moreover,  a  recent  review  of  the  7th  Environment  Action  Programme 
(2017)74  assessed  the  progress  that  had  been  made  with  respect  to  the  implementation  of 
environmental  and  climate  policies  in  Member  States.  The  reviews  identified  several  thematic 
areas where problems persist with respect to environmental and climate policy implementation, 
and  where  they  are  likely  to  persist  in  the  near  future.  A  lack  of  adequate  funding    has  been 
frequently cited as one of the main reasons for lack of progress in addressing environmental and 
climate problems.  

Environmental  problems  persist  across  all  principal  environmental  (or  natural  capital) 
components.  The  most  problematic  areas  that  have  been  identified  as  requiring  action  are 
biodiversity, chemicals and health, water quality and management, waste management, ambient 
air quality as well as climate change mitigation and adaptation.75. 

4.2.  Who is affected by unmet environment and climate needs? 

A healthy environment is the fundamental prerequisite for humans to survive, their economies to 
develop,  and  their  communities  to  thrive.  Human  activities,  however,  have  led  to  a  global  and 
historically unprecedented transformation of nature that jeopardises their own existence, since the 
resulted  environmental  problems  and  climate  change  have  far-reaching  effects  on  individuals, 
businesses, civil society, and governments.  

 

Individuals  experience  the  environmental  degradation  first  and  foremost  by  the 
increasing  health  problems  that  result  from,  among  others,  air  and  water  pollution,  the 
use  of  hazardous  substances,  and  indirect  effects  of  climate  change.  Moreover,  the 
decreasing productivity of ecosystems adversely affect the meeting of their basic needs 
and the development of their economic activities. Well-being is also negatively impacted 
by environmental and climate hazards by, for example, health issues, heatwaves, heavy 
rainfalls etc that will create a more unfavourable environment for EU citizens to live in.  
Energy poverty creates a lock-in effect for low-income households who spend a big part 
of their income on energy costs, where energy efficiency improvements could provide a 
solution and improve both economic situation and living conditions.  

  Businesses depend both on the state of the environment and on the policy and legislation 
developed to protect it. On the one hand, environmental degradation, resource depletion, 

72  

73  

74  

75  

The latest reports: EEA (2015) SOER 2015 – The European environment – state and outlook 2015 

EEA (2017) Environmental indicator report 2017: In support to the monitoring of the 7th Environment Action 
Programme. EEA Report No. 21/2017 

European Parliament (November 2017) Implementation of the 7th Environment Action Programme – Mid-
term review, Brussels, European Union 2017 

European Commission (2017). Environmental Implementation review, COM(2017) 63 Final. For country 
reports, see http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eir/index_en.htm   

79 

 
                                                      
climate hazards etc. can alter the internal and external factors of production of goods and 
services  by  either  disrupting  their  production  process  or  by  increasing  its  costs.  The 
energy  price  instability  resulting  from  external  (global)  factors  influencing  fossil  fuels 
prices  have  a  negative  impact  on  companies'  competitiveness.  On  the  other  hand, 
environmental  and  sustainable  energy  policies  impose  significant  changes  in  the 
production  of  goods  and  services  so  as  to  be  aligned  with  the  latest  developments  and 
standards in the protection of nature, human  health, sustainable  energy use and climate 
change mitigation. However, these policies can also be an opportunity for new business 
to be created, alternative business models to be developed, and  

  Civil society as a whole is both majorly affected by the state of the environment and a 
great  driving  force  for  its  protection.  Firstly,  local  ecosystems  and  environmental 
conditions  have  always  been  the  base  upon  which  the  interaction  of  people  is  taking 
place. This implies that climate change and degraded ecosystems will certainly have an 
effect  on  the  social  fabric  of  our  communities  with  unknown  consequences.  Secondly, 
civil society is increasingly recognized as a key player in environmental protection and a 
central agent for change. A strong and active local community can ensure accountability, 
sustainable  natural  resource  governance,  environmental  protection,  and  inclusive 
economic growth. Thus, empowering civil society helps governments to obtain effective 
and democratic policy-making and is critical to achieve sustainable development.  

  Finally, in an increasingly globalized and interlinked world, governments are required to 
enhance  their  role  in  the  protection  of  environment  and  act  against  the  high-level 
problems that modern societies face. New evidence on the state of the environment and 
climate should be incorporated in every level of policy-making and in every sector. They 
are responsible for the development, implementation and enforcement of environmental 
clean energy and climate change regulation that addresses current and future problems. 

4.3.  The need to address the drivers of environmental and climate problems 

There are several drivers of the aforementioned current and persistent  environmental problems. 
These  drivers  (or  failures)  may  be  at  the  level  of  individuals  and  communities  and/or  at  the 
overarching level of the market policy, or institutions. These failures highlight the need for public 
intervention  through  for  example  policy/regulation  or  programmes  such  as  LIFE,  to  support  a 
transformation of society. Environmental problems are driven by several market and institutional 
failures, for example:  

  Public  goods  failure:  A  diverse  and  healthy  nature  and  good  environmental  status  are 
considered  as  public  goods  since  their  preservation  benefits  all,  while  without 
intervention  the  costs  of  preserving  them  would  be  borne  unequally  only  by  some. 
Without  public  intervention  such  as  policy,  legislation  or  financial  incentives,  there 
would be no incentive to preserve and protect the environment and uncontrolled access to 
and  exploitation  of  public  environmental  resources  would  take  place  in  favour  of 
economic  gains,  regardless  of  the  principles  of  a  circular  economy  that  reconciles  both 
objectives.  

 

Imperfect  information:  Insufficiency  or  asymmetric  distribution  of  comprehensive 
information  on  environmental  degradation  and  climate  change  impacts  leads  to 
behavioural  bias  through  incorrect  signals.  With  respect  to  nature,  biodiversity  and 
climate  change  in  particular,  the  long  run  timing  of  many  impacts  means  that  the  full 
consequences of individual or market-driven actions are not appreciable today. Another 
application  of  imperfect  information  refers  to  the  challenge  of  implementing  public 
interventions where net emissions of polluters are difficult to efficiently monitor (making 
it impossible to effectively implement emission charges and/or controls). 

  Negative  externalities:  Unintended  negative  impacts  of  production  and  consumption 
practices  that  are  not  fully  priced  into  the  market.  This  lack  of  pricing  results  in  the 
inability  of  the  market  to  value  the  full  social  and  economic  benefits  of  a  healthy 

80 

 
environment. Pollution is again a good example here, where the health and biodiversity 
costs  of  air  and  plastic  waste  pollution  are  not  taken  into  consideration  in  the 
production/consumption  process  despite  circular  economy  models  which  provide 
solution to reduce them.  

  Government,  institutional,  regulatory  or  policy  failure:  Although  subtle  differences 
exist across these terms, overall this failure refers to the imperfect nature of intervention 
by  governance  actors.  In  the  case  of  variable/weak  regulatory  regimes,  with  poor 
enforcement or non-uniform implementation of rules at the Member State level, market 
actors  may  be  more  likely  to  pollute  the  environment  or  damage  nature  and 
environmental resources. This type of failure can be avoided at the EU-level by ensuring 
strong and coordinated policy action, with effective monitoring and enforcement. It can 
also  be  addressed  by  increasing  support  to  virtuous  behaviours  that  reduce  the  use  of 
environmental resources while providing economic growth. 

  Eco-innovation failure: By failing to assign an economic value to environmental costs 
and benefits, the market system also fails to fully incentivise or reward innovative ideas 
for reducing environmental and climate change impacts. Tailored regulation and policy-
driven  incentives  can  drive  eco-innovation  forward,  for  example  through  grant  systems 
awarded for specific types of research. However, there is a fine line between stimulating 
and stifling the eco-innovation sector through regulation and policy and a careful balance 
is needed.   

  Societal failure: The lack of societal acceptance of the need to change behaviour, reduce 
consumption  and/or  improve  sustainability.  This  is  particularly  visible  in  cases  where 
financial or welfare gains are dominant in producer and consumer choices. The growth in 
the  aviation  sector,  with  associated  increase  in  emissions,  presents  an  example  of  the 
divergence between societal and environmental needs, illustrating a dilemma for policy-
makers. 

 

Infrastructure lock-in and investment failure 

There are multiple ways of addressing the identified environmental problems and needs as well 
as failures. These include creating incentives for a transformative change by: 

 

 

enacting  policies  and  legislation,  mainstreaming  of  environmental,  clean  energy  and 
climate  considerations  into  other  policies  –  primarily  tackling  market,  regulatory  and 
institutional failures, but can have behavioural impacts as well; 

raising  public  awareness  and  information  –  primarily  tackling  information  asymmetry, 
cultural and societal failures; 

  providing  economic  and  financial  incentives  by  market-based  instruments  and  funding 
programmes, mainstreaming environmental and climate considerations into other funding 
programmes – primarily solving public goods and negative externalities failures but also 
other failures; 

  providing direct financial support to the preservation or restoration public goods, such as 
nature  and  biodiversity,  where  this  support  cannot  be  provided  through  market  based 
mechanisms or other funding programmes. 

More has to be done to ensure that EU policies consistently incorporate environmental clean 
energy  and  climate  objectives  and/or  consistently  contribute  to  the  implementation  of  EU 
environmental, clean energy and climate policy and legislation. 

Lack  of  adequate  and  targeted  funding,  and  insufficient  mainstreaming  of  environmental, 
clean energy and climate objectives into other programmes and policies have been identified 
as two of the main reasons for a lack of sufficient progress on environmental, clean energy 
and  climate  policy  implementation  in  the  EU.    Given  the  market  and  institutional  failures 

81 

 
mentioned  above,  the  necessary  funding  is  not  forthcoming  within  the  market  system  and 
requires public intervention. 

With  regard  to  mainstreaming  of  climate  objectives  into  EU  policy  and  spending,  a  recent 
review76  highlighted  difficulties  in  ensuring  effective  climate  mainstreaming  in  some 
programme  areas,  as  well  as  a  lack  of  a  widespread  understanding  among  policymakers  of 
potential for mainstreaming climate in programmes or projects.  

With  regard  to  mainstreaming  of  environmental  and  climate  objectives  and  biodiversity,  a 
recent  report  of  the  Court  of  Auditors77  highlighted  that  the  majority  of  EU  funding  for 
biodiversity  and  the  Natura  2000  network  has  been  made  available  by  integrating 
biodiversity  goals  into  various  existing  EU  funds  or  instruments.  However,  most  of  the 
instruments  are  primarily  targeted  on  delivering  the  EU  goals  on  rural,  regional, 
infrastructural,  social  and  scientific  development.  While  this  allows  the  integration  of 
biodiversity into broader rural and regional contexts, it also makes the availability of funding 
dependent  on  the  overall  goals  and  mechanisms  of  the  given  funding  instruments78.  As 
underlined in another recent special report, the funds made available are not sufficient and do 
not effectively target the achievement of the EU’s biodiversity targets79. 

LIFE  plays  a  special  role  in  supporting  the  implementation  of  the  Nature  Directives,  the 
estimated  funding  under  LIFE  to  support  biodiversity  and  nature  in  2007-2013  was  around 
EUR 750–837m (around EUR 107–120m/ year, actual and planned allocations respectively). 
This represented around 35-39% of the total LIFE+ budget. In comparison, for the 2014-2017 
funding  period,  the  estimated  planned  LIFE  contribution  to  biodiversity  and  nature  will  be 
around  EUR  610m  (around  EUR  153m/  year.  This  represents  only  2.6%  of  Natura  2000 
funding  requirements  alone,  and  LIFE  also  supports  nature  and  biodiversity  outside  the 
Natura  2000  network.  In  general,  LIFE  funding  represents  less  than  1%  of  the  total  EU 

76  

77  

78  

79  

See  DG  Clima.  Climate  mainstreaming  in  the  EU  budget.  Preparing  for  the  next  MFF  :  final  report. 
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1df19257-aef9-11e7-837e-01aa75ed71a1 

European Court of Auditors (ECA) special report No 21/2017: Greening: a more complex income support 
scheme, not yet environmentally effective 
(https://www.eca.europa.eu/Lists/ECADocuments/SR17_21/SR_GREENING_EN.pdf). 

Ibidem:  Executive  summary  "Overall  we  conclude  that  greening,  as  currently  implemented,  is  unlikely  to 
significantly  enhance  the  CAP’s  environmental  and  climate  performance".  Among  the  reasons  mentioned: 
because  "clear,  sufficiently  ambitious  environmental  targets  that  greening  should  be  expected  to  achieve" 
were not set, "the budget allocation for greening is not justified by the policy’s environmental content" and 
'The  green  payment  remains,  essentially,  an  income  support  scheme".  "Greening  is  unlikely  to  provide 
significant  benefits  for  the  environment  and  climate,  mainly  because  of  the  significant  deadweight  which 
affects the policy". In particular, the Court estimates that "greening led to changes in farming practices on 
only around 5 % of all EU farmland. [..] The budget allocation for greening […] was based on a political 
decision and not on the policy’s delivery of environmental and climate-related objectives". 

European Court of Auditors (ECA), Special Report 2017: More efforts needed to implement the Natura 2000 
network  to  its  full  potential".  While  recognising  the  major  role  played  by  Natura  2000  in  protecting 
biodiversity,  we  concluded  that  the  Natura  2000  network  had  not  been  implemented  to  its  full  potential. 
Significant progress is needed from the Member States, and more efforts from the Commission, in order to 
better contribute to the ambitious goals of the EU 2020 biodiversity strategy". See also Observation 83 "EU 
funds were not well mobilised to support the management of the Natura 2000 network. The EU’s approach to 
financing the implementation of the Natura 2000 network has been to use existing EU funds. The use of these 
funds for the network is the competence of the Member States. There was a lack of reliable information on 
the EU funds used for Natura 2000 over the 2007-2013 programming period (paragraphs 41 to 44). There 
were weaknesses in the preparation of PAFs by Member States, and the assessment of funding needs for the 
2014-2020  programming  period  was  not  accurate  or  complete  (paragraphs  45  and  46).  At  site  level, 
management plans often lacked an accurate and complete assessment of the costs (paragraph 47) associated 
with the implementation of conservation measures. The 2014-2020 programming documents for the various 
EU funds did not fully reflect funding needs (paragraphs 48 to 54) and the Commission did not address these 
weaknesses in a structured manner. EU funding schemes, in particular under the CAP and regional/cohesion 
policy, were insufficiently tailored to the objectives of the Natura 2000 sites (paragraphs 55 to 62)." 

82 

 
                                                      
budget.80  In  spite  of  its  small  size  LIFE  fund  has  been  of  crucial  importance  for 
implementation of EU nature legislation and Natura 2000 in particular. Target LIFE projects 
have  led  to  substantial  improvement  of  the  conservation  status  of  a  number  of  threatened 
habitat  and  species,  have  had  catalytic  effect  by  mobilising  other  funds  for  nature 
(particularly  through  integrated  projects)  and  have  tested  a  number  of  methods  and 
approaches which later were replicated with great success in management of the Natura 2000 
sites. 

This  shows  that  effective  mainstreaming  is  essential  but  is  not  sufficient  to  solve  the 
environmental  problems.  Targeted  environmental,  clean  energy  and  climate  funding  is 
needed  to  address  the  additional  financing  needs  but  also  to  provide  a  catalytic  effect  to 
support  relevant  policy  implementation  and  altogether  more  sustainable  production  and 
consumption  behaviours.  However,  targeted  funding  programmes  will  only  reach  their  full 
potential if complemented by appropriate mainstreaming. 

As a result, both environmental and climate mainstreaming as well as targeted funding, such 
as  the  ones  of  the  LIFE  Programme,  would  be  needed  to  adequately  address  the  EU's 
environmental problems and failures. 

Reporting: 

The  Fitness  Check  on  Environmental  Reporting  and  Monitoring  (SWD(2017)230  and 
supporting study1) looked, amongst other issues, at the effectiveness and efficiency of the 
current approaches to data management. This uncovered a number of cross-cutting issues 
which are relevant to financing needs.  

  The  current  LIFE  Regulation  covers  a  large  part  of  the  legally  required  operations 
related to environmental reporting. On one hand, the EEA is financed by LIFE+ and 
has  estimated  that  it  uses  €4.5  mio  annually  to  support  DG  ENV  on  legislative 
reporting.  This  does  not  include  staff  costs  but  operational  costs.  In  addition,  DG 
ENV  spent  between  €4-€7  mio  (2014-2016)  annually  from  its  LIFE  operational 
budget  to  outsource  reporting-related  activities  to  address  all  those  legally  required 
actions that allow the Commission to exercise its duties of “Guardian of the Treaty” 
(in  other  words,  to  assess  Member  State  implementation  of EU  environmental  laws 
and report the results to the European Parliament and the Council).  These outsourced 
activities  are  mainly  procurements  with  consultants  or  administrative  arrangements 
with  the  JRC.  There  are  also  some  few  reporting  activities  related  to  chemicals 
legislation where ECHA is providing those services but no budgetary estimated was 
made. Finally, the Commission’s IT budget is covering a small part of these activities 
and the services are executed by Unit ENV A4.   

  The type of activities of all these actors related to reporting are all very similar. They 

execute several steps of the date management chain, namely: 

o  collect and store information and data provided by the Member States 

o  quality assurance and control of the data  

o  put together the national data into a new, consolidate European datasets 

o  analyze, assess and interpret the data and information 

80  

Milieu, IEEP and ICF, Evaluation Study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives, 
March 2016 

83 

 
                                                      
o  prepare data products such as maps, statistics, dashboards, textual summaries, 

etc.   

 

It is therefore apparent that:  

o  The data management is highly fragmented and diverse.  

o  The overall approach is highly inefficient. On average,  the time between the 
moment  that  Member  States  are  supposed  to  report  the  data  and  the 
Commission preparing its report to the EU institutions is 630 days. The best 
practices  (all  carried  out  by  the  EEA)  are  below  half  a  year  (180  days),  the 
worst is more than 1200 days.  

o  The  EEA  has  been  demonstrated  as  being  generally  more  efficient  and 

effective in reported data management.  

o  The  effectiveness  of  the  data  management  can  be  improved  significantly  by 
reducing  the  textual  information,  increase  the  use  of  indicators,  standardize 
data  management  procedures  and  allow  for  synergies,  interoperability  and 
coherent  approaches  between  the  different  data  management  actors.  This 
would  involve  to  use  more  modern  and  standardized  IT  solutions.  Through 
this,  the  quality  of  the  products  can  be  improved  whilst  saving  time  and 
money. 

o  Currently the approaches, in particular from outsourcing to consultants, create 
a  diversity  of  solutions  and  products  and  do  not  offer  sustainability  and 
continuity. The hosting of data products (such as databases or map viewers) is 
open done through the contracts. When these contracts run out, the products 
are either not hosted or maintained anymore or there is a indefinite need for 
having follow up contracts to cover such costs. This is not an effective use of 
the LIFE operational budget.    

All the above evidence is based on the Reporting Fitness Check and therefore relates to 
data  management  that  is  required  in  58  pieces  of  environmental  legislation  (and  181 
reporting obligations). However, the issues are similar and can be extrapolated to wider 
environmental  data  management,  e.g.  related  to  policies  (where  no  legislation  exists) 
such  as  circular  economy,  forestry,  soil,  etc.  or  evidence-based  products  which  do  not 
rely  only  on  reported  data  such  as  the  EEA’s  SOER,  the  DG  ENV’s  EIR  or  any 
evaluation  or  impact  assessment,  and  by  analogy  to  climate  needs.    Therefore, LIFE 
financing  is  needed  to  support  a  coherent  approach  to  evidence  gathering,  data 
management and processing in the areas of environment and climate. 

Knowledge gaps and support for Eco-Innovation: 
Back in 2013, the 7th Environmental Action Programme already stressed the importance 
of  taking  further  steps  to  maintain  and  strengthen  our  knowledge  and  evidence  base  in 
order to ensure that policy in the Union continues to draw on a sound understanding of 
the  state  of  the  environment,  possible  response  options  and  their  consequences.  The 
recent  (draft)  evaluation  of  this  programme81  has  however  revealed  that  significant 
knowledge  gaps    remain  in  a  number  of  environmental  issues,  for  example  on 
environmental thresholds (tipping points), the circular economy paradigm, the combined 

81  

European Parliament - Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, report 
2017/2030(INI) from 26.10.2017 

84 

 
                                                      
effects of chemicals, nano-materials, hazard identification methods, the impacts of micro 
plastics, and the interaction between systemic risks and other health determinants. 

There is a need to develop an ecosystem for eco-innovation that supports the transition to 
a low carbon and circular economy as well as a better implementation of environmental 
legislation by building on the strengths of the sector – namely the local collaboration 
among administration, citizen and entrepreneurs. The most promising approach to build 
upon is provided by the European Institute of Technology (EIT) in the Climate-KIC and 
KIC-Inno Energy. 

Innovation  prices  –  as  piloted  in  Horizon2020  and  likely  foreseen  for  continuation  in 
future  –  could  develop  into  a  particularly  interesting  tool  of  specific  interest  for 
encouraging collaborative innovation among administration, citizen and entrepreneur. 

4.4. 

Sector-specific Needs 

Concerning  the  specific  needs  by  sector,  a  summary  of  the  key  environmental  problems  inside 
the EU and some of their investment needs is presented in the table below; it should be noted that 
there  is  no  comprehensive  information  available  about  the  total  needs  for  most  environmental 
sectors.

85 

 
Environmental, energy and climate problem 

Indicative investment need  

Table 4-1: Summary of environmental energy and climate problems and needs 

Nature and biodiversity 

Natural capital provides the basic conditions for human existence and its economic activities. The complexity of 
natural  systems  and  irreversibility  of  some  environmental  damage  carries  significant  risks  with  respect  to 
continued degradation of ecosystems and their services.  

There  is  a  long-term  need, with  a  vision of up  to  2050,  “to  protect,  conserve  and  enhance  the Union’s  natural 
capital’  and  ‘live  within  the  planet’s  ecological  limits.’82  The  Biodiversity  Strategy  to  2020  sets  targets  up  to 
2020,  however,  the  2015  mid-term  review  of  the  EU  biodiversity  strategy  to  2020  concluded  that  biodiversity 
loss was continuing and that much strengthened efforts were needed to reach the 2020 target.83.  

There  has  been  some  progress  made  over  recent  years  in  halting  the  loss  of  biodiversity,  but  the  last  State  of 
Nature  in  the  EU  report  indicates  that  overall  goals  of  the  EU  nature  legislation  have  not  been  met  yet;  a 
substantial proportion of species of EU interest are threatened and/or declining (around 17% of the birds species 
are threatened and another 15% are near threatened, declining or depleted; in case of non-bird species 60% have 
been  found  to  be  in  unfavourable  conservations  status),  and  a  substantial  proportion  of  habitats  and  non-bird 
species have an unfavourable conservation status (habitat types, on the whole, have a worse conservation status 
and trend than species; across the EU-27, only 16% of habitat assessments are favourable, while more than two-
thirds are unfavourable)84. 

Significant  progress  have  been  made  with  designation  of  the  Natura  2000  network  but  moderate  progress  has 
been made in establishment of conservation measures for Natura 2000 sites (e.g. through management planning 
and objectives setting, and practical land management agreements with owners)85.86  

A  20+  year  outlook  expects  that  the  underlying  drivers  of  biodiversity  loss  are  not  evolving  favourably.  Full 

The Nature Fitness Check and the mid-term review of the 
Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 both concluded that lack of 
funding is a major issue, overall costs are in the range of 
11-20 billion euro per year, as detailed below.  
In  2010  total  funding  necessary  for  the  management  of 
the Natura 2000 network was estimated conservatively at 
approximately 6 bn EUR/yr.  
This figure – based on a survey sent to the EU MS – risks 
to be substantially underestimated as it reflects rather the 
current  level  of  available  funds  than  estimation  of  all 
needs.  It  is  estimated  the  EU  co-financing  covered  only 
9-19%  of  this  estimated  financing  need88.  A  recent  re-
evaluation  of  needs  in  Germany  resulted  in  twice  the 
amounts  previously  estimated.  i.e.    Financing  needs  for 
Natura 2000 might be up to 12bn. 
In  addition,  it  was  estimated  that  the  EU  biodiversity 
strategy  target  to  maintain  and  enhance  ecosystems  and 
their  services,  including  through  restoring  15%  of 
degraded  ecosystems,  would  entail  a  total  estimated 
additional  cost  ranging  from  €  0.5  to  11  billion  per 
annum, with a middle scenario of around € 5 billion per 

82  

83  

84   

85  

86  

7th Environment Action Programme, Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013 

COM/2015/0478 final; EEA (2017) Environmental indicator report 2017: In support to the monitoring of the 7th Environment Action Programme. EEA Report No. 21/2017 

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT The State of Nature in the European Union Report on the status of and trends 
for habitat types and species covered by the Birds and Habitats Directives for the 2007-2012 period as required under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive and Article 12 of the Birds 
Directive COM/2015/0219 final/ 

Milieu, IEEP and ICF, Evaluation Study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives, March 2016. 

European Parliament (November 2017) Implementation of the 7th Environment Action Programme – Mid-term review, Brussels, European Union 2017 

86 

 
 
                                                      
implementation of policy is needed to deliver the needed level of improvements.87  

Environment and Health (incuding Chemicals) 
Due to their increasing use and their potential health impacts, attention to chemicals is growing both in science 
and policy-making. Their use provides benefits to society, but at the same time the use of hazardous substances 
should be assessed and minimized by 2020. From 2006 to 2015 there was a 7.5% decrease in the consumption of 
both  hazardous  and  non-hazardous  chemicals.89  However,  while  current  legislation  increasingly  addresses  the 
impacts  of  chemicals,  concerns  over  their  cumulative  effect  on  human  health  and  the  environment  and  newly 
emerging  chemicals  are  proliferating.  The  call  for  the  development  of  a  non-toxic  environment  by  2018  as 
mentioned in the 7th EAP should address these concerns but the main obstacle is the large knowledge gaps in the 
chemicals area. Moreover, the global trend beyond 2020 shows that chemicals production will increase, which 
creates a cause of concern.90 

Air  Pollution  remains  the  number  one  environmental  cause  of  adverse  health  impacts  and  premature  deaths  in 
Europe.  Despite  decreases  in  emissions  of  air  pollutants  over  the  last  decades  and  improved  air  quality,  the 
European Environment Agency estimates that more than 400,000 premature deaths p.a. in the EU are due to air 
pollution and poor air quality. Currently 24 of the 28 Member States are not in compliance with the air quality 
standards  i.e.  maximum  pollutant  concentration  levels  for  key  air  pollutants  set  in  the  Ambient  Air  Quality 
Directives. This has a significant bearing on human health and ecosystem services (notably vegetation including 
crops). Where the established standards for ambient air quality are not met, the Directives require Member States 
to  prepare  and  implement  air  quality  plans  and  measures  (for  a  given  pollutant).  Guided  by  the  principle  of 
subsidiarity,  the  Directives  leave  the  choice  of  means  to  achieve  these standards  to  the  Member  States,  but do 
explicitly  require  that  exceedance  periods  are  kept  as  short  as  possible.  Effectively  addressing  this  problem 

annum. 
Financing  needs  to  continue  the  BEST  small  grants 
programme  for  biodiversity  in  ORs  and  also  the  OCTs 
(which are not part of the EU) are estimated at 8 million 
Euro per year. 

When  the  willingness-to-pay  methodis  used  to  estimate 
the amount that people would be willing to pay to avoid  
premature death due to pollution-related disease, the total 
is  estimated  to  be  more  than  US$4.6  trillion,  which  is 
6·2% of global economic output91. 
In high-income countries, health-care spending 
diseases caused by air pollution alone amounted to 3.5% 
of total health expenditures in 201392. This equals ~130€ 
(PPS) per person per year in the EU. 

on 

88  

87  

89  

90  

91  

92  

EC (2017) Support for an external and independent LIFE Mid Term Evaluation Report, Luxembourg, European Union, 2017 

EEA (2015) SOER 2015 – The European environment – state and outlook 2015 

EEA (2017) Environmental indicator report 2017: In support to the monitoring of the 7th Environment Action Programme. EEA Report No. 21/2017 

Ibidem 

The Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-6736(17)32345-0 

The Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-6736(17)32345-0  

87 

 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
beyond  2020,  considering  the  many  non-compliance  situations,  will  require  a  strengthened  effort,  combining 
LIFE instruments such as Integrated Projects at national and regional scale with standard projects addressing data 
monitoring and modelling, capacity building for governance, information and awareness projects as well as pilots 
and  demonstration  projects  in  areas  where  emissions  can  be  reduced  such  as  agriculture,  mobility  and  energy 
e.g.. to demonstrate the role and relevance of innovative Zero-Emission Transport solutions, including intelligent 
consumer services, in urban and rural areas, with a particular view to increasing consumer buy in.   

Air quality should also be mainstreamed in climate mitigation projects to maximise synergy effects.   

Noise 

According to the findings of the World Health Organisation (WHO), noise is the second largest environmental 
cause of health problems, just after the impact of air quality (particulate matter). 

MS repeatedly request financial support to implement the 
measures in the plans.  

In the EU, more than 125 million people were exposed to high levels of road traffic noise alone, resulting in 14.1 
million  adults  severely  annoyed  by  environmental  noise,  5.9  million  adults  are  highly  sleep  disturbed,  69  000 
hospital admissions and 15 900 cases of premature mortality occur annually, due to environmental noise. 

The  implementation  of  the  Environmental  Noise  Directive,  which  is  intended  for  Member  States  to  achieve  a 
common  approach  to  avoid,  prevent  and  reduce  environmental  noise,  and  to  inform  EU  actions  on  noise,  is 
delayed.  In  2017,  13  years  after  its  adoption,  only  around  80  %  of  the  noise  maps  and  not  even  50  %  of  the 
respective action plans have been submitted. 
Reasons for the delay vary, but include the lack of financial resources available in Member States.93. 

Air quality 
A central component of safeguarding people’s health and wellbeing is ensuring good air quality.  

The  full  implementation  of  the  Clean  Air  Package  is  projected  to  enhance  air  quality  and  reduce  by  2030  the 
health impacts by half compared to 2005, particular pollutants will still be above harmful levels, posing a threat 
to human and ecosystem health.94   

The  National  Emission  Ceilings  Directive  (NECD,  2016/2284/EU)  and  the  Ambient  Air  Quality  Directives 
(AAQD, 2004/107/EC and 2008/50/EC) set up the legal framework for pollution control and compliance with ait 

rough  extrapolation 

A 
indicates costs of around 1.5 billion € for EU 28.  

from  German/ESTAT  data 

The  marginal  costs  related  to  the  additional  measures 
included  in  the  last  programme    for  implementation  of 
the National Emission Ceilings Directive, which is 2.2 to 
3.3  billion  euros  per  year;  this  provides  an  indicative 
minimum estimate of the investment needs to tackle this 
problem  beyond Business As Usual.95 
Although,  a  lot  of  the  funding  will  be  done  by  citizens 

93  

94  

95  

COM2017 (175) final, at http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52017DC0151&from=EN 

EEA (2015) SOER 2015 – The European environment – state and outlook 2015 

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service (2017), Reducing air pollution National emission ceilings for air pollutants. Briefing EU Legislation in Progress 

88 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
quality standards. 

The  new  NECD  2016/2284/EU  has  to  be  transposed  by  1  July  2018.  Substantial  support  in  developing  and 
implementing  the  National  Air  Pollution  Control  Programmes  will  be  needed. Many  Member  States  need 
capacity-building  and  other  support  in  developing  or  improving  a  national  emission  inventory  and  projections 
system. 

The Ambient Air Quality Directives (2004/107/EC and 2008/50/EC) are currently undergoing a Fitness Check, 
with the aim to establish an Action Plan in 2019 or 2020.  

The air quality situation across Europe raises concerns that exceedance above established limit values and target 
values will continue beyond 2020 in many Member States. 
In the framework of the Clean Air Dialogues and similar initiatives with MS, it is clear that examples of good 
practice (e.g. LIFE projects) play an important role, as well as funding possibility - as MS feel they often lack the 
data (e.g. monitoring data, emission inventories, modelling), the capacity and governance to properly address the 
situation, or the expertise in certain areas (e.g. information to the citizen). 
Clean  Energy  policies  play  a  substantial  role  in  improving  air  quality  (both  indoor  and  outdoor),  by 
decarbonising  energy  production  specifically  the  local  sources  of  heating  and  increasing  energy  efficiency  of 
buildings and industry sectors. The relevant legislation is here: Renewable Energy Directive, Energy Efficiency 
Directive,  Energy  Performance  of  Buildings  Directive  and  Ecodesign  and  Energy  labelling  Directives  and 
regulations.  

Circular economy, resource efficiency and waste 

The  transition  to  a  circular  economy  is  required  to  prevent  further  breeching  the  ‘limits  of  the  planet’.  New 
technologies like distributed manufacturing, robotics, digitalisation for tracking of substances and the  internet of 
things are important enablers for this transition. However, support to the replication of existing best practices that 
have  proved  successful  in  shifting  entrepreneurs  investments  and  consumers  behaviours  towards  more 
sustainable patterns are even more instrumental for the overall transition to a more resource efficient and circular 
economy. Massive investments are needed to support and accelerate the transformation across sectors and along 

(e.g. replacing boilers and cars) and industry (IED), often 
for  other  reasons  than  air  quality  (e.g.  reducing  energy 
bills),  and  most  actions  will  serve  multiple  policy 
objectives  (energy  efficiency,  renewable  energy,  GHG 
emission  reduction,  noise,  road  safety,  …)96,  it  is 
estimated  that  MSs  will  need  support  around  0.7  billion 
EUR  including  the  co-financing  of  demonstration  and 
pilot  initiatives  tackling  specific  aspects  of  air  quality 
(e.g.  monitoring  and  modelling,  emission  inventories, 
VOCs) 

Article 7 of  the NEC Directive requires the Commission 
to endeavour to make funds available:  " …, in order to 
support  the  measures  to  be  taken  with  a  view  to 
complying  with  the  objectives  of  this  Directive.  Those 
Union funds include present and future available funding 
under,  inter  alia:  …  (c)  instruments  for  the  funding  of 
environment  and  climate  action  such  as  the  LIFE 
programme." 

the  circular  economy 

The  estimated104  investment  needed  to  realise  important 
benefits  of 
three  sectors 
(mobility,  food,  built  environment)  amounts  to  1.050 
billion  EUR  by  2025  of  which  380bn  are  additional  to 
current developments.  

in 

Annual  additional  costs 

for 

top5%  with  highest 

96  

In a Commission study from the DG for Climate Action, it was estimated that about 4% of the funding of the required mitigation measures will come from the EU. The rest will be 
born by third parties. As climate mitigation and air quality measures tend to be very similar, this gives a very rough indication for air quality as well of around € 2500 bn. But because 
of the large overlap with energy/climate mitigation, mobility and agriculture this amount can of course not be attributed to air quality alone. 

89 

 
 
 
                                                      
ecological  footprint  of  22mio  companies  in  EU  to 
implement EMAS and employ new expertise: €104bn p.a 
+ €22bn one-off initial EMAS system development;    

During one year (2015/16) in 23 major EU cities to total 
market  uptake  of  industrial  warehouses  amounted  to 
8mio m² equal to 800ha of land. For which opportunities 
for  industrial  symbiosis  within  the  plots  and  with  the 
surrounding were not considered.    

value chains.  
Moreover,  whilst  resource  productivity  is  a  benefit  per  se97,  the  rapidity  of  this  transformation  could  allow 
European  firms  to  keep  and  increase  their  competitiveness.  In  line  with  the  global  agenda  on  sustainable 
development,  circular  economy  and  resource-efficiency  are  regarded  as  key  to  address  global  environmental 
challenges. Not only improvements are in demand at international level across a wide range of industrial sectors; 
policy measures worldwide affecting flow of materials and goods have also a direct impact on EU companies and 
public  authorities  requiring  adaptations  of  infrastructures  and  of  business  models.  Accompanying  policy 
development and effective implementation, as well as supporting investments and the replication of best practices 
are  therefore  needed.    The  circular  economy  has  a  strong  social  dimension  offering  a  wide  variety  of    job 
opportunities  including  high,  medium  and  low  skilled  profiles  (eco-design,  engineering,  IT  system  planning,  
maintenance, repair, dismantling.    

However,  for  this  to  happen  the  market  barriers  that  prevent  these  opportunities  from  being  developed  and 
demonstrated  in  practice  need  to  be  overcome.  Companies  and  public  authorities  may  lack  the  information, 
confidence  and  capacity  to  engage  in  co-creating  circular  economy  solutions  along  value  chains.  Current 
investment  in  innovation  for  the  circular  economy  is  overly  focussed  on  recycling  technologies  whereas 
support to new business models, to eco- and modular design of products and substitution of hazardous materials 
in the products remains marginal98. It is very difficult to estimate the uncovered needs – beyond the development 
of recycling technologies - for innovation for the circular economy transition. A major bottleneck to overcome 
for entrepreneurs is the opportunity to test their approaches in real life environments (‘living labs for the circular 
economy’). Major progress could be made by orienting existing industrial innovation support infrastructures  and 
programmes towards innovation for the circular economy transition.99  

The financial system often fails to provide for investment in efficiency improvements based on new technologies 
or  provide  financing  for  substantial  initial  investments  for  innovative  business  models  (for  example  the  initial 
purchase of large number washing machines to be leased to consumers), which are perceived as more risky and 
complex, deterring many traditional investors. Technology lock-in and resilient consumer habits can also hinder 

104  
97  

98  

99  

"Achieving 'Growth Within'", SYSTEMIQ, in collaboration with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017. (Original amounts in GBP!)  

Waste prevention, ecodesign, reuse and similar measures could bring net savings of € 600 billion, or 8 % of annual turnover,  for businesses in the EU, while reducing total annual 
greenhouse gas emissions by 2-4 %. 

EEA (2017) Circular by design  

The World Economic Forum calls for “Dialogues and partnerships that bring technology developers and providers together with environmental experts to co-develop these innovations 
and to ensure they are developed for the public good, while minimizing risks of unintended environmental consequences. WEF (2017) “Harnessing the Fourth Industrial Revolution 
for the Earth” 

90 

 
 
                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                              
new products and services development. Such barriers tend to persist in a context where prices do not reflect the 
real  costs  of  resource  use  to  society,  and  where  policy  fails  to  provide  strong  and  consistent  signals  for  the 
transition to a circular economy.  

Industrial symbiosis is the use of waste material streams of one company as input material for other industrial 
processes – preferentially in the vicinity to avoid long distance transport of bulk materials. Realising industrial 
symbiosis would require taking it into account in the initial design of industrial estates, during their rehabilitation 
and in urban planning linked to material flows. In the absence of binding legislation in that respect one would 
have to count on volunteer action from real estate developers and reinforcement by planning authorities.   

Various  traditional  and  new  environmental  policy  areas  like  waste  and  water  policy  but  also  the  new  specific 
policies  on  plastics,  on  bioeconomy  and  raw  materials  play  an  important  role  for  the  transition  to  the  circular 
economy. Identified investment needs in these sectors are additional to the investment needs identified above.  

Smart  regulation,  market-based  instruments,  research  and  innovation,  incentives,  information  exchange  and 
support  for  voluntary  approaches  as  well  as  replication  of  best  practices  are  needed  to  build  up  an  overall 
enabling framework. 

Europe has a very large ecological footprint and the EU’s resource needs are increasingly met by imports from 
other  countries.  Circular  economy  can  lower  the  overall  consumption  of  resources  and  materials,  reducing  the 
environmental  burden  and  increasing global competitiveness.  Projections  show  that resource efficiency will  be 
slightly improved by 2020, meeting the objective of the 7th EAP.100 Nevertheless, this improvement is far from 
the anticipated progress in reducing the absolute material use, which requires a systemic change in the European 
production  and  consumption  patterns,  as  called  for  by  Sustainable  Development  Goal  12.  In  this  respect,  an 
integrated  perspective  on  production-consumption  systems,  which  entails  changes  in,  among  others,  raw 
materialssourcing  (secondary  vs.  Primary),  waste  prevention,  ,  waste  management,  energy  production  and 
consumption, transportation, water use, non toxic materials cycles and industrial production, will have a central 
role to play in the post-2020 period. Of all the EU Member States, 9 so far have adopted resource productivity 
targets of which 5 include post-2020 targets101 and only a few have adopted circular economy policy frameworks 
and strategies. This indicates that MSs are strengthening their approach to material use, but still more has to be 
done. 
In  the  case  of  land  use,  the  pursuit  of  resource  efficiency  is  often  translated  into  land  use  intensification.  It  is 
essential  that  any  such  effort  reflects  a  comprehensive  ecosystem-based  concept  (including  all  ecosystem 
functions  and  services  provided  by  land  and  land  use)  to  optimise  overall  ecosystem  condition  and  service 

100  

101  

EEA (2017) Environmental indicator report 2017: In support to the monitoring of the 7th Environment Action Programme. EEA Report No. 21/2017 

ibid 

91 

 
                                                      
delivery to society and to avoid unfavourable trade-offs e.g. if intensification aims unilaterally at growing wood 
or food outputs, at the cost of losing biodiversity or other ecosystem functions. 

Establishing  an  Environmental  Management  and  Audit  System  (EMAS)  in  public  and  private 
organisations is a first step on path to reduce the environmental footprint and rethink product & services design 
for  circularity.    1st  year  implementation  costs  for  an  EMAS  system  are  estimated  at  40.000€  for  small  and 
medium  sized  enterprises  with  recurrent  annual  costs  of  20.000€.  Taking  more  ambitious  steps  towards 
circularity  would  mainly  require  additional  specialised  staff  (internal  or  external)  in  the  company  for  the 
definition  of  projects  that  are  both  green  and  profitable.102  Implementing  EMAS  has  a  very  high  return  on 
investment over time.103  
Considering the EU GDP share of public procurement, support for the uptake of Green Public Procurement 
as  a  voluntary  scheme  by  national  and  local  authorities  would  also  generate  a  tangible  shift  towards  more 
sustainable  consumption  patterns  and  would  allow  public  authorities  to  play  fully  their  role  mode  in  the 
transition.  Support  for  the  uptake  of  the  EU  Ecolabel,  on  the  other  hand,  would  allow  companies  to  reap  the 
benefit of their efforts for placing on the market greener products that protect consumers and the environment.   
The  overarching  notion  of  the  Circular  Economy  paradigm  is  ‘nothing  is  wasted’,  and  thus,  the  shift  to  a 
European  circular  economy  involves  major  improvements  in  the  prevention  and  management  of  waste. 
Between 2004 and 2012 per capita waste generation fell by 7% in the EU-28. Waste management also improved 
during  this  period  with  recycling  levels  going  up,  which  helped  reduce  the  amount  of  waste  deposited  in 
landfills.105 However, waste generation in the EU remains considerable and many of the Member States will have 
to significantly step up their waste management and prevention efforts to successfully implement the objectives 
of  the  current  waste  policy.106  Recently  revised  EU  waste  legislation  sets  ambitious  recycling  and  landfill 
reduction targets: 65% in 2035 for municipal waste and 70% in 2030 for packaging and a maximum of 10% of 
municipal waste to be landfilled in 2035. This will increase the pressure on Member States, especially those that 
are  currently  lagging  behind,  to  deliver  and  rethink  their  approach  to  waste  management  in  light  of  circular 
economy  principles.  The  revised  Waste  Framework  Directive  also  requires  Member  States  to  take  action  to 
reduce  food  waste  generation  at  each  stage  of  the  food  supply  chain,  as  a  contribution  to  UN  Sustainable 
Development  Goals,  monitor  food  waste  levels  and  report  back  on  progress  made.    These  new  obligations 
strengthen the integration of food waste prevention as part of waste policy and call for the preparation of national 

Significant  investments  in  infrastructure  are  needed  to 
ensure  implementation  of  the  revised  Waste  Framework 
Directive, including for the new requirements imposed by 
the 2018 waste target review on collection and recycling 
targets.  Further  efforts  could  be  requested  by  the  follow 
up  review  clause  introduced  with  the  same  2018 
amendments (e.g. waste oil target review). 
Many of the MSs need to go from 30 % recycling to 60-
65% recycling in the next 10 years. This means that the 
necessary  investments  in  separate  collection,  quality 
sorting and recycling infrastructure for these waste flows 
need  to  be  secured,  in  particular  for  bio-waste  and 
innovation  will  be  needed 
plastics. 

In  addition, 

102  

103  

105  

106  

COMMISSION  DECISION  (EU)  2017/2285  amending  the  user’s  guide  setting  out  the  steps  needed  to  participate  in  EMAS.  Annual  average  cost  for  a  specialised  junior  staff  
estimated at 75.000€ p.a. 

Idem. Notably for medium sized enterprises with larger material throughput. Not applicable to Micro-companies (<9 employees).  

EEA (2015) SOER 2015 – The European environment – state and outlook 2015 

EEA (2017) Environmental indicator report 2017: In support to the monitoring of the 7th Environment Action Programme. EEA Report No. 21/2017 

92 

 
                                                      
and 

prevent 

throughout  the  EU  to  boost  the  recyclability  of  more 
products 
waste. 
Yearly investments for waste infrastructure in the EU for 
the next ten years are estimated at 12.5 Billion euro (split 
in  about  one  third  for  governments,  and  2  thirds  for 
specialised operators) [Commission services estimates on 
Eurostat 
data]. 
The  EU  should  continue  to  financially  support  MS  in 
achieving more ambitious recycling levels with the most 
appropriate technology and infrastructure. 

food waste prevention programmes. 
An integrated approach to all the above areas is therefore needed to cover the wider scope of the transition to a 
circular economy   

Water 

93 

 
 
European freshwater resources have been under considerable pressure both in terms of their quantity and of their 
quality. There are three dimensions to the water challenge, namely water scarcity, flooding and water pollution. 
These water-problems are addressed by the Water Framework Directive, which aims to achieve good ecological 
status for all the surface and groundwater sources. Specific aspects of these main challenges are also addressed 
by other Directives (Floods Directive, Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, Nitrates Directive, etc.).  
 Although the quality of European water resources has improved over the last two decades, many waterbodies are 
still  significantly  affected  by  these  problems,  since  only  around  40%  of  surface  waters  achieved  a  good 
ecological status by 2015. Groundwaters are in a better state, with 74% in good chemical status and 89% in good 
quantitative status107. This clearly indicates a major implementation problem, which will be further amplified by 
the more ambitious targets laid out in the second set of River Basin Management Plans (2016-2021) developed 
by  the  MSs.  The  RMBPs  need  to  address  the  major  challenges  to  water:  diffuse  pollution,  in  particular  from 
agriculture,  urban  waste  water,  pollution  by  hazardous  substances  and  hydromorphological  changes  to  water 
bodies. On top of that, it is certain that additional water efficiency improvements as well as action on nutrient 
pollution  will  be  needed  beyond  2020  due  to  increasing  future  pressures,  such  as  climate  change,  population 
growth  and  urbanisation,  which  will  continue  stressing  water  resources  even  further  in  the  post-2020  period. 
Improving water efficiency will have significant effect on reaching the EU’s energy efficiency targets. 

Soil 
Soil provides a series of essential ecosystem services and can help to tackle societal challenges such as climate 
change,  loss  of  biodiversity,  migration,  food  security  or  clean  water  and  energy.  Unfortunately  the  current 
pressures on land and soil are huge and expected to continue growing. Accelerating drivers behind land and soil 
degradation  such  as  urbanization,  expansion  and  intensification  of  agriculture,  demographic  growth,  climate 
change  and  industrial  production  continue  to  undermine  soil  functions  and  the  delivery  of  ecosystem  services. 
EU policies which limit and reduce pressures on soil to safeguard its provision of services are still embryonic and 
uncoordinated,  which  implies  that  policy  development  rather  than  implementation  needs  to  receive  priority. 
Immediate action needs to be taken to meet the targets of the Agenda for Sustainable Development and especially 
to achieve a land degradation neutral world by 2030 (SDG 15).   

Nutrients cycle 

Considerable  additional  investments  are  still  needed  to 
guarantee  basic  services  such  as  access  to  water  and 
sanitation  for  all  European  citizens  and  ensure  full 
compliance.  Also  emerging  pollutants  of  concern  will 
require  particular  attention 
the  coming  years 
in 
(pharmaceuticals, micro plastics).108 

Soil degradation generates costs equal to 38 billion euros 
per year109. 
The  estimated  cost  of  inaction  for  Europe  (5.652  Bio 
USD)  largely  outweighs  the  cost  of  action  (945  Bio 
USD)  on  a  time  horizon  of  30  years.  The  return  on 
investment  in  Europe  is  amongst  the  highest  in  the 
world.110   

107  

108  

109  

110   

EEA (2015) SOER 2015 – The European environment – state and outlook 2015 

ACTeon (2012) Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU Task 4 b: Costs & Benefits of WFD implementation 

EU Commission (2006) Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection - Impact assessment of the thematic strategy on soil protection 

Nkonya et al., 2016, Economics of Land degradation and Improvement, a global assessment for sustainable development (ELD Initiative)  

94 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
Nutrients are essential for plants and intensively used as fertilizers in agriculture. The biogeochemical cycles of 
nutrients have been radically changed by humans as a result of many industrial and agricultural processes and by 
the inefficient and excessive use of nutrients, especially in the agricultural sector111. This is problematic due to 
the  increasing  scarcity  of  resources  (e.g.  Phosphorus)  and  due  to  various  environmental  impacts  such  as 
contribution to climate change, eutrophication, and acidification of water.  

Several  EU  policies  are  in  place  to  improve  one  or  several  aspects  of  nutrient  management  (e.g.,  Nitrates 
Directive,  Water  Framework  Directive  and  daughter  directives,  Common  Agricultural  Policy)  and  the  more 
sustainable and resource-efficient management of the nutrient cycle is also one of the objectives of the 7th EAP.  
Despite improvements in reducing nutrient losses, excess nutrients from human activities such as agriculture and 
wastewater and nutrients mismanagement are still damaging the natural nutrient cycle, causing pressure on both 
water and terrestrial ecosystems112.  

Climate change adaptation 
The Paris Agreement on climate change recognises the importance of actions needed to help people adapt to a 
warmer  temperatures.  The  minimum  cost  of  not  adapting  to  climate  change  is  estimated  to  range  from  €  100 
billion a year in 2020 to € 250 billion in 2050 for the EU as a whole. For coastal management, the estimate for 
adaptation measures (construction of dikes, beach nourishment) range from the annual expenditure of around €1 
billion up to the 2020s, €2 billion in the 2050s and over €2.5 billion in the 2080s[1].   Estimates for investment 
needed to make critical infrastructure[2] climate resilient until 2040 go up to 25 billion EUR and to  €87 billion 
by 2070.  To make infrastructures climate resilient up to the end of the century, capital costs could exceed €200 
billion and operation and maintenance costs could grow to €5.4 billion per year.  These estimates reflect only a 
fraction of the potential climate change impacts on society in Europe.  Weather-related disasters could affect two-
thirds of the European population annually by 2100 with a 50-fold increase in fatalities compared to today, if no 
adaptation action is taken.  Southern and southeastern Europe are projected (and are) the most affected hotspots, 
while coastal areas and floodplains are multi-sectoral hotpots.  Cities are also vulnerable to climate change owing 
to the concentration of people and economic assets.  

The  Clean Energy Transition  and Climate change mitigation 

Limited  studies  on  the  investment  need  but  multiple 
estimates, 35-62 billion per year (a narrower scope), 158-
518 billion per year (wider scope), etc. 

The  Paris  Agreement  on  climate  change  sets  out  a  long  term  goal  to  put  the  world  on  track  to  limit  global 
warming to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels – and pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to 
1.5°C.  The transition to a low carbon, resource and energy-efficient economy demands a fundamental shift in 

Delivering  the  2020,  2030  and  2050  energy  and  climate 
targets  is  estimated  to  need  178  billion  euros  per  year 
until  2030,  closing  the  financing  gap  between  the  BAU 

111  

112  

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/1259855.full 

https://www.eea.europa.eu/airs/2017/natural-capital/agricultural-land-nitrogen-balance 

95 

 
 
 
 
                                                      
investments of 9 448 billion and the estimated need of 11 
230 billion.113 

technology,  energy,  economics,  finance  and  ultimately  society  as  a  whole.  The  EU  leaders  have  committed  to 
transforming Europe into a highly energy-efficient, low carbon economy – the policy package on Clean Energy 
for  All  Europeans.  To  reach  EU's  Paris  agreement  target  the  EU  must  cut  emissions  by  at  least  40%  by  2030 
(compared to 1990). EU also has a binding target of at least 27% of renewable energy and an energy efficiency 
increase  of  at  least  27%.  To  achieve  Clean  Energy  goals,  Member  States  must  develop  long  term  integrated 
national climate and energy plans. The 2017 Report on the State of the Energy Union shows that most Member 
States are on track to meet their 2020 targets. However, further actions will be needed by all sectors and at all 
levels to achieve the EU's 2030 climate and energy targets set in the CE4AE package. 

Urban development 
Due to their high density of population and economic activity, European cities are locations where  a range of 
environmental  issues  accumulate,  such  as  high  air  pollutant  concentrations,  the  majority  of  greenhouse  gas 
emissions  and  energy  use,  waste  management  problems,  etc.  This  situation  also  offers  many  opportunities  to 
address  issues  such  as  air  quality,  noise,  circular  economy,  water,  environmental  aspects  of  transport  and 
housing,  soil  sealing,  land  use,  and  energy  use  and  efficiency,  as  well  as  climate  change  mitigation  and 
adaptation.  
SDG 11 has various urban targets (e.g. providing sustainable transport for all, or universal access to green spaces, 
'reducing' impact of cities, 'increasing' integrated policies and plans. 
The 7th EAP sets an overreaching aspirational target (to ensure a majority of cities are planning sustainably by 
2020)  that  is  hard  to  measure  and  even  harder  to  achieve,  but  then  sets  specific  actions  all  of  which  are 
achievable and are underway. 
EU  Ministers  responsible  for  urban  matters  agreed  on  the  Urban  Agenda  in  May  2016  with  the  Pact  of 
Amsterdam. The Urban Agenda promotes cooperation between Member States, cities, the European Commission 
and  other  stakeholders,  with  the  goal  to  achieve  Better  Regulation,  Better  Funding  and  Better  Knowledge 
(knowledge  base  and  exchange)  to  address  urban  challenges.  In  the  Urban  Agenda  12  partnerships  work  on 
specific  topics,  such  as  Air  Quality,  Circular  Economy,  Sustainable  Land  Use,  Urban  Mobility,  Energy 
Transition, and Climate Adaptation.. 
Habitat  III  –  New  Urban  Agenda  offers  an  amazing  set  of  environmental  commitments  for  sustainable  urban 
development  and  planning  covering  all  areas  from  climate  and  energy,  transport,  air,  green  spaces  and  much 
more 
The  clean  energy  transition  should  be  driven  at  local  level  as  is  a  great  opportunity  for  local  communities  to 
become more competitive and resilient based on local energy flows, socially fair and to which every citizen can 

113  

DG Clima. Climate mainstreaming in the EU budget. Preparing for the next MFF: final report. https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1df19257-aef9-11e7-
837e-01aa75ed71a1 

96 

 
 
 
                                                      
contribute.  The  transition  implies  profound  changes  in  energy  generation,  transmission  and  consumption,  with 
decentralisation,  bi-directional  energy  flows,  energy  efficient  and  flexible  consumption.  The  key  role  is  often 
played  by  cities  smart  urban  energy  planning  for  sector  coupling  and  matching  locally  available  sustainable 
energy  sources  and  local  demand  and  in  setting  ambitious  strategies  and  delivering  concrete  actions  on  the 
ground. In many instances, this is done through voluntary commitments to the Covenant of Mayors, an initiative 
launched by the European Commission to develop and implement at local level Sustainable Energy Action plans. 
Support for similar activities focussing also on the resource efficiency of buildings, as well as on the disposal of 
construction  and  demolition  waste  would  allow  to  have  a  more  holistic  approach  to  urban  impacts  on  the 
environment. 

4.5.  Needs for LIFE Strategic Integrated projects: 

Whereas the previous section outlined the overall needs for environmental financing, from LIFE and other sources, a specific analysis was carried out 
concerning the needs for LIFE Strategic Integrated projects under the next MFF.  This analysis takes into account the experience, to date, of the initial piloting 
of integrated projects under the present LIFE programme. 

At present, LIFE finances integrated projects in four areas, on a pilot basis. By the end of the current programme, it is expected that about 60-70 integrated 
projects will be financed for these four areas. An assessment of these areas demonstrates the added value of the present projects as well as the scale needed for 
a significant impact on the target policy areas. 

Indicative area 

Requirements 

Current challenge 

Added value of SIPs 

Scale needed 

Table 4-2: Existing indicative areas 

Air quality (AQPs) 

AQPs  are  required  for 
all zones which are non-
compliant  with  the  air 
quality  standards  set  by 
the AQD.  

As  many  as  670  air  quality  zones 
across  the  EU  for  a  single  air 
pollutant  (with  different  zones  for 
each  of  the  pollutants  included  in 
the AQD at varying levels of local, 
regional and national).  
Particular challenges for PM10 and 
NO2  (17  and  18  non-compliant 
2014).  Upcoming 
zones 
challenge 
to  PM2.5 
relating 
expected (currently no proceedings 
against  Member 
but 
standards  only  recently  entered 
into force). 

States 

in 

97 

of  AQPs 
engagement 

requires 
Development 
across 
stakeholder 
multiple 
levels  of  communication 
(across  varying  levels  of  governance; 
involving  different  authorities  across 
and 
policy 
sectors 
areas; 
sometimes 
transnational 
requiring 
communication).  To  implement  the 
AQP requires funding, monitoring and 
reporting  frameworks.  SIPs  provide  a 
framework  to  guide  communication 
and can facilitate access to funding. 

and 

At  a  minimum,  there  should  be  a 
sufficient  number  of  SIPs  to  support 
sectoral 
AQPs 
targeting  different 
challenges  (in  particular 
transport, 
residential  heating,  agriculture  and 
industry).  In  addition,  SIPs  should 
sufficient 
geographic 
provide 
coverage 
the  different 
reflect 
biophysical qualities of Member States 
affecting  air  quality;  and  sufficient 
levels  of 
support  across  different 
governance  (including  local,  regional, 
national and transnational).  

to 

 
 
Indicative area 

Requirements 

Current challenge 

Added value of SIPs 

Scale needed 

Natura 2000 (PAFs) 

PAFs  are  planning  tools 
required  to  provide  an 
integrated  overview  of 
the  measures  needed  to 
the  Natura 
implement 
linking 
2000  network, 
them 
the 
to 
corresponding  EU  funds 
and 
their 
specifying 
financing needs. 

Waste 
(WMPs) 

management 

WMPs 
required 
are 
from all MS and need to 
cover the whole territory 
of  the  Member  State. 
WMPs  can  also  be 
regional 
developed  at 
and  sub-regional  levels, 
and by sector. 

65  PAFs  were  developed  for  the 
current  programming  period;  and 
will  need  revising  for  the  2021-
2027 period. 
A review found that the assessment 
of funding needs for the 2014-2020 
programming  period  was  not 
accurate  or  complete  in  PAFs. 
Coordination  between 
relevant 
stakeholders’ 
authorities, 
participation 
cross-border 
and 
cooperation  were  also  found  to  be 
in  many  cases. 
underdeveloped 
Significant 
the 
in 
delays 
implementation  of  conservation 
measures  were  reported  and  the 
impact  assessment  of  measures 
included in the PAFs was found to 
be inadequate. 
A  review  of  WMPs  covered  45 
plans  across  18  Member  States. 
The review found improvements in 
waste  management  because  of 
waste  management  infrastructures 
of 
but 
supporting  measures.  Of  regions 
with  improved  waste  management 
infrastructures, only 25% achieved 
EU  waste  policy  objectives;  and 
this  was  through  the  supporting 
measures.  
Waste  collection  strategies  were 
found  to  have  positive  impact  on 
performance of waste management 
infrastructures.  The  development 
information, 
of 

implementation 

supporting 

poor 

98 

between 

the  Natura 

Implementing 
2000 
network  to  its  full  potential  requires 
cooperation 
multiple 
stakeholders. Reporting funding needs 
in  PAFs  needs  to  be  improved  to 
secure  the  successful  implementation 
of the measures. 
SIPs  provide  a  framework  to  guide 
communication  and  can 
facilitate 
access to funding.  

in 

Owing to the large geographic scale of 
the  current  challenges  which  are 
expected  to  continue  in  the  coming 
programming  period,  at  the  very  least 
one large SIP per Member State would 
2021-2027 
needed 
be 
programming 
More 
realistically  multiple  SIPs  are  needed 
per  MS 
the  different 
administrative  and  biogeographical 
subdivisions.    In  order  to  serve  as 
comprehensive  mainstreaming  tools, 
the strategic projects for nature should 
be considerably larger than other SIPs. 

the 
period. 

to  cover 

Supporting  organisational,  strategic 
needs  and  implementation  of  waste 
management  plans  is a higher priority 
than  infrastructural  needs.  The  focus 
on regional waste management should 
be  expanded.  Greater  focus  is  needed 
to  improve  supporting  measures  to 
waste  management 
infrastructures. 
SIPs could help address these needs. 

To  meet  the  need  for  greater  strategic 
planning  at  national  level  (taking  into 
account waste management at regional 
levels),  one  SIP  per  Member  State 
might  be  an  appropriate  level.  This 
could  span  both  the  2014-2020  and 
2021-2027 
periods. 
Owing  to  the nature  of  the  challenges 
facing  WMPs, 
the  number  of 
stakeholders involved in each SIP will 
likely  be  limited  to  the  waste  sector 
and competent authorities. 

programming 

 
Indicative area 

Requirements 

Current challenge 

Added value of SIPs 

Scale needed 

Water 
management plans) 

(River 

basin 

set 
to 

out 
RBMPs 
measures 
be 
implemented  over  six-
year  cycles  aimed  at 
improving  the  status  of 
waterbodies. 
RBMPs 
link  with  other  key 
policy  areas  such  as 
land  use, 
agriculture, 
tourism, 
biodiversity, 
recreation 
flood 
protection. 

and 

and 

tackle 

varied 

to 
from 
a 

economic 
administrative 
significantly 
measures 
between 
regions  and  Member 
States.  One  observation  made  is 
that regional  waste  management  is 
often overlooked at EU level as the 
focus is on waste management at a 
national level.  
A 
total  of  128  RBMPs  are 
designated in the EU (of which 49 
international).  In  2015,  76 
are 
reported  as  not 
RBMPs  were 
meeting their targets. 
Two thirds of the RBMPs reported 
that  the  basic  measures  are  not 
sufficient 
diffuse 
agriculture, 
pollution 
indicating 
take 
supplementary measures. 
the 
Around 
three  quarters  of 
basic 
indicated 
RBMPs 
measures  are  not  sufficient 
to 
address  water  flow  regulation  and 
alterations, 
morphological 
take 
a 
indicating 
supplementary measures.  
The  type  of  basic  measures  more 
often 
reported  as  significantly 
delayed  are  those  related  to  water 
RBMPs) 
abstraction 
(31 
predominantly 
to 
funding/financial obstacles. 
In  2012,  the  total,  European  wide 
costs  for  the  implementation  of 
only WFD dependent measures for 
the  first  planning  cycle  are  lying 

need 

need 

that 

due 

to 

to 

99 

Progress  on  the  first  implementation 
phase  indicates  that  there  is  still  a 
large investment gap. In addition, SIPs 
help  to  support  the  measures  that  are 
not yet started, and to some extent, the 
on-going  ones.  There  is  a  need  for 
supplementary  measures  to  address 
agriculture diffuse pollution, as well as 
flow and morphological alterations. 
Delays 
abstraction 
concerning 
measures need to be addressed, mostly 
through  additional  funding.  There  has 
been  an  overall  low  use  of  ESIF  to 
implement  measures.  SIPs  assist  in 
facilitating access to these funds. 

With  76  RBMPs  not  meeting  their 
targets  in  2015,  the  scale  of  SIPs 
required  to  support  their  development 
might  be,  at  the  very  least,  one  per 
Member State. Additional SIPs should 
target  a  selection  of 
international 
RBMPs. 

 
 
 
Indicative area 

Requirements 

Current challenge 

Added value of SIPs 

Scale needed 

Climate action 

and 

To  implement  the  Paris 
agreement 
the 
resilient  Energy  Union, 
plans, 
and 
strategies 
actions are needed at all 
levels.  

facing 

reported 

between 111 billion Euros and 444 
billion Euros. In 2015, at EU level, 
basic 
23% 
of  WFD-specific 
as 
measures  were 
completed, 66% on-going and 11% 
not  started.  The  figures  reported 
for  supplementary  measures  were 
29% completed, 54% on-going and 
17% not started.  
Climate  change  adaptation  plans 
have  been  developed  at  national 
level  across  Member  States  (with 
in 
25  strategies  and  15  plans 
place).  Challenges 
the 
implementation  of  these  strategies 
and  plans 
low  public 
include 
political 
and 
awareness 
commitment,  need  for  improved 
best 
understanding 
practice 
data, 
particularly  at  a  regional  level), 
and 
needs.  
Development  of  National  Energy 
and  Climate  Plans  for  2021-2030 
are  underway  with  most  Member 
States in the initial planning phase 
(and just 7 at the advanced stage of 
development). A key challenge for 
climate 
is 
the 
expected 
investment  needs  with  the  average 
EU28 
additional 
investments  for  the  2030  climate 
and  energy  programme  estimated 
at  €38  billion  (between  2011-30). 
More  than  half  of  the  investments 
are  needed  in  the  residential  and 

change  mitigation 
to  be  meeting 

(including 
and 

investment 

examples 

annual 

100 

Ensuring  efficient  implementation  of 
climate  mitigation  and  adaptation 
plans  at  a  larger  territorial  scale  by 
coordinating 
and 
the 
leveraging  substantial  financing  from 
other sources. . 

actions 

.Many  regions  could  benefit  from 
having  climate  action  coordinated 
through  SIPs.  Based  on  the  current 
level  of  applications  for  SIPs  for 
climate  mitigation  and  adaptation  at 
least  doubling  the  number  of  SIPs 
would be appropriate. 

 
 
Indicative area 

Requirements 

Current challenge 

Added value of SIPs 

Scale needed 

tertiary sectors. 

SIPs could also play a similar role in more policy areas than the four that are targeted under the current programme.  Similar to the above table 
the  needed  scale  of  SIPs  for  new  indicative  areas  is  assessed  in  view  of  the  identified  challenges.    This  analysis  shows  that  in  view  of  the 
challenges related to the new indicative areas around 70 additional SIPs would be needed.  

Indicative area 

Requirements 

Current challenge 

Added value of SIPs 

Scale needed 

Table 4-3: New indicative areas 

Emission 
(NEC directive) 

reductions 

required 

MS  are 
to 
develop  National  Air 
Control 
Pollution 
Programmes  and  report 
them by April 2019 

Marine (MCPs) 

Marine 
conservation 
plans  are  required  for 
established 
the 
European 
marine 
regions and sub-regions 

Projected  emissions  based  on  policies  and 
measures  currently  in  place  indicate  that  18 
Member States are not on track towards meeting 
their  reduction  commitments  set  for  2020  for 
NOx,  NH3,  NMVOCs,  SO2  and/or  PM2.5. 
Similarly, 22 countries are not on track for one or 
more  of  their  2030  commitments.  For  some 
Member  States,  the  exceedance  of  emission 
ceilings 
to  advanced  monitoring 
techniques  which  have  improved  projections 
since  current  policies  and  measures  were 
adopted. 

is  due 

The Commission aims to set a Clean Air Forum 
to work closely with stakeholders to identify best 
practices  and  to  support  with  monitoring  and 
reporting. 

There  is  a  significant  overlap  between  the  NEC 
Directive  and  the  Air  Quality  Directive  and 
coordination  between  their  implementation  is 
required. 

that  monitoring 

are 
Ensuring 
compatible 
is 
between  Member 
challenging  (a  recent  assessment  found  that  4 
Member  States  had  implemented  an  inadequate 
framework,  and  13  a  partially 
monitoring 

approaches 
States 

101 

monitoring 

SIPs  could  be  used  as  a  strategic 
tool to support the development of 
NAPCPs – relating to projections, 
the 
and 
development 
implementation  of  policies  and 
measures, 
and 
reporting  across  all  Member 
States.  In  addition,  SIPs  could  be 
used 
to  enhance  coordination 
between  policies  and  measures 
the  NEC 
under 
developed 
Directive  and  the  Air  Quality 
Directive.  

SIPs  could  be  used  as  a  strategic 
tool to support the development of 
monitoring 
compatible 
programmes  and  ensure  adequate 
coverage  of  all  regions.  SIPs 

within 

selection 

There are various components 
within  the  development  of  a 
NAPCP;  support  could  be 
targeted 
provided 
to 
components 
the 
NAPCP  (e.g.  support  with 
projections, 
and 
adoption  of  policies  and 
measures,  or  monitoring  and 
reporting),  or  at  a  whole 
programme  level.  SIPs  would 
through  better 
add  value 
between 
coordination 
stakeholders 
with 
measures  implemented  under 
the AQD. At the very least, 22 
SIPs  are  needed  to  support 
with  the  NAPCPs  in  those 
facing 
States 
Member 
challenges.  

and 

to 

support 

A  minimum  of  4  SIPs  are 
needed 
those 
coastal  Member  States  with 
inadequate  monitoring  plans. 
A  further  13  SIPs  would  add 

 
 
Indicative area 

Requirements 

Current challenge 

Added value of SIPs 

Scale needed 

based  on  geographical 
and 
environmental 
criteria in the 23 coastal 
States. 
Member 
Reviewed 
6 
years.  

every 

Member  States 
are 
required  to  establish  a 
action 
national 
programme 
that 
suite  of 
contains  a 
applying 
measures 
within 
designated 
vulnerable  zones  or  to 
territory. 
the  whole 
Member  States  may 
implement 
choose 
requirements 
the 
overall 
an 
through 
regulation 
of 
fertilisation  or  via  an 
integrated approach (i.e. 
via 
joint 
implementation  with 
the  Water  Framework 
Directive 
the 
Common  Agricultural 
Policy). 

or 

to 

complete 
framework).  Further  coordination 
among  Member  States  at  regional  and  sub-
regional level is needed to deliver consistent and 
comparable data and improve the spatial scope of 
monitoring  programmes.  This  could  potentially 
reduce  costs,  through  more  effective  monitoring 
across disciplines and among Member States. 

Cooperation  between  Member  States  is  also 
needed to improve cross-boundary issues. 

Action  plans  are  adopted  at  a  national  level  but 
implemented  at a  regional/ local  level  according 
to  the  different  soil  and  climate  zones  –  or 
administrative organisation of the Member State. 
Action  plans  include  measures  to  reduce  or 
prevent pollution from agricultural sources, such 
as:  periods  when  mineral  and  organic  fertilisers 
application  is  prohibited,  minimum  required 
storage  capacity for  livestock  manure,  limitation 
of 
land 
land  application  of  fertilisers,  and 
application near waters and on slopes. 

improvements 

Despite  driving 
in  nitrates 
concentrations  and  eutrophication  levels,  there 
remain 'hotspots' where nitrate pollution remains 
a  challenge  (namely  in  relation  to  intensive 
livestock  or  horticultural  production,  and  to  soil 
and  geological 
  A  particular 
formations). 
challenge is the eutrophication of the Baltic  Sea 
(owing  mainly 
  agriculture  
practices). 

intensive 

to 

Member  State  are  required  to  report  every  4 
years  on  the  status  of  nitrate  levels  and  the 
Commission  closely  monitors  the  content  and 
application  of  the  action  programmes.  However, 
very 
the 
effectiveness  of  programmes  is  reported  by 

information 

concerning 

little 

102 

Nitrate 
Programmes 

Action 

value targeting those Member 
States  with  partially  complete 
monitoring plans. 

could  be  further  used  to  assist 
Member States in accessing funds 
to  support 
implementation  of 
strategic  measures  where  needed. 
Finally,  SIPs may  be  used for  the 
to 
development  of  a  platform 
support 
between 
neighbouring Member States.   

cooperation 

in 

to 

revise 

support 

strategic 

Ongoing 
is 
needed  for  Member  States  with 
hotspots  for  nitrate  pollution  to 
address  the  challenges  they  face. 
Where  an  action  programme  is 
deemed inadequate, SIPs could be 
the 
used 
action 
(amend  measures 
programme 
the  programme; 
included 
implementation 
strengthen 
through 
capacity 
enhanced 
building  for  farmers  and  land 
out 
managers 
the 
carrying 
measures;  strengthen 
integrated 
the 
implementation 
programme, where relevant). SIPs 
could  also  be  used  to  strengthen 
the  monitoring  and 
reporting 
frameworks  at  national  level  to 
the 
to 
help  with 
to 
Commission; 
particularly 
support  with  reporting  on 
the 
effectiveness of programmes.   

reporting 

of 

in 

SIPs  are  needed  at  a  national 
level;  although  the  extent  of 
interaction at local or regional 
level  will  vary  considerably 
depending  on  the  number  of 
zones 
a 
established 
latest 
Member  State.  The 
Member State reporting is due 
imminently  and  should  be 
used  to  inform  the  scale  of 
action  needed  –  based  on  the 
results 
the 
Environmental 
Implementation  Review,  SIPs 
are  needed  at  the  very  least 
for  Member  States 
the 
Baltic regions. 

from 

in 

 
 
Indicative area 

Requirements 

Current challenge 

Added value of SIPs 

Scale needed 

Member States at the time of the latest reporting 
(2008-2011;  as  reported  by  the  Commission  in 
2013). 

States 

The  Directive  requires 
Member 
to 
prepare  and  publish, 
every  5  years,  noise 
noise 
maps 
and 
action 
management 
for: 
plans 
with 
agglomerations 
100,000 
more 
than 
inhabitants; 
major 
roads;  major  railways; 
and major airports.  

Noise (NAPs) 

4.6.  Conclusions 

A total of over 5,000 plans are adopted across the 
EU.  Implementation  challenges  vary,  in  sum: 
insufficient guidance and support in the obtaining 
of  data  resulting  in  low  levels  of  good  quality 
data  (experience  in  23  Member  States);  low 
authorities 
between 
coordination 
responsible 
and 
the 
for 
implementation  of  noise  action  plans  leading  to 
significant  delays.  (experience  in  9  Member 
States);  inadequate  human  resources  in  terms  of 
trained  experts 
(17  Member  States);  and 
insufficient  financial  resources  (15  Member 
States).   

development 

different 

the 

framework 

SIPs  could  be  used  to  assist  the 
development  of  sufficient  noise 
mapping  tools  and  to  support  the 
access  to  funds  required  for  that. 
The added value provided by SIPs 
would  be 
it 
provides  to  local  authorities  in 
improving 
coordination 
the 
between  different  stakeholders, 
facilitating  discussions  to  access 
financial 
and 
developing  an  expertise  in  noise 
action 
through 
planning 
networking  and  sharing  of  best 
practices. 

resources, 

A  minimum  of  23  SIPs  are 
needed  to  support  Member 
States  with  noise  mapping 
(each  SIP  would  need  to  take 
a multi-plan approach as noise 
plans  are  adopted  at  local 
level).  The  23  SIPs  would 
to  provide  a 
also  need 
enhance 
framework 
communication 
between 
stakeholders,  secure  access  to 
funding,  and  ensure  adequate 
training  among  personnel  in 
competent authorities in noise 
action planning. 

to 

From the above, it becomes evident that SIPs have already managed to mobilize resources to achieve the LIFE Programme’s objectives and to 
address the identified challenges. The table also suggest that, in order to address all the identified challenges through the generation of a critical 
mass of projects, allocations to SIPs should be scaled up by at least four-fold. 

. 

103 

 
ANNEX 5:  DESCRIPTION  OF  THE  PRESENT  LIFE  PROGRAMME  AND 
THE BUSINESS AS USUAL (BAU) SCENARIO 

The baseline scenario for this report is 'business as usual' based on a continuation of the existing 
LIFE programme.  The main body of this report presents the net expected impact of deviations 
from  this  baseline.  The  purpose  of  this  annex  is  to  describe  the  existing  programme  and  to 
identify  the  key  environmental,  economic  and  social  outcomes  and  impacts  of  the  LIFE 
programme according to this business as usual (BAU) scenario. 

5.1.  Overview of the LIFE Programme since 1992 

The LIFE Programme is the EU’s funding instrument for environment and climate action. Since 
1992, there have been four complete phases of the LIFE Programme: LIFE I (1992-1995), LIFE 
II(1996-1999),  LIFE  III  (2000-2006),  and  LIFE+  (2007-2013).  The  current  LIFE  Programme 
began in 2014 and will run up until 2020.  

During  the  first  four  phases  (1992-2013),  LIFE  co-financed  3954  projects  across  the  EU, 
contributing  approximately  €3.1  billion  to  the  protection  of  the  environment.114    Under  the 
present  programme  to  date,  LIFE  has  co-financed  more  than  400  projects  addressing 
environment-  and  climate-related  issues.  A  number  of  audit  reports  and  evaluations  have 
highlighted  the  strengths  and  weaknesses  of  past  phases.  Some  examples  of  the  achievements 
during the first four phases of LIFE include: improved conservation and restoration of some 4.7 
million  hectares  of  land;  higher  air  quality  for  some  12  million  people;  waste  prevention  of 
around 300,000 tonnes; and annual CO2 emissions reduced by 1.13 million tonnes.115  

The  LIFE  programme  has  evolved  through  its  phases  to  reflect  the  lessons  drawn  from  its 
implementation and to adapt to the ever-changing policy environment. One of the main lessons 
from the two decades of LIFE programmes is that for the environment (and for climate action), 
specific  approaches  are  required  which  can  tackle  the  uneven  integration  of  objectives  into 
Member  States’  practices,  the  uneven  and  inadequate  implementation  of  relevant  legislation  in 
Member States, and the insufficient dissemination of information about, and promotion of, policy 
goals. LIFE has consistently focussed on achieving a substantial impact, close synergies with EU 
other programmes and a high EU added value.  

5.2.  LIFE 2014 – 2020 

5.2.1.  Programme scope and structure 

The LIFE Programme has the following general objectives:  

(a)  to  contribute  to  the  shift  towards  a  resource-efficient,  low-  carbon  and  climate-  resilient 
economy, to the protection and improvement of the quality of the environment and to halting 
and  reversing  biodiversity  loss,  including  the  support  of  the  Natura  2000  network  and 
tackling the degradation of ecosystems;  

(b)  to  improve  the  development,  implementation  and  enforcement  of  Union  environmental  and 
climate policy and legislation, and to act as a catalyst for,  and promote, the integration and 
mainstreaming of environmental and climate objectives into other Union policies and public 
and private sector practice, including by increasing the public and private sector's capacity;  

(c)  to  support  better  environmental  and  climate  governance  at  all  levels,  including  better 

involvement of civil society, NGOs and local actors;   

(d)  to support the implementation of the 7th Environment Action Programme. 

114    

115  

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/about/index.htm. 

SEC(2011) 1541, p3. Point 2: Current structure and performance of LIFE 

104 

 
                                                      
In pursuing those objectives, the LIFE Programme aims to contribute to sustainable development 
and to the achievement of the objectives and targets of the Europe 2020 Strategy and of relevant 
Union environment and climate strategies and plans. 

Figure 5-1: The intervention logic of the current LIFE Programme 

Source: European Commission (2017)116 

116  

Report  on 
(LIFE){COM(2017)642final. SWD(2017)356final. 

the  Mid-term  Evaluation  of 

the  Programme  for  Environment  and  Climate  Action 

105 

 
                                                      
LIFE is meant to act as a catalyst, providing leverage that promotes changes in the development 
and implementation of environmental and climate policies, among others by offering a platform 
for exchanging best practices and knowledge-sharing.  

The LIFE programme is comprised of two sub-programmes, one for Environment and a second 
for Climate Change.  

The Climate Action subprogramme, with €864 million (25% of the total budget), targets climate 
change  mitigation,  climate  change  adaptation,  and  Climate  Governance  and  Information.  The 
Environment  sub-programme,  with  €2593  million  (75%  of  the  total  budget)  targets  the  priority 
areas  of  Environment  and  Resource  Efficiency,  Nature  and  Biodiversity,  and  Environmental 
Governance  and  Information;  under  the  Environment  programme,  thematic  priorities  are 
established for each priority area in an  annex to the Regulation, and for each thematic priority, 
project  topics  (which  are  favoured  in  the  project  selection  process)  are  established  through  a 
delegated act. 

The Intervention logic of the present LIFE programme is illustrated in Figure 5-1 

The two sub-programmes of LIFE use the same delivery mechanisms to mobilise LIFE funding. 
These delivery mechanisms are described in Table 5-2. 

Table 5-2: Types of projects and activities by delivery mechanism and their key features 

Type of project 

Key features 

Action grants 

Pilot, 
demonstration, best 
practice, 
and 
information, 
awareness 
dissemination 
projects 
('traditional' 
projects) 

and 

Strategic 
Integrated  Projects 
(IPs, also known as 
SIPs) 

Technical 
assistance (TAs) 

  Projects supporting pilot and demonstration actions on the ground   
  Best practice projects (nature and biodiversity only), in which at least 
25% of the budget within each project must be dedicated to concrete 
conservation actions. 
Information and governance projects 

 
  Favours projects which apply results from Horizon 2020 and 

European Innovation Partnerships (EIPs). 

  All projects must show EU added value, including replicability 
  Projects are proposed and selected via an open, bottom-up delivery 
mechanism, with earmarking only for the nature and biodiversity 
priority area (55% from 2014 to 2017 and 60.5% since 2018). 

  Designed to support Member State implementation of key 

environmental or climate plans and strategies (design and action on 
the ground). 

  Limited to four indicative areas in the environment sub-programme 

(relating to specified environmental policies). 

  Capped: Maximum of 30% of the annual budget allocated to action 

 

grants. 
Indicatively 3 per MS, one of which should be under the Climate 
Action Subprogramme 

  Fast track application process 
 
  Maximum of 1% of the annual budget allocated to IPs may be made 

 Provides technical assistance to prepare a future IP proposal. 

available to technical assistance projects (€100,000/ project). 

Capacity  building 
(CAP projects) 

Preparatory 
projects 

(PREP 

  Fast track application process with no competition 
  Projects to enable eligible Member States to participate more 

effectively in the LIFE programme.  

  Targeted support for policy needs identified annually by the 

Commission. 

106 

 
 
Type of project 

Key features 

projects) 

  Maximum of 1% of the annual budget allocated to action grants for 

the period 2014-2017.  

Operating grants 

Annual  operating 
grants/  Framework 
partnership 
agreements 
NGOs 

for 

  Annual/ multi-annual support for operational and administrative costs 
for non-profit making entities primarily active in the development, 
implementation and enforcement of Union environmental and climate 
policy and legislation. 

Financial instruments 

Private Finance for 
Energy  Efficiency 
(PF4EE) 

Natural 
Capital 
Financing  Facility 
(NCFF) 

  Risk sharing facility for private sector financial institutions; expert 

support for financial intermediaries (managed indirectly by the EIB). 

  Projects supported: energy efficiency. 

  Debt and equity instrument - supports upfront investment and 

operating costs (managed indirectly by the European Investment 
Bank (EIB). 

  Projects supported: payments for ecosystem services (PES); green 
infrastructure; biodiversity offsets; innovative pro biodiversity and 
adaptation investments. 

Public procurement contracts 

Public 
procurement 

  Procurement of services linked to implementing policies (includes: 

TA, research and policy appraisal and evaluation and environmental 
monitoring and funding of DG ENV mission costs). 

Support 
expenditure (ATA) 

  Expenditure relating to preparatory, monitoring, control, audit, 
communication and evaluation activities. May also include the 
organisation of seminars and workshops, dissemination of project 
details or facilitating information exchange.  

5.2.2.  LIFE Programme Uptake between 2014 and 2016 

A total of 344 projects were awarded funding under the LIFE budget programme between 2014 
and  2016.  Although  the  main  delivery  mechanism  to  award  this  funding  is  the  'traditional' 
standard action grant; as illustrated below, both in terms of the number of projects awarded and 
the volume of EU contribution, the integrated projects have played a substantial role in terms of 
mobilisation of funding for environmental and climate objectives (see the table below). 

107 

 
Table 5-3: Overview of LIFE integrated projects and complementary sources of financing (2014-2016) 

The number of SIPs supported is expected to increase in line with their intended use for the 2014-
2020 programming period. 

Capacity  building  projects  and  preparatory  projects  account  for  the  smallest  share  in  terms  of 
both  budgetary  and  project  numbers  behind  support  for  governance  and  information  and 
operating grants. 

Figure 5-4: EU28 overview of LIFE expenditure and number of projects supported by delivery mechanism 
(2014-2016) 

Source: LIFE Projects Database 

In the same period, the first phase of financial instruments was underway (2014-2017). 
The  total  planned  EU  allocation  for  this  first  phase  was  €30  million  for  the  NCFF; 
however,  uptake  was slow  initially.  Following  increased  efforts to  expand  the  pipeline, 
there were three projects signed by mid-March 2018, and more projects in  the pipeline 
(see www.eib.org/ncff). Going forwards, the NCFF is intending to execute between 3 to 
4 projects a year. For the PF4EE, 4 operations were signed off at the end of 2016 with 
€14.1  million  committed  from  the  LIFE  budget  programme  (with  a  total  €80  million 
planned for the first phase). The PF4EE was intending to execute 10 projects in the first 
phase of financial instruments under LIFE. 

By project theme, the greatest number of projects is awarded to biodiversity and nature, followed 
by resource efficiency and waste. The smallest number of projects are awarded to air quality and 

108 

 
 
 
emissions; while for all other environmental and climate themes, the number of projects awarded 
is fairly similar. Note that project themes are reported by the LIFE Projects Database and 
do not correlate exclusively to the corresponding thematic priority. 

Within  'traditional'  standard  action  grants  the  most  significant  sub-programme  is  Environment 
(relating primarily to environment across multiple themes, and to a lesser extent nature which is 
mainly  supporting  projects  relating  to  biodiversity  and  nature).  Climate  change  adaptation  and 
mitigation comprise a much smaller share of the total 'traditional' standard action grants awarded 
and were typically found to contribute to fewer multi-objective projects. 

SIPs  are  contributing  to  air  quality  and  emission  reduction,  climate  action,  nature,  water  and 
waste (including one which considers waste and the circular economy). This is aligned with the 
indicative areas set by the LIFE Regulation.  

Operating grants were found to be supporting a higher share of climate change projects compared 
to other delivery mechanisms (almost 50%). 

Financial instruments are targeted to energy efficiency and natural capital (including biodiversity, 
nature and climate change adaptation projects). 

Figure 5-5: EU28 overview of awarded projects by theme and delivery mechanism (2014-2016) 

Source: LIFE Projects Database 

109 

 
 
Figure 5-6: EU28 overview of awarded 'traditional' standard action grants by sub-programme and according to 
themes (2014-2016) 

Source: LIFE Projects Database 

Concerning beneficiary type, 'traditional' standard action grants are awarded to a relatively even 
split  of  beneficiary  groupings  (with  competent  authorities,  NGOs,  private  sector,  and  research 
accounting  for  ~25%,  respectively).  It  is  interesting  to  observe  that  private  sector  and  research 
bodies  are  key  beneficiary  groupings.    Integrated  projects  are  awarded  primarily  to  competent 
authorities (~80%); together with NGOs (~15%) and research bodies (~5%). As to be expected, 
NGOs  are  the  sole  beneficiary  awarded  operating  grants.  They  are  also  awarded  a  significant 
share of preparatory projects and governance and information projects (the latter via 'traditional' 
standard  action  grants);  again,  as  these  delivery  mechanisms  support  capacity  building  type 
activities, it is to be expected that NGOs will form a key beneficiary. 

The slow uptake of financial instruments in their first phase makes it difficult to determine any 
trend in beneficiary groupings; however, the NCFF has thus far received applications led mainly 
NGO and non-profits while the PF4EE has received applications led by the private sector. 

110 

 
 
 
Figure 5-7:  EU28 overview of LIFE number of projects awarded by type of beneficiary (2014-2016) 

Note: Blue denotes competent authorities; orange, NGOs; yellow, research bodies; and 
green, private sector. 

Source: LIFE Projects Database 

According to the mid-term evaluation, from 2014 to 2016, more than a third of the financed LIFE 
projects have a co-ordinating beneficiary situated in Spain and Italy, moreover, no projects were 
awarded  to  Luxembourg.  The  share  of  project  proposals  received  from  beneficiaries  from  Italy 
and Spain is even higher and the success rate in these countries is below average.  However, the 
strong  concentration  of  project  proposals  from  two  Member  States  and  the  absence  of  project 
proposals  from  beneficiaries  in  other  Member  States  indicate  that  the  accessibility  to  the  LIFE 
Programme is unequal.  

There is evidence that a few Member States (Poland, Portugal and Greece) which previously had 
a below average adsorption rate of LIFE funding have now increased their rate to be above the 
EU average, which is indicative of a trend towards improved territorial balance between Member 
States. 

111 

 
 
 
Figure 5-8: EU28 overview of LIFE expenditure and number of projects supported by Member State (2014-
2016) 

Note: No projects awarded to Luxembourg between 2014 and 2016 

Source: LIFE Projects Database 

The uptake of financial instruments is limited to a handful of Member States owing to the 
slow uptake. 

5.2.3.  Management of the Programme 

The  European  Commission  (DG  Environment  and  DG  Climate  Action)  is  responsible  for  the 
Programme.  On  the  operational  level,  most  of  the  LIFE  programme  is  directly  managed  and 
implemented  by  the  Executive  Agency  for  Small  and  Medium-sized  Enterprises  (EASME).  At 
the strategic level, DG Environment and DG CLIMA both remain involved in the management of 
each  respective  sub-component117.  Specifically,  DG  Environment  and  DG  CLIMA  are 
responsible for the following activities: 

  Preparing the multi-annual work programme; 

  Managing the LIFE committee; 

  Supervision of EASME for each sub-component;  

  Defining eligibility, selection and award criteria for implementation of calls; 

  Definition  of  activities  necessary  to  ensure  smooth  and  effective  integration  of  the 

programme results into policy (programme-policy integration); 

  Definition of communication strategy; 

  Reporting on implementation to the Council and to the EP; and, 

  Policy development based on project results. 

The main activities of EASME for both sub-programmes include: 

 

Implementation  of  calls,  including  drafting  terms  of  reference,  evaluating  proposals, 
awarding grants and analysis of final reports; 

  Ex-post monitoring, including financial ex-post audit and technical ex-post monitoring; 

117 EASME Financial Statement (2013) 

112 

 
 
                                                      
 

Implementation of communication activities; 

  Follow up of audits; and, 

  Development and maintenance of IT applications. 

External  organisations  are  also  contracted  to  assist  the  Commission  and  EASME  with  the 
delivery  of  some  of  the  programmes’  activities,  including  project  selection,  monitoring  and 
communication.  

The European Investment Bank (EIB) manages the two financial instruments (PF4EE and NCFF) 
associated with the programme. 

The  decision  to  outsource  programme  management  to  EASME  was  taken  on  the  following 
grounds118: 

1.  To  allow  the  Commission  to  focus  on  policy  making  in  view  of  the  development, 
implementation  and  enforcement  of  Union  environmental  and  climate  policy  and 
legislation and to catalyse and promote integration and mainstreaming of environmental 
and climate objectives into other Union policies and practices. 

2.  Considering  the  high  degree  of  complementarity  across  programmes,  delegation  to 
EASME facilitates the practical development  of synergy and coordination between  the 
sub-programme for Environment and the one for Climate Action and with Horizon 2020, 
as envisaged by the Life Regulation. 

3.  Since EASME is focused exclusively on project management rather than a wider range 
of  activities  this  increases  the  potential  for  identification  of  efficiency  gains  and 
simplification opportunities.   

Public  procurement  is  most  managed  by  DGs  ENV  and  CLIMA  directly  and  is  found  to  add 
substantial value to LIFE. The procurement includes: 

 

 

 

 

 

studies producing evidence for policy making incl. Impact Assessments 

activities directly supporting the implementation of legislation and policy instruments 

communication/ dissemination activity (including platforms, helpdesks, secretariats) 

ex-post evaluation or REFIT  

translation interpretation Technology/ IT assistance. 

With respect to the overall management structure, the MTE found that the overall costs for the 
management  of  the  LIFE  programme  were  relatively  low,  for  example  they  were  perceived  to 
have  decreased  compared  to  previous  Programme  periods.    The  MTE  estimated  that  the  total 
economic cost for EASME and NEEMO of implementing and running the whole programme for 
the  period  2014-2017  was  €82m  (3.6%  of  the  managed  budget  for  the  period  of  €2.3bn),  with 
€8.2m savings having been realised through outsourcing specific activities to EASME.  

Currently,  according  to  the  EASME  Annual  Work  Program  for  2017,  the  operating  budget  for 
EASME is €4.6m, with an additional €0.71 budget for management and administrative support, 
making  a  total  budget  of  €5.3m.  This  figure  covers  staff  related  costs  (Title  1),  overhead  costs 
(Title 2) and programme support expenditure/ other costs (Title 3) budget for LIFE. This does not 
include EC costs. 

5.2.4.  Monitoring of the Programme 
Developed in 2016, the LIFE Project Indicators Database119 contains information concerning all 
LIFE projects financed by grants starting in 2015, as well as certain projects from the 2007-2013 

118 EASME Financial Statement (2013) 

113 

 
                                                      
programme.    The  contents  of  this  database  are  based  on  self-reporting  from  the  project 
beneficiaries,  which  is  checked  by  the  LIFE  programme  monitors  and  then  validate  by  the 
operational desk officer in EASME. Although aggregated data should be treated with caution due 
to  differences  in  assumptions,  they  can  be  used  in  some  cases  to  produce  programme  impact 
indicators.  Programme output indicators are derived from financial reporting. 

5.3.  Methodology for Assessing the Impact of LIFE under the Business as Usual 
Scenario 

The assessment of the impact of LIFE under the business as usual scenario is based on the 
following assumptions: 

  Scale and scope of mechanisms: 

o  The volume of EU expenditure and number of awarded projects are similar to 

those from the 2014-2016 period. (It should be noted that SIPs, capacity building 
projects and financial instruments were newly introduced in the current 
programming period so the scale at which they are used between 2014 and 2016 
is limited compared to their intended use.)  
'traditional'  standard  action  grants:  continue  to  be  the  prevalent  delivery 
mechanism. 

o 

o  Integrated  projects  (strategic  integrated  projects,  SIPs):  continue  to  be  the 
second  most  significant  delivery  mechanism  in  terms  of  budgetary  volume; 
supporting comparatively few projects in relation to 'traditional' standard action 
grants but the scale of their use will be greater as they become more established. 
o  Preparatory projects: continue to support targeted needs, representing a minor 

share of LIFE projects and spending. 

o  Governance  and  information  activities:  continue  to  play  supporting  role 

(accounting for ~10% of projects in terms of numbers and spend). 

o  Capacity  building  projects:  continue  to  support  targeted  Member  States, 

representing a minor share of LIFE projects and spending120.  

o  Operating  grants:  continue  to  play  supporting  role  (accounting  for  ~10%  of 

projects in terms of numbers and spend). 

o  Financial instruments: will become a more prominent delivery mechanism in 

their second phase, albeit still playing a supporting role.  

  Average EU contribution per project according to the various delivery mechanisms: 

o 

'traditional' standard action grants: €2.5 million (and €1.6 million for governance 
and information activities within this delivery mechanism) 
Integrated projects (strategic integrated projects, SIPs): €10.2 million 

o 
o  Preparatory projects: 0.5 million 
o  Capacity building projects: €0.7 million 

119  

120  

life.idom.com 

Based  on  current  progress,  of  the  14  Member  States  accessing  the  capacity  building  projects,  3  reported 
above EU average adsorption rates for 2014-2016 (excluding outliers from this average). This is indicative of 
a ~1/5 success rate. Assuming that capacity building projects continue to be used in the second half of the 
programming  period  with  a  similar  rate  of  success,  the  number  of  Member  States  with  a  below  average 
adsorption rate would reduce by ~1/5 per half a programming period (so that 9 Member States are eligible at 
the beginning of 2020). The amount of EU expenditure which would be allocated for eligible Member States 
is based on the current average cost of a capacity building project (~€170,000 and the maximum cost allowed 
by the Regulation for second half of the current programming period (€750,000 per Member State). 

114 

 
                                                                                                                                                              
o  Operating grants: €2.9 million 
o  Financial instruments: insufficient uptake to generate an average 

  Project themes: 

o 

'traditional'  standard  action  grants:  (including  governance  and  information 
activities):  continue  to  be  awarded  across  all  thematic  priorities,  contributing  to 
multiple priorities where relevant. A larger share of projects will be awarded under 
the  Environment  and  Nature  sub-programmes  (54%  and  28%,  respectively) 
compared  to  climate  change  (10%  and  9%  for  adaptation  and  mitigation, 
respectively).  

o  Integrated projects (strategic integrated projects, SIPs): continue to target waste, 

water, nature, air and climate action. 

o  Preparatory projects: continue to support a range of thematic priorities, on a needs 

basis.  

o  Capacity building projects: continue to support untargeted to thematic priorities. 

o  Operating  grants:  continue  to  support  a  range  of  thematic  priorities  with  an  even 

split between the environment and climate change sub-programmes. 

o  Financial  instruments:  continue  to  target  energy  efficiency  and  natural  capital 

(including biodiversity, nature and climate change adaptation). 

  Beneficiary type per project according to the various delivery mechanisms: 

o 

'traditional'  standard  action  grants:  continue  to  be  awarded  to  an  even  mix  of 
beneficiary  groupings  (competent  authorities,  NGOs,  private  sector,  and  research. 
Within  'traditional'  standard  action  grants,  governance  and  information  activities 
continue  to  support  NGOs  primarily,  and  private  sector,  competent  authorities  and 
research bodies to a lesser extent. 

o  Integrated  projects  (strategic  integrated  projects,  SIPs):  continue  to  be 
primarily  awarded  to  competent  authorities,  with  support  from  NGOs  and 
research bodies. 

o  Preparatory  projects:  continue  to  support  NGOs  primarily,  and  competent 

authorities and research bodies to a lesser extent. 

o  Capacity building projects: continue to support competent authorities. 

o  Operating grants: continue to support NGOs, only. 

o  Financial instruments: the NCFF will continue to support projects led mainly 
NGO and non-profits while the PF4EE will continue to support projects mainly 
led by the private sector. 

  The territorial balance would be similar to that occurring during the period 2014 to 2016 

with a minimum of 6 to 8 projects per year per Member State  

The impact of the individual projects was based on data available in the LIFE Indicator Database 
for  a  selected  number  of  indicators  and  projects  during  2014  and  2015.    (Later  data  was  not 
broadly available at the time of conducting this analysis.)    Project details supported by financial 
instruments  under  the  LIFE  budget  programme  are  gathered  from  the  MTE  and  other  sources. 
Procurement  contracts  are  not  considered  in  the  analysis  as  they  are  not  expected  to  have  a 
significant  environmental,  economic  or  social  impact.  Where  relevant,  additional  data  sources 
have been used to fill gaps or provide context.  It should be stressed that the data should not be 
treated as comprehensive for a programming period but rather indicative of main trends. 

The indicators selected for analysis are set out in the following table: 

115 

 
Table 5-9: Selected indicators from the LIFE Indicator Database used to assess 
environmental and social impacts 

Thematic priority 

Selected indicators 

Environmental impacts 

Water 

Humans influenced (1.6) 

Terrestrial extent affected by the pressure or risk addressed (2.1) 

Aquatic extent affected by the pressure or risk addressed (2.2.) 

Waste  

Humans influenced (1.6) 

Waste management (3.1) 

Resource efficiency 

Humans influenced (1.6) 

Environment 
health 

quality 

Air 
emissions 

Biodiversity 
nature 

Energy consumption (4.1.1) 

Renewable energy production (4.1.3) 

and 

Humans influenced (1.6) 

Noise level / frequency – terrestrial (5.2.1) 

and 

Humans influenced (1.6) 

Air emissions (6.1) 

and 

Humans influenced (1.6) 

Natural or semi-natural habitats (7.3) 

Wildlife species (7.4) 

Invasive alien species (7.5.1) 

Climate 
mitigation 

Climate 
adaptation 

change 

Humans influenced (1.6) 

CO2 emission savings (8.1.1) 

Other GHG emission savings (8.1.2) 

change 

Humans influenced (1.6) 

Particularly vulnerable areas (9.2) 

Infrastructures targeted for climate resilience (9.3) 

Social impacts 

Governance 

Involvement  of  non-governmental  organisations  (NGOs)  and  other 
stakeholders in project activities (10.2) 

Information 
awareness 

and 

Website (11.1) 

Capacity building 

Networking (12.1) 

Jobs 

Jobs (full time equivalent) (13) 

Note: Selected indicators are defined within the LIFE framework for Key Project- level Indicators (KPIs). Indicator 
references are included in the table in parenthesis. 

116 

 
 
Source: European Commission (2017)121 

The  main  metrics  used  for  each  of  the  indicators  include  the  intended  improvement  achieved 
during the lifetime of the project, and beyond it.  (Note that since the projects are still underway, 
only  the  'intended'  improvement  is  known;  the  actual  improvement  can  only  be  measured  after 
the end of the project.) The improvement beyond the project duration and/or area is intended to 
reflect  the  sustainability  of  the  effects,  as  well  as  the  catalytic  effect  e.g.  further  scaling  up 
activities. Another metric is the intended persons affected or influenced by the project.  This is 
also reported both for the lifetime of the project and beyond it.  

The  metrics  described  above  vary  considerably  between  projects.  There  are  several  reasons  for 
this, not least the baseline and units used can vary, along with the timeframe considered. As such, 
it is not possible to aggregate the results and impacts reported; rather the data is used to ascertain 
the ratio of intended improvements, comparing between the intended impact during the lifetime 
of a project and the period beyond it.  

On this basis, the environmental and social impacts were determined.  The economic impacts are 
derived  from  data  provided  by  EASME,  as  the  main  management  body  for  LIFE.  Aggregated 
results and impacts are included where derived as part of the MTE and details concerning their 
methodology are set out in the MTE. 

It should be noted that financial instruments are not included in the LIFE Projects Database. The 
EU  contribution  to  these  projects  should  also  be  treated  differently  to  the  action  and  operating 
grants as they comprise mainly debt and equity instruments. 

5.3.1.  Environmental Impacts of the Business as Usual Scenario 

Environmental  impacts  can  be  determined  at  project  level  where  a  direct  chain  of  causality 
between the project intervention and the impact can be established, i.e. where the outcome has a 
direct environmental impact. Difficulties also arise when determining impacts beyond a project – 
where the LIFE project is no longer the sole factor influencing the impact.  

Where the project intervention is one of several factors influencing an environmental impact, it is 
not possible to quantify the impact of the LIFE project alone, i.e. where the outcome facilitates 
another  outcome  which  may  have  a  direct  environmental  impact.  Thus,  environmental  impacts 
are more generally limited to LIFE projects supporting action on the ground and do not reflect the 
impact  arising  as  a  result  of  improved  capacity  or  project  replicability.  Where  environmental 
impacts can be monitored, difficulties then arise when aggregating these impacts at programme 
level,  as  outlined  previously.  Thus,  environmental  impacts  are  discussed  in  aggregate  form  in 
relation  to  their  broad  trends,  and  where  relevant,  illustrative  examples  are  included  to  give  an 
indication of environmental impacts. 

The following sections present the environmental impacts reported by thematic priority for the 
current programming period, i.e. where a project is explicitly addressing a thematic priority 
identified in the MAWP (which is not always the case). For each thematic priority a series of 
corresponding targets were developed for the MAWP. Progress against these targets was reported 
in the MTE and is summarised here, where available. 

5.3.1.1. 

Environmental impacts - sub-programme for Environment 

A. Air quality and emissions 

Programme Level: 

121  

Qualitative and quantitative outcome indicators for LIFE projects. 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/toolkit/pmtools/life2014_2020/monitoring.htm  

117 

 
 
                                                      
For air quality and emission reductions the MTE reported a total of 3 projects explicitly within 
this  thematic  priority;  there  are  another  22  projects  within  other  thematic  priorities  which  are 
also contributing to air quality and emission reduction. 

Progress  towards  targets  is  positive  against  many  of  the  MAWP  targets  set  for  air  quality  and 
emissions as shown below. 

Table 5-10: Progress towards air quality and emission reduction targets (2014-2015) 

Indicator  

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 

Percentage  of  ongoing  or  finalised  projects  implementing  replicable  or 
transferable  actions  in  Air  Quality  zones  where  pollutant  levels  are  above 
targets established by law: projects foresee to reach/ surpass these targets on 
project levels; 

Percentage  of  ongoing  or  finalised  projects  implementing  replicable  or 
transferable  actions  and  progressing  -  where  Air  Quality  policies  are  being 
developed  and  implemented:  projects  foresee  to  develop  new  measures, 
methods  or  techniques  that  can  serve  as  models  for  Union  policy 
development. 

Progress 
towards 
target 
(%) 

77 

38 

Target 2017 

80% 

80% 

77 

80% 

Persons covered by ongoing or finalised projects implementing replicable or 
transferable  actions  progressing  towards  reaching  or  surpassing  the  relevant 
Union air quality target. 

99 

1 million 
persons 

Source: MTE 

At  a  programme  level,  the  environmental  impacts  were  aggregated  for  selected  pollutants  –  as 
illustrated  below.  The  impacts  relate  to  improvements  in  pollutant  concentrations  and/  or 
reductions  in  emissions,  comparing  the  beginning  of  a  project  to  its  end.  Emission  reductions 
were more commonly reported than improvements to air quality; and only two projects reported 
impacts  relating  to  deposition.  NOx  and  particulate  matter  are  the  most  common  pollutants 
impacted by LIFE projects, both being key pollutants at an EU level for air quality improvements 
(NO2) and emission reductions, and particularly relevant to the transport sector. For air quality, 
the  impacts  reported  relate  to  3  of  the  12  pollutants  with  air  quality  standards.  Despite  this 
comparatively low pollutant coverage, the fact that the projects improve air quality with respect 
to NO2 and PM2.5 and PM10 is important as these are the most challenging pollutants at EU level 
with respect to air quality. 

118 

 
Table 5-11: Projected impacts concerning air quality and emissions (2014-2015) 

Source: MTE 

The sectoral split of air quality improvements and emission reductions, as reported in the MTE, 
indicates that both transport and industry (comprising energy, landfills and production) are well 
targeted  by  LIFE  projects,  supporting  a  shift  towards  a  more  sustainable  mobility  system  and 
energy/ production system. However, agriculture is less well targeted.  

Among  the  indicators  used  for  air  quality  and  emissions,  the  ones  discussed  in  the  following 
sections include the emissions to air only (indicator 6.1). 

Note that air emission environmental objectives are not among the themes targeted by FIs in the 
current programming period. 

'traditional' standard action grants: 

'traditional'  standard  action  grants  support  14  projects  contributing  to  emission  reductions  (in 
relation  to  the  following  pollutants:    VOC,  CH4,  NH3,  SO2/SOx,  particulate  matter  (PM), 
NO2/NOX).  The  grants  were  awarded  across  the  Environment  (10),  Nature  (1)  and  Climate 
Change Mitigation (CCM) (3) sub-programmes. 

The average co-financing rate for these projects was 55% (owing to a low average reported for 
those under the Environment sub-programme of 53%). The projects are awarded across 4 EU15 
Member States with a majority in Italy (8). 

Across all the sub-programme areas, the extent of improvement achieved through the project is 
larger beyond the project lifetime compared to during it (at a ratio of ~0.7:1). Whereas the extent 
of humans influenced or benefiting from the projects is the same between the two project phases. 

In  terms  of  outreach,  of  the  projects  reporting  the  environmental  impacts  described  above,  the 
following impacts were also reported: 

  Stakeholder engagement (indicator 10.2; involvement of non-governmental organisations 
(NGOs) and other stakeholders in project activities): 2 projects (all within the CCM sub-
programme). 

119 

 
 
  Website  use  (indicator  11.1):  5  projects  (within  the  Environment  and  CCM  sub-

programmes). 

  Networking  (indicator  12.1):  5  projects  (within  the  Environment  and  CCM  sub-
programmes);  the  most  common  group  of  individuals  involved  in  networking  activities 
are  professionals.  The  impact  of  networking  in  terms  of  persons  influenced  is  greater 
during the lifetime of a project compared to beyond it (by a factor of ~3:1). 

According to the projects database, 11 projects contribute to air quality and emission reductions; 
all  of  which  are  funded  under  the  Environment  sub-programme  (with  an  average  co-financing 
rate  of  54%).  Thus,  it  is  understood  that  the  lower  co-financing  rate  reported  by  the  indicators 
database  is  primarily  led  by  projects  under  the  CCM;  moreover,  it  is  observed  that  there  are  a 
number  of  projects  under  the  thematic  priority  of  air  which  are  not  reporting  impacts  to  the 
indicators database. 

For the 2021-2027 programming period therefore, it is understood that in the BAU scenario, environmental 
impacts for emission reductions will: 

  Be  achieved  mainly  by  'traditional'  standard  action  grants  with  a  strong  overlap  between  air 

emissions and climate change mitigation  

  Have a greater environmental impact beyond the lifetime of the project compared to during it; with 

the same number of persons affected/ influenced by the projects between this time 

  Projects will have a relatively low reporting rate of environmental impacts to the indicators database 
  Greater uptake in EU15 Member States; and comparatively low co-financing rates in relation to other 

thematic priorities 

  Environmental impacts will continue to be supported by a limited level of outreach activities and at a 
much lower rate compared to action on the ground with limited evidence of networking and online 
activities 

In addition, between 2014 and 2015 two  governance and information  'traditional' projects were 
supported with an average co-financing rate of 60%. 

The greatest impact is reported for the transboundary project, CLEAN HEAT  (operating grant); 
affecting ~214 million residents across 7 Member States. The project aims to reduce PM caused 
by wood burning through information awareness. Immediate improvements occur in the lifetime 
of the project; although improvements in air quality are expected to be ongoing, to a lesser extent 
(improvements are estimated at ~4:1/ ~5:2 during the lifetime of the project compared to beyond, 
depending on the Member State). 

The  accuracy  of  the  impacts  quantified  for  CLEAN  AIR  is  questionable  as  information 
awareness  relies  on  uptake  which  cannot  be  guaranteed.  Other  governance  and  information 
activities include monitoring and information exchange tools and the impacts are be quantified. 

For the 2021-2027 programming period, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for air 
quality and emissions will: 

  Be  accompanied  by  small  number  of  governance  and  information  projects,  with  high  co-financing 

rates compared to 'traditional' standard action grants supporting this thematic priority. 

Strategic integrated projects (SIPs): 

A  total  of  2  SIPs  were  signed  for  air  quality  in  2014  and  2015  (in  Poland  and  Italy)  with  an 
average  co-financing  rate  of  60%.  Neither  project  reported  environmental  impacts  to  the 
indicators  database.  In  terms  of  outreach,  no  reporting  was  provided  by  the  indicators  database 
for SIPs. 

The  project  will  be  completed  in  2023  and  while  impacts  cannot  be  quantified  a  qualitative 
discussion of the Polish SIP (providing support for the implementation of an Air Quality Plan in 
the Małopolska region) is included to give an indication of planned environmental impacts. The 

120 

 
 
main  area  of  activity  targeted  by  the  AQP,  and  the  SIP,  is  the  combustion  of  solid  fuels  in 
obsolete household boilers. Specifically, the SIP intends to facilitate: 

  A reduction of the concentration of PM10, PM2.5 and NO2/ NOX emissions with 34% for 

the PM and with 26% for the NO2/ NOX emissions. 

 

Immediate  improvements  in  the  lifetime  of  the  project;  although  improvements  in  air 
quality are expected to be ongoing, to a lesser extent (improvements are estimated at ~4:1 
during the lifetime of the project compared to beyond) 

  Number  of  persons  affected  considers  residents  in  the  region,  which  amounts  to  3.3 

million. (MTE) 

  The  project  has  secured  a  further  €798  million  for  large  scale  deployment  of  the  plan 
(sourced  primarily  from  ESIF  and  the  National  and  Regional  Fund  for  Environmental 
Protection  and  Water  Management).  Thus,  for  every  €1  from  LIFE,  the  project  has 
secured approximately €50.  

 

Improved design of air quality plans elsewhere, following the approach adopted for the 
Małopolska region 

  Number  of  persons  affected  does  not  consider  residents  in  adjacent  areas  including  the 
province  of  Silesia,  and  regions  in  Slovakia  and  the  Czech  Republic;  which  will  also 
benefit from improved air quality as a result. 

  The  project  is  expected  to  attract  private  investment;  with  additional  and  ongoing 

benefits for air quality which are not included in the current estimations 

For the 2021-2027 programming period therefore, it is understood that in the BAU scenario, environmental 
impacts for air quality will: 

  Be targeted by SIPs at a reduced scale compared to 'traditional' standard action grants 
 
Impacts will be greatest during the lifetime of the project compared to beyond it 
  Co-financing  rates  will  be  high  compared  to  other  delivery  mechanisms  targeting  air  quality,  and 
more widely in relation to other indicative areas (for which the average co-financing rate is 55%) 

Other: 

No capacity building or preparatory projects reported environmental impacts in the programming 
period reviewed. 

B.  Biodiversity and Nature 

Programme Level: 

According to the MTE, 47 projects were awarded in the area of nature and biodiversity. An 
additional 17 projects awarded were found to also be contributing to nature and biodiversity 
relevant indicators (amounting to 64 projects reporting biodiversity and nature environmental 
impacts). 

For the 64 projects reporting against biodiversity and nature indicators, the following impacts 
were planned at the beginning of the projects (MTE):  

  Over  an  area  of  1,012,136  ha  including  73  ecosystems  supporting  237  ecosystem 
services,  almost  half  of  the  ecosystem  services  were  assessed  as  very  poor/  poor/ 
moderate/ deteriorating the beginning of the project; and were expected to improve as a 
result of the project. 

  Of the 167 natural or semi-natural habitats (over an area of 10,878,700 ha)  targeted by 
LIFE  projects,  129  were  assessed  as  being  less  than  favourable/  secure  conservation 

121 

 
 
 
status  at  the  beginning  of the  project;  and  of  these  129,  46%  were  planned  to reach  an 
improved conservation status by the end of the LIFE project. 

  Of the 174 wildlife species targeted by LIFE projects, 66% (114 species) were planned to 

reach an improved conservation status by the end of the LIFE project. 

Table 5-12: Progress towards biodiversity and nature targets (2014+2015) 

Indicator 

Set up  to  improve  conservation  status  within  the  meaning  of  the  habitats 
and birds Directives 

Share  of  habitats  targeted  by  ongoing/  finalised  projects  that  are 
progressing towards an improved conservation status 

Progress 
towards 
target 

98 

46 

Target 

100% 

10% of the 
habitats 
targeted 

Share  of  species  targeted  by  ongoing  or  finalised  projects  that  are 
progressing towards an improved conservation status 

66 

10% of the 
species targeted 

Percentage of Natura 2000 sites targeted by ongoing or finalised projects 
that are progressing towards an improved conservation status 

Percentage  of  ecosystem  types  targeted  by  ongoing  or  finalised  projects 
implementing  replicable  or  transferable  actions  and  progressing  towards 
improvement or restoration 

Percentage of ecosystem surfaces targeted by ongoing or finalised projects 
implementing  replicable  or  transferable  actions  and  progressing  towards 
improvement or restoration 

26 

30 

45 

10% of Natura 
2000 sites 
targeted 

80% 

10% of the 
ecosystem types 
targeted 

Percentage  of  projects  that  report  on  continuation/  transfer/  replicability 
indicators 

21  of  64 
(67%) 

- 

Source: MTE 

Among  the  indicators  used  for  biodiversity  and  nature,  the  ones  discussed  in  the  following 
sections include the area or length of land within a project targeting the improvement of natural/ 
semi-natural  habitats  (indicator  7.3)  or  wildlife  species  (indicator  7.4)  and  protection  from 
invasive alien species (indicator 7.5.1). 

The only projects reporting against these indicators are supported via 'traditional' standard action 
grants (62) and SIPs (2). According to the projects database, in addition to 'traditional' standard 
action  grants  (as  the  main  delivery  mechanism)  and  integrated  projects  (environment  only),  a 
handful  of  governance  and  information  projects  (4)  have  also  been  awarded  in  relation  to  this 
environmental objective.  

'traditional' standard action grants: 

Between  2014  and  2015,  27  'traditional'  standard  action  grants  were  reporting  against  the 
indicator,  improvement  of  natural/  semi-natural  habitats;  the  majority  of  which  were  Nature 
'traditional'  standard  action  grants  (23).  Projects  were  also  supported  by  the  Environment 
'traditional'  standard  action  grant  (2)  and  Climate  Change  Adaptation  (2).  Note  that  for  this 
indicator, 'traditional' standard action grants were the only delivery mechanism reporting impacts 
between 2014 and 2015. 

The average co-financing rate for these projects was 62% - with climate change adaptation at the 
low end of this range (50%) and Nature at the high end (63%). The greatest number of projects 

122 

 
are  in  Italy  and  Spain  which  have  an  average  co-financing  rate  of  60%  and  61%,  respectively. 
The highest co-financing rates are reported for projects in new Member States (75%) - with the 
exception of Poland which has a low co-financing rate of 50% for the 1 project awarded.  

Across all the sub-programme areas, the extent of improvement achieved through the project is 
larger  during  the  project  lifetime  compared  to  beyond  the  lifetime  of  the  project  (at  a  ratio  of 
~3:1).  However,  the  extent  of  humans  influenced  or  benefiting  from  the  projects  is  constant 
between this time. 

Between  2014  and  2015,  27  'traditional'  standard  action  grants  were  reporting  against  the 
indicator, improvement of wildlife species (indicator 7.4); all of which are within the Nature sub-
programme.  

The average co-financing rate for these projects was 64%. The projects span 15 Member States, 
with a fairly even split in biophysical terms but a minority based in new Member States (5). The 
greatest number of projects is in Italy; with an  average co-financing  rate of 62%. Co-financing 
rates are generally in the region of 70-75% across Member States - with lower than average rates 
only  reported  for  projects  in  Austria,  Croatia,  Denmark,  Germany,  Italy,  Malta,  Spain  and  the 
UK.  

The  extent  of  improvement  achieved  through  the  project  is  larger  during  the  project  lifetime 
compared to beyond the lifetime of the project (at a ratio of ~2:1). However, the extent of humans 
influenced or benefiting from the projects is constant between this time. 

Comparatively few projects reported impacts concerning invasive alien species (9). The majority 
of these are 'traditional' standard action grants and follow the same trends as described above for 
habitats and species, namely: an average co-financing rate of 61%; an average ratio of ~5:1 for 
improvements  in  the  lifetime  of  a  project  compared  to  beyond;  however,  the  extent  of  humans 
influenced or benefiting from the projects is constant between this time.. 

In  terms  of  outreach,  of  the  projects  reporting  the  environmental  impacts  described  above,  the 
following impacts were also reported: 

  Stakeholder engagement (indicator 10.2; involvement of non-governmental organisations 
(NGOs)  and  other  stakeholders  in  project  activities):  23  projects  (all  within  the  Nature 
sub-programme);  NGOs  are  the  main  stakeholder  engaged  in  biodiversity  and  habitat 
projects  (13)  with  an  average  co-financing  rate  of  66%.  Public  bodies  and  other  civil 
society  organisations  were  awarded  the  highest  rates  of  co-financing  (75  and  70, 
respectively). 

  Website  use  (indicator  11.1):  33  projects  (within  the  Environment  and  Nature  sub-
programmes, but primarily the latter) with an average co-financing rate of 59 and 63%, 
respectively.  Website  traffic  is  greater  during  the  lifetime  of  a  project  compared  to 
beyond it (by a factor of ~2:1). 

  Networking  (indicator  12.1):  36  projects  reported  networking  activities;  the  most 
common  group  of  individuals  involved  in  networking  activities  include  professionals, 
followed by members of interest groups. The extent of humans influenced or benefiting 
from the projects is constant for the project duration and the time period beyond it. 

For the 2021-2027 programming period therefore, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for 
biodiversity and nature will: 

  Primarily be carried out by 'traditional' standard action grants 
  Have a greater environmental impact during the lifetime of the project compared to beyond it; with 

some evidence of networking and online activities, but not comprehensive across all projects  

  Have  a  good  territorial  balance  in  biophysical  terms;  but  limited  projects  across  Member  States  in 

terms of numbers. Average co-financing rates will continue to vary between Member States.  

  Be  led  primarily  by  NGOs  (despite  having  below  average  co-financing  rates),  with  networking 
activities involving professionals and civil society organisations to a greater extent than laymen and 

123 

 
persons in education. 

In addition, a total of 10 projects were reported in the projects database in relation to governance 
and  information  projects  for  biodiversity  and  nature  with  an  average  co-financing  rate  of  59% 
(below  the  averages  reported  for  'traditional'  standard  action  grants;  but  greater  than  the 
integrated projects). 

Environmental impacts are not reported for these projects. 

For the 2021-2027 programming period, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for 
biodiversity and nature will: 

  Be  accompanied  by  small  number  of  governance  and  information  projects,  with  low  co-financing 

rates compared to 'traditional' standard action grants. 

Strategic integrated project (SIPs): 

At  the  time  of  the  MTE,  3  SIPs  for  nature  and  biodiversity  had  been  awarded.  Environmental 
impacts are only reported for 1. 

According  to  the  projects  database  a  total  of  5  SIPs  were  awarded  between  2014  and  2015,  in 
Belgium, Italy, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands. Of these, 3 provided support to the further 
development  of  regional  Priority  Action  Frameworks  (PAFs);  strengthening  the  targets  set  and 
designing measures to meet the targets and facilitating discussions between different stakeholder 
groups  representing  various  sectoral  concerns;  and  between  different  governing  bodies.  Only  a 
few SIPs provided targeted support to specific habitat types within PAFs, including wetlands and 
marine  habitats;  while  one  was  found  to  target  green  infrastructure  within  the  Natura  2000 
network. 

The average co-financing rate for these SIPs is 56%; which is much lower than the other delivery 
mechanisms contributing to biodiversity and nature objectives. 

Of these SIPs, only 1 (in Germany) reported environmental impacts according to the indicators 
discussed  here  (with  respect  to  the  area  or  length  of  land  within  a  project  targeting  the 
improvement  of  wildlife  species  (indicator  7.4)  and  protection  from  invasive  alien  species 
(indicator 7.5.1)). Of note, the extent of impacts achieved in terms of the improvement in area are 
expected to be greater beyond the project lifetime compared to during it (at a ratio of 0.7:1). 

In terms of outreach, no reporting was provided by the indicators database for SIPs. 

For the 2021-2027 programming period therefore, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for 
biodiversity and nature will: 

  Be targeted by SIPs at a reduced scale compared to 'traditional' standard action grants 
 

Impacts will be greatest beyond the lifetime of the project compared to during it; with little evidence 
during the lifetime of the project to indicate the environmental impact had 

  Co-financing rates will be low compared to other delivery mechanisms 

Preparatory projects: 

The MTE reported 3 preparatory projects in relation to this delivery mechanism for biodiversity 
and  nature;  while  only  2  are  reported  to  the  projects  database  for  the  same  time-period  (2014-
2015),  with  an  average  co-financing  rate  of  60%  (below  the  averages  reported  for  'traditional' 
standard action grants; but greater than the integrated projects). 

Environmental impacts are not reported for these projects. 

124 

 
 
 
 
For the 2021-2027 programming period, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for 
biodiversity and nature will: 

  Be  accompanied  by  a  very  small  number  of  preparatory  projects,  with  low  co-financing  rates 

compared to 'traditional' standard action grants. 

Other: 

No  capacity  building  projects  reported  environmental  impacts  in  the  programming  period 
reviewed. 

The slow uptake of funding via the Natural Capital Financing Facility (NCFF) in first few years 
of the current programming period has meant that there are few examples of signed projects, and 
even fewer of monitoring and reporting of environmental impacts. 

However, the NCFF has evolved over the past year and starts to show successes.  For instance, 
the first NCFF operation, a € 6 million loan to Rewilding Europe, was signed in April 2017. It 
will  support  over  30  nature-focused  businesses  across  Europe.  In  addition,  to  the  creation  and 
consolidation of nature-based businesses, new nature-related business models will be supported 
in sectors like forestry, water  management,  sustainable fisheries and tourism. The agreement is 
expected to create 250 jobs. 

For the 2021-2027 programming period, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for 
biodiversity and nature will: 

  Carried out by an increasing number of projects funded via the NCFF (assuming that uptake is faster 

once the NCFF is more established)  

  Monitoring and reporting of environmental impacts will improve as the number of projects increase 

and the timeframe of activity continues 

C. 

Environment and health (including chemicals and noise) 

Programme Level: 

The MTE reported a total of 17 projects reporting against chemical indicators (7 relating 
specifically to chemicals and REACH legislation) and 3 projects reporting against noise 
indicators. In sum: 

  Chemicals:  370,000  persons  influenced  by  projects  relating  to  chemicals;  of  which 
240,000 are expected to be influenced in terms of implementing replicable actions during 
the lifetime of the project. Beyond the project (3-5 years): 1.3 million persons influenced; 
1.6 million are expected to be influenced in terms of implementing replicable actions. 

  Noise: Planned noise reduction by at least 3 dB for 2 of the 3 projects, influencing 4,319 

persons which is expected to increase slightly after 3-5 years. 

Table 5-13: Progress towards environment and health targets (2014+2015) 

Indicators 

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 

Percentage  of  persons  covered  by  ongoing  or  finalised  projects  implementing 
replicable  or  transferable  actions  set  up  to  reduce  adverse  effects  of  chemicals  on 

125 

Progres
s 
towards 
target 

T
ar
ge
t 

76  80
% 

78  50
,0

 
 
 
Indicators 

health and environment, including estimates over the long term effects - after 3 or 5 
years 

Percentage of ongoing or  finalised projects implementing replicable or transferable 
actions  and  progressing  towards  reaching  or  surpassing  the  relevant  Union  noise 
reduction target on project level 

Percentage of ongoing or finalised projects implementing replicable or  transferable 
actions targeting noise reduction progressing towards reducing noise exposure by at 
least 3 dB 

Number of the persons benefitting from ongoing or finalised projects implementing 
replicable or transferable actions set up to reduce noise levels by at least 3 dB 

Progres
s 
towards 
target 

T
ar
ge
t 

00 
pe
rs
on
s 

67  80
% 

33  80
% 

4000  10
,0
00 

Source: MTE 

Note  that  environment  and  health  environmental  objectives  are  not  among  the  indicative  areas 
targeted by SIPs or the themes targeted by FIs in the current programming period. 

Furthermore, the number of projects contributing to noise is much greater in the projects database 
although this is because it is grouped together with air quality and emission reductions. Owing to 
this  discrepancy  in  reporting,  no  comparison  with  the  projects  database  is  made  for  this 
environmental  objective.  There  is  no  separate  reporting  for  chemicals  as  this  is  grouped  with 
industrial  production  and  is  more  closely  aligned  with  resource  efficiency.  Of  the  41  LIFE 
projects concerning industrial production, 12 include aspects relating to chemicals. 

Among the indicators used for noise, the one discussed in the following sections include the noise 
level/frequency – terrestrial (indicator 5.2.1). 

'traditional' standard action grants: 

Environmental  impacts  are  only  reported  by  4  'traditional'  standard  action  grants  under  the 
Environment sub-programmes in Belgium, Spain and Italy (with an average co-financing rate of 
56%). 

The environmental impact is expected to be greater beyond the lifetime of the project (compared 
to during it), at a ratio of ~0.4:1; while the number of persons affected or influenced is expected 
to remain constant. 

In terms of outreach, no reporting was provided by the indicators database for these projects. 

For the 2021-2027 programming period, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for 
environment and health will be: 

  Relatively  few  in  number  compared  to  other  environmental  objectives;  although  environmental 

impacts will have long-standing effects beyond the lifetime of the project. 

  Carried out by 'traditional' standard action grants, under the Environment sub-programme. 

126 

 
 
 
In addition, a total of 2 governance and information projects reported environmental impacts, 1 
relating to energy efficiency and the other to renewable energy. Both projects are based in EU15 
Member States and sit within the climate change programme with an average co-financing rate of 
60%. 

The extent of the impacts in relation to renewable energy are expected to be greater beyond the 
lifetime of the project (at a ratio of ~0.7:1). The type of renewable energy is not specified by the 
indicators database. Energy efficiency impacts are only reported in terms of the number of person 
influenced by the project, which is expected to be greater during the project lifetime compared to 
beyond it (at a ratio of ~3:1). 

The projects database indicates an additional 2 governance and information projects are relevant 
to the resource efficiency thematic priority. These projects concern industrial production and sit 
within the environment sub-programme. The average rate of co-financing is lower at 56%.  

Other: 

No capacity building or preparatory projects reported environmental impacts in the programming 
period reviewed. 

D.  Resource efficiency (including soil, forests, and green and circular economy) 

Programme Level: 

According to the MTE a total of 15 projects directly target resource efficiency between 2014 and 
2015; although 51 projects were found to contribute to relevant indicators in the indicators 
database (with 39 projects contributing to energy efficiency and 24 to achieving a circular 
economy).  

The MTE reports the combined planned impacts of these projects as follows: 

  Reduction in energy consumption from electricity [120,000 MWh/year] 
  Reduction in energy consumption from methane [500,000 MWh/ year] 
 

Increase  renewable  energy  production  [300,000  MWh/year  from  unspecified  sources; 
190,000 MWh/year from biomass; 7 MWh from solar] 

  Plan  to  sustainably  manage  1,900  ha  of  forests,  and  provide  data  for  71  forests  to  the 

European Data Centre 

  Projects covering 344 ha of soil 

Progress towards targets is positive against many of the MAWP targets set for resource efficiency 
as shown below. 

Table 5-14: Progress towards resource efficiency targets (2014-2015) 

Indicators 

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 

Percentage  of  ongoing  or  finalised  projects  implementing  replicable  or 
transferable  actions  and  progressing  towards  maintaining  or  improving  soil 

127 

Progress 
towards 
target 

Tar
get 

76  80% 

77 

10 
com
pani
es 

91  80% 

 
 
 
functions 

Percentage  of  ongoing  or  finalised  projects  implementing  replicable  or 
transferable actions and progressing towards implementation of the European 
Forest Strategy 

Percentage  of  ongoing  or  finalised  projects  implementing  replicable  or 
transferable actions set up to provide data for the European Forest Data Centre 
(EFDAC) 

67  80% 

70  80% 

Source: MTE 

The  following  analysis  focusses  on  two  of  the  indicators  included  in  the  indicator  database, 
including energy efficiency – energy (indicator 4.1.1) and renewable energy (indicator 4.1.3). Of 
the two, energy efficiency relating to consumption is the most common indicator used to report 
the environmental impact of resource efficiency projects. 

Note  that  resource  efficiency  environmental  objectives  are  not  among  the  indicative  areas 
targeted by SIPs or the themes targeted by FIs in the current programming period. 

'traditional' standard action grants: 

'traditional'  standard  action  grants  are  the  primary  delivery  mechanism  used  by  resource 
efficiency projects (according to the indicators database and the projects database). In relation to 
energy efficiency, projects are typically funded via the Environment sub-programme (total of 22 
and to a lesser extent the climate change mitigation (7). Renewable energy 'traditional' standard 
action  grant  projects  are  funded  by  the  full  suite  of  sub-programmes:  Environment  (7),  Nature 
(1), Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) (1) and Climate Change Mitigation (CCM) (3). 

The average rate of co-financing is comparatively low next to other thematic priorities; and the 
territorial balance favours EU15 Member States with no projects awarded to new Member States 
between 2014-2015. Projects under the climate change programmes receive a much lower rate of 
co-financing  (averaging  49%  for  energy  efficiency  under  CCM;  50%  and  58%  for  renewable 
energy  under  CCA  and  CCM,  respectively).  For  energy  efficiency  projects,  between  Member 
States,  the  rate  is  lower  still  at  32%  for  a  project  funded  in  Sweden  and  39%  for  two  projects 
funded  in  Belgium.  For  renewable  energy  projects  the  rate  of  co-financing  is  more  balanced 
between Member States; albeit still low compared to other thematic priorities. 

Under energy efficiency, electricity is the main source of energy targeted by the projects funded 
(16  under  the  Environment  sub-programme  and  3  under  CCM).  The  extent  of  the  impact  is  on 
average  greater  during  the  lifetime  of  the  project  compared  to  beyond  it  (at  a  ratio  of  ~2:1  for 
those under the Environment sub-programme and ~5:1 under CCM).  

Under  renewable energy, the source of energy is largely undefined  and only solar and biomass 
are  specified  by  the  indicators  database.  The  extent  of  the  impact  and  the  extent  of  persons 
influenced are on average the same during the lifetime of the project compared to the time period 
beyond it. 

The following impacts were also reported in terms of outreach related to these projects reporting 
environmental impacts: 

  Stakeholder engagement (indicator 10.2; involvement of non-governmental organisations 
(NGOs)  and  other  stakeholders  in  project  activities):  9  projects  (across  all  sub-
programmes except CCA). 

  Website  use  (indicator  11.1):  15  projects  (across  all  sub-programmes  except  CCA). 
Planned website traffic is greater beyond the lifetime of a project compared to during it 
(by a factor of ~0.9:1). 

  Networking  (indicator  12.1):  15  projects  reported  networking  activities;  the  most 
common  group  of  individuals  involved  in  networking  activities  is  professionals.  The 

128 

 
impact  of  networking  in  terms  of  persons  influenced  is  similar  during  the  lifetime  of  a 
project compared to beyond it. 

The  projects  database  indicates  a  larger  number  of  projects  are  contributing  to  the  resource 
efficiency thematic priority, taking into account a wider range of activities (rather than focussing 
on energy). By theme, the following observations can be made: 

  Energy:  1  project  awarded  under  the  Environment  sub-programme  with  a  co-financing 

rate of 58% 

  Environmental  management:  11  projects  awarded  under 

the  Environment  sub-

programme with an average co-financing rate of 58% 

 

Industry  –  production:  56  projects  awarded  across  the  full  scope  of  sub-programmes 
(primarily under the Environment sub-programme) with an average co-financing rate of 
56% 

  Land-use:  21  projects  awarded  across  the  full  scope  of  sub-programmes  (of  which,  19 
under the Environment sub-programme) with an average co-financing rate of 54%. The 
remaining  2  projects  fall  under  the  CCA  programme  and  have  an  average  co-financing 
rate of 38%. 

For the 2021-2027 programming period, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for resource 
efficiency will be: 

  Primarily  awarded  via  'traditional'  standard  action  grants,  across  all  sub-programme  areas  but 

primarily under the Environment sub-programme 

  Projects  have  a  particular  focus  on  energy  efficiency  and  overlap  with  the  CCM  programme  (and 

CCA to a lesser extent) 

  Greater  uptake  in  EU15  Member  States  (presumably  new  Member  States  are  accessing  regional 
funds for energy efficiency projects); and comparatively low co-financing rates in relation to other 
thematic priorities.  

  Environmental  impacts  will  continue  to  be  supported  by  outreach  activities  but  at  a  lower  rate 
compared  to  action  on  the  ground.  Private  for profit  and  public bodies will continue  to be  the  key 
stakeholders engaged in outreach activities. 

Other: 

No capacity building or preparatory projects reported environmental impacts in the programming 
period reviewed. 

E.  Waste 

Programme Level: 

The MTE reports that 16 projects were funded under the waste thematic priority between 2014-
2015;  and  that  a  total  of  30  projects  were  found  to  be  contributing  to  relevant  indicators.  The 
combined planned impact of indicators of these 30 projects was reported to be 218,275 tonnes/ 
year  in  waste  prevention  and  141,906  tonnes/  year  in  recycling  with  impacts  covering  43 
municipalities and regions. Progress against targets was not reported in the MTE. 

The following analysis focusses on one of the indicators included in the indicator database, waste 
management (indicator 3.1). 

Note that waste management environmental objectives are not among the themes targeted by FIs 
in the current programming period. 

'traditional' standard action grants: 

'traditional'  standard  action  grants  are  the  main  delivery  mechanism  relating  to  waste 
management projects. Of these projects, 40 reported to the indicators database against the waste 
management  indicator  between  2014  and  2015.  Of  these,  34  are  supported  under  the 
Environment  sub-programme,  3  under  Nature,  1  under  CCA  and  2  under  CCM.  The  majority 

129 

 
relate to non-hazardous waste management with just 3 concerning hazardous waste management. 
Across all waste management 'traditional' standard action grants the extent of waste management 
is much greater during the lifetime of the project compared to beyond (at a ratio of ~10:1). The 
extent  of  the  persons  influenced  are  on  average  the  same  during  the  lifetime  of  the  project 
compared to the time period beyond it. 

The  rate  of  co-financing  is  relatively  low  compared  to  other  thematic  priorities  (at  57%);  the 
average  is  brought  lower  by  the  3  hazardous  waste  management  projects  (46%).  Territorial 
coverage is limited with projects in EU15 Member States only. 

By sector the greatest number of projects are supported in the industry and agriculture sectors (17 
and 12 projects, respectively). This followed by household (5), mining (4) and construction (1). 
The rate of co-financing is greatest for mining projects (average of 59%) while the lowest is for 
industry and construction (averages of 56%). The relatively large ratio of improvement achieved 
during  the  project  lifetime  compared  to  beyond  is  driven  by  projects  in  the  industry  and 
agriculture sectors (at a ratio of ~15:1 and ~10:1, respectively). 

The projects database reports a similar number of projects as the indicators database, with the rate 
of co-financing also relatively low compared to other thematic priorities (at 55%). 

The following impacts were also reported in terms of outreach related to these projects reporting 
environmental impacts: 

  Stakeholder engagement (indicator 10.2; involvement of non-governmental organisations 
(NGOs)  and  other  stakeholders  in  project  activities):  22  projects  (across  all  sub-
programmes except CCM); an equal number of private for profit and NGO represent the 
main  stakeholders  engaged  (6,  respectively)  with  an  average  co-financing  rate  of  50% 
and 54%, respectively. 

  Website use (indicator 11.1): 33 projects (across all sub-programmes). Planned  website 
traffic is expected to be greater during the lifetime of the projects compared to beyond it 
(at a ratio of ~2:1). 

  Networking  (indicator  12.1):  38  projects  reported  networking  activities;  the  most 
common  group  of  individuals  involved  in  networking  activities  include  members  of 
interest groups. Across all groups of persons, planned activity is expected to be greater 
during the lifetime of the projects compared to beyond it (at a ratio of ~2:1). 

For the 2021-2027 programming period therefore, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for 
waste management will: 

  Be led by 'traditional' standard action grant projects 
  Environmental impacts will be greatest during the lifetime of the project 
  Greater uptake in EU15 Member States; and comparatively low co-financing rates in relation to other 

thematic priorities.  

  Strong  uptake  by  industry  and  agriculture  sectors  and  focussing  on  non-hazardous  waste 

management 

  Environmental  impacts  will  continue  to  be  supported  by  outreach  activities  but  at  a  lower  rate 
compared  to  action  on  the  ground.  Networking  activities  will  continue  to  be  the  most  common 
outreach activity across projects. 

In addition, the projects database reports 6 governance and information within the Environment 
sub-programme  projects  relating  to  waste  management  between  2014  and  2015  with  a  co-
financing  rate  of  59%.  Of  these  projects,  none  report  to  the  indicators  database  on  waste 
management. 

For the 2021-2027 programming period, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for waste 

130 

 
 
 
management will be: 

  Governance and information projects will continue to play a relatively minor support role to waste 

management environmental impacts. 

Strategic integrated project (SIPs): 

One  SIP  was  awarded  between  2014  and  2015  to  support  with  the  national  waste  management 
plan of Finland with a co-financing  rate of 60%. The project supports with the updating of the 
2017-2022  plan.  It  does  not  report  any  environmental  impact  in  relation  to  waste  management 
and in terms of outreach, no reporting was provided by the indicators database for SIPs. 

For the 2021-2027 programming period therefore, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for 
waste management will: 

  Be targeted by SIPs at a reduced scale compared to 'traditional' standard action grants 
  Environmental impacts will vary according to the project; based on SIPs in other indicative areas, it 

is likely that the environmental impacts will continue beyond the lifetime of the project. 

  Co-financing  rates  will  be  average  compared  to  other  delivery  mechanisms  contributing  to  waste 
management; and higher than average compared to other indicative areas (average co-financing rate 
of 55%). 

Other: 

No capacity building or preparatory projects reported environmental impacts in the programming 
period reviewed. 

F.  Water 

Programme Level: 

According to the MTE, 16 projects targeted water as a thematic priority between 2014 and 2015. 
Although in total 40 projects reported relevant environmental impacts in the indicators database. 

At the time of the MTE, progress towards the MAWP targets was below target but not 
significantly – as shown below.  

Table 5-15: Progress towards water targets (2014-2015) 

Indicators 

implementing  replicable  or 
Percentage  of  ongoing  or  finalised  projects 
transferable  actions  and  progressing  towards  good  ecological  status  at  project 
level 

Progress 
towards 
target 

Ta
rge
t 

63 

80
% 

Number and percentage of water bodies (inland/ transitional/ coastal) covered by 
ongoing  or  finalised  projects  implementing  replicable  or  transferable  actions  set 
up to improve their ecological status 

49 
total); 
70% 

(70 

100 
(nu
mb
er) 

Source: MTE 

The  following  analysis  focusses  on  two  of  the  indicators  included  in  the  indicator  database, 
including terrestrial extent affected by the pressure or risk addressed (indicator 2.1) and aquatic 
extent affected by the pressure or risk addressed (indicator 2.2). 

131 

 
 
 
 
Note that water environmental objectives are not among the themes targeted by FIs in the current 
programming period. 

'traditional' standard action grants: 

A total of 12 projects reported the terrestrial extent affected by the pressure or risk addressed and 
16  projects  reported  the  aquatic  extent  affected  by  the  pressure  or  risk  addressed.  These  are 
mainly  under  the  Environment  sub-programme  (17)  and  to  a  lesser  extent  the  CCA  sub-
programme (5). 

For  projects reporting  the  terrestrial  extent  affected  by  the pressure  or  risk  addressed,  the  main 
pressures  targeted  include  flood  protection,  diffuse  pollution  from  industry,  morphological 
changes  and  water  quality.  The  average  ratio  of  improvement  during  the  lifetime  of  projects 
compared to beyond it is greater (~5:1); this is primarily due to projects targeting flood protection 
and diffuse pollution from industry. 

For projects reporting the aquatic extent affected by the pressure or risk addressed, the average 
ratio  of  improvement  is  reportedly  the  same  for  the  time  period  beyond  the  project  and  the 
lifetime of the project. 

For projects reporting the terrestrial extent affected by the pressure or risk addressed, the average 
co-financing rate is 55%. For projects reporting the aquatic extent affected by the pressure or risk 
addressed, the average co-financing rate is 56%. Across all projects, there is a greater number of 
projects in EU15 Member States (5) compared to new Member States (2). 

The following impacts were also reported in terms of outreach related to these projects reporting 
environmental impacts: 

  Stakeholder engagement (indicator 10.2; involvement of non-governmental organisations 
(NGOs)  and  other  stakeholders  in  project  activities):  13  projects  (across  all  sub-
programmes  except  CCM);  public  bodies  are  the  most  common  stakeholders  engaged 
across  projects  (4),  followed  by  an  equal  number  of  private  for  profit  and  NGOs  (3, 
respectively). Co-financing rates are lowest for the projects involving NGOs (52%) 

  Website  use  (indicator  11.1):  16  projects  (across  all  sub-programmes  except  CCM). 
Planned  website  traffic  is  expected  to  be  greater  beyond  the  lifetime  of  the  projects 
compared to during them (at a ratio of ~2:1). 

  Networking (indicator 12.1): 38 projects reported networking activities across all groups 
of  stakeholders  at  a  relatively  even  split.  The  extent  of  networking  activity  is  greater 
during the lifetime of a project compared to beyond it (at a ratio of ~2:1). 

A much greater number of projects are reported by the projects database in relation to the water 
thematic  priority  (35  under  the  Environment  and  Nature  sub-programmes)  and  with  a  slightly 
higher co-financing rate comparatively (58%).  

For the 2021-2027 programming period therefore, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for 
water quality will: 

  Be led by 'traditional' standard action grant projects 
  Environmental impacts are typically ongoing beyond the lifetime of the project 
  Greater uptake in EU15 Member States; and comparatively low co-financing rates in relation to other 

thematic priorities.  

  Environmental  impacts  will  continue  to  be  supported  by  outreach  activities  but  at  a  similar  rate  to 
action on the ground. Networking activities will continue to be the most common outreach activity 
across projects. 

Strategic integrated project (SIPs): 

132 

 
 
A  total  of  2  SIPs  reported  environmental  impacts  to  the  indicators  database  between  2014  and 
2015  in  Germany  and  the  UK;  all  reporting  the  aquatic  extent  affected  by  the  pressure  or  risk 
addressed, and of which 1 also reported pressures relating to flood protection (in Germany). 

The average co-financing rate was 56%. The project which reported the aquatic extent affected 
by the pressure or risk addressed average, reported that planned impacts was much greater during 
the  lifetime  of  the  project  compared  to  beyond  it  (~10:1).  Whereas  the  projects  reporting  the 
aquatic extent affected by the pressure or risk addressed was, reported a greater planned impact 
beyond the lifetime of the project compared to during it (~0.4:1). 

The following impacts were also reported in terms of outreach related to these projects reporting 
environmental impacts: 

  Stakeholder engagement (indicator 10.2; involvement of non-governmental organisations 
(NGOs)  and  other  stakeholders  in  project  activities):  only  one  SIP  reported  planned 
impacts against this indicator, with greater stakeholder engagement planned beyond the 
project compared to during its lifetime (at a ratio of ~0.1:1). 

  Website  use  (indicator  11.1):  both  SIPs  reported  planned  website  traffic,  which  is 
expected to be greater during the lifetime of the projects compared to beyond them (at a 
ratio of ~4:1). 

  Networking (indicator 12.1): both SIPs reported planned networking activities relating to 

members of interests groups in the case of the UK and to laymen in Germany. 

The projects database reported 4 SIPs between 2014 and 2015 (with an average co-financing rate 
of 50%), covering Belgium and Sweden in addition to Germany and the UK. 

For the 2021-2027 programming period therefore, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for 
water management will: 

  Be targeted by SIPs at a reduced scale compared to 'traditional' standard action grants 
  Environmental impacts are expected to continue beyond the lifetime of the project 
  Co-financing rates will be lower than average compared to other delivery mechanisms contributing 
to water management; and average compared to other indicative areas (average co-financing rate for 
SIPs in this time-period is 55%). 

Other: 

No capacity building or preparatory projects reported environmental impacts in the programming 
period reviewed. 

5.3.1.2. 

Environmental impacts – sub-programme for Climate action 

Programme Level: 

According to the MTE, there were 11 ongoing projects within the climate change adaptation sub-
programme  and  an  additional  17  projects  contributing  to  projects  from  other  sub-programmes. 
The  total  area  targeted  is  35  million  ha;  with  50%  of  projects  funded  so  far  addressing 
particularly vulnerable areas and 61% of projects supporting the development of infrastructures 
targeted for climate resilience. 

With  regards  to  climate  change  mitigation,  the  MTE  reported  that  within  the  CCM  sub-
programme,  15  projects  are  planned  to  contribute  to  GHG  mitigation  and  11  to  carbon  capture 
and sequestration. An additional 48 projects outside the CCM sub-programme contribute to the 
relevant indicators with 41 of 48 projects planning to reduce GHG emissions and 14 to sequester 
carbon. An overview of these planned mitigation impacts is provided below. 

133 

 
 
 
Table5-16: Climate change mitigation impacts reported to the indicators database (2014-
2016) 

Source: MTE 

The  following  analysis  focusses  on  4  of  the  indicators  included  in  the  indicator  database, 
including  particularly  vulnerable  areas  (indicator  9.2)  and  infrastructures  targeted  for  climate 
resilience (indicator 9.3) for climate change adaptation; and CO2 emissions (indicator 8.1.1) and 
other GHG emissions (indicator 8.1.2) for climate change mitigation. 

'traditional' standard action grants: 

'traditional'  standard  action  grants  are  the  primary  delivery  mechanism  used  by  climate  action 
projects (according to the indicators database and the projects database).  

A.  Climate change adaptation 

Programme Level: 

In  relation  to  climate  change  adaptation,  projects  are  typically  funded  via  the  CCA  sub-
programme  (total  of  6  in  relation  to  resilience  and  8  for  infrastructures).  However,  adaptation 
'traditional' standard action grant projects (namely those relating to infrastructure) are also funded 
by the following sub-programmes: Environment (8) and Nature (3). 

Under the CCA sub-programme, the average rate of co-financing is 57%; and it is observed that 
very  few  Member  States  have  ongoing  projects  under  this  sub-programme.  Climate  resilience 
projects  mainly  target  flood  management  (and  in  this  respect,  overlap  with  flood  protection 
activities  funded  with  respect  to  the  water  thematic  priority  (where  the  co-financing  rate  is 
generally higher; between 60 and 75%). Climate infrastructure projects most commonly relate to 
non-specified  buildings  and  water  and  sewage  facilities.  The  average  rates  of  co-financing  are 
57%, respectively. 

The  extent  of  the  impacts  are  greater  beyond  the  lifetime  of  the  project  for  building  resilience 
(~0.8:1 across all projects).   

The following impacts were also reported in terms of outreach related to these projects reporting 
environmental impacts: 

  Stakeholder engagement (indicator 10.2; involvement of non-governmental organisations 
(NGOs)  and  other  stakeholders  in  project  activities):  4  projects  (within  the  sub-
programme  CCA).  The  extent  of  planned  engagement  is  greater  beyond  the  lifetime  of 
the projects compared to during it (~0.5:1). 

134 

 
 
 
  Website  use  (indicator  11.1):  6  projects  (within  the  sub-programmes  Environment  and 
CCA).  Planned  website  traffic  is  greater  during  the  lifetime  of  a  project  compared  to 
beyond it (by a factor of ~2:1). 

  Networking  (indicator  12.1):  7  projects  (within  the  sub-programmes  Environment  and 
CCA).  The  planned  extent  of  networking  activities  is  greater  during  the  lifetime  of  a 
project compared to beyond it (by a factor of ~2:1). 

The  projects  database  indicates  a  larger  number  of  projects  are  contributing  to  climate  change 
adaptation with 36 projects awarded under the CCA sub-programme with a co-financing rate of 
57%. Thus indicating that a relatively large share of climate adaptation projects are not reporting 
impacts to the indicators database in relation to resilience and infrastructures. 

For the 2021-2027 programming period, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for climate 
change adaptation will be: 

  Primarily awarded via 'traditional' standard action grants, primarily under the CCA sub-programme 
  Low level of reporting impacts to the indicators database  
  Comparatively low co-financing rates in relation to other thematic priorities  
  Environmental  impacts  will  continue  to  be  supported  by  outreach  activities  but  at  a  lower  rate 
compared to action on the ground. The full extent of outreach activities is not well captured with the 
current approach as it relies on reporting of environmental impacts. 

B.  Climate change mitigation 

Programme Level: 

In relation to climate change mitigation, projects are funded via the CCM sub-programme (total 
of  12  in  relation  to  CO2  mitigation  and  3  for  other  GHG  emission  mitigation).  However, 
mitigation 'traditional' standard action grant projects (CO2 mitigation) are primarily funded by the 
Environment  sub-programmes  (21),  and  to  a  lesser  extent  other  GHG  emission  mitigation  (4). 
For CO2 mitigation, the CCA sub-programme also included projects reporting CO2 savings (2). 

Under the CCM sub-programme, for projects contributing to CO2 savings, the average rate of co-
financing is lower compared to the Environment sub-programme (53 and 56%, respectively); and 
it is observed that fewer Member States have ongoing projects under CCM in this respect.  

The  greatest  CO2  savings  are  achieved  through  industrial  production  projects  (11  under  the 
Environment  sub-programme  and  5  under  the  CCM).  The  planned  extent  of  savings  achieved 
during the lifetime of the project are reportedly higher under the CCM sub-programme compared 
to beyond it (at a ratio of ~21:1) whereas the ratio is less exaggerated under the Environment sub-
programme (at a ratio of ~2:1). 

With regards to other GHG emissions, between 2014 and 2015, mitigation only concerned CH4. 
Again, it is observed that the Environment sub-programme funded a greater number of projects 
reporting against this indicator compared to the CCM. The planned extents of savings achieved 
during the lifetime of the  projects are reportedly the same as those achieved in  the time period 
beyond the projects. 

The following impacts were also reported in terms of outreach related to these projects reporting 
environmental impacts: 

  Stakeholder engagement (indicator 10.2; involvement of non-governmental organisations 
(NGOs)  and  other  stakeholders  in  project  activities):  3  projects  (across  multiple  sub-
programmes). 

  Website use (indicator 11.1): 4 projects (also across multiple sub-programmes and with 

the greatest number under the Environment sub-programme).  

  Networking  (indicator 12.1): 4  projects (also across  multiple sub-programmes  and with 

the greatest number under the Environment sub-programme). 

135 

 
The  projects  database  indicates  a  larger  number  of  projects  are  contributing  to  climate  change 
adaptation with 28 projects awarded under the CCM sub-programme with a co-financing rate of 
55%. Thus, indicating that a relatively large share of climate mitigation projects are not reporting 
impacts to the indicators database in relation to CO2 and other GHG savings. 

For the 2021-2027 programming period, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for climate 
change mitigation will be: 

  Primarily  awarded  via  'traditional'  standard  action  grants,  primarily  under  the  Environment  sub-

programme, rather than the CCM 

  Low level of reporting impacts to the indicators database of CCM supported projects 
  Comparatively low co-financing rates in relation to other thematic priorities  
  Environmental impacts will be supported to a minor extent by outreach activities. The full extent of 
outreach  activities  is  not  well  captured  with  the  current  approach  as  it  relies  on  reporting  of 
environmental impacts. 

In addition, for adaptation, of the projects reporting impacts to the indicators database, 2 relate to 
governance  and  information  activities.  The  planned  impact  in  terms  of  improvements  to 
particularly vulnerable areas is expected to be greater beyond the lifetime of the project compared 
to during it at a ratio of ~0.3:1. 

For  mitigation,  3  projects  reported  planned  CO2  savings  to  the  indicators  database  with  an 
average co-financing rate of 60% (higher than the rate provided for 'traditional' standard action 
grants  relating  to  climate  change  mitigation).  The  planned  impact  in  terms  of  CO2  savings  is 
expected to be greater during the lifetime of the project compared to beyond it at a ratio of 2:1. 

According to the projects database, 6 governance and information projects under the climate sub-
programme  were  awarded  between  2014  and  2015  with  an  average  co-financing  rate  of  60% 
(higher  than  the  rate  provided  for  'traditional'  standard  action  grants  relating  to  climate  change 
action). 

For the 2021-2027 programming period, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for climate 
action will be: 

  Governance and information projects will continue to play a relatively minor support role to climate 

actions. 

Strategic integrated project (SIPs): 

The projects database reported 2 SIPs between 2014 and 2015 (with an average co-financing rate 
of  54%),  covering  Denmark  and  Germany.  No  environmental  impacts  are  reported  to  the 
indicators database for the projects concerned. 

The  Danish  SIP  provides  support  to  municipalities  in  the  development  of  their  CCA  plans, 
relating  to  all  spatial  areas  and  intended  to  provide  a  comprehensive  base  for  implementation, 
evaluation and planning in light of the uncertainties of future climate change. The German SIP 
supports to a societal transition to renewable energies and energy efficiencies. It aims to facilitate 
a large-scale change based on changes to consumer behaviour and land use strategies. There are 
no planned environmental impacts reported for either SIP. 

For the 2021-2027 programming period therefore, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for 
climate actions will: 

  Be targeted by SIPs at a reduced scale compared to 'traditional' standard action grants 
  Environmental impacts cannot readily be quantified owing to the nature of the projects 

Other: 

136 

 
 
 
No capacity building or preparatory projects reported environmental impacts in the programming 
period reviewed. 

An  update  on  PF4EE  operations  is  provided  below  (up  to  and  including  2017).  It  shows  the 
number  of  operations  signed  and  approved  together  with  the  planned  energy  savings  and  CO2 
mitigation per year for each operation. 

Table 5-17: PF4EE operations (November 2017) 

Source: EIB (2017)122 

The NCFF is also relevant to climate action with respect to climate change adaptation although 
the environmental impacts are as yet not quantifiable as no operation has been signed at the time 
of reporting in relation to climate change adaptation. 

For the 2021-2027 programming period, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts 
for climate action will be: 

   Carried  out  by  an  increasing  number  of  projects  funded  via  both  the  PF4EE  and  the 
NCFF (particularly assuming that uptake is faster once the NCFF is more established)  

   Monitoring  and  reporting  of  environmental  impacts  will  improve  as  the  number  of 

projects increase and the timeframe of activity continues 

5.3.2.  Economic Impacts of the Business as Usual Scenario 

The economic impacts in the BAU are assumed to be similar to the current implementation of the 
LIFE programme. There are two main economic impacts: 

1.  The economic impacts on applicants 

2.  The economic impacts on EASME/ EC. 

These two main impacts are assessed quantitatively in the next sections. Additional economic 
impacts include: 

1.  The  economic  impact  on  Member  States  –  the  involvement  of  MS  is  not  expected  to 
change  in  the  future,  hence  there  will  be  no  difference  from  the  business  as  usual 
scenario. 

122  

EIB (2017) Energy efficiency in buildings: how to accelerate investments? Paris, December 2017. 
https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/015_2a_isidoro_tapia_seif_paris_11-12-17.pdf  

137 

 
 
                                                      
2.  The  economic  impact  on  SMEs  –  the  extension  of  the  scope,  change  in  delivery 
mechanism,  simplification  of  procedures  might  provide  differing  impacts  on  SMEs. 
These are explored in the individual options. 

3.  The impact on research and innovation – the extension of the scope, change in delivery 
mechanism  might  incentivise  different  type  of  projects  under  LIFE  and  hence  could 
have an impact on research and innovation catalysed through LIFE programme. These 
are explored in the individual options. 

5.3.2.1. 

Economic impacts on applicants 

Application procedure costs – Action grants 

LIFE  stakeholders  have  expressed  their  concerns  regarding  the  application  process  in  the  mid-
term  evaluation.  EASME  experts  mentioned  that  the  application  process  is  overly  complex, 
extensive  and  lacking  purpose,  and  both  NEEMO  monitoring  experts  and  project  beneficiaries 
agreed that it is a burdensome procedure for the applicants.123  

Since  2018,  there  are  two  project  submission  procedures  for  'traditional'  standard  action 
grants. Under the Environment sub-programme, a two-stage process is followed according to 
which, in the first stage, applicants have to submit a brief concept note (approximately 10 pages) 
that  will  summarise  key  information  about  the  proposed  project  and  subsequently  only  the 
applicants  with  the  best  ranked  concept  notes  are  invited  to  submit  a  full  proposal.  Under  the 
Climate  Action  sub-programme,  however,  the  application  procedure  involves  only  the 
submission of a full proposal.  

These  two  procedures  have  different  implications  for  the  costs  that  both  the  applicants  and  the 
Commission  have  to  bear  in  the  application  phase.  According  to  an  interview  with  EASME, 
developing a full proposal requires work equivalent to approximately 44 to 66 person-days (2 – 3 
months, assuming 22 working days per month), which, assuming an average person-day cost of 
€400,  will  cost  the  applicants  from  €17,600  to  €26,400.  On  the  other  hand,  preparing  a  short 
concept  note  would  only  take  around  10  to  15  person-days,  which  entails  a  significantly  lower 
cost that ranges between €4,000 and €6,000, assuming €400 per day, and it will reduce the work 
needed  to  prepare  a  full  proposal  in  the  second  stage.  See  Table  5-1  for  the  overview  of 
calculations and assumptions. 

During the 2014-2016 period, 3,239 traditional project proposals were submitted in total, 2,797 
(86%) of which were under the Environment sub-programme and only 442 (14%) of them were 
under the Climate Action sub-programme.124 If we assume that the number of applications each 
year  will  be  approximately  the  same  and  that  1/3  of  the  submitted  applications  under  the 
Environment sub-programme would be eligible to be invited to the second stage and submit a full 
proposal, then the estimated total application cost for 'traditional' standard projects for the 2014-
2020  period  under  both  sub-programmes  is  around  €73  to  €115  million,  or  around  €10  to  €16 
million per year. This cost includes the preparation of concept notes from all the applicants under 
the  Environment  sub-programme  and  full  proposals  for  those  that  made  it  through  the  second 
stage  (assuming  one  third),  and  the  preparation  of  full  proposals  from  all  applicants  under  the 
Climate  Action  sub-programme.  These  estimates  are  presented  in  more  detail  in  Table  5-11 
below. 

123  

124  

EC  (2017)  Support  for  an  external  and  independent  LIFE  Mid  Term  Evaluation  Report,  Luxembourg, 
European Union, 2017 

Based on data on 'traditional' standard action grants provided by the Commission 

138 

 
                                                      
Table 5-18 Estimated application cost for 'traditional' standard action grants 

Type of 
project 

Type of 
application 
procedure 

Stage I  
time 
needed - 
days (min) 

Stage I  
time 
needed - 
days (max) 

Stage II  
time needed 
- days (min) 

Stage II  
time needed - 
days (max) 

No. 
proposals 
(2014-2016) 

Total cost 
2014-2016 
(min) 

Total cost 
2014-2016 
(max) 

10 

15 

34 

56 

person-day cost: € 400 

'traditional' 
standard 
action 
grants 
(ENV) 

Two-stage 
procedure 

Stage I – 
concept 
note cost 
(min) 

Stage I – 
concept 
note cost 
(max) 

Stage II –  
full  
proposal cost 
(min) 

Stage II –  
full  
proposal  
cost (max) 

€4,000 

€6,000 

€13,600 

€22,400 

2797 

€23,867,733*  €37,666,267* 

'traditional' 
standard 
action 
grants 
(CLIMA) 

Project 
proposal  

Project 
proposal 

time needed 
- days (min) 

time needed - 
days (max) 

One-stage procedure 

44 

66 

442 

€7,779,200 

€11,668,800 

person-day cost: € 400 

€17,600 

€26,400 

Per year application cost for 'traditional' standard projects for both sub-programmes 

€10,548,978 

€16,445,022 

Estimated total application cost for 'traditional' standard projects (2014-2020) 

€ 73,842,844 

€115,115,156 

* It was assumed that 1/3 of the concept notes were eligible to submit a full proposal 

The  integrated  projects  follow  the  same  two-stage  approach  as  described  for  the  'traditional' 
standard  projects  under  the  Environment  sub-programme.  This  means  that  the  applicants  first 
submit a shorter concept note and after their evaluation the highest ranked applicants are invited 
to submit a full project proposal. Therefore, the total application cost for these projects depends 
on the number of concept notes received and the success rate, i.e. how many pass to the second 
stage. The total application cost for integrated projects per year was estimated to be between €2.8 
to  €4.3  million  or  around  €400,000  to  €600,000  per  year,  assuming  that  more  person-days  are 
needed for the preparation of a full proposal for integrated projects than for 'traditional' standard 
projects due to  the higher complexity of the former.  For the overview of these calculations see 
Table  5-1.  The  importance  of  the  technical  assistance  projects  in  the  preparation  of  integrated 
projects has to be highlighted here. The stakeholders’ interviews in the mid-term evaluation have 
revealed that it would be very difficult for integrated project applicants to find sufficient internal 
resources to successfully apply without technical assistance.  

The project selection process for the operating grants is based only on the submission of a full 
proposal,  so  the  total  cost  for  applicants  can  be  estimated  by  the  number  of  the  submitted 
applications  and  the  average  cost  of  preparing  a  full  proposal.  However,  according  to  the  mid-
term  evaluation,  the  biannual  framework  partnership  agreements  for  operating  grants,  which 
requires the submission of an application for each year and an overall application, increases the 
administrative burden of the application process. There is also the possibility under the operating 
grants to be awarded a project without a call for tender. This applies to specific cases, such as to 
IMPEL. In this case, the application procedure cost for the grant beneficiary is negligible.  

139 

 
 
Table 5-19 Estimated application cost for integrated projects 

Type of 
project 

Type of 
application 
procedure 

Stage I  
time 
needed - 
days 
(min) 

Stage I  
time 
needed - 
days 
(max) 

Stage 
II  
time 
needed 
- days 
(min) 

Stage II  
time needed - 
days (max) 

No. concept 
notes (2015-
2016) 

No. full 
proposals 
(2015-2016) 

Total cost 
2015-2016 
(min) 

Total cost 
2015-2016 
(max) 

10 

15 

40 

60 

person-day cost: € 400 

Stage I – 
concept 
note cost 
(min) 

Stage I 
– 
concept 
note cost 
(max) 

Stage II 
–  
full  
proposal 
cost 
(min) 

Stage II –  
full  
proposal  
cost (max) 

Integrated 
projects 
(ENV) 

Integrated 
projects 
(CLIMA) 

Two-stage 
procedure 

€4,000  €6,000  €16,000 

€24,000 

41 

27 

€596,000 

€894,000 

16 

10 

€224,000 

€336,000 

Per year application cost for integrated projects for both sub-programmes 

€410,000 

€615,000 

Estimated total application cost for integrated projects (2014-2020) 

€2,870,000  €4,305,000 

For  the  two  LIFE  Financial  instruments,  the  Private  Finance  for  Energy  Efficiency  (PF4EE) 
and  the  Natural  Capital  Financing  Facility  (NCFF),  the  mid-term  evaluation  provides  some 
insights on the application costs. Regarding the NCFF, and although acknowledging that only a 
limited number of FTEs are allocated for this instrument, the MTE suggested that it was too early 
to assess the administrative burden for the EIB and applicants. Specifically, however, the MTE 
suggested  that  an  extensive  amount  of  time  is  used  inefficiently  in  practice  by  the  EIB  for 
discussing and supporting non-mature project ideas with project applicants. The MTE also stated 
that according to the EIB and evaluators, the reporting requirements could be high based on the 
large  number  of  indicators  that  the  final  beneficiaries  should  report  on.  On  the  other  hand, 
although also too early to come to conclusions, for PF4EE the MTE suggests that it is on the right 
efficiency track, despite the limited number of EIB staff involved in implementation. Interviewed 
intermediaries  indicated  that  there  were  no  excessive  administrative  requirements  in  the 
application  process  for  PF4EE.  However,  reporting  requirements  are  also  considered  too 
cumbersome in the PF4EE, creating an administrative burden to intermediaries. 

The costs of reporting requirements: 

As for the reporting requirements, the majority of the NEEMO monitoring experts and more than 
80% of the beneficiaries interviewed during the mid-term evaluation found them to be very high, 
as  beneficiaries  have  to  prepare  and  submit  five  reports  in  total  during  the  implementation 
phase,125  and  report  on  output  indicators.  An  inception  report  has  to  be  delivered  within  9 

125  

EC.europa.eu. (2018). Environment - LIFE : Toolkit : Project management tools : Standard Agreement and 
Common Provisions. [online] Available at: 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/toolkit/pmtools/life2014_2020/guidelines.htm [Accessed 2 Mar. 2018]. 

140 

 
 
                                                      
 
 
 
months  after  the  start  of  the  project,  and  contains  information  regarding  the  implementation  of 
the project, the work plan, its financial state, and a self-assessment of the viability of the project. 
A progress report has to be submitted no later than 18 months between consecutive reports and 
should include similar information to the inception report with the addition of concise statements 
regarding the undertaken tasks, encountered problems, possible deviations from the plan, and  a 
forecast for the next reporting period. In the end of the project, beneficiaries have to submit the 
final  report  of  the  project,  which  is  particularly  lengthy,  and  has  to  include  administrative, 
technical, and financial information. A mid-term report, which contains the same information as 
the  final  report,  is  also  required  for  projects  that  last  for  more  than  24  months  or  the  EU 
contribution they receive is higher than €300,000. After the end of the project and as part of the 
final report, a layman’s report has to be submitted, which aims to summarise the work of their 
LIFE project for a general audience, serving as a marketing tool for promoting and extending the 
impact of the project beyond the area of implementation. 

In  order  for  the  actual  impact  of  the  LIFE  Programme  to  be  evaluated  applicants  and 
beneficiaries  have  to  measure  and  monitor  the  qualitative  and  quantitative  environmental  and 
climate  action  outcomes.  Hence,  each  project  has  to  report  on  key  indicators  according  to  the 
sector or priority area on which the project focusses and on further key indicators which depict its 
societal  and  economic  outcomes.  In  addition  to  these  mandatory  indicators,  the  applicants  and 
beneficiaries  have  to  report  on  at  least  one  complementary  key  indicator  that  reflects  the 
multipurpose  character  of  the  project  and  the  synergies  it  generates.  Except  for  the  application 
phase, the relevant indicators and related descriptors have to be reported in the end of the project 
and  3-5  years  after  its  completion.  NEEMO  stated  that  the  indicator  database  used  is  too 
complicated and requires enormous resources from the beneficiaries to report on them.126 Most of 
the beneficiaries expressed the same concern regarding the indicator set in the interviews of the 
mid-term evaluation, claiming that they are difficult to comprehend and very time-consuming.  

Assuming different person-days for the respective reports, based on their length and on the effort 
required to complete them, and following the same average person-day cost used above (€400 per 
person-day),  we  can  approximate  the  cost  per  report  and  hence  the  total  cost  of  reporting. It  is 
assumed that the inception report would take approximately 5 person-days to be prepared, which 
would cost around €2,000. The progress report should be no longer than 20 pages and normally 
contains about 10 pages, therefore, 3 person-days should be sufficient, which would cost around 
€1,200.  The  final  and  mid-term  reports  are  especially  lengthy  and  thus  it  is  assumed  that  10 
person-days are necessary, amounting to €4,000 each. The layman’s report would need 3 person-
days  to  be  completed  since  it  is  usually  short  and  not  very  demanding  in  terms  of  the  effort 
needed,  so  it  would  cost  €1,200.  Finally,  reporting  the  qualitative  and  quantitative  outcome 
indicators  has  been  described  by  beneficiaries  as  a  cumbersome  and  time-consuming  process, 
therefore,  the  cost  of  reporting  them  would  be  roughly  €3,200.  This  makes  a  total  of  over 
€12,000, as the approximate total cost of reporting per beneficiary. The table below summarizes 
the abovementioned information. 

Table 5-20 Estimated cost of reporting requirements (including indicators) 

Type of report 

Estimated time needed 
(person-days) 

Person-day cost 

Total cost per report 

Indicator reporting 

Inception report 

8 

5 

€ 400 

€ 400 

€ 3,200 

€ 2,000 

126  

EC (2017) Support for an external and independent LIFE Mid Term Evaluation Report, Luxembourg, 
European Union, 2017 

141 

 
 
                                                      
Progress report 

Midterm report* 

Final report 

Layman's report 

3 

10 

10 

3 

Total 

€ 400 

€ 400 

€ 400 

€ 400 

€ 1,200 

€ 4,000 

€ 4,000 

€ 1,200 

€ 12,400 

* For projects longer than 24 months or with more than €300,000 EU contribution 

5.3.2.2. 

Economic impacts on EASME / European Commission 

In  order  to  estimate  the  annual  management  costs  of  LIFE  in  the  baseline  post-2020,  we  build 
upon the actual costs and staff needs reported in the EASME Annual Work Programme for 2017 
(2017 AWP), and the EASME Financial Statement (2013), as discussed in the next sections.  
We have used FTEs for the calculation of indicative operational costs based on the 2017 AWP127. 
For the day rates per FTE, we referred to the indicative data provided by the Commission during 
a  phone  conversation.  Although  the  2017  AWP  indicates  accurate  figures  for  the  2017 
programme, it does not include indicative FTE data for the European Commission. Based on the 
EC  data  that  had  been  recorded  in  the  EASME  Financial  Statement  (2013),  we  make  the 
additional assumption that 1 Commission FTE is needed per year to supervise the Agency128.  

Furthermore,  it  is  expected  that  programme  operational  costs  will  change  from  year  to  year 
depending  on  the  assigned  budget  and  the  prioritisation  of  different  projects  and  themes. 
However, we have assumed that the FTE data used from the 2017 AWP represents a sufficiently 
up to date and average indication of the operational costs per year. One final assumption was that 
National  Contact  Points  continued  to  be  funded  by  Member  States  themselves,  rather  than  by 
LIFE, and are therefore excluded from the calculations.  

Finally,  in  our  calculations  we  have  assumed  only  Title    1  budget  is  included.  Conversely,  the 
estimate  for  overall  EASME  operational  cost  mentioned  in  the  2017  AWP  include  Title  2  and 
Title 3 budgets  (operational + other costs) post-2020 would be expected to be around €, and at 
€5.7million, , whereas the 2017 AWP reports €5.3 million.  

Calculation - Operational budget for staff: 

Based on the assumptions made, the total operational cost of EASME is in the order of €2m per 
year  (specifically  for  2017,  the  number  is  calculated  to  have  been  €2,170,200)  although  this  is 
limited to only the Title 1 budget. Our data is shown in Table 5-14 below. 

Table 5-21 Calculated operational budget for staff 

EC 

-  DG 

2017 
CLIMA 

2017  -  DG 
ENV 

2017 
TOTAL 

Officials  and 
(FTEs) 

temporary  agents 

1 

1.7 

4.3 

- 

7 

127  

128  

The data tables that we have referred to can be found in section 4-10. 

The data tables that we have referred to can be found in section 4-10. 

142 

 
 
  
                                                      
Officials  and 
(Rate, €/day) 

temporary  agents 

Officials and temporary agents (€) 

143,0
00 

143,0
00 

143,000 

143,000 

143,000 

243,100 

614,900 

1,001,000 

Seconded national agents (FTEs) 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

n/a 

Seconded  national  agents  (Rate, 
€/day) 

82,00
0 

82,000 

82,000 

82,000 

Seconded national agents (€) 

Contractual agents (FTEs) 

Contractual agents (Rate, €/day) 

Contractual agents (€) 

Total (FTEs) 

Total (€) 

n/a 

n/a 

74,00
0 

n/a 

1 

143,0
00 

n/a 

4.5 

n/a 

11.3 

n/a 

15.8 

74,000 

74,000 

74,000 

333,000 

836,200 

1,169,200 

6.2 

15.6 

22.8 

576,100 

1,451,100 

2,170,200 

Source: FTE numbers taken from EASME Financial Statement (2013), day rates provided by DG 
Environment. 

Other costs: 

The  other  costs,  i.e.  management  and  administrative  support  cost,  overhead  cost  (title  2)  and 
programme support costs (title 3) are assumed to be the same as today. 

Cost element 

Annual cost € million 

Table 5-22: Other costs 

LIFE management and administrative costs  

0.71 

Overhead (Title 2) 

Programme support expenditure (Title 3) 

Total 

0.4 

2.4 

3.51 

Source: EASME Annual Work Programme 2017 

The  total  annual  management  budget  for  LIFE  (operational  +  other  costs)  post-2020  would  be 
expected to be around €5.71 million. 

5.3.3.  Social Impacts of the Business as Usual Scenario 

In line with the Commission’s Better Regulation  guidelines, the social impacts included  in this 
assessment of the LIFE budget programme relate to: 

   Employment (job creation) 

   Education and training (outreach to those in education and professionals) 

143 

 
   Governance  and  good  administration  (involvement  among  public  administrations,  civic 

organisations and other stakeholders; and public engagement) 

Social  impacts  relating  to  public  health  and  safety  overlap  with  the  environmental  impacts 
considered and therefore are not included here.  

5.3.3.1. 

Employment 

The social impact of the LIFE budget programme in relation to employment is measured by the 
number of jobs created as a result of its intervention. 

At a project level,  between  2014 and  2015,  a total of 150 projects reported  the number  of jobs 
created (in terms of Full Time Employment) to the indicators database. On average, the number 
of  jobs  created  during  the  lifetime  of  the  project  is 14  FTE;  compared  to  8  FTE  for  the period 
beyond it.  

At  a  programme  level,  it  is  estimated  that  implementation  of  projects  supported  by  the  LIFE 
budget programme create 31,000 jobs (FTE) throughout an entire programming period; and that 
an additional 43,500 jobs (FTE) are created in the 5 years after a programming period as a result 
(NEEMO and Ernst & Young, 2016) (i.e. assuming that job creation beyond a LIFE project has 
grown by a factor of 0.7 compared to during its lifetime). 

In  contrast,  the  MTE  found  that  the  significance  of  LIFE  projects  in  relation  to  planned  job 
creation  was  not  considered  to  be  very  great  by  stakeholders  responding  to  the  public 
consultation. The main reason for this was that LIFE projects are generally not intended to create 
jobs  and  that  job  creation  is  an  indirect  result  occurring  from  other  intended  results  such  as  a 
change in policy, legislation or behaviours; and that indirect results are too difficult to quantify 
with any certainty.   

By  delivery  mechanism,  the  greatest  number  of  projects  contributing  to  job  creation  are 
associated  with  'traditional'  standard  action  grant  projects  (namely  within  the  Environment  and 
Nature  sub-programmes).  Comparatively  few  'traditional'  standard  action  grant  projects  have 
reported  job  creation  within  the  climate  action  sub-programmes;  and  fewer  still  under  other 
delivery mechanisms. The number of projects reporting against this indicator is indicative of the 
overall  share  of  jobs  created  (with  the  largest  number  of  jobs  created  via  'traditional'  standard 
action grants within the Environment and Nature sub-programmes). 

Figure 5-23: Number of projects reporting job creation (2014-2015) 

Source: Indicators database 

For the 2021-2027 programming period, it is understood that in the BAU scenario, social impacts in relation 
to job creation will be: 

 

'traditional' standard action grants will be the main delivery mechanism driving job creation; and the 
number of jobs created by delivery mechanism will largely reflect the number of projects funded by 
the respective mechanisms 

  The  ratio  of  jobs  created  is  greater  beyond  the  lifetime  of  a  LIFE  project  compared  to  during  its 

144 

 
 
lifetime 

5.3.3.2. 

Education and training 

To  gauge  the  impact  of  the  LIFE  budget  programme  on  education,  reporting  on  networking  is 
used,  measured  at  project  level  based  on  the  number,  and  type  of  individuals  that  have  been 
included in or participated in any of the different networking activities (indicator 12.1).  

Of  the  159  total  projects  reporting  against  this  indicator  (for  the  years  2014  and  2015),  34 
included  networking  activities  among  those  in  education  (referring  to  students  and  pupils  of 
school age). The majority of these projects were supported via 'traditional' standard action grants 
within  the  Environment  (16)  and  Nature  (14)  sub-programmes.  The  3  remaining  projects  were 
supported  via  'traditional'  standard  action  grants  and  governance  and  information  action  grants 
within the climate action sub-programmes. 

In qualitative terms, the MTE highlighted the significance of SIPs to capacity building, training 
of involved stakeholders and skills development and capacity building projects. The latter were 
also  found  to  deliver  benefits  in  this  regard  –  namely  for  implementing  and  setting  up  training 
(relating  to  further  education  on  and  dissemination  of  environmental  and  climate  action  best 
practices). 

While  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  framework  for  the  LIFE  budget  programme  includes  an 
indicator for professional training or education (indicator 12.2), the results are not included in the 
impact assessment as they were deemed too unreliable. 

For the 2021-2027 programming period, it is understood that in the BAU scenario, social impacts in relation 
to education and training will be: 

 

'traditional'  standard  action  grants  will  be  the  main  delivery  mechanism  supporting  networking 
activities  among  those  in  education;  and  compared  to  other  stakeholders  involved  in  networking 
activities, those in education are comparatively few 

  SIPs  and  capacity  building  projects  will  provide  the  greatest  added  value  in  terms  of  training 

activities compared to other delivery mechanisms 

5.3.3.3. 

Governance and good administration  

Reporting on stakeholder involvement (indicator 10.2) and website traffic (indicator 11.1) is used 
to gauge the impact of the LIFE budget programme on governance and good administration. 

Of the 96 projects reporting against the stakeholder involvement indicator (for the years 2014 and 
2015),  NGOs  comprise  the  largest  stakeholder  group.  The  majority  of  these  projects  were 
supported  via  'traditional'  standard  action  grants  within  the  Environment  (42)  and  Nature  (28) 
sub-programmes. 

145 

 
 
Figure 5-24: LIFE projects according to the types of stakeholder involvement 

 Source: Indicators database 

Website  traffic  relates  to  the  number  of  unique  site  visits,  average  site  duration,  number  of 
individuals and number of downloads. Overall 140 projects reported planned impacts relating to 
website traffic (of which all reported the number of individuals but between 90 and 94% reported 
against the other metrics). The number of individuals visiting the project websites is on average 
greater during the lifetime of the projects compared to beyond it (at a ratio of 2:1). The majority 
of the projects reporting against this indicator are 'traditional' standard action grants; as concluded 
in the MTE, the majority of governance and information activities reported  by LIFE projects is 
occuring in projects outside the corresponding sub-programmes and delivery mechanisms.  

For the 2021-2027 programming period, it is understood that in the BAU scenario, social impacts in relation 
to governance and good administration will be: 

  NGOs will be the main type of stakeholder involved in in LIFE projects, followed by public bodies 
  Stakeholder  involvement  by  delivery  mechanism  reflects  the  number  of  projects  awarded  by  the 
respective  delivery  mechanism  (whereby  a  greater  number  of  projects  under  'traditional'  standard 
action grants report a larger share of stakeholder involvement) 

  Governance and administration activities will be funded across all delivery mechanisms, and will not 

be limited to the governance and information sub-programmes 

  Website traffic for LIFE projects is greatest during the lifetime of a project 

Supporting evidence: LIFE management costs 

EASME 2017 AWP: 

146 

 
 
 
 
147 

 
 
 
148 

 
 
 
 
 
149 

 
 
 
 
2013 Life Financial Statement 

150 

 
 
 
 
ANNEX 6 : GAP AND SYNERGIES  

This  annex  provides  an  overall  picture  but  it  is  not  complete  because  of  the  need  to  take  into 
account of the scope of the new generation of programmes after 2020. 

ANNEX 6. 

GAPS AND SYNERGIES ANALYSIS 

This annex adopts a two-step approach, as follows: 

 

 

Step one – Assessing which aspects of needs for policy support on the route from research, 
through  demonstration,  to  market  uptake  and  financing  full  scale  implementation,  are 
covered by the various components of the LIFE programme cover, which are those covered 
by other major EU programmes and funds.. Concluding with the gaps in coverage and the 
areas of potential overlap with regard to the stages being supported. 

Step two - Discussion of these areas of overlap and potential synergy taking into account the 
issues targeted by the support and finance. This is split into the current overlaps based on the 
current  LIFE  approach  and  the  current  approach  in  the  other  programmes  (including  the 
mainstreaming efforts in these other programmes), and the future potential synergies - based 
on  the  information  available  at  the  time  of  preparation  of  this  impact  assessment  for  the 
future of the other programmes (where this is available).  

6.1. 

Step one: LIFE and other EC programmes coverage of different stages 

The following diagram shows the main coverage of the LIFE programme and other major 
EC programmes and funds in terms of how they can contribute to transforming Europe’s 
approach to the climate and environment. 

It is important to stress that this diagram only refers to coverage by stage, it should not be 
interpreted as implying that there is duplication between the programmes. This is because 
the subject and nature of what is being funded by LIFE is (virtually always) different to 
that  being  funded  by  the  other  programmes.  This  point  is  illustrated  in  the  following 
sections. 

Figure 6-1. The coverage of LIFE and other major EC programmes and funds 

Source: European Commission  

151 

 
 
 
 
The steps in the figure are relevant to both nature and climate, and cover approaches as well as 
technologies: 

Research  /  Innovation  (first  of  a  kind)  –  This  includes  primary  research,  i.e.  pure 
science that may or may not result in a technology, approach or policy that improves the 
environment  or  climate,  including  basic  scientific  activities  to  identify  and  characterise 
environmental and climate problems. Taking research and applying it to a problem, for 
technology,  this  would  include  first  prototypes;  for  policies  /  approaches,  this  would 
include, inter alia, modelling and analysis. 

LIFE  does  not  currently  cover  this  area.  The  only  activities  that  LIFE  could  currently 
support  under  this  stage  is  work  supported  by  procurement  (directly  let  consultancy 
projects). However, these activities are focussed on new policy development rather than 
the technology development or basic research that lies at the heart of what Horizon 2020 
supports,  so  there  is  no  inherent  overlap.    LIFE  can  also  finance  small-scale,  focussed 
research work in support of other objectives in projects, but this is on a scale which could 
not be supported by Horizon 2020. 

Demonstration/ best practice – Testing, demonstrating and piloting the effectiveness of 
new  technologies,  approaches  or  policies.  Public  subsidy  may  well  be  needed  to 
overcome the costs associated with displacing an incumbent technology or approach, by 
demonstrating a technology/ practice from laboratory/ demonstration plant in large-scale 
industrial  application.  Best  practice  refers  to  refining  and  encouraging  the  broader  take 
up  of  technologies  and  approaches,  by  promoting  the  existence  and  effectiveness  of 
(already demonstrated) new technologies, approaches or policies in small scale projects, 
which also serve to experiment with, and improve on, best practice.  

A significant amount of what LIFE currently offers comes under this stage, in particular 
under  the  traditional  standard  action  grants.  For  example,  there  are  projects  developing 
innovative  ways  of  conserving  and  protecting  nature  and  its  habitats  or  demonstrating 
concrete solutions for reducing the environmental impact of the housing sector by testing 
innovative solutions.  

This includes both sub-programmes. 

Facilitating  exploitation/awareness  –  Preparing  the  ground  for 
the  large-scale 
deployment of new approaches / technologies, this includes helping to overcome barriers, 
such as difficulties in accessing finance or overcoming lack of knowledge and expertise. 

A significant amount of what LIFE currently offers comes under this stage, in particular 
from  the  'traditional'  standard  action  grants  and the  NGO  operating  grants.  Most  of the 
'traditional' standard action grants have a communication/ awareness raising component 
as part of the project. NGO operating grants aim to strengthen the participation of NGOs 
in  the  dialogue  process  in  environmental  and  climate  change  policy-making  and  in  its 
implementation.  

Large  scale  funding  of  green  solutions  –  This  is  the  final  stage  where  technology/ 
approach / policy is credible, and ready to be widely applied, and one of the main barriers 
is access to funds.  

The  LIFE  financial  instruments  (Private  Finance  for  Energy  Efficiency  (PF4EE)  and 
Natural  Capital  Finance  Facility  (NCFF))  are  active  in  this  area.  Currently,  these 
financial  instruments  are  pilots,  and  operate  at  a  relatively  small  scale.  The  NCFF  is 
specifically targeted on projects demonstrating that natural capital projects can generate 
revenues  or  save  costs,  while  delivering  on  biodiversity  and  climate  adaptation 
objectives. The PF4EE aims to increase the availability of private finance for investments 

152 

 
in energy efficiency. To date the PF4EE has been more successful in completing projects 
but the NCFF is starting to attract more applicants. 

6.2.  Step  two:  Potential  overlaps  /  synergies  between  LIFE  and  other  EC 
programmes 

The following sections discuss where there appear to be overlaps and synergies between 
what  LIFE  is  attempting  to  do  and  what  is  being  done  (and  what  could  be  done  in  the 
future) by other programmes.  

6.2.1.  LIFE and CAP 

Programme description 

The Common Agricultural policy (CAP) of the EU supports three main types of activity:  

 

Income  support,  to  farmers,  based  on  market  orientation  (i.e.  production  that 
meets consumer demands), and linked with environmental sustainability, animal 
health and welfare, and food safety 

  Market  measures,  to  balance  impacts  on  vulnerable  common  agricultural  due  to 

external factors such as weather conditions or a high price volatility 

  Rural  development,  responding  to  the  specific  needs  for  rural  development  of 

each of the 28 EU countries.  

The  CAP  annual  budget  is  roughly  €59  billion,  with  measures  financed  through  the 
European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for 
Rural Development (EAFRD). The EAGF and EAFRD have numerous sub programmes. 
Each  Member  State  administers  its  own  share  of  the  CAP  budget,  against  a  strategic 
direction and set of rules set at EU level. 

Overlap  

The  potential  for  overlap  exists  because  the  CAP  includes  numerous  sub  programmes 
and  schemes  designed  to  influence  land  management  by  farmers  and  land  owners,  and 
finance  (via  subsidies  to  farmers)  the  uptake  of  certain  known  land  management 
practices.  These  programmes  and  schemes  have  a  clear  influence  on  nature  and  the 
environment. The CAP also includes climate relevant actions, such as using known land 
management techniques for flood prevention (climate adaptation) and improving energy 
and resource efficiency among famers (climate mitigation).  

However, LIFE does not seek to directly finance these widespread changes to operational 
practices  but  mainly  focuses  on  the  (relatively  small  scale)  development  and 
demonstration of new and best practice. There is therefore some overlap (or synergy) in 
objectives between LIFE and aspects of the CAP, but there is not an overlap in terms of 
duplication of actions.  

The  only  potential  overlap  between  the  CAP  and  LIFE  is  in  the  area  of  large  scale 
deployment, where the LIFE financial instrument NCFF could be used to support some 
of  the  same  actions  that  the  CAP  finances.  However,  the  financial  instruments  provide 
loans whereas the vast majority of the CAP actions provide (in effect) direct grants. The 
scale  is  also  vastly  different,  the  LIFE  NCFF  is  very  small  in  comparison  to  the  CAP. 
The  nature  of  the  projects  likely  to  attract  support  under  the  LIFE  NCFF  is  also  very 
different  to  what  the  CAP  supports.  As  such,  the  LIFE  NCFF  acts  more  as  a 
complementary financial instrument rather than a substitute in terms of nature protection 
and climate adaptation. 

153 

 
Current synergies and mainstreaming 

The relevant actions carried out under CAP in order to meet the objectives it shares with 
LIFE  can  be  described  as  mainstreaming  because  the  environment  /  climate  relevant 
aspects are linked to achieving the objectives that are central to the CAP – primarily the 
support and protection of farmers income. 

The  EAFRD  is  currently  the  largest  source  of  EU  funding  for  nature  and  biodiversity 
(amounting  to  around  75%  of  the  total  EU  funding).  The  mid-term  review  of  LIFE 
(2014-2015)  mentioned:  “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”. Other synergies exist with respect to demonstration projects, where 
the results of a LIFE demonstration project could be taken up by farmers. 

This  shows  that  better  synergies  and  complementarities  between  LIFE  and  EAFRD 
should be explored, as there are good examples which could be replicated, if the relevant 
stakeholders can be engaged and convinced. 
A recent report129 for DG ENV on the need for a dedicated biodiversity fund considered 
the  issues  of  mainstreaming  of  objectives  to  protect  and  enhance  biodiversity  in  EU 
funding.    “Since  2007,  EU  funding  for  biodiversity  and  the  Natura  2000  network  has 
been made available by integrating biodiversity goals into various existing EU funds or 
instruments.  The  EU  funds  available  for  financing  Natura  2000  during  the  periods  of 
2007-2013 and 2014-2020 include EAFRD. However, the report also specified that under 
this  integrated  framework  only  LIFE  provides  dedicated  support  to  biodiversity  and 
Natura  2000;  whereas  all  other  EU  funding  instruments,  including  CAP,  are  primarily 
targeted  to  deliver  the  EU  goals  on  rural,  regional,  infrastructural,  social  and  scientific 
development.  “While  this  allows  the  integration  of  biodiversity  into  broader  rural  and 
regional contexts, it also makes the availability of funding dependent on the overall goals 
and mechanisms of the given funding instruments, thereby creating a need to demonstrate 
compliance with each funds' specific rules.” 

Future synergies 

There  is  a  strong  potential  for  improved  future  synergy  in  that  the  results  of  relevant 
LIFE projects could be implemented using CAP support and vice-versa, in particular for 
'traditional'  standard  action  grants  and  integrated  projects.  The  orientation  of  the  future 
CAP post 2020 should enhance the level of ambition of environment and climate action. 

The strategic direction of the future of the CAP includes numerous suggestions as to how 
the objectives it shares with LIFE can be better operationalised and to how the potential 
(more practical) synergies between the programmes can be improved.  

Linking LIFE to CAP (which is maybe easier in Natura 2000 areas) offers better linkages 
and  consideration  of  environmental  issues,  which  is  an  ambition  for  the  future  of  the 
CAP,  provided  the  specific  and  operational  objectives  of  the  CAP  will  be  aligned  with 

129   

Kettunen,  M.,  Illes,  et  al  (2017)  Summary  report  -  Integration  approach  to  EU  biodiversity  financing: 
evaluation of results and analysis of options for the future. Final report for the European Commission (DG 
ENV)  (Project  ENV.B.3/ETU/2015/0014),  Institute  for  European  Policy  (IEEP),  Brussels  /  London. 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/Kettunen_2017_financing_biodiversity_su
mmary.pdf  

154 

 
                                                      
those of EU environment policy that are reflected in LIFE.130. The CAP can draw on and 
'operationalise'  the  best  practice  ‘library’  of  LIFE.  For  example,  LIFE-Nature  projects 
have developed and tested land management approaches which have then been integrated 
in the CAP as specific measures in the Operational Programmes.  

For  the  next  MFF,  Natura  2000  funding  could  come  solely  under  the  EAFRD  (part  of 
CAP) for 'rural' areas, with the cohesion fund no longer funding nature actions outside of 
urban areas. This generates a concern about nature intervention in non-urban areas which 
are  not  covered  by  the  CAP  meaning  of  'rural  areas',  and  would  risk  thus  of  not  being 
funded anymore.  

According  to  the  Food  and  Farming  Communication  (2017),  MSs  would  have  to  take 
more account of EU environmental and climate strategies in their CAP strategic plans131, 
and Member States will set their own targets and do their own monitoring132. According 
to DG AGRI, high level targets will be set at EU level, with Member States more free to 
set  their  own  local  targets  to  achieve  EU  and  national  environmental  objectives,  which 
should make them more appropriate to national standards and nature needs. 

Creating  a  separate  fund  for  nature  or  re-enforcing  the  existing  funding  in  a  new  LIFE 
programme  should  be  carefully  assessed.  From  the  CAP  perspective  it  could  be  counter-
productive  with  the  integration  principle  of  environment  and  climate  into  sectorial  policies. 
Furthermore, it is not certain if it could solve the issue of lack of existing funds if there is not a 
sufficient  critical  mass  of  funding.  However,  a  separate  fund  for  nature  would  increase  the 
effectiveness of the EU action for nature and biodiversity in rural areas, with more targeted and 
effective  measures,  compared  to  a  system  such  as  the  one  of  the  CAP  2014-20.    A  more 
pragmatic  solution  could  be  to  use  strategic  projects  for  nature  under  LIFE,  conceived  as 
expanded  SIPs,  to  improve  the  mainstreaming  of  nature  and  biodiversity  in  other  funding 
instruments such as the CAP. 

130   

131   

132  

Food  and  Farming  Communication  2017  “a  modernised  CAP  should  enhance  its  EU  added  value  by 
reflecting  a  higher  level  of  environmental  and  climate  ambition,  and  address  citizens'  concerns  regarding 
sustainable  agricultural  production.”  “Any  new  CAP  should  reflect  higher  ambition  and  focus  more  on 
results as regards resource efficiency, environmental care and climate action.” 

Food and Farming Communication 2017. “When preparing CAP strategic plans, the Member States will take 
into  account  their  planning  tools  adopted  emanating  from  EU  environmental  and  climate  legislation  and 
policies.  Such  as  the  Management  Plans  and  Prioritised  Action  Frameworks  for  Natura  2000,  River  Basin 
Management Plan, Air Quality and Air Pollution Programmes, Biodiversity Strategies.” “The current green 
architecture of the CAP, that primarily relies on the complementary implementation of three distinct policy 
instruments  –cross  compliance,  green  direct  payments  and  voluntary  agri-environmental  and  climate 
measures  will  be  replaced  and  all  operations  integrated  into  a  more  targeted,  more  ambitious  yet  flexible 
approach. The new delivery model will allow Member States to devise a mixture of mandatory and voluntary 
measures in Pillar I and Pillar II to meet the environmental and climate objectives defined at EU level.” 

Food and farming communication, 2017. “The granting of income support to farmers will be conditioned to 
their undertaking of environmental and climate practices, which will become the baseline for more ambitious 
voluntary  practices.  The  new  conditionality  will  rely  on  the  implementation  of  a  streamlined  set  of 
environmental  and  climate  conditions,  providing  environmental  and  climate  public  goods.  These  practices 
would be further defined by Member States in order to better take account of their specific situation, climate 
risks  and  needs,  while  ensuring  that  these  practices  adequately  contribute  to  the  objectives  agreed  at  EU 
level.  Member  States  would  have  to  ensure  that  the  agreed  targets  are  met  and  monitor  performance  in  a 
robust  and  credible  way.  Additional  environmental  /  climate  benefits  will  be  achieved  through  voluntary 
entry  level  schemes  and  more  ambitious  agro-environment-climate  schemes  that  will  allow  Member 
States/Regions  to  target  their  specific  concerns”.  “However,  to  ensure  coherence  with  the  overarching  EU 
objectives,  all  actions  and  targets  put  forward  by  the  Member  State  will  be  approved  by  the  Commission 
within an EU framework agreed as part of the CAP strategic plan.” 

155 

 
                                                      
6.2.2.  LIFE and the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF) 

Programme description 

The  ESIF  for  the  2014-2020  period  is  made  up  of  five  different  funds:  the  European  Regional 
Development  Fund  (ERDF),  the  Cohesion  Fund  (CF),  the  European  Social  Fund  (ESF),  the 
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural 
Development (EAFRD).  

The  purpose  of  putting  these  five  funds  within  a  framework  is  to  improve  coordination  and 
harmonisation  between  them.  The  ESIF  establishes  a  common  framework  with  11  thematic 
objectives  which  determine  the  use  of  all  five  funds.  These  objectives  include  several  of 
relevance to nature and climate, for example:  

1.  

4.  

5.  

6.  

7.  

11. 

Strengthening research, technological development and innovation 

Supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors 

Promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management 

Preserving and protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency 

Promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures 

 Enhancing institutional capacity of public authorities and stakeholders and efficient public 
administration 

ESIF  includes  support  for  the  development  of  physical  infrastructure,  including  energy 
infrastructure via the Cohesion Fund contribution the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) (which 
is  not  eligible  under  LIFE)  as  well  as  for  large-scale  land  management  and  economic 
development  activities. As with the CAP, ESIF shares some objectives with LIFE, and as such 
there are opportunities for the projects funded under ESIF to take account of environmental and 
climate  objectives.  The  ERDF  spends  over  a  quarter  (28%)  of  its  expenditure  on  various 
environmental measures, including projects in traditional sectors like waste and water, as 
well as actions to support the transition to the low carbon economy. The ERDF also funds 
the  Interreg  programme,  which  is  a  framework  for  exchanging  experience  and  best  practice 
between regional and local bodies in different countries, including on energy and environmental 
topics.  The  Cohesion  fund  is  also  able  to  support  environmental  projects,  and  the  EMFF 
finances environmental actions in the context of implementation of the maritime policy.  

ESIF includes direct support for developments where environmental or climate objectives are a 
significant part of the rationale, for example improving the energy efficiency of existing housing 
stock as well as water and waste infrastructure projects. ESIF also includes development of soft 
infrastructure,  for  example  skills  (via  the  ESF),  which  can  include  environmental  and  climate 
issues.  The  ESIF  also  includes  financial  instruments  mainly  under  the  ERDF,  but  also  in  the 
EMFF) to provide finance (preferential loans) for infrastructure and other development. 

Overlap  

Parts  of  ESIF  (the  FIs  under  the  ERDF  and  to  a  lesser  extent  the  EMFF)  potentially 
overlap  with  the  LIFE  Financial  Instruments  in  large  scale  deployment.  However,  the 
nature and scale of the majority of what the LIFE FIs look to support are not similar to 
what the (nationally managed) ESIF FIs typically support, with the possible exception of 
some energy efficiency projects. A recent DG Regio publication133 describes the methods 
by which Cohesion funding can be used to support energy efficiency investments. This 

133  

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/guides/2014/financing-the-energy-
renovation-of-buildings-with-cohesion-policy-funding 

156 

 
                                                      
support  is  aimed  at  energy  efficiency  in  buildings  and  given  that  this  is  an  area  of 
substantial need, there appears to be more than enough demand to avoid duplication. 

Overall  LIFE  and  ESIF  are  complementary  in  terms  of  scale  and  permanence  of 
interventions. As with the CAP, LIFE projects can develop models which could then be 
implemented at a large scale with ESIF support 

Current synergies and mainstreaming 

There  are  some  good  examples  of  existing  synergies.  With  regards  to  LIFE  and  the 
European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), the original proposal for the 2014-2020 
EMFF,  included  a  mandatory  requirement  to  develop  integrated  projects  between  the 
EMFF and LIFE. This was removed from the programme but illustrates the willingness 
and  potential  to  continue  encouraging  the  integrated  approach  to  EMFF-LIFE  funded 
projects and reflects the fact that the EMFF Managing Authorities have been encouraged 
to embrace the concept of LIFE-EMFF integrated projects.  The intent was picked up in 
the  Common  Provisions  Regulation  instead,  which  requires  the  programmes  under  the 
relevant funds to take into account LIFE integrated projects and ensure complementarity. 

With regard to the skills links, between LIFE and the European Social Fund (ESF). DG 
EMPL  have  highlighted  the  potential  regarding  the  skills  needed  for  emerging 
environmental  and  circular  economy  occupations.  They  particularly  highlight  the  role 
social enterprises can play in the repair and reuse sectors, and that these can be supported 
via the future European programme  for employment and social innovation, (EaSI). DG 
EMPL has recently signed a 4-year framework partnership agreement with RREUSE, the 
European  network  for  social  enterprises  in  the  circular  economy,  who  is  currently 
running LIFE-funded projects (BIOHEC, ReWEEE). 

According to evaluations quoted in the draft IAs, Cohesion Policy has provided a major 
contribution  to  achieving  EU  water  and  waste  targets,  in  particular  for  EU13,  although 
there is, and there will continue to be, a need for Cohesion Policy co-funding to projects 
in these areas.  

 Future synergies 

The proposals for the ERDF and CF Regulations continues to recognise the need for a greener, 
low-carbon  economy  Europe  by  including  this  as  a  specific  objective,  so  the  alignment  of 
objectives between LIFE and ERDF and CF should be strengthened in future. Further there is an 
increased emphasis on improving institutions and governance, cooperation  with partners within 
and outside a given Member State, and urban aspects. 

All  of  these  issues  are  potentially  relevant  to  the  future  of  LIFE  as  they  offer 
opportunities  for  synergies, in  that  the  good  practice  library  of  LIFE,  particularly  in  its 
activities  in  environment  and  climate  institutional  capacity  building  (such  as  via  the 
Integrated projects), could be taken up by future ERDF/Cohesion funding. There is also a 
need  to  ensure  that  future  activities  in  these  areas  do  not  duplicate  with  any  activities 
planned  under  ERDF/Cohesion  Fund.    However,  given  that  LIFE  focussed  on 
demonstrative  actions,  whereas  the  ERDF/Cohesion  Fund  finance  mainly  large  scale 
operational actions, the actual overlap is less prominent. 

In  the  future,  LIFE  could  also  potentially  support  platforms  for  joint  learning  and 
experience  sharing,  to  network  ambitious  local projects  along  value chains  financed  by 
the ERDF/Cohesion fund. 

157 

 
 
6.2.3.  LIFE and Horizon 2020 / Horizon Europe 

Programme description 

Horizon 2020 supports research and innovation from pure science through to demonstration and 
market uptake. The concept of ‘scientific excellence’ needs to be evident in projects for Horizon 
2020 to support them. Horizon 2020 covers the full range of fields and includes many strands of 
relevance to the environment and climate. It also includes a group of objectives that were in the 
Intelligent Energy Europe (IEE) Programme in the previous MFF  – these are discussed under a 
separate heading. There are also financial instruments within Horizon 2020 designed to provide 
finance for developing research into a commercial proposition.  

Overlap  

The  non-energy  part  of  Horizon  2020  has  very  limited  potential  overlaps  with  LIFE,  as  LIFE 
does not support early stage research, except where it is incidental to the main orientation of the 
project. 

Current synergies and mainstreaming 

As  with  the  CAP  and  the  ESIF,  there  are  clearly  shared  objectives  between  Horizon  2020  and 
LIFE.  There  are  also  clear  potential  synergies  in  that  LIFE  could  take  more  of  the  ideas  and 
innovations  developed  under  Horizon  2020  and  help  developing  and  demonstrate  this  research 
where it can help address environmental and climate issues. As a general rule Horizon 2020 will 
cover  activities  that  support  the  development,  demonstration  and  market  uptake  of  innovative, 
first-of-a-kind  solutions  (through  co-creation,  financial 
instruments  under  EIC,  public 
procurement) that have a cross-border dimension. There is also arguably some potential for LIFE 
to highlight the areas where it sees a research need, and for these to have some influence on what 
Horizon 2020 is covering in its Work Programmes..  

A synergy which currently exists is the potential for results from Horizon 2020 projects to feed 
into  LIFE  projects  focussed  on  the  demonstration  and  dissemination  (i.e.  promotion  of  best 
practice) of these results.  

Future synergies 

The draft impact assessment for Horizon Europe recognises the links between it and LIFE, and 
says  “The  future  LIFE  programme  will  continue  to  act  as  a  catalyst  for  implementing  EU 
environment and climate policy and legislation, including by taking up and applying R&I results 
from  the  FP.  The  future  FP  will  contribute  to  tackling  environmental  challenges  in  particular 
though the clusters on [Climate, Energy and Mobility] and [Food and Natural Resources] through 
R&I activities. 

For the future of Horizon Europe a need to simplify the number of EU programmes supporting 
R+I has been recognised. As a general rule the Framework Programme will cover activities that 
support  the  development,  demonstration  and  market  uptake  of  innovative  solutions  that  have  a 
trans-national  dimension,  and  which  are  first-of-a-kind  for  the  EU  and  have  a  potential  for 
replication in the Union. LIFE will take more of the ideas and innovations developed under the 
Framework  Programme  and  help  deploying  them  where  it  can  help  address  environmental  and 
climate  issues.  The  catalytic  effect  of  the  traditional  LIFE  projects  will  be  to  develop,  test  or 
showcase  suitable  technologies  or  methodologies  for  implementation  of  EU  environment  and 
climate  policy  within  a  Member  State  or  region,  which  can  subsequently  be  deployed  at  large 
scale, funded by other sources, including the Framework Programme. 

Through  strategic  programming  LIFE  will  contribute  to  highlight  the  areas  where  it  sees  a 
research  and  innovation  need.  LIFE  will  continue  to  incentivise  synergies  with  the  Framework 
Programme through the award of a bonus during the evaluation for proposals which feature the 
uptake of Framework Programme results. 

As  regards  the  integration  of  Clean  Energy  Policy  Enabling  programme  in  LIFE,  which  will 
continue the actions funded under Intelligent Energy Europe III/Horizon 2020-Societal Challenge 

158 

 
III,  it  will  focus  on  capacity  building  and  policy  support  activities,  while  the  Framework 
Programme  will  continue  focusing  on  technology  and  non-technology  related  research  and 
innovation for clean energy transition.  

DG RTD has suggested a possible future additional synergy, where post-LIFE projects partners 
could  find  support  for  scaling  up  and  commercialising  their  ideas.  This  could  occur  via 
the  European  Innovation  Council 
channelling  relevant  successful  LIFE  projects 
mechanism134, which is being piloted from 2018 to 2020 and possibly into the proposed European 
Innovation Council in Horizon Europe. This would be relevant for those innovators, beneficiary 
of  the  LIFE  programme's  grants,  whose  projects,  having  demonstrated  a  direct  environmental 
impact in the regional or national context, which also have a high growth potential and ambition 
to  accelerate  the  transition  to  a  low-carbon,  energy  efficient  and  circular  economy  through 
sustainable innovation. 

into 

6.2.4.  LIFE  and  the  IEE  III/Horizon  2020  (future  Clean  Energy  Transition 

programme) 

As regards the possible integration of Clean Energy Transition programme in LIFE (option 1 in 
the impact assessment), which is intended to continue the actions funded under IEE III/Horizon 
2020-Societal Challenge III, there is a presumed overlap, non-confirmed in a closer assessment,  
as well as possibilities for exploiting synergies better.  

The aim of is to enable socio-economic transformation for Clean Energy transition by developing 
and spreading best practice, mobilising investments and providing support to reduce development 
gaps.  

15% of the Societal Challenge 3 budget was dedicated to so-called 'market uptake' actions. "The 
Commission  will  endeavour  to  ensure  that  at  least  85  %,  of  the  energy  challenge  budget  of 
Horizon 2020 is spent in non-fossil fuels areas, within which at least 15 % of the overall energy 
challenge  budget  is  spent  on  market  up-take  activities  of  existing  renewable  and  energy 
efficiency technologies in the Intelligent Energy Europe III Programme"135  

The  IEE  programme  supports  development  of  Sustainable  Energy  Communities  across  the 
continent  in order to build  institutional capacity at a local and regional  level. Support has been 
given  by  associations  or  active  networks  such  as  Local  Governments  for  Sustainability  in  the 
1990’s, Climate Alliance and Energy Cities. Projects influenced 650 local authorities to join the 
Covenant of Mayors and helped to develop more than 500 SEAPs (Mayors in Action, 50000&1 
SEAPs, CASCADE, BEAST, ManagEnergy)136. 

Overlap 

There  is  a  presumed  overlap  between  the  actions  financed  under  IEE  III/Horizon  2020  and  the 
LIFE climate sub-programme because LIFE, inter alia, aims at facilitating large scale deployment 
of  climate  mitigation  measures,  which  include  energy  efficiency. However,  the  implementation 
modalities make both programmes very distinctive and complementing each other. The IEE types 

134  

https://ec.europa.eu/research/eic/index.cfm?pg=about 

135     According to Declarations of the Commission (2013/C 373/02) annexed to Horizon 2020 regulation (EU) 

N°1291/2013 

136  

ICF  International,  LDK,  Hinicio  (2015):  Evaluation  of  Intelligent  Energy  Europe  Projects  Supporting 
Sustainable Energy Communities- Final report. ICF review the relation of IEE support for communities and the 
Covenant of Mayors. Apart from quantifying the multiplier effects generated by the programmes (e.g. set-up and 
signing  of  SEAPs)  they  identify  investments  triggered  by  a  sample  of  30  projects  (€8.3bn,  p.  91),  RES 
production of 935.000 toe/yr.; primary energy savings of 1,938,000 toe/yr. and 7,700,000 tCO2eq. reduced (p. 
92). The consortium estimates based on a survey that by the end of the projects some 5,470 jobs and 17,373 jobs 
by 2020 resulted through the projects. 78% of survey respondents confirmed that the respective project would 
not have been implemented in the absence of IEE funding (figure 43, p. 96). 

159 

 
                                                      
of  actions  are  targeting  very  specific  fields  and  policy  provisions,  which  are  seen  as  the  most 
challenging  and risk  to hamper the  effectiveness of the policy action  in the field. This requires 
'top-down' prescriptive programming, policy steering and close monitoring of the implementation 
as  well  as  very  intensive  feedback  interactions.  Under  the  LIFE  Climate  Action,  energy 
efficiency is a part of a broad climate mitigation action, where a bottom-up approach allows the 
market to arrive with the best solutions to address this broad challenge. Indeed, the focus of the 
LIFE Climate sub-programme is much broader than energy efficiency. It covers all climate gases 
and  all  sectors  and  it  not  only  financing  projects.  Moreover,  large  shares  of  LIFE  projects  are 
demonstration  projects  or  best  practice  projects  that  are  not  directly  targeting  'market  uptake 
action'  and  its  specific  barriers.  Thus  in  practice  the  scale  of  the  LIFE  budget  used  on  projects 
facilitating market uptake of energy efficiency solutions is very limited compared to the budget 
used under IEE III/Horizon 2020. Finally, the way the support is given is different under LIFE 
and under IEE III/Horizon 2020 and is thus likely to accommodate a larger variety of groups. 

Future synergies 

There  is  a  potential  for  exploiting  synergies  between  actions  supporting  capacity  building  for 
clean  energy  transition  on  the  one  hand  and  strategic  LIFE  integrated  projects  focusing  on 
implementing  climate  mitigation  plans  at  a  larger  scale.  These  synergies  could  be  more  easily 
exploited if these actions were funded under the same programme.  

Furthermore, experience has shown that  IEE III is not fitting well into the structure of Horizon 
2020  and  it  is  currently  explicitly  excluded  from  the  proposed  scope  of  its  successor,  for  more 
detail on coherence and synergies related to the option of including the Clean Energy Transition 
programme in LIFE see Annex 9. 

6.2.5.  LIFE and Financial Instruments (including EFSI) 

Programme description 

There is currently no agreed definition or list of all EU financial instruments (FIs). The two EU 
reports which collate information on large groupings of EU FIs are the annual ‘140.8’ report137 on 
centrally managed financial instruments and the annual report on financial instruments under the 
European Structural and Investment funds (ESIF)138. 

The most recent report on centrally managed instruments quotes a 2014-20 budget envelope for 
financial instruments of EUR 8.4 billion which is targeted to support the financing of EUR 87.8 
billion,  implying  an  average  leverage  of  10.5  and  an  investment  amount  of  EUR  137.6  billion. 
This budget excludes appropriations for successor instruments to certain instruments established 
for Enlargement and Neighbourhood or Development Cooperation countries.  

There  are  a  number  of  FIs  which  are  not  included  in  either  of  these  reports.  These  exclusions 
include the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI)139, also known as the ‘Junker fund’) 
the  European  Development  Fund  (EDF)  and  the  Guarantee  fund  for  External  Actions.  The 
Commission’s explanations for excluding these funds from the Art 140.8 report are as follows:  

137   COM(2017) 535 final. Report on financial instruments supported by the general budget according to Art.140.8 of 
2016. 
as 

the 
https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2017/EN/COM-2017-535-F1-EN-MAIN-PART-1.PDF  

Regulation 

December 

Financial 

31 

at 

138   EC (2015). Summaries of the data on the progress made in financing and implementing the financial instruments 
for the programming period 2014-2020 in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the 
European 
Council. 
http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/thefunds/fin_inst/pdf/summary_data_fi_1420_2015.pdf  
139   https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/jobs-growth-and-investment/investment-plan-europe-juncker-

Parliament 

and 

the 

of 

plan/european-fund-strategic-investments-efsi_en 

160 

 
                                                      
  EFSI was designed with its own reporting requirements as a stand-alone instrument and does 
not  fall  under  the  scope  of  Chapter  VIII  on  financial  instruments  of  the  current  Financial 
Regulation.  As  a  result,  EFSI  may  not  need  to  fully  comply  with  provisions  on  financial 
instruments under Art.139 and Art.140 which also include requirements for reporting, state 
aid or exclusion of contingent liabilities.  

  The  ‘Guarantee  fund  for  external  actions’  has  a  contingent  liability  implied  and  thus  the 
instrument  is  not  a  financial  instrument  in  the  sense  of  the  Financial  Regulation.  It  also 
predates the Financial Regulation.  

  The EDF (oversea aid focussed) is excluded because it is not part of the MFF. 

There are other relevant financial and funding mechanisms which the EC is involved in. A key 
example here is the EU Emissions Trading System (EU-ETS) and its associated NER 300 fund. 
NER 300 is so called because it is funded from the sale of 300 million emission allowances from 
the New Entrants' Reserve (NER) set up for the third phase of the EU emissions trading system 
(EU ETS). The funds from the sales are to be distributed to projects selected through two rounds 
of calls for proposals. Under the first and second calls the EU distributed €2.1 billion of funds to 
support 39 renewable energy projects, with this expenditure leverage additional private funding 
of over €2.8 billion140. The NER 300 is not strictly speaking a Financial Instrument but a grant 
scheme and it is funded by EU-ETS income (mainly from electricity generators, and ultimately 
their customers) and not by the EU budget. However, the future ETS innovation Fund (funding 
Innovation)  and  the  ETS  modernisation  Fund  (funding  use)  are  relevant  but  note  the 
characteristics of these projects are very different from the small project financed by LIFE.  

European Fund for Strategic Investments 

The European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) is a EUR 16 billion guarantee from the EU 
budget, complemented by a EUR 5 billion allocation of the EIB’s own capital. The total amount 
of EUR 21 billion aims to unlock additional investment of at least EUR 315bn by 2018. EFSI is 
implemented by the EIB Group and projects supported by it are subject to usual EIB procedures. 
EFSI is demand-driven and provides support for projects everywhere in the EU, including cross-
border  projects.  There  are  no  geographic  or  sector  quotas.  As  of  November  2017141,  EFSI  has 
committed some €251.6 billion of finance (of which 21% is classified as energy relevant).  

The  EIB  applies  energy  lending  criteria  to  assess  projects  that  approach  it  requesting  financial 
support. These criteria were adjusted on the basis of a 2013 review142 to ensure that the  banks’ 
lending in the energy sector reflects EU energy and climate policy, as well as current investment 
trends. Their energy lending focuses on energy efficiency, renewable energy, energy networks, as 
well as related research and innovation. The EIB has also introduced an Emissions Performance 
Standard  which  it  applies  to  all  fossil  fuel  generation  projects  to screen  out  investments  whose 
carbon emissions exceed a threshold level which reflects existing EU and national commitments 
to limit carbon emissions.  

Overlap  

It is clear that the EU is involved in a large (and growing) number of Financial Instruments, and 
that many of these FIs could support projects of a very similar nature to those supported by the 
PF4EE  initiative  of  LIFE.  The  Impact  assessment  for  PF4EE  contains  a  number  of  design 
features that make the projects it seeks to support somewhat specific and distinct from the energy 

140   NER300 programme description https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/lowcarbon/ner300_en  
141   Provisional and unaudited figures available at http://www.eib.org/efsi/index.htm 
142   EIB 

Investment 

European 

(2013). 

Energy 

Bank 

Lending 

Criteria. 

http://www.eib.org/attachments/strategies/eib_energy_lending_criteria_en.pdf  

161 

 
                                                      
efficiency projects that other FIs might support. The specific target groups and objectives of the 
PF4EE FIs are as follows: 

  The  PF4EE  instrument  targets  projects  which  support  the  implementation  of  National 
Energy  Efficiency  Action  Plans  or  other  energy  efficiency  programmes  of  EU  Member 
States.  The  PPF4EE  also  includes  an  Expert  Support  Facility  to  support  participating 
financial institutions to develop financial products for the financing of the national/regional 
EE schemes. 

  To  date  the  EIB  have  signed  operations  in  The  Czech  Republic,  Spain,  France,  Belgium, 
Italy,  Portugal,  Croatia,  Greece  and  Cyprus  generating  a  portfolio  worth  of  €720M  of 
investment. The investment leverage effect would be 14.6 against an initial target of 8.  

With regard to the PF4EE the Mid-term evaluation of LIFE states that ‘There are issues regarding 
the  complementarity  of  the  instrument  with  other  funding  mechanisms  supporting  energy 
efficiency,  especially  in  some  Member  States.’.  Potential  overlap  with  EBRD  and  ERDF  loans 
was  highlighted.  The  overlap  with  ERDF  loans  is  also  mentioned  in  the  section  on  ESIF. 
However, although there are an increasing number of FIs active in the energy efficiency area, the 
size and importance of the potential market is very large. According to DG ENER it is estimated 
that an additional €177 billion per year will be necessary over the period 2021-2030 to reach the 
EU's  energy  and  climate  objectives  for  2030143.  Therefore,  the  risk  of  these  FIs  crowding  each 
other out appears minimal. 

The  type  of  projects  sought  by  the  NCFF,  as  described  in  its  original  Impact  Assessment,  are 
much  less  mainstream  than  those  sought  by  the  PF4EE.  The  NCFF  centres  on  developing 
projects so that a revenue or a cost saving stream can be generated from natural capital. This is a 
new  approach  and  as  such  there  are  no  other  sources  offering  a  comparable  service.  Under  the 
NCFF, LIFE provides 10M EUR of technical assistance, and a guarantee of 50M EUR to support 
EIB  investments  (loans  and  equity)  of  up  to  125M  EUR  that  contribute  to  biodiversity  and/or 
climate change adaptation objectives. It aims at establishing a pipeline of some 9 to 12 replicable, 
bankable operations that will serve as a "proof of concept" and demonstrate to private and public 
investors  the  attractiveness  of  such  investments.  This  represents  an  innovation  which,  if 
successful, could drive the architecture of natural capital financing. Although development of the 
pipeline  has  been  slow,  the  pace  is  picking  up  with  a  first  operation  signed  in  2017,  4  in  the 
pipeline, and 12 more currently under scrutiny by EIB.  

The pilot nature of the NCFF is reflected in the apparently low take up reported in the Mid Term 
Evaluation.  The  NCFF  has  progressed  since  then  with  one  project  now  signed,  two  at  the 
contracting phase and nine to twelve projects in the pipeline. 

Recommendations from the LIFE mid-term review have been implemented including increasing 
visibility  and  promotion,  and  operationalisation  of  the  support  facility.  The  implementation 
period  had  been  extended  until  2021  and  the  2018-2020  LIFE  programme  foresees  a  new 
guarantee window. Experience so far with NCFF shows that there is a niche for investments in 
ecosystem-based natural capital investments, though it is important to develop a pipeline to share 
the  experience  and  demonstrate  the  opportunities  more  widely.  The  Impact  Assessment  of  the 
future LIFE instrument will also explore the option of specific blending mechanisms. 

Current Synergies and Mainstreaming 
A recent study for DG CLIMA144 considered the extent to which climate issues are mainstreamed 
within  the  FIs  that  the  EC  supports.  This  report  highlighted  inconsistencies  in  approaches  and 

143   

144  

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/financing-energy-efficiency 

Climate  mainstreaming  in  the  EU  budget.  Preparing  for  the  next  MFF  :  final  report  –  Study. 
https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1df19257-aef9-11e7-837e-
01aa75ed71a1/language-en  

162 

 
                                                      
 
gaps in coverage, which means that the information that is available on the climate finance that is 
mobilised/leveraged by EU financial instruments is incomplete and inconsistent. There is also a 
risk  of  double  counting  with  other  public  sources.  These  problems  mean  the  Commission  is 
unable to generate a single mobilised/leveraged finance figure for the EU financial instruments. 
The problems can be associated with the following issues: 

 

 

 

 

Lack of definition of what constitutes an EU FI – no complete list of FIs and no agreed 
criteria to populate such a list. 

Lack of consistency (or existence) of climate ‘windows’ in FIs – no consistent way of 
defining how much (if any) of each FI should be directed towards climate relevant action. 
This issue is covered in more detail in Annex 3 as it crosses over both programmes and FIs 

Lack of consistency (or existence) of procedures to report climate relevant outputs and 
impacts – this is covered in much more detail in Annex 5 as the issue crosses over both 
programmes and FIs 

Lack of consistency on measurement and reporting of leverage – to indicate the additional 
funds made available in addition to those supplied by the EU. 

Future synergies 

If the IEE/Clean Energy Transition parts of Horizon 2020 are brought into LIFE these include a 
number  of  activities  that  are  of  a  similar  nature  to  the  PF4EE.  Care  will  need  to  be  taken  that 
these  activities  are  complimentary.  In  some  case  this  appears  to  naturally  be  the  case,  such  as 
with  the  technical  assistance  type  activities  for  helping  potential  energy  efficiency  project 
developers  make  their  projects  finance  ready  (e.g.  the  ELENA  programme145  and  the  PDA 
Horizon 2020146). 

There  is  an  ongoing  Impact  Assessment  into  the  merits  and  impacts  of  potentially  merging  all 
centrally managed Financial Instruments and Budgetary Guarantees into a single InvestEU Fund. 
This includes an initial analysis on the scope and potential size of the proposed policy windows. 
The  IA  is  also  exploring  the  possible  inclusion  of  technical  assistance/  project  development 
assistance (PDA) resources under the policy windows.  

This single fund would also include the EFSI. There are also suggestions that the EU-ETS and 
NER funds could come within the single fund, or at least more directly within the EU budget (at 
EU level rather than MS level147). 

The proposed structure of the InvestEU Fund includes the following four windows: 

 

 

Social, skills and human capital, 

SME Window, 

  Research & Innovation, 

 

Infrastructure & Climate. 

145  

146  

147  

http://www.eib.org/products/advising/elena/index.htm 

ELENA,  managed  by  the  EIB,  supports  private  and  public  promoters  to  develop  and  launch  large-scale 
bankable  sustainable  energy  investments  (above  €30  million),  including  in  sustainable  transport.  ELENA 
covers  up  to  90%  of  project  development  costs.  PDA  Horizon  2020,  which  helps  public  and  private 
promoters  develop  model  sustainable  energy  projects,  focusing  on  small  and  medium-sized  energy 
investments  of  at  least  €7.5  million  and  up  to  €50  million,  covering  up  to  100%  of  eligible  project 
development costs. 

https://www.euractiv.com/section/future-eu/news/plastic-tax-and-ets-tinkering-could-plug-brexit-hole-
suggests-eu-budget-chief/ 

163 

 
                                                      
The  LIFE  FIs  could  potentially  fit  within  the  Sustainable  Infrastructure  window.  Available 
information on this window indicates that it would need to take account of all the EU’s targets 
and  objectives  in  the  climate  and  environment  areas,  including  the  need  to  address  ‘lack  of 
knowledge  of  investors  in  certain  areas  such  as  the  blue  economy’  (also  true  for  the  issues 
targeted by the NCFF). The following challenge / driver is:  

 

environmental and socio-economic costs and benefits are not (sufficiently) internalised due 
for example to  pricing related  market failures and/or poorly designed  or conflicting  policy 
frameworks  (for  instance  simultaneously  subsidising  green  and  grey  or  brown  activities, 
contribution to modal shift, air quality improvements, long term biodiversity benefits, GHG 
emissions reductions ); 

The work done by LIFE, is also recognised in this framework given that LIFE Integrated Projects 
mobilise complementary finance for major investments including in green infrastructure but also 
highlights the relatively small scale of the LIFE programme. 

The ability to combine the proposed InvestEU fund with the support offered by programmes such 
as LIFE, e.g. to enable blending of grants and loans, is useful as it reflects the variety of needs, 
and it should therefore continue. 

Therefore,  flexible  arrangements  will  be  needed  in  terms  of  blending  and  bundling  of  different 
means  of  support.  This  will  allow  building  EU  experience  and  best  practice  with  effective  and 
efficient cost-sharing.” 

The  exact  nature  of  InvestEU  is  still  under  development,  and  could  have  a  considerable  added 
value to the existing EU solutions, if it offered as a mix of dedicated thematic products (e.g. CEF 
Debt  Instrument,  PF4EE  and  the  NCFF)  as  well  as  broader  financial  products  backed  by  EU 
guarantee (e.g. EFSI). If this approach is adopted it would imply that the present LIFE FIs would 
effectively continue to operate, just under a different heading. 

There  is  the  willingness  to  ring  fence  some  funding  for  issues  such  as  natural  capital,  the 
ambition  to  improve  mainstreaming  of  climate  and  environment  issues  into  all  spending  and  a 
willingness to make technical assistance available to lenders to help with these (and other) issues. 
All of these issues appear positive for retaining and improving the FI offer currently under LIFE. 

6.2.6.  LIFE and Overseas Aid in the Outermost Countries and Territories 

Programme description 

The  voluntary  scheme  for  Biodiversity  and  Ecosystem  Services  in  Territories  of 
European overseas (BEST programme) aims to support the conservation of biodiversity 
and  sustainable  use  of  ecosystem  services  including  ecosystem-based  approaches  to 
climate  change  adaptation  and  mitigation  in  the  EU  Outermost  Regions  (ORs)  and 
Overseas  Countries  and  Territories  (OCTs).  BEST  is  financed  under  DEVCO's  global 
goods  programme,  complemented  by  finance  from  REGIO's  OR  programme  and  also 
from additional EP pilot funds. 

The programme offers grants via call for proposals to fund actions on the ground, both at 
the  local  and  regional  level.  Projects  can  target  one  or  more  of  the  EU  OCTs,  and  the 
grant  can  cover  costs  related  to  actions  implemented  in  the  OCTs  only.148  Regional 
projects  involving  actions  in  the  OCTs  may  also  involve  actions  in  EU  Outermost 
Regions and/or independent neighbouring countries, but these actions cannot be covered 
by the BEST funds. In this case projects must have additional financing to cover the cost 

148  

BEST portal, http://www.best2portal.org/  

164 

 
                                                      
of  actions  implemented  in  EU  Outermost  Regions  and/or  independent  neighbouring 
countries. 

Overlap  

There  are  theoretical  overlaps  between  LIFE  and  BEST  in  terms  of  thematic  and 
geographical coverage. Art. 6 of LIFE Regulation149 allows LIFE to finance activities in 
OCTs  (and  outside  the  EU)  provided  these  activities  are  necessary  to  achieve  EU 
environmental  and  climate  objectives.  The  obvious  example  of  this  is  the  protection  of 
migratory  birds  in  their  non-European  winter  locations.  With  regard  to  the  Outermost 
Regions, although LIFE can support actions in these areas, most interventions financed 
by BEST do not meet the requirements of article 3.  Furthermore,  the fact that the BEST 
facility offers a higher intervention rate than LIFE, means that projects from Outermost 
Regions  have  not  submited  to  LIFE.150  As  such,  in  reality  there  is  no  overlap  as  the 
applicants are making a clear choice.  

Current synergies and mainstreaming 

BEST  projects  contributed  to  improving  biodiversity  conservation  and  climate  change 
adaptation  in  Europe  overseas  through  strengthening  strategic  partnerships,  elaborating 
on  governance  and  financial  mechanisms,  mobilising  support  for  action  suing  targeted 
communication and awareness raising events at the EU and international levels.151  

Future synergies 

In  the future, an instrument for the cooperation with  Greenland and OCTs is  proposed. 
However,  no  Impact  Assessment  will  be  done  for  them.  Overall,  the  future  external 
instruments will be regrouped and defined on the basis of geographic rather than thematic 
coverage.  

149  

150  

151  

Regulation (EC) No 614/2007 

Interview with EASME 

BEST initiative brochure 2017, 
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/best/pdf/BEST_Brochure_2017-
brochure_complete_WEB.pdf  

165 

 
 
                                                      
ANNEX 7: METHODOLOGY 

This  appendix  provides  a  brief  description  of  the  methodology  that  has  been  applied  in  the 
preparation of the impact assessment.  

The  initial  step  in  the  process  is  the  identification  of  the  remaining  challenges  that  the  LIFE 
programme needs to address in the next MFF, and the specific objectives associated with these 
needs. For each of these challenges, individual options to address the need were then identified. 
Each option was then screened in relation to how effectively and efficiently it would address the 
need,  along  with  any  coherence  issues.  The  screening  allowed  the  identification  of  the  most 
promising  options.  In  the  final  step,  the  short-listed  options  were  assessed  in  more  detail, 
including the likely economic, environmental and social impacts. 

Each of these steps is described more fully below. 

7.1. 

Step 1: Identification and characterisation of the remaining challenges 

A literature review was performed to identify and characterise the remaining challenges that the 
LIFE  programme  needs  to  address  in  the  next  MFF.  The  starting  point  was  the  Mid-Term 
Evaluation  of  the  current  LIFE  programme152,  which  explored  the  extent  to  which  the  current 
programme was effective and efficient in delivering its objective. This identified some potential 
areas where the programme could be strengthened. 

The review of current performance was supplemented with a review of potential new challenges 
which  may  need  to  be  addressed  in  the  next  MFF.  This  considered  emerging  environmental 
issues and new political priorities.   

The  output  from  this  step  was  the  identification  of  a  series  of  specific  remaining  challenges 
which  the  LIFE  programme  should  respond  to  in  the  next  MFF  (see  Section  3.1  of  the  main 
report). 

7.2. 

Step 2: Development of the specific objectives and operational goals 

The overall rational for the LIFE programme, as reflected in the programmes’ intervention logic, 
has  remained  relatively  unchanged  over  the  lifetime  of  the  programme,  and  remains  equally 
relevant for the next MFF.  Likewise, the general objectives of the programme remain relevant. 
However,  the  specific  operational  objectives  of  the  LIFE  programme  have  been  modified  over 
time, to reflect change in the specific priorities of the programme. 

The  next  step  in  the  impact  assessment  was  to  define  specific  objectives  for  the  programme 
which would be relevant for the next MFF. These objectives took into account the need for the 
programme to address the remaining challenges in Step 1. The specific objectives are described 
in Section 2.3.2 of the main report. 

Taking into account the remaining needs and the opportunities for LIFE to enhance its EU added 
value, a number of operational goals were defined for the reform of LIFE under the next MFF. 

7.3. 

Step 3: Identification of the options 

For  each  of  the  challenges  that  were  identified  for  the  LIFE  programme  specific  options  were 
identified to address each challenge, taking into account the operational goals.  Several individual 
options  were  identified  in  relation  to  each  challenge,  resulting  in  a  long-list  of  options  overall. 
Some  of  these  options  derive  directly  from  the  findings  or  recommendations  of  previous 
evaluation of the LIFE programme, and others were developed by the study team in discussion 
with the European Commission. 

152  

In  addition,  the  finding  from  previous  evaluation  of  the  LIFE  programme,  including  earlier  programming 
periods, were also taken into account. 

166 

 
                                                      
7.4. 

Step 4: Screening of the options 

In  accordance  with  Tool  14  of  the  Commission’s  Better  Regulations  toolbox,  each  of  the 
individual  options  was  screened  in  qualitative  terms  in  order  to  provide  a  first  high-level 
assessment  of  the  expected  performance  of  the  options.  The  aim  of  screening  was  to  identify 
those options that were most promising, and therefore should be considered for inclusion in the 
LIFE  programme  in  the  next  MFF.  Equally,  the  screening  identified  those  that  were  less 
promising and therefore not worth considering further. 

Each of the options was evaluated against a consistent set of criteria. These were:  

  Effectiveness: The extent to which the options can achieve the relevant specific operational 

objective. 

  Efficiency:  The  resources  or  effort  associated  with  the  delivery  of  the  relevant  strategic 
objective. It may already be possible to conclude that some options would achieve a worse 
cost-benefit balance than others. 

  Coherence: Certain options may be ruled out early due to poor coherence with other general 

EU policy objectives. 

In  the  case  of  effectiveness,  each  of  the  options  was  assessed  in  relation  to  the  relevant 
specific  operational  goal  to  which  the  option  relates.  For  example,  some  options  were 
designed to address the need for further simplification, and therefore effectiveness was assessed 
in relation to the objectives “To introduce simplification measures, where possible”. The scoring 
of each option against each criterion has used a three-point scale (low – medium – high, see key 
below), with the assessment based on expert judgement. The scores are designed to describe the 
performance of the options relative to each other (i.e. to show the most/least effective, efficient 
and coherent options) and do not represent absolute estimates (e.g. on the cost of implementing 
the options). However, to the extent possible the scores do aim to reflect the expected magnitude 
of the impacts on the relevant criterion. Therefore, the scoring is made by firstly reviewing the 
performance  of  all  options  against  the  criteria,  and  then  scores  are  assigned  which  reflect  the 
relative performance of the options (so those options that are expected to have a greater impact 
will  receive  a  higher  score)  but  also  the  magnitude  of  the  impact  (so  those  options  that  have  a 
very large impact are more likely to be given a score at the upper or lower range).  

Table 7-1: Screening scoring system 

Key 

Low 

Medium 

High 

An example is below 

Table 7-2: Screening scoring system: an example 

Policy option 

Scoring 

Potential 
for 
inclusion? 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Coherence 

Business as 
usual (BAU) 

Low: Summary of 
assessment 

Medium: Summary of 
assessment 

High: Summary of 
assessment 

No 

The output from this step was the identification, for each of the individual challenges, of those 
options that were most promising, and therefore worth further consideration. 

167 

 
 
 
7.5. 

Step 5: Impact assessment of the short-listed options 

The final step in the assessment was the impact assessment of the short-listed option. This was 
performed for those options which passed the screening. 

Each  of  the  individual  options  has  been  assessed  against  each  of  the  impacts  in  the  impact 
assessment  framework  to  determine  for  each  of  the  impact  categories  whether  an  impact  is 
expected,  the  direction  of  the  impact,  and  the  significance  of  the  impact.  For  this  exercise,  we 
used the screening framework presented in the table below. 

The impacts were assessed relative to the BAU i.e. they represent the net impacts. 

Table 7-3: Impact categories 

Impact 

Key questions 

Economic 

Macroeconomic 
environment 

Does is impact economic growth? 

Does it contribute to improved conditions for investments? 

Regulatory burdens on 
businesses 

Does it affect the application process to access LIFE? 

What is the impact on reporting? 

Does it affect running costs for businesses (e.g. is there an impact on energy 
supply or other raw materials)? 

Operation/ conduct of 
SMEs 

Consider the impacts on businesses with particular regard for SMEs 

Regulatory burdens on 
authorities 

What is the impact on institutions processing, granting and checking 
applications?  

Innovation and research 

What is the impact on research and development? Does is facilitate the 
introduction and dissemination of new approaches? 

What is the impact on resource efficiency?  

Social 

Employment 

What is the impact on job creation? 

Public health and safety 

What is the impact on life expectancy, mortality and morbidity? 

What is driving the impact on health? E.g. noise, air, water, soil, climate, 
waste. 

Are the impacts targeting particular risk groups (determined by age, gender, 
disability, social group, mobility, region, etc.)? 

Education and training 

What is the impact on training and education outcomes? 

What is the impact on skills? 

Governance and good 
administration 

What impact is on public institutions and administrations carrying out their 
implementation responsibilities? 

What is the impact on public awareness and public access to information? 

What is the impact on political parties and civic organisations? 

168 

 
 
 
Impact 

Key questions 

Environmental 

The climate 

What is the impact on GHG emissions? Or on ozone depleting substances? 

What is the impact on economic incentives set up by market based 
mechanisms such as the EU ETS?  

What is the impact on capacity to adapt to climate change? 

Efficient use of resources  What is the impact on renewable resources? 

What is the impact on land use? 

Quality of natural 
resources/ pollution 
control 

What is the impact on: air quality and/ or emission reductions; water quality; 
and soil quality? 

Biodiversity management  What is the impact on species count? 

What is the impact on endangered species? 

What is the impact on landscape (and the protection of green infrastructure 
and valuable landscapes)? 

Waste management 

What is the impact on waste generation and disposal of waste? 

Minimising environmental 
risks 

What is the impact on minimising risks such as fire, explosions, accidental 
emissions, etc? 

What is the impact on unintentional dissemination of alien organisms or 
genetically modified organisms? 

What is the impact on environment in third countries? 

International 
environmental impact 

Source: Tool #19153 

An example is provided below 

Table 7-4: Impact categories 

Programme coverage 

Option A 

Economic impacts 

Social impacts 

Environmental 
impacts 

++ Describe significant 
positive economic 
impacts 

+ Described marginal 
positive economic 
impacts 

- Describe marginal 

++ Describe significant 
positive social impacts 

+ Described marginal 
positive social impacts 

- Describe marginal 
negative social impacts 

++ Describe significant 
positive environmental 
impacts 

+ Described marginal 
positive environmental 
impacts 

- Describe marginal 

153  

European  Commission  Better  Regulation  Toolbox:  Tool  #19  –  Identification/  Screening  of  Impacts  , 
https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/better-regulation-toolbox-19_en  

169 

 
 
 
                                                      
negative economic 
impacts 

-- Described significant 
negative social impacts 

negative environmental 
impacts 

-- Described significant 
negative economic 
impacts 

-- Described significant 
negative environmental 
impacts 

Where  the  initial  assessment  identified  significant  impact  against  any  assessment  area,  some 
further analysis of the impacts was performed. 

7.6. 

Step 6: Summary of conclusions 

In the final step, conclusions were drawn on the pros and cons option based on the screening but 
also the impact assessment 

170 

 
 
 
ANNEX 8: DESCRIPTION AND SCREENING OF OPTIONS 

This annex provides a description of all the policy options that were identified as possibilities to 
resolve the challenges and address the operational goals described in the main body of the report. 
It proceeds with a screening of these options, following the methodology described in annex 7.  

8.1.  Options linked to programme scope and structure 

In  considering  the  environmental  and  climate  needs  that  must  be  addressed  in  the  next  MFF, 
several challenges and opportunities were identified in relation to the  scope and structure of the 
LIFE programme. A series of potential gaps as well as some possibilities to increase coherence 
among  EU  programmes  were  highlighted.    This  section  describes  the  relevant  issues  and  the 
options  that  were  identified  to  address  them.  An  initial  screening  was  performed  on  the 
effectiveness, efficiency, and coherence of the options. 

8.1.1.  Issue:  Gaps  and  opportunities  for  increasing  coherence  among  programmes 

addressing environmental and climate needs inside the EU 

An  operational  goal  was  established  to  avoid  gaps  and  ensure  coherence  with  other  EU 
programmes.    Based  on  the  present  instruments  and  considering  the  existing  stage  in  the 
development  of  proposed  instruments  under  the  next  MFF,  potential  gaps  were  identified  in 
relation to support for research to address specific environmental and climate policy issues and 
also  regarding  large  scale  deployment  activities  for  nature.  Opportunities  to  enhance  synergies 
between  programmes  were  also  identified.  In  each  case,  specific  options  were  developed  to 
address the gaps and opportunities, as described below. 

Screening of the options 

Each of the individual options to address gaps and enhance coherence in relation to the thematic 
scope  was  screened  to  assess  its  relative  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  coherence.  The 
effectiveness  of  the  options  was  assessed  in  relation  to  the  overall  effectiveness  of  the  LIFE 
instrument  as  well  as  in  relation  to  the  specific  operational  goals  to  address  relevant  gaps  in 
coverage of environment and climate needs within the EU territories and to increase coherence 
between EU instruments. 

Table 8-1: Screening of options to address gaps and ensure coherence among EU 
programmes addressing environmental and climate issues 

Policy option  Scoring 

Potential 
for 
inclusion
? 

No 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Coherence 

Business 
usual (BAU) 

as 

Medium:  Current 
technical  scope  is 
designing  the  fill 
the niche between 
“upstream” 
research 
activities, 
“downstream” 
large-scale 
implementation. 
It 
is 
effective 
addressing 

therefore 
in 
this 

and  

Medium:  Current 
is 
programme 
efficient 
in 
its 
delivering 
objectives  within 
the current scope.  
there 
However, 
be 
may 
opportunities 
to 
improve 
efficiency with an 
expanded scope.  

Medium: Current scope is 
focussed on catalytic role, 
building  upon 
research 
project 
and 
activities 
implementation  activities 
other 
funded 
through 
programmes, 
so 
is  generally 
coherence 
good.  However,  there  is 
greater 
scope 
for 
some 
coherence 
e.g. 
specific 

in 
areas 

171 

 
 
 
sustainable energy 

Yes 

High:  The  extension  is 
aligned  with  the  rest  of 
LIFE  in  that  it  supports 
large 
action 
facilitating 
(like 
scale  deployment 
some 
LIFE 
standard 
action grants) and aims at 
contributing 
a 
transformation  of  society 
(in  line  with  the  catalytic 
objectives 
LIFE). 
Energy  policy  objectives 
are  aligned  with  climate 
objectives 
existing 
in 
policy framework. 

of 

to 

It  will  contribute  to  the 
between 
synergies 
building 
capacity 
activities 
energy, 
environment and climate  

for 

it  would 

High:  Internally  coherent 
reinforce 
as 
all 
of 
coordination 
targeted  nature  funding 
into  one  plan,  addressing 
the  gap  in  financing  for 
nature and biodiversity.   

Yes 

could 

niche,  but  there 
are some areas of 
overlap  e.g.  LIFE 
is 
currently 
supporting  some 
sustainable 
projects 
energy 
be 
that 
under 
funded 
2020, 
Horizon 
and 
some 
perceived  gaps  in 
the  overall  MFF 
for 
financing 
environment  and 
climate.    Limited 
influence 
over 
programming  of 
research 
for 
environment 
policy. 

Greater 
High: 
concentration  of 
financial 
resources  would 
improve  capacity 
to  have  a  greater 
effect. 
catalytic 
Also  easier 
to 
optimise 
synergies 
between  climate 
and 
energy 
thematic areas. 

the 
Extend 
scope  of  the 
LIFE 
programme  to 
include 
capacity 
building 
projects 
related 
energy 
efficiency and 
renewable 
energy  

to 

Medium: 
Opportunity 
to 
align  funding  and 
improve 
for 
monitoring 
projects  currently 
outside 
LIFE. 
Some initial costs 
from 
arising 
administration 
and  alignment  of 
procedures 
but 
relatively 
straightforward to 
incorporate 
as 
already 
both 
managed 
by 
EASME. 

Extend the 
scope of the 
LIFE 
programme to 
improve 
mainstreaming 
for nature and 
biodiversity  

High:  Funds  will 
be 
targeted  on 
specific  objective 
and 
meet 
objectives  more 
that 
effectively 
present 
the 
'greening' 
approach,  while 
largely 
still 
the 
targeting 
end 
same 

some 
costs 
from 

Medium: 
initial 
arising 
administration, 
increased 
coordination    and 
of 
alignment 
procedures 
but 
relatively 
straightforward to 
incorporate 

172 

 
 
 
to 
new 

Low:  Need 
establish 
management 
and 
authorities, 
extra 
requiring 
overheads 
inside 
the  Commission 
for oversight. e 

No 

High:  Internally  coherent 
as it would bring together 
all targeted nature funding 
instrument, 
into 
one 
addressing 
in 
financing  for  nature  and 
biodiversity.   

the  gap 

Extend 
the 
scope  of  the 
LIFE 
programme  to 
include 
large 
scale 
deployment 
activities 
nature 

for 

(ie 

recipients 
farmers, 
landowners/mana
gers). 

Involvement 
of 
the environmental 
authorities  who 
will  be  better 
placed  to  ensure 
uptake 

High:  Funds  will 
be 
targeted  on 
specific  objective 
and 
meet 
objectives  more 
that 
effectively 
present 
the 
'greening' 
approach,  while 
largely 
still 
the 
targeting 
end 
same 
recipients 
(ie 
farmers, 
landowners/mana
gers). 

Involvement 
of 
the environmental 
authorities  who 
will  be  better 
placed  to  ensure 
uptake 

Smoother transfer 
of  best  practices 
from 
the  LIFE 
projects  to  large 
scale 
implementation 

Description of options 

Table  8-2:  Options  to  address  gaps  and  ensure  coherence  among  EU  programmes 
addressing environmental and climate issues 

Options 

Description 

Business as usual 

This would involve the continuation of the current thematic scope of 
the  LIFE  programme,  i.e.  two  sub-programmes  (Environment  and 
Climate)  supporting  catalytic  projects  that  build  up  and  improve 
capacity,  speed  up  the  development  and  implementation  of  EU 
environment  and  climate  legislation  and  policy  including  through 
helping  stakeholders  to  test  technologies  and  methodologies  on  the 

173 

 
 
Options 

Description 

ground.  

The type of projects supported under the LIFE programme would be 
unchanged.  This  would  include  projects  that  help  to  mobilise,  at  a 
small  scale,  new  and  emerging  techniques  as  well  as  putting  into 
practice research. However, research and technology funding per se 
in  the  environment  and  climate  areas  would  continue  to  be  funded 
primarily  through  the  dedicated  framework  programme  for  research 
and  innovation,  with  large  scale  deployment  funded  primarily 
through the CAP, ERDF, CF, EMFF, as well as financial instruments 
like EFSI (among others). 

Some  sustainable  energy  projects  would  continue  to  be  supported 
through  LIFE’s  climate  sub-programme  (in  relation  to  pioneering  a 
post carbon society); and to a lesser extent through the environment 
sub-programme  (in  relation  to  sustainable  mobility  projects,  urban 
planning and resource efficiency). However, the primary mechanism 
for supporting catalytic projects in the clean energy area would be a 
separate  dedicated  programme  funded  and  managed  by  DG  Energy 
under the umbrella of Horizon Europe. Synergies between LIFE and 
the  DG  Energy  programme  would  be  maximised,  but 
the 
programmes would remain separate. 

Subject  to  budget  being  available,  this  option  would  involve  an 
extension in the scope of projects supported through LIFE to include 
capacity  building  projects  related  to  renewable  and  sustainable 
energy.  Horizon  2020  currently  supports  the  implementation  on  the 
ground  of  energy  efficiency  and  renewable  energy  policies  through 
capacity building (project development assistance) and procurement 
of  products  and  services.  These  specific  types  of  projects  would  be 
brought under LIFE except projects concerning market uptake of first 
of a kind innovations, which you be under Horizon Europe. 

The Horizon  2020 sustainable energy capacity building projects are 
currently  managed  by  EASME  and  currently  sit  within  the  Horizon 
2020  budget  programme  with  an  allocation  of  ~€130  million  per 
year.  The  option  could  take  into  account  the  planned  expansion  of 
the allocated annual budget for these projects to ~€171 million. 

This  option would  extend  the  current  thematic  coverage  of  LIFE  to 
explicitly include energy efficiency and renewable resources. 

Subject  to  budget  being  available,  in  this  option  LIFE  would  be 
restructured  to  include  a  specific  sub-programme  for  'nature  and 
biodiversity' (in addition to sub-programmes on 'climate action', and 
'circular economy and quality of life').  This 'nature and biodiversity' 
sub-programme  would  consist  of  a  reinforced  centrally  managed 
component  funding  actions  similar  to  those  presently  implementing 
the Nature and Biodiversity priority area of LIFE, as well as strategic 
implement  coherent 
nature  projects. 
to  mainstream  EU  nature  and 
programmes  of  action 
biodiversity  objectives  and  priorities  into  other  policies  and 
financing 
coordinated 
including 
implementation  of  the  priority  action  frameworks  established 
pursuant  to  Directive  92/43/EEC.    As  such  they  will  help 

  These  projects  will 

instruments, 

through 

174 

related 

programme 

Extend  the  scope  of  the 
LIFE 
to 
include  capacity  building 
to 
projects 
renewable 
and 
sustainable  energy  (the 
Clean  Energy  Transition 
Programme  as  far  as  not 
in  Horizon 
retained 
Europe, 
excluding 
market  uptake  of  first  of 
a kind innovations) 

Extend the scope of the 
LIFE programme to 
improve mainstreaming 
for nature and 
biodiversity  

 
Options 

Description 

ensure  that  appropriate  funds  are  mobilised  for  implementing 
these  policies. Through these SNP’s the programme should in 
particular  ensure  the  mobilisation  and  efficient  use  of  funds 
earmarked  for  nature  protection  as  part  of  the  EARDF 
programme.  

This option would not obviate the need for actions, particularly under 
the second pillar, of the CAP (which presently provides 75% of EU 
funding  for  nature),  SF  and  EMFF  that  target  direct  investments  in 
nature  conservation  and  biodiversity  and  it  would  not  replace  other 
elements  of  these  programmes  that  contribute  indirectly  to  protect 
nature and biodiversity, nor remove the need for cross-compliance of 
actions  under  these  programmes  with  environmental  and  climate 
legislation. 

Extend  the  scope  of  the 
programme 
to 
LIFE 
include 
scale 
large 
deployment  activities  for 
nature 

Subject  to  budget  being  available,  in  this  option  LIFE  would  be 
restructured  to  include  a  specific  sub-programme  for  'nature  and 
biodiversity' (in addition to sub-programmes on 'climate action', and 
'environment').  This 'nature and biodiversity' sub-programme would 
consist of a centrally managed component funding actions similar to 
those  presently  implementing  the  Nature  and  Biodiversity  priority 
area  of  LIFE.    In  addition,  there  would  be  a  shared-management 
component  to  address  large-scale  implementation  actions  in  the 
Member  States,  covering  nature  and  biodiversity  objectives,  with  a 
particular  focus  on  N2000  and  implementing  the  Nature  Directives. 
The  dimension  of  this  sub-programme  would  require  a  very 
significantly larger budget for LIFE.   This option would obviate the 
need  for  actions,  particularly  under  the  second  pillar,  of  the  CAP 
(which  presently  provides  75%  of  EU  funding  for  nature),  SF  and 
EMFF  that  target  direct  investments  in  nature  conservation  and 
biodiversity.  It would not, however, replace other elements of these 
programmes 
to  protect  nature  and 
biodiversity,  nor  remove  the  need  for  cross-compliance  of  actions 
under these programmes with environmental and climate legislation. 
Mainstreaming  will  therefore  still  be  needed,  to  ensure  policy 
coherence and the overall sustainability. 

that  contribute 

indirectly 

Summary:  This  initial  screening  highlights  that  the  LIFE  programme  could  be  effective  in 
directly addressing  potential gaps in the funding  landscape post  2020 in relation to large  scale 
deployment activities for nature, through a shared management component. However, this would 
require the programme to significantly broaden the focus of the activities it currently supports, 
which  would  present  challenges  in  terms  of  the  efficiency  of  delivery,  and  coherence  with  the 
current project portfolio, as well as with the overall mainstreaming approach. A better approach 
is to create the capacity inside LIFE to reinforce and support the mainstreaming process through 
strategic  nature  projects.    Extending  the  scope  of  the  LIFE  programme  to  include  capacity 
building projects related to renewable and sustainable energy may enhance the catalytic effect of 
the  programme,  and  has  the  potential  to  increase  coherence  of  funding.  In  this  case  the 
operational  challenges  would  be  few,  as  the  nature  of  the  activities  supported  are  similar  to 

175 

 
 
projects already financed under LIFE, with the expansion concerning only the thematic subject 
of the projects.   

8.1.2.  Issue:  Gaps  in  meeting  needs  for  financing  of  biodiversity  in  Overseas 

Countries and Territories (OCTs) 

The  Overseas  Countries  and  Territories  of  the  EU  are  rich  in  biodiversity,  and  represent  a 
significant portion of the EU's contribution to the global patrimony of natural capital.  The BEST 
programme, developed in response to a European Parliament request to establish a pilot project to 
finance small scale and demonstrative biodiversity projects in the OCTs and Outermost Regions 
(ORs), has a successful track record, but does not clearly fit into any single existing or proposed 
EU  financing  programme  as  neither  the  relevant  external  instrument,  nor  the  Regional  Fund 
instruments can cover its entire geographic scope.  

Description of options 

Table 8-3: 
Options 

Options to address gaps in relation to financing for biodiversity in the OCTs 

Description 

Business as usual (BAU) 

Extend  full  eligibility  of 
LIFE  to  the  EU's  Overseas 
Countries  and  Territories 
across all sub-programmes 

Extend  eligibility  of  LIFE 
to 
the  EU's  Overseas 
Countries  and  Territories 
specifically  for  nature  and 
biodiversity  actions  within 
sub-
Environment 
the 
programme 

This  would  involve  the  continuation  of  present  provisions  (Article  6) 
allowing  LIFE  to  support  activities  outside  the  Union  or  in  overseas 
countries and territories (OCTs) and to cooperate with relevant international 
organisations (Article 7).  

Under Article 6 of the current regulation, financing of the activities in OCTs 
is  conditional  that  “those  activities  are  necessary  to  achieve  Union 
environmental  and  climate  objectives  and  to  ensure  the  effectiveness  of 
interventions carried out in Member State territories to which the Treaties 
apply”.  

Therefore,  under  the  BAU  scenario  some  projects  would  continue  to  be 
supported in OCTs, but only where they directly contribute towards Union 
environmental  and  climate  objectives  in  the  territories  of  the  EU  that  are 
subject to the EU Treaties (including the ORs).  This means that the BEST 
programme per se could not be integrated into the LIFE programme.  

Subject to budget being available, this would involve a change in the Article 
6  provision,  modifying  the  requirement  for  the  projects  to  make  a  direct 
contribution  towards  the  Union  environmental  and  climate  objectives. 
Projects would instead need to deliver a catalytic effect with respect to the 
LIFE programme priorities, either within the OCTs, or within the territories 
to which the Treaties apply. 

Subject to budget being available, this would involve a change in the Article 
6  provision,  modifying  the  requirement  for  the  projects  to  make  a  direct 
contribution towards the Union environmental and climate objectives, as in 
the  previous  option.  However,  the  extension  of  the  eligibility  would  only 
apply to nature and biodiversity projects. 

Screening of the options 

Each  above  option  to  address  gaps  in  relation  to  financing  for  biodiversity  in  the  OCTs  was 
screened to assess its relative effectiveness,  efficiency, and coherence. The  effectiveness of the 
options was assessed in relation to the operational goal to avoid gaps and ensure coherence with 
other  EU  programmes,  particularly  in  relationship  to  finance  for  biodiversity  in  the  OCTs,  but 
also considering the overall effectiveness of the LIFE instrument. 

176 

 
 
Table 8-4: Screening of options to address gaps in relation to financing for biodiversity in 
the OCTs 

Policy option  Scoring 

Potential 
inclusion? 

for 

No 

No 

Yes 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Coherence 

Business 
usual (BAU) 

as 

Medium:  Cost  is 
but 
limited, 
effectiveness 
is 
low 

LIFE 
Low: 
funding 
can 
complement  other 
in 
funds 
EU 
OCTs,  but  scope 
is 
by 
limited 
current  Article  6 
provisions.  

full 
Extend 
eligibility  of 
LIFE 
the 
to 
Overseas 
Countries  and 
Territories 
across all sub-
programmes 

Would 
Low: 
allow  greater  use 
of  LIFE  funds  in 
OCTs,  but  may 
come with a large 
risk  that  funding 
would 
be 
available  to  other 
which 
projects 
deliver 
greater 
added value 

not 

Low:  Additional 
management 
resources required 
to 
to 
respond 
applications 
across  all 
sub-
programme,  and 
project  proposals 
may  not  offer 
most added value 

Extend 
eligibility  of 
LIFE 
the  
to 
Overseas 
Countries  and 
Territories 
specifically 
for  nature  and 
biodiversity 
actions  within 
the 
Environment 
sub-
programme 

Medium:  Would 
allow  greater  use 
of  LIFE  funds  in 
OCTs 
for 
biodiversity.  May 
come  with  a  risk 
that  funding  be 
less  available  to 
projects 
other 
deliver 
which 
greater 
added 
value, 
although 
restricting  scope 
and 
nature 
to 
biodiversity 
should  limit  this 
risk 

High:  

Would  allow  the 
continuation 
of 
the 
positive  
synergies  among 
the  activities 
in 
ORs and OCTs 

Management 
resources required 
for just nature and 
biodiversity are in 
place 

177 

OCT 
is 
almost 

High: 
finance 
provided 
exclusively 
through 
a 
dedicated external 
instrument,  while 
LIFE  focuses  on 
internal 
EU 
policies 

Medium:  Article 
6  would  remain 
aligned  with  the 
EU’s 
domestic 
environment  and 
climate 
policy 
objectives,  while 
also  contributing 
its 
towards 
international 
policy  objectives. 
Potential  overlap 
dedicated 
with 
instrument 
OCT 
LIFE 
although 
would 
only 
finance 
demonstration 
type projects 

Medium/High: 
Article  6  would 
aligned 
remain 
with 
the  EU’s 
domestic 
environment  and 
policy 
climate 
objectives, 
but 
also 
better 
contribute 
towards 
international 
objectives. 
the 
Restricting 
scope of the OCT 
eligibility  ensures 
a 
higher 
coherence  with 
dedicated 
the 

its 

 
 
 
 
 
instrument, 
could 
the 

OCT 
which 
upscale 
demonstration 
that 
projects 
be 
would 
financed in LIFE. 

Summary:  This  initial  screening  highlights  that  the  option  to  extend  eligibility  to  overseas 
countries  and  territories  exclusively  for  the  nature  and  biodiversity  component  of  the 
Environment  sub-programme  would  be  most  efficient  and  effective  whilst  also  ensuring 
coherence. This option would help address a potential gap in funding in the next MFF. Increasing 
accessibility  across  all  sub-programmes  would  potentially  be  less  targeted  and  therefore  less 
effective  and  efficient  overall.  The  BAU  would  not  address  the  gap  in  support  for  funding  for 
OCTs adequately. 

8.2.  Options linked to delivery mechanisms 

Several  challenges  and  opportunities  were  identified  in  relation  to  the  effectiveness  of  the 
delivery  mechanisms  under  the  present  LIFE  programme.  The  relevant  issues,  and  the  options 
that  were  identified  to  address  the  related  operational  goals  are  described  below.  An  initial 
screening was performed on the effectiveness, efficiency, and coherence of the options. 

8.2.1.  Issue:  Improving  the  catalytic  effect  of  LIFE  projects  and  building  on 

successes 

LIFE  already  plays  a  catalytic  role  in  financing  projects  which  stimulate  further  actions  to 
develop  and  implement  EU  environment  and  climate  policy,  through  demonstration  of  good 
practice, awareness raising and coordination of complementary actions.  However, the problem 
analysis identified that there are some opportunities to further improve the catalytic effect of the 
LIFE projects, and enhance the sustainability and magnitude of impacts of the programme. 

Description of options 

Table 8-5:  Options to improve the catalytic effectiveness/sustainability of projects 

Options  

Description  

Business as usual  

This would involve a continuation of the current delivery mechanisms, 
at the same scope and scale as the current programming period. 

With respect to strategic integrated projects, the indicative allocation 
that was introduced in the current LIFE programme was established to 
pilot  the  concept;    under  the  regulation  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.  

In  practice,  integrated  projects  have  been  introduced  gradually  since 
2014 under the environment sub-programme  and since 2015 under the 
climate  action  sub-programme.  The  30%  ceiling  is  expected  to  be 
attained in 2017 and the remain  stable during the period 2018-2020 in 
view  of  reaching  the  indicative  allocation  of  three  integrated  projects 
per Member States. 

The proposals received for integrated projects for 2014-2016 represent a 
combined  total  of  LIFE  and  non-LIFE  co-financing  of  EUR  437,5 
million.  

178 

 
 
Under  the  environment  sub-programme,  integrated  projects  have  been 
supported in relation to water, waste, air and nature and for the climate 
sub-programme  in  relation  to  climate  mitigation  and  adaptation.  This 
thematic distribution is assumed to remain the same  in the business as 
usual scenario. 

With  respect  to  sustainability,  within  the  current  LIFE  Programme, 
project sustainability and the potential for replicability are considered in 
the  project  selection  process  through  a  specific  award  criterion.  While 
this  has  resulted  in  a  shift  towards  “close-to-market”  projects,  in 
particular  for  environment  and  climate  mitigation  projects,  there  is  a 
need to provide comprehensive support for the most successful projects 
and  more  systematic  follow-up  to  develop  replication  and  upscaling 
possibilities for all types of successful LIFE projects. At present, during 
the  implementation  phase,  platform  meetings  are  held  to  foster 
replication, and sustainability and replicability are also checked during 
the  monitoring  phase  before  projects  end.  Sustainability  and 
replicability are also highly correlated.154  The BAU is a continuation of 
the  level  of  targeted  support  during  project  implementation,  but  no 
subsequent follow up support to successful LIFE projects 

Expand  the  scope  and 
strategic 
of 
scale 
integrated 
projects 
(SIPs) 

The proposed option is an expansion in both the scope and scale of the 
strategic  integrated  projects  in  the  post-2020  programming  period.   
This option would acknowledge that the IPs have shown  an extremely 
good potential for catalytic effect, facilitate the coordinated use of funds 
and stakeholders ownership and have a strong demonstration effect.  

Subject  to  budget  being  available,  strategic  integrated  projects  should 
therefore  be  reinforced  through  both  an  expansion  of  their  number  for 
the presently eligible thematic areas, as well as an increase in the scope 
of eligible topics for strategic integrated projects (to include indicatively 
also  plans  for  national  emissions  ceilings,  noise,  marine  environment 
and nitrates in accordance with the relevant legislation).  Specifically to 
respond to the considerable needs for financing in the area of nature as 
identified in the Nature Fitness check, and to ensure that LIFE SIPs can 
play  the  necessary  role  in  coordinating  actions  related  to  nature  and 
biodiversity  under  the  mainstream  EU  funds,  the    number  of  SIPs  for 
nature should be significantly increased.  While the funds allocated for 
integrated  projects  in  the  current  programming  period  has  been  at  a 
level  appropriate  to  piloting  the  concept,  the  level  is  not  sufficient  for 
recognising the full potential of the mechanism.  This option therefore 
requires  a  significant  increase  in  the  funds  available  for  SIPs.    This 
would require an overall increase in the LIFE budget.  

This  option  concerns  development  of  more  systematic  mechanisms  to 
define  and  develop  synergies  will  other  EU  programmes  that  can 
support  sustainability,  upscaling  and  replication  of  relevant  LIFE 
results. This includes, for example, synergies with structural funds and 
rural  development  programmes  which  can  support  the  large  scale 
implementation  of  project  results,  and  synergies  with  European 
Innovation  Council  (EIC)  who  can  support 
the  up-scaling  of 
innovations.  This option would not require any specific modifications 

Systematically  define 
and  develop  synergies 
with other instruments  

154  

EC (2017) Report on the Mid-term Evaluation of the Programme for Environment and Climate Action 
(LIFE). SWD(2017) 355 final. 

179 

 
 
                                                      
to  the  LIFE  legal  base,  but  would  require  coordination  at  the  level  of 
programming.  This  option  would  also  continue  the  present  practice  of 
giving  preferential  treatment  in  standard  LIFE  project  applications  to 
projects  which  build  on  the  result  of  Horizon  2020  project  results.  
Furthermore, the results of Horizon Europe projects would continue to 
influence  the  development  of  EU  environment  and  climate  policy  and 
therefore of the steering of the LIFE programme orientation. 

Targeted  support  (e.g. 
assistance) 
technical 
and 
to 
replicate 
successful 
results 

upscale 

This option would involve targeted support which would strengthen the 
overall  impact  of  the  LIFE  programme.  It  would  consist  of  a  range  of 
mechanisms  to  be  defined  subject  to  budget  being  made  available, 
including follow-up technical assistance grants to provide coaching and 
finance  to  develop  plans  and  undertake  measures  to  ensure  the 
upscaling and replication of successful LIFE project results.   

Targeted  support  could  help  to  facilitate  access  to  grants  or  blending 
with financial instruments under mainstream instruments as a means of 
enhancing  project  results  sustainability.  Attention  would  be  taken  to 
ensure  that  this  option  does  not  have  unintended  adverse  effects  for 
decreasing  actions  to  ensure  project  sustainability  during  the  project 
duration  (where  it  encourages  projects  to  deprioritise  sustainability  in 
the  knowledge  that  additional  funding  will  be  made  available  if  the 
project is successful in other ways). 

Screening of options 

Each of the individual options to improve the catalytic effectiveness/sustainability of projects was 
screened  to  assess  its  relative  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  coherence.  The  effectiveness  of  the 
options was assessed in relation to the overall effectiveness of the LIFE instrument as well as in 
relation to the operational goal to improve the performance and catalytic role of LIFE. 

Table 8-6: Screening of options to improve the catalytic effectiveness/sustainability of 
projects 

Scoring 

Policy option 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Coherence 

Potential 
inclusion? 

for 

Business 
usual 

as 

Expand 
scope 
scale of SIPs 

the 
and 

Low: Unmet need 
for 
more 
sustainability  and 
upscale  of  LIFE 
results.  Greater 
strategic 
focus 
needed to step up 
to this challenge. 

High:  Piloting  of 
SIPs 
suggests 
they  are  being 
effective.  

Medium: 
No 
additional  effort 
but 
required, 
since 
effectiveness 
is 
low,  efficiency  is 
medium  

Low: 
Strategic 
focus is needed to 
LIFE 
ensure 
funding 
is 
mobilised  in  line 
with wider policy 
objectives 

High:  Process  for 
is 
SIPs 
at 
established 
least  at  a  pilot 
scale. 
Overall 
cost-effectiveness 
to 
expecting 
good,  particularly 

High:  Facilitates 
focus 
strategic 
LIFE 
allowing 
funding 
to  be 
mobilised  in  line 
with wider policy 
objectives,  and  in 
with 
synergy 

No 

Yes 

180 

 
 
considering 
leverage effect. 

other 
instruments. 

EU 

Medium: Activity 
is 
to 
likely 
increase  catalytic 
effect, but scale is 
uncertain 

Medium: 
Additional 
process may need 
to 
set  up 
to 
develop 
the 
synergies 

High:  Will  build 
coherence  with 
funding 
other 
programmes 

Yes 

High: Since focus 
in  enhancing  the 
replicability 
of 
good projects, the 
catalytic 
effect 
should be strong. 

Medium: 
Resources 
required 
overall 
benefits 
uncertain.  

to 

High: 
Contributing 
enhanced 
synergies  with 
other 
budget 
programmes  

and 
cost-
is 

Yes 

Systematically 
define 
and 
develop 
synergies with 
other 
instruments 

(e.g. 

Targeted 
support 
technical 
assistance)  to 
and 
upscale 
replicate 
successful 
results  

Summary:  This  initial  screening  highlights  that  all  of  the  alternative  options  have  merits.  In 
particular the option to expand the scope and scale of SIPs would support the ongoing evolution 
of  LIFE  as  a  support  to  compliance  with  EU  legislation  and  policies,  in  a  constantly  evolving 
environmental and climate policy landscape. It also provides an efficient option to improving the 
catalytic effect of LIFE projects and is well aligned to options improving the strategic focus of 
LIFE.  The option to systematically define and develop synergies with other programmes scores 
well  in  relation  to  coherence.  The  overall  effectiveness  of  this  option,  and  the  relative  cost-
effectiveness is though unproven. The package of targeted support is expected to be effective in 
enhancing the replicability of projects, and would also provide strong coherence. 

8.2.2.  Issue: Positioning of financial instruments to best leverage finance 

While  LIFE  grants  support  a  large  range  of  catalytic  actions,  and  are  complemented  through 
grant  financing  for  large  scale  implementation  under  mainstream  EU  instruments,  there  is  a 
potential for large scale implementation of certain environmental and climate objectives through 
alternative  financial  mechanisms  including  loans,  guarantees  and  equity.    The  financial 
instruments  presently  operating  under  LIFE  are  starting  to  show  the  potential  of  such 
mechanisms, and should be continued in order to reach their full potential in supporting revenue-
generating  actions.    There  is  however  a  question  of  the  best  positioning  of  these  instruments 
within the MFF. 

8.2.3.  Issue: Unbalanced accessibility for beneficiaries in different Member States 

According to the mid-term evaluation, more than a third of the financed LIFE projects have a co-
ordinating  beneficiary  situated  in  only  two  Member  States.  The  share  of  project  proposals 
received from beneficiaries from these Member States is even higher. 

However, the strong concentration of project proposals from two Member States and the absence 
of project proposals from beneficiaries in other Member States indicate that the accessibility to 
the LIFE Programme is unequal.  

The Final Evaluation of LIFE+ underlined that the efforts from the national contact points play a 
role in the level of participation registered from some Member States and concluded on the need 
to develop their capacity.  

According to the results of the public consultation undertaken in the framework of the mid-term 
evaluation, the high demand in the two Member States is also partly linked to the difficulties to 
get  environmental and climate initiatives funded by other sources at national/local level. 

181 

 
 
In several countries, the difficulty in getting the needed co-financing, which is relatively high in 
LIFE,  represents  an  important  obstacle  to  their  participation,  particularly  in  countries  from 
Eastern European.  

In terms of reaching environmental and climate policy objectives of the LIFE programme, it is 
not  necessarily  decisive  where  the  coordinating  beneficiary  is  situated.  LIFE  projects  have  per 
definition an EU-added value. They aim at demonstrating new solutions that can be replicated as 
well as catalysing action at a broader scale. Their benefits are not confined and in some cases not 
even related to the beneficiary (see example in the box). Furthermore, 30% of LIFE projects have 
co-beneficiaries in one or more of the other Member States  

Box 8-7: Example of a LIFE traditional project 

REAL Alternatives 4 LIFE - Refrigerant Emissions Alternatives and Leakage - blended learning for 
low GWP refrigerants L I F E 1 6   G I C / U K / 0 0 0 0 0 7  

EU contribution: € 422,076.00 € 
Coordinating beneficiary: Institute of 
Refrigeration 

Thematic priority: Climate Governance and Information  
External link: http://www.realalternatives.eu/partners 

The    European  F  Gas  Regulation    encourages  wider  adoption  of  alternatives  to  high  GWP  HFC 
refrigerants.  Industry  groups  are  joining  to  gether  to  help  provide  information  on  the  safe  use  of 
alternatives  such  as  ammonia,  hydrocarbon,  carbon  dioxide  and  low  flammables  though  the  REAL 
Alternatives learning programme.   

The lack of training of personnel handling climate friendly equipment is considered a barrier for achieving 
the EU phase-down of hydrofluorocarbons155, which are highly warming climate gases that traditionally 
have been used in refrigeration. 

Resources developed as part of the project offer innovative blended learning - a mix of e-learning, face-to-
face  training  materials,  practical  exercises,  assessments  and  an  e-library  of  learning  resources  -  the 
programme  has  brought  together  industry  knowledge  and expertise  from  across  Europe  about  alternative 
refrigerants. 

Industry stakeholders drawn from employers, manufacturers, trade associations and professional institutes 
have contributed learning material, advised on content, helped to pilot and to promote the programme as it 
developed.   

The  free  multi-lingual  learning  materials  are  available  for  individual  development  or  use  as  classroom 
training materials. They include e-learning content, electronic tools, a comprehensive library gathered from 
existing resources.  The e-library contains over 100 useful industry resources. 

Moreover,  aiming  at  an  equal  Member  State  distribution  during  the  selection  phase  would 
jeopardise  the  competition  between  the  projects  and  would  undermine  the  effectiveness  of  the 
programme, given that the best projects having the highest EU-added value will not necessarily 
be selected). 

Nevertheless,  having  a  broader  geographic  distribution  is  important  for  some  types  of  projects, 
including nature projects which bring concrete conservation benefits to the project sites, as well 
as  demonstrating  methods  or  techniques  which  are  specific  to  certain  geographical  or  climatic 
conditions.    Furthermore,  the  co-benefits  of  the  LIFE  programme  in  terms  of  communications 
and  outreach  on  environment  and  climate  policy  issues  are  better  delivered  through  a  less 
concentrated geographical location of the projects.  

These  are  the  reasons  why  an  improved  geographical  participation  is  expected  to  improve  the 
catalytic effect of the programme 

Description of options 

155  

http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/COM-2016-748-F1-EN-MAIN-PART-1.PDF 

182 

 
 
                                                      
Table 8-8: Options to enhance participation for beneficiaries in different Member States 

Options  

BAU 

Description  

This  would  involve  a  continuation  of  the  current  delivery  mechanisms, 
including  the  on-going  use  of  capacity  building  projects  to  address  the 
imbalance between Member States. 

capacity-building 

Capacity  building  projects  are  action  grants  that  are  used  to  finance 
training, 
the 
activities, 
dissemination of information and administrative support. They were put 
in place in anticipation of the phasing-out of the national allocations by 
2018.  

expertise, 

external 

Under  the  first  multi-annual  work  programme  (MAWP)  of  the  current 
LIFE  programming  period,  15  Member  States  were  eligible  to  receive 
funds  for  capacity  building  projects  In 2014  and  2015  the  Commission 
financed  14  capacity  building;  one  Member  State  did  not  submit  any 
proposal.  

In  the  business  as  usual  scenario  it  is  assumed  that  capacity  building 
projects  will  continue  at  the  same  scope  and  scale  as  in  the  2014-2020 
programming period, as described above. 

In  this  option  the  current  capacity  building  projects  will  no  longer  be 
supported,  and  instead  the  budget  allocated  to  these  projects  at  present 
would  instead  be  reallocated  to  support  a  reinforced  network  of  LIFE 
contact points. 

The  funding  for  the  network  would  be  managed  centrally  by  the 
European  Commission  or  EASME,  and  participation  would  be  open  to 
all  Member  States.  The  funding  would  be  used  to  target  the  specific 
capacity  building  needs  of  the  National  Contact  Points  (NCPs), 
including bringing together NCPs to facilitate mutual learning. It would 
also  include  a  component  targeting  barriers  to  uptake  specifically  in 
Member States with a low absorption rate.  

In  this  option  the  maximum  EU  co-financing  rates  that  are  included  in 
the  LIFE  Regulation  are  increased  subject  to  budget  being  made 
available. Project beneficiaries are therefore required to provide less co-
financing. 

This  will  alleviate  one  of  the  barriers  to  participation,  and  thereby 
encourage projects from some of those countries that currently have low 
participation rates. 

capacity 
Replace 
building projects with 
a  reinforced  network 
of 
contact 
points 

LIFE 

Increase 
financing rate 

the 

co-

Screening of options 

Each  of  the  individual  options  to  enhance  accessibility  for  beneficiaries  in  different  Member 
States  was  screened  to  assess  its  relative  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  coherence.  The 
effectiveness  of  the  options  was  assessed  in  relation  to  the  overall  effectiveness  of  the  LIFE 
instrument  as  well  as  in  relation  to  improve  the  performance  and  catalytic  role  of  LIFE, 
particularly as regards enhancing accessibility for beneficiaries in different Member States. 

Table 8-9: Screening of policy options to enhance accessibility for beneficiaries in different 
Member States 

Policy option  Scoring 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Coherence 

Potential 

for 

183 

 
 
 
Business 
usual 

as 

Replace 
capacity 
building 
projects  with 
reinforced 
a 
network 
of 
LIFE  contact 
points 

inclusion? 

No 

Each 
Low: 
concerned  MS 
has  to  submit  an 
application  which 
is  evaluated  by 
the Commission 

it 
to 
policy 

Medium: 
contributes 
wider 
objectives 
concerning 
regional 
development 
(external 
coherence) 

Limited 
Low: 
evidence 
to 
suggest  that  the 
existing 
mechanisms  (i.e. 
Capacity 
Building projects) 
are improving the 
of 
quality 
or 
applications 
amount 
of 
funding  awarded 
to  countries  with 
low 
absorption 
rate. 

Yes 

Medium:  Some 
additional  effort 
required 
to 
consolidate 
and 
networks 
ongoing  effort  to 
maintain  network 
and 
ensure 
working 
effectively. 
if 
However, 
is 
expenditure 
effective, 
more 
then  overall  cost-
efficiency  will  be 
good. 

High: Contributes 
to 
internal 
coherence  (leran 
good 
from 
- 
practices 
balanced 
territorial 
coverage 
contributes 
achieving 
a 
catalytic  effect). 
Contributes 
to 
policy 
wider 
objectives 
concerning 
regional 
development 
(external 
coherence) 

level 

High:  Based  on 
learned 
lessons 
from 
IPs, 
stakeholders  have 
the 
identified 
of 
high 
capacity 
and 
engagement as an 
important  feature 
contributing 
to 
improved 
effectiveness 
(improving 
project 
quality 
projects 
capacity). 
Effectiveness 
is 
also  linked  to  the 
to 
possibility 
the 
customise 
action 
the 
need.  

design, 
of 
and 

to 

It  will  depend  to 
some  extent  on 
the willingness of 
to 
participants 
  The 
engage. 
overall 
effectiveness  of 
the 
LIFE 
programme 
would 
increased 
addressing 
broader 
environmental  

be 
by 
a 
set  of 

184 

 
the 

Increase 
co-financing 
rate 

conditions  on  the 
ground. 

Option 
address  all 
barriers 
participation. 

may  
the 
to 

Medium:  More 
EU  co-financing 
will  help  address 
the 
one 
of 
barriers 
to 
participation,  but 
may  not  address 
them 
all.  
Increasing the co-
financing  means 
that 
fewer 
projects  can  be 
supported  in  total 
unless  the  overall 
budget 
is 
increased.   

Medium:  Higher 
contribution  per 
project.  In  some 
cases, 
higher 
rates  might  also 
artificially  inflate 
demand, 
the 
the 
increasing 
number  of 
less 
relevant 
applications, 
which 
nevertheless  need 
to be evaluated. 

Less management 
costs 
involved 
with  the  decrease 
in  the  number  of 
projects 

Yes 

Medium/High:  If 
co-
increased 
rate 
financing 
ensure 
greater 
harmonisation 
to 
related 
financing  similar 
projects  in  other 
fields 

Summary: This initial screening highlights that no single option is likely to be fully effective in 
addressing  the  problem,  but  the  replacement  of  capacity  building  projects  with  a  reinforced 
network of LIFE contact points and an increase in co-financing rates, would address two specific 
barriers. The most efficient option is expected to be the replacement of capacity building projects 
with  a  reinforced  network  of  LIFE  contact  points.  This  will  be  more  effective  in  improving 
geographic  distribution  of  LIFE  projects,  but  would  not  require  any  more  resources  than  the 
current  capacity  building  projects.  An  increase  in  the  co-financing  rates  could  also  help  to 
address  a  barrier  to  participation  in  some  Member  States,  but  its  main  limitation  is  that  would 
mean  that  fewer  projects  would  be  supported  in  total,  as  high  co-financing  would  mean  the 
budget is spread across fewer projects. 

8.2.4.  Issue: Improving the leverage effect through financial instruments 

Description of options 

Table 8-10: Options to improve the leverage of additional finance 

Options  

Description  

Business as usual  

This  would  involve  a  continuation  of  the  current  delivery  mechanisms. 
Specifically,  the  current  or  similar  FIs  will  continue  to  be  under  the 
umbrella  of  the  LIFE  programme  and  budget,  and  will  continue  to  be 
managed indirectly by EIB. 

185 

 
 
 
Financial 
Instruments 
delivered through a 
central fund 

Under this option the current or similar FIs would be delivered through a 
central funding instrument. They would continue to be managed indirectly 
by the EIB. 

Technical  assistance  to  relevant  stakeholder  could  be  provided  through 
LIFE. 

Screening of options 

Each of the individual options to leverage additional  finance through  financial instruments  was 
screened  to  assess  its  relative  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  coherence.  The  effectiveness  of  the 
options was assessed in relation to the overall effectiveness of the LIFE instrument as well as in 
relation to the relevant specific objective to improve the performance and catalytic role of LIFE. 

Table 8-11: 

Screening of policy options to improve the leverage of additional finance 

Scoring 

Policy option 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Coherence 

Potential 
inclusion? 

for 

Business 
usual 

as 

Financial 
Instruments 
delivered 
through  EU 
Invest fund  

High:  Need  for 
funding 
ongoing 
to  support  large 
scale  deployment 
slow 
even 
if 
has 
uptake 
affected  capacity 
of 
to 
FIs 
contribute to this. 

High: Need for 
ongoing funding 
to support large 
scale deployment 
even if slow 
uptake has 
affected capacity 
of FIs to 
contribute to this. 

Medium:  A  big 
investment 
is 
necessary  for  the 
setting  up  of  a 
pilot instrument 

Operational 
is 
expertise 
available in house 
to 
the 
define 
conditions  

Medium: 
specificity of the 
financial 
instruments but 
offset in the long 
run by improved 
economy of scale 
in the use of FIs. 

Low: 
risk of overlap  

Increased 

No 

High:  Economies 
of  scale.  Single 
entry  point  across 
the EU for project 
promoters 
and 
potential 
investors. 

Medium:  Risk  of 
NCFF  not  fitting 
with  other  FIs. 
Risk  of  PF4EE 
lost 
being 
amongst other EE 
focussed FIs.   

Yes 

Summary:  Maintaining  the  FIs  within  the  scope  of  the  LIFE  programme  would  provide  some 
internal coherence with the other programme activities. Conversely, delivering the FIs through a 
central  fund  would  enhance  coherence  with  other  FIs  and  would  facilitate  upscaling  of  the 
approaches tested through the present pilot FIs under LIFE. At the same time it might reduce the 
synergies between the LIFE grants and the FIs on similar technical issues.  

186 

 
 
 
8.2.5.  Issues:  Limited  flexibility  to  target  new  and  key  environmental  and  climate 

priorities 

The bottom-up design of LIFE facilitates a process whereby the best ideas and projects, across all 
topics,  are  financed,  maximising  the  overall  impact  of  the  sum  of  the  individual  projects.  
However,  this  process  has  resulted  in  a  dispersion  of  effort  and  the  inability  to  target  effort  on 
key or emerging priorities.  Under the present programme, for the environment sub-programme, a 
set  of  priority  areas  were  established  in  the  annex  to  the  Regulation,  and  project  topics,  which 
were  favoured  in  the  evaluation  process,  were  defined  in  the  multi-annual  work  programmes.  
This allowed a certain focussing of effort, however, neither has it had sufficient focussing effect, 
nor has it allowed the flexibility to introduce new priorities in a timely manner. 

Description of options 

Table  8-12:  Options  to  increase  the  capacity  of  the  programme  to  target  new  and  key 
environmental and climate priorities 

Options 

Description 

Business as usual 

This would involve the continuation  of the current approach in which 
priorities are set within the programme. 

Specifically: 

the 

  The  LIFE  Regulation  sets  out 

two  sub-programmes  - 
Environment  and  Climate  Action  –  and  three  priority  areas  under 
both sub-programmes (e.g. priority area for Nature and Biodiversity 
under  the  Environment  sub-programme).  The  LIFE Regulation  sets 
the  budget  lines  for  the  two  sub-programmes,  while  the  budgetary 
envelopes devoted to the priority areas are set out in the MAWP. 

  The LIFE Regulation also establishes thematic priorities for each of 
the three priority  areas of the Environment sub-programme (Annex 
9)  and  Annex  III  sets  out  these  thematic  priorities  in  more  details 
and establishes relevant actions. For instance, under the priority area 
for  Nature  and  Biodiversity  one  of  the  thematic  priorities  are  for 
Nature, and one of the activities is to provide support for the Natura 
200 network bio-geographical seminars.   

  Annex 9 of the LIFE Regulation provides a list of criteria according 
to  which  the  Commissions  is  empowered  to  amend  these  thematic 
priorities.  

  No thematic priorities and activities are set under the Climate Action 

sub-programme. 

  The LIFE Regulation identifies the eligibility and awarded criteria in 
Article  19  one  of  which  is  “being  of  Union  interest  by  making  a 
significant  contribution  to  the  achievement  of  one  of  the  general 
objectives of the LIFE Programme set out in Article 3 as well as the 
specific  objectives  for  the  priority  areas  listed  in  Article  9,  the 
thematic priorities for the Environment sub-programme are set out in 
Annex  III,  or  the  specific  objectives  for  the  priority  areas  listed  in 
Article 13”. 

  Other  than  the  allocation  of  funds  for  the  nature  and  biodiversity 
priority  areas  under  the  Environment  sub-programme,  and  between 
the types of funding within each sub-programme, Article 24.2(a) of 
the LIFE Regulation prohibits any further pre-allocation for project 
action grants between or within each priority area. 

187 

 
  There  are  numerous  ceilings  on  the  portion  of  the  budget  that  may 

be allocated to specific delivery mechanisms or project types. 

  The  MAWP  contains  a  non-exhaustive  list  of  project  topics 
implementing  the  thematic  priorities  and  activities  under  the  sub-
programme for the Environment. For instance, under the Nature and 
Biodiversity priority area within the Nature thematic priority one of 
the project topics is to support projects implementing one or several 
actions  foreseen  in  the  relevant  Prioritised  Action  Framework 
(PAF). As the list is non-exhaustive project applicants are allowed to 
deviate from  the project topics but they need  to be in line with the 
thematic  priorities  and  activities  established  in  Annex  III  of  the 
Regulation. For the Climate Action sub-programme, relevant policy 
areas are listed. 

  The  yearly  calls  for  projects  include  a  list  of  project  topics,  which 
are  prioritised  during  the  project  selection.  The  calls  under  the 
Climate  Action  sub-programme  specifies  key  priorities  closely 
linked to the current policy needs and projects proposals addressing 
these key priorities to a large extent are rewarded with higher points 
within the project selection process.  

Reduce 
areas 

the  priority 

Reduce  the  number  of  priority  areas  covered  by  the  programme  to 
allow focus on a limited number of key priorities, in order to focus the 
effort.  

Removal  of  thematic 
priorities  and  activities 
from  Annex  III  of  the 
the 
Regulation 
Environment 
sub-
programme  

for 

Remove  prohibition  of 
further  pre-allocation 
the  MAWP  or 
in 
annual calls and reduce 
budget 
number 
of 
ceilings 
the 
Regulation 

in 

This would involve the removal of the current list of thematic priorities 
and related activities under the Environment  sub-programme from the 
Annex of the LIFE Regulation.  

The thematic priorities could be included in the MAWP which would 
provide  increased  flexibility  for  the  LIFE  Programme  to  address  new 
and key environmental challenges. 

This  option  would  remove  most  restrictions  on  specific  delivery 
mechanism  and  thematic  areas  in  the  Regulation  while  allowing  for 
further  earmarking  within  the  MAWP  and/or  in  yearly  calls  for 
proposals.    It  would  create  the  opportunity  to  increase  the  strategic 
focus of the programme and align its priorities with new and emerging 
challenges.   In order to retain the benefits of the bottom-up approach 
in rewarding excellence, only a limited portion of the budget would be 
thus pre-allocated. 

Screening of options 

The tables below present the screening of the options identified above. The effectiveness of the 
identified options was assessed in relation to the overall effectiveness of the LIFE instrument as 
well as in relation to the operational goal to improve the strategic focus of LIFE.   

Table 8-13: Screening of options to increase strategic flexibility in providing funds for new 
and key environmental and climate challenges 

Policy 
option 

Scoring 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Coherence 

Potential 
inclusion? 

for 

Business  as 
usual 

Low: 
flexibility 

Limited 
to 

Low: 
additional 

No 
effort 

Medium: 
Maintains 

No 

the 

188 

 
 
address  new  and 
emerging issues.  

Reduces 
Low: 
overall  impact  of 
the  programme  in 
terms of its global 
objectives 

Introduces 

High: 
strategic 
and 
flexibility 
ensures 
the 
alignment  of  the 
MAWP  with  new 
and 
emerging 
policy priorities.  

High: Introduces a 
delivery 
to 
mechanism 
ensure 
strategic 
flexibility  within 
the  MAWP 
for 
yearly  calls  on 
specific 
challenges.  

required,  but  does 
not  fully  achieve 
the  objective  so 
low efficiency. 

Low: 
No 
effort 
additional 
required,  but  does 
not  fully  achieve 
the  objective  so 
low efficiency. 

current 
level  of 
coherence  with 
other EU policies.  

Reduces 
Low: 
and 
coherence 
the 
compromises 
integrity  of 
the 
LIFE Programme.  

No 

Medium:  Change 
in  the  structure  of 
the Regulation but 
with 
details 
potentially  
included 
MAWP; 
significant 
administrative 
burden.  

the 
no 

in 

High:    Increases 
coherence  with 
other  EU  policies 
as  it  creates  more 
room  for  flexible 
response 
to 
priorities.   

Yes 

Medium: 
Additional  effort 
required  and 
is 
some 
creates 
administrative 
burden. 

High:  Ensures  an 
option to align the 
focus  of  the  LIFE 
Programme 
within the MAWP 
with 
the  most 
pressing priorities.  

Yes 

Reduce 
priority areas 

Removal  of 
thematic 
priorities and 
activities 
from  Annex 
III  of 
the 
Regulation 
for 
the 
Environment 
sub-
programme 

further 

Remove 
prohibition 
of 
pre-
allocation  in 
the  MAWP 
annual 
or 
and 
calls 
reduce 
number 
budget 
ceilings 
the 
Regulation 

of 

in 

Summary:  This  initial  screening  highlights  that  two  of  the  options  would  each  contribute,  in 
complementary  manners,  to  improving  the  strategic  focus  on  the  programme  on  key  and 
emerging priorities.  These options involves the removal of thematic priorities and activities from 
Annex III of the Regulation for the Environment sub-programme which would ensure the right 
level  of  flexibility  and  provide  an  option  for  the  MAWP  to  align  the  thematic  priorities  of  the 
Environment  sub-programme  with  the  most  topical  environmental  challenges.  In  addition,  the 
option  to  introduce  the  possibility  for  targeted  calls  for  proposals  would  introduce  delivery 
mechanisms  within  which  the  LIFE  Programme’s  current  bottom-up  approach  could  be 
complemented  with  a  top-down  process  to  target  key  policy  priorities.  In  the  current  LIFE 
Programme,  there  is  no  option  to  introduce  further  pre-allocations  and  hence  the  business  as 
usual scenario would not be able to address the lack of flexibility to steer funding with a strategic 
focus.  

189 

 
 
8.3.  Options related to programme management 

Several remaining challenges and opportunities were identified in relation to the management of 
the  LIFE  programme.  Options  were  identified  to  address  the  operational  goal  to  optimise  the 
programme  management.  An  initial  screening  was  performed  on  the  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
and coherence of the options. 

8.3.1.  Issue:  Opportunities  may  still  exist  to  improve  specific  elements  of  the 
programme management arrangements 

While  the  MTE  concluded  that  the  present  programme  management  arrangements  are  suitable, 
the problem analysis identified that there may be opportunities to improve the effectiveness and 
efficiency of the management of the programme in the post-2020 framework.  

Description of options 

Several  options  were  identified  to  explore  where  the  management  of  the  programme  could  be 
made more effective or efficient post-2020.  

Table 8-14: Options relating to the programme management arrangements 

Options  

Business as usual  

Description  

This  would 
arrangements.  

Specifically:  

involve  a  continuation  of 

the  current  management 

  DG Environment to manage the preparatory projects and procurement 
under the environment sub-programme as well as the ongoing LIFE+ 
projects.  

  DG  Climate  Action 

to  manage 

the  preparatory  projects  and 

procurement under the climate action sub-programme. 

  EASME to manage the call for proposals, all of the operating grants, 
the standard, integrated and technical assistance projects under the two 
sub-programmes.  

For  the  Clean  Energy  projects  transferred  to  the  LIFE  programme  from 
the Horizon 2020 programme the responsibility for the management of the 
projects will remain with EASME, as is the case under Horizon 2020156.  

Further  delegation 
management 
of 
responsibilities 
to 
EASME 

This would be similar to the business as usual scenario, but with the further 
delegation  of  management,  as  responsibility  for  the  preparatory  projects 
and the procurement would move from DG Environment and DG Climate 
Action to EASME.  

Retraction 
management 
responsibilities 
from EASME 

of 

This  would  involve  bringing  the  management  responsibilities  for  all 
elements  of  the  programme  back  in-house  to  the  Commission.  DG 
Environment would be responsible for the nature and biodiversity elements 
and DG Climate Action the climate-related projects 

For  the  Clean  Energy  projects  transferred  to  the  LIFE  programme  from 
the Horizon 2020 programme the responsibility for the management of the 
projects would be transferred to DG Energy.  

156  

This is only relevant where the new programme is expanded to include these projects. 

190 

 
 
                                                      
Screening of options 

Each  of  the  individual  options  to  improve  the  programme  management  arrangements  was 
screened  to  assess  its  relative  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  coherence.  The  effectiveness  of  the 
options was assessed in relation to the overall effectiveness of the LIFE instrument as well as in 
relation to the operational goal to increase the efficiency of the management of LIFE. 

Table 8-15: Screening of policy options relating to the programme management 
arrangements  

Policy option 

Scoring 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Coherence 

Potential 
inclusion? 

for 

Yes 

The 
Medium: 
of 
majority 
grants 
are 
already managed 
EASME 
by 
which  provides 
internal 
coherence 

low 

The 

High: 
management 
costs 
the 
of 
programme  are 
in 
already 
comparison 
to 
other 
programmes  and 
for 
allow 
of 
economies 
scale 
when 
implementing  a 
large  number  of 
homogenous and 
standardised 
operations 
manage grants. 

to 

No 

High: Coherence 
may 
be 
increased 
slightly  as  an 
greater 
even 
share 
the 
of 
grants  will  be 
managed 
by 
EASME. 

Medium:  Some 
further 
cost-
efficiencies  may 
be  achieved  but 
these  are  likely 
to  be  small  as 
these  grants  and 
contracts 
represent  only  a 
small  proportion 
total 
the 
of 
administrative 
effort. 

Business as usual  High: 

The 

a 

current 
management 
arrangements 
received 
positive 
assessment 
in 
the  MTE,  and 
currently 
are 
effective 

Further  delegation 
of  management 
responsibilities  to 
EASME 

The 

Low: 
further 
delegation of the 
preparatory 
projects  and  the 
procurement 
to 
EASME  may 
restrict 
the 
Commission’s 
of 
oversight 
projects 
these 
therefore 
and 
limit 
their 
relevance  to  the 
policy  making 
process.  This  is 
particularly 
relevant  for  the 
preparatory 
projects 
their 
focus. 

given 
policy 

Retraction 
management 

of 

Medium: 
Provided 

Low:  This  will 
an 
result 

in 

Medium: 
Commissions 

The 

No 

191 

 
 
 
responsibilities 
from EASME 

adequate  human 
resources  were 
made  available, 
this 
option 
would be at least 
as  effective  as 
the status quo.   

increase  in  the 
of 
cost 
managing 
the 
programme  This 
will  result  in  the 
Commission’s 
time being taken 
up 
grant 
by 
management 
activities,  which 
will  limit  their 
inputs 
the 
development, 
implementation 
and  enforcement 
of policies 

to 

will  be  more 
directly involved 
in  grants,  so  in 
theory 
will 
provide  greater 
coherence  with 
policy  making. 
the 
However, 
possibility 
to 
ensure  synergies 
between  LIFE 
grants  and  those 
of 
other 
programmes 
managed 
by 
EASME  would 
decrease, 
reducing 
coherence. 

Summary:  This  initial  screening  identified  that  the  current  business  as  usual  scenario  is  the 
strongest  option.  This  is  consistent  with  the  finding  from  the  MTE,  where  the  existing 
arrangement received a favourable evaluation. There may be some scope for further efficiencies 
by  further  delegating  the  management  responsibility  for  the  preparatory  projects  and  the 
procurement  to  EASME,  however,  there  will  be  a  trade-off  here  in  relation  to  effectiveness.  In 
particular, the preparatory projects have a strong policy focus, so it is particularly important that 
the  Commission  continues  to  have  a  strong  input  into  these  projects  to  ensure  they  are  most 
effective. The further delegation of responsibility to EASME is therefore also a potential option, 
but would require an additional process to be introduced to ensure that the Commission is able to 
receive  the  necessary  inputs  from  the  preparatory  projects  and  vice  versa.  The  retraction  of 
management responsibilities from EASME is not considered a feasible option, on the basis that it 
will incur additional costs. 

8.3.2.  Issue:  Opportunities  may  still  exist  to  improve  specific  elements  of  budgetary 

and administrative procedures  

While  the  existing  procedures  respect  all  of  the  relevant  financial  rules  and  regulations,  the 
problem  analysis  indicated  that  there  were  opportunities  for  changes  that  would  meet  the 
operational goal to simplify the administration of the LIFE programme.   

Description of options 

Table 8-16: Options relating to the use of simplified financial and budgetary procedures  

Options  

Business as usual  

Description  

This  would 
Specifically: 

involve  a  continuation  of 

the  current  procedures. 

Grant  management:  The  current  procedures  allow  for  the  award  of 
grants  to  be  made  without  the  need  for  a  call  for  proposals  in 
exceptional  cases  (see  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  No 
1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the 
general  budget  of  the  Union,  Article  190  thereof).  However,  this 
requires  an  annual  financing  decision,  even  for  recurrent  cases  (e.g. 
IMPEL). 

192 

 
 
Allocation  of  grants  to 
selected 
organisation 
without  the  need  for  a 
call for proposals 

Reducing budget lines 

Package of measures to 
simplify 
life  of 
the 
applicants/beneficiaries 
(e.g.  simplified  costs 
options,  output  based 
two-step 
payments, 
approach, 
cascading 
grants, etc.) 

Budget  lines:  Individual  budget  lines  are  specified  at  a  relatively 
granular level for different areas of expenditure. In cases where the full 
location  of  funding  to  a  budget  line  has  not  been  spent,  an 
administrative  process  has  to  be  followed  to  reallocate  the  unspent 
budget to another budget line. 

Application and reporting procedures: For standard LIFE grants, the 
call for proposals is a one-step process, with a two-steps process being 
piloted from 2018.  The reporting requirements (textual, financial and 
indicators)  are  the  same  for  all  projects  regardless  of  their  size  or 
complexity, providing a maximum amount of information. 

This option is designed to reduce the administrative burden for selected 
organisations  by  naming  in  the  regulation  those  organisations  where 
grants can be offered without the need for a call for proposals. This will 
be  restricted  to  a  few  organisations  who  have  been  funded  on  a 
recurrent  basis  under  the  current  programme,  such  as  the  IMPEL 
network. 

The financial statement attached to the LIFE Regulation establishes the 
budget lines. It takes administrative effort to move any unspent money 
between  budget  lines,  so  reducing  the  number  of  budget  lines  to  one 
line per parent DG would simplify this process. 

This package includes changing some of the processes and systems that 
are used in the programme management, including 

-  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 standard projects. This would reduce administrative 
for applicants. 

- 

- 

- 

- 

- 

adapting  reporting  requirements  in  proportion  to  the  length  and 
complexity of projects and the value of the grant. 

simplifying the indicators database, based on project focus 

use  of  Simplified  Cost  Options,  payments  based  on  output, 
limitation of eligible costs for grants. 

use  of  cascading  grants  with 
involvement of the monitoring team 

limited  reporting,  with 

the 

simplification  of  the  application  process,  including  rationalised 
forms and supporting documents 

Screening of policy options 

Each  of  the  individual  options  to  simplify  the  procedures  was  screened  to  assess  its  relative 
effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. The effectiveness of the options was assessed in relation 
to the overall effectiveness of the LIFE instrument as well as in relation to the operational goal to 
introduce simplification measures, where possible. 

Table 8-17: Screening of policy options relating to the application procedures for certain 
beneficiaries 

Policy option 

Scoring 

193 

 
 
Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Coherence 

Potential 
inclusion? 

for 

the 

High:    Current 
procedures 
allow 
for 
effective 
management 
and reporting of 
projects 

Medium:  Some 
unnecessary 
administration 
effort 
for 
applicants/bene
ficiaries 
is 
associated  with 
the 
current  
arrangements 

High:  Coherent 
procedure 

Yes 

Business as usual 

Allocation  of  grants  to 
selected  organisation 
without  the  need  for  a 
call for proposals 

High: 
same 
effectiveness  as 
the  status 
for 
quo 

for 

it 
the 

By 
the 
an 

High: 
reducing 
need 
annual 
financing 
decision, 
reduces 
administrative 
some 
burden; 
cost 
reduction 
for  the  selected 
organisations as 
no 
is 
there 
to 
more  need 
prepare 
a 
proposal 

treat 

Medium: 
Would 
certain 
organisations 
to 
differently 
others – albeit a 
very 
small 
number 

Yes 

Medium: 
Coherence  with 
other 
programme will 
depend  on  how 
they  approach 
the issue 

Yes 

Reducing budget lines 

High: 
same 
effectiveness  as 
the  status 
for 
quo 

High: 
effort 
implement 

Low 
to 

Package  of  measure  to 
simplify 
life  of 
the 
applicants/beneficiarie
s 

the 

High:  Similar 
status 
to 
although  
quo, 
In 
particular 
cascading 
grants  would 
improve 
the 
effectiveness  of 
the  programme 
expanding 
by 
the 
of 
type 
that 
actions 
be 
could 
financed 
to 
include 
small 
scale actions 

Medium:  Some 
to 
effort 
and 
develop 
the 
implement 
in 
procedures 
term. 
short 
Admin  burden 
for 
some 
applicants  (and 
EASME)  will 
go down.  

Medium:  More 
complexity 
in 
the  variety  of 
procedures  but 
opportunities  to 
align 
procedures with 
other 
EU 
programmes.,  

Yes 

194 

 
 
Summary:  The  business  as  usual  scenario  allows  the  relevant  organisation  to  be  funded  on  a 
recurring basis, but requires for an annual financing decision. The allocation of grants to selected 
organisations without the need for a call for proposals would achieve the same outcome, whilst 
reducing  administration  burden.  However,  there  may  be  some  difficulties  naming  specific 
organisations in the regulation, as it gives them preferential treatment. Reducing budget lines is a 
very simple measure that will reduce effort required when any reallocation of budgets is required. 
The final package of measure to simplify the life of applicants/beneficiaries, involves a number 
of simplification options. There may be some initial effort to put in place the procedures. 

Being  not  mutually  alternative  options,  these  measures  can  and  will,  as  far  as  possible,  be 
introduced to simplify the programme's management independently from the budget size which 
will be assigned to the Programme. 

8.3.3.  Issue:  Opportunities  may  still  exist  to  improve  specific  elements  of  the 

monitoring and evaluation processes 

While  the  MTE  concluded  that  the  present  project  monitoring  arrangements  are  suitable,  the 
problem  analysis  identified  that  there  may  be  opportunities  to  improve  the  effectiveness  and 
efficiency of the overall monitoring and evaluation processes in the post-2020 framework.  

Description of options 

In  view  of  the  main  challenges  identified  in  the  sections  above,  the  following  options  was 
identified  to  address  the  issues  around  monitoring  and  evaluation.  The  below  tables  first 
describes  the  baseline,  i.e.  the  approach  in  the  current  LIFE  Programme,  and  then  provides  a 
description of the identified options. 

Table 8-18: Policy options relating to the monitoring and evaluation processes 

Options  

Business 
usual  

as 

Issue  

Opportunities  may 
still 
to 
exist 
specific 
improve 
elements  of 
the 
monitoring 
and 
evaluation 
processes 

Description  

This  would 
monitoring and evaluation arrangements. Specifically: 

involve  a  continuation  of 

the  current 

  External  contractors  provide  support  to  evaluation, 
the 

monitoring  and  communication  services 
Commission and EASME.  

to 

  The evaluation team provides a pre-assessment of the 

proposals 

  The  evaluation  team  has  experts  per  country  and per 

sector 

  The  monitoring  team  closely  monitors  each  ongoing 
LIFE  project,  and  is  the  interface  between  the  LIFE 
projects and the Commission/EASME.  

  The external monitoring team has experts per country 

  The  communication  team  supports  the  Commission 
and  EASME  for  all  communication  activities  related 
to  the  LIFE  programme  and  its  projects  (web-site, 
brochures, …). 

For  the  Clean  Energy  projects  transferred  to  the  LIFE 
programme  from  the  Horizon  2020  programme  the 
responsibility  for  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the 

195 

 
 
 
projects  will  remain  with  EASME,  as  is  the  case  under 
Horizon 2020157.  

involve 

This  would 
the  monitoring  and  evaluation 
activities for all elements of the programme being brought 
into EASME. This will require the recruitment of relevant 
the  monitoring  and  evaluation. 
experts 
Country-level  visits  would  not  be  possible  without 
additional resources being made available. 

to  support 

involve 

the  monitoring  and  evaluation 
This  would 
activities for all elements of the programme being brought 
back  in-house  by  the  Commission.  DG  Environment 
would  be  responsible  for  the  nature  and  biodiversity 
elements  and  DG  Climate  Action  the  climate-related 
projects.  This  will  require  the  recruitment  of  relevant 
experts 
the  monitoring  and  evaluation. 
Country-level  visits  would  not  be  possible  without 
additional resources being made available. 

to  support 

For  the  Clean  Energy  projects  transferred  to  the  LIFE 
programme  from  the  Horizon  2020  programme  the 
responsibility  for  the  monitoring  and  evaluation  of  the 
projects will be transferred to DG Energy.  

This  would  involve  revision  of  the  existing  project 
indicator  database  and  the  definition  of  programme 
that  would  align  with  cross-programme 
indicators 
indicators which are under development. 

Retraction  of 
monitoring 
and  evaluation 
activities  into 
EASME 

Retraction  of 
monitoring 
and  evaluation 
activities 
in 
the 
Commission 

Alignment  of 
LIFE  project 
and 
programme 
indicators 
with 
Commission-
wide 
indicators  for 
EU 
financial 
programmes 

Screening of policy options 

Each  of  the  individual  options  to  improve  the  programme  management  arrangements  was 
screened  to  assess  its  relative  effectiveness,  efficiency  and  coherence.  The  effectiveness  of  the 
options was assessed in relation to the overall effectiveness of the LIFE instrument as well as in 
relation to the operational goal to increase the efficiency of the management of LIFE. 

Table 8-19: Screening of policy options relating to the monitoring and evaluation processes 
Policy option 

Scoring 

Effectiveness 

Efficiency 

Coherence 

Potential 
inclusion? 

for 

Business as usual  High: 

Current 

arrangements 
the 
enable 
monitoring  and 

Medium: 
External 
monitoring 
contractors  were 

Medium:  Using 
eparate 
for 
contractors 
monitoring  and 

Yes 

157  

This is only relevant if the new programme is expanded to include these projects. 

196 

 
 
                                                      
Retraction 
monitoring 
evaluation 
activities 
EASME 

of 
and 

into 

of 
and 

Retraction 
monitoring 
evaluation 
activities  in  the 
Commission 

evaluation 
and 
communication, 
while 
management 
responsibility 
with 
lies 
may 
EASME 
some 
create 
incoherence 
of 
monitoring  with 
programme 
aims. 

Should 
to  greater 

High: 
lead 
coherence 
between 
monitoring  and 
and 
evaluation 
general 
grant 
management. 

No 

by 

perceived 
some 
stakeholders    as 
a  kind  of  “third” 
of 
layer 
in 
management 
MTE, 
the 
the 
suggesting 
potential 
for 
improvements  in 
efficiency 

to 

Low:  The  costs 
of  delivering  the 
evaluation 
are 
activities 
likely 
be 
greater  than  the 
business as usual 
due to the higher 
staff 
and 
overhead  costs, 
as  well  as  the 
travel required to 
maintain 
the 
level  of 
same 
monitoring. 

Low:    The  costs 
of  delivering  the 
evaluation 
are 
activities 
likely 
be 
greater  than  the 
options 
other 
due to the higher 
staff 
and 
overhead costs. 

to 

No 

Low:    Unlikely 
to lead to greater 
if 
coherence 
will 
EASME 
be 
still 
responsible 
for 
grant 
management. 

evaluation 
requirements  of 
the  programme 
to  be  fulfilled, 
and 
were 
generally  well 
received  in  the 
MTE 

Low:  Providing 
EASME  has  the 
necessary  skills 
(thematic, 
geographic  and 
and 
linguistic) 
resources, 
the 
current 
monitoring  and 
evaluation 
arrangements 
could  be  largely 
fulfilled 
inside 
EASME. 
However, 
EASME 
does 
not  have 
local 
the 
offices,  so 
regular site visits 
would  be  more 
difficult 
to 
implement. 

Low:  Providing 
the  Commission 
the 
has 
necessary  skills 
(thematic, 
geographic  and 
linguistic)    and 
resources, 
the 
current 
monitoring  and 
evaluation 
arrangements 
could  be  largely 
fulfilled. 
However, 
Commission 
does  not  have 
local  offices,  so 
the  regular  site 
visits  would  be 

the 

197 

 
more  difficult  to 
implement. 

Summary:  The  business  as  usual  scenario  currently  delivers  on  monitoring  and  evaluation 
requirements. Even though some issues were identified in the MTE with respect to the perceived 
efficiency  and  coherence,  the  alternative  option  related  to  'repatriating'  the  monitoring 
responsibilities to either EASME or the Commission services are not expected to greatly improve 
these elements. The retraction of monitoring and evaluation activities in the Commission is not 
considered to be feasible due to the costs of doing so, and issues with coherence would remain. 
Retraction of monitoring and evaluation activities into EASME may be more feasible, but would 
require  the  recruitment  of  additional  staff  with  new  expertise  to  support  the  monitoring,  and 
unless further resources are made available, in-country site visits would no longer be part of the 
monitoring.  The option to align the indicators with Commission-wide indicators is a promising 
option for the future that would ensure effectiveness and efficiency while increasing coherence, 
although it is not immediately applicable. 

198 

 
 
 
ANNEX 9: 

IMPACT  ASSESSMENT  OF  OPTION  1  -  INTEGRATION  OF 
CLEAN ENERGY TRANSITION PROGRAMME IN LIFE 

Introduction 

The Commission is facilitating a clean energy transition, which is at the heart of climate 
and energy policies and leads towards a competitive and sustainable European economy. 
This  transition  requires  new  technologies  and  infrastructure,  but  also  socio-economic 
adjustments, mobilisation of investments and preparation of actors in private and public 
sectors. It has a systemic nature and its success depends on synergetic actions on all the 
underlying  elements:  policy,  markets  and  finances,  society, 
infrastructure  and 
technology. 

The  enabling  framework  supporting  the  clean  energy  transition  requires  a 
comprehensive  approach  and  synergetic  actions  through  a  coherent  set  of 
programmes and instruments. 

Despite  significant  progress  in  implementing  clean  energy  policies  that  support  the 
overall  EU’s  energy  and  climate  objectives  for  2050,  the  energy  system  of  the  EU 
remains fossil fuel-locked. Throughout all regions and sectors, barriers impede the up-
take  of  energy  efficiency  solutions  and  the  deployment  of  renewable  energies  (a 
systematic overview of these barriers is included in the table in Appendix 1).  

In the absence of further action, the barriers will continue to hamper the economic, social 
and environmental benefits of the clean energy transition. This is especially relevant with 
public  and  private  actors  not  having  the  institutional  capacity  or  the  financial  means  to 
implement  clean  energy  solutions.  The  reasons  for  these  impediments  are  multi-fold:  a 
persisting lack of public finance as a consequence of the economic crisis; structural lock-
ins on the use of fossil energy carriers hinder taking up clean energy solutions. Especially 
vulnerable citizens do not have the financial capacity to improve energy performance of 
their houses and experience the 'vicious cycle' of fuel poverty. 

Already today frontrunner cities at all sizes engage to zero carbon emissions within the 
next decade for individual town quarters158 or the city environment as a whole.159  The 
technology  for  implementing  this  already  exists  on  the  market.  This  demonstrates  that 
there is a need to focus on rolling-out these clean energy technologies and solutions. This 
is especially important for these actors, communities and territories which at present do 
not belong to this frontrunner group.  

There  is  a  need  to  tailor  support  for  energy  efficiency  and  distributed  renewable 
energies to those who are in the phase of catching-up with the frontrunners of the 
clean energy transition. 

158  

159  

See for example the Amsterdam Zuidoost project; https://www.smartcities-
infosystem.eu/newsroom/news/how-amsterdam-building-zero-emissions-city  

The Danish town of Sonderborg already launched in 2007 its “Project Zero” plan aiming at a zero-carbon 
municipality by 2029. http://www.projectzero.dk/da-DK/Forside.aspx  

199 

 
                                                      
9.1.  Needs analysis 

the  State  of 

9.1.1.  Clean energy transition: problems and needs 
The  Communication    “Clean  Energy  for  all  Europeans”160  (CE4AE)  and  the    Third 
its  supporting  analyses162 
the  Energy  Union161  and 
Report  on 
comprehensively  review  and  assess  the  status  quo  of  clean  energy  policies  and  the 
progress  made  by  the  Member  States.  The  current  energy  system  is  largely  based  on 
fossil fuels. This entails CO2 emissions and thus climate change, together with multi-fold 
negative  socio-economic  and  geopolitical  consequences  and  macroeconomic  import-
dependence. On the other hand, the fossil-fuel energies remain cheap. Not acting on this 
carbon-lock-in of the European energy system would entail substantive opportunity costs, 
not only in terms of environmental damage but also in terms of losses for national and 
local economies.   

The  energy  transition  requires  large  investments  in  order  to  mitigate  climate  change, 
reduce  import  and  fossil  fuels  dependency,  and  support  the  transition.  The  latest 
estimates  put  the  annual  investment  gap  associated  with  the  achievement  of  the  2030 
energy and climate goals at EUR 177 billion between 2021 and 2030, totalling EUR 1.77 
trillion for the period163. If mobilised, this investment in clean energies, mostly in energy 
efficiency  and  distributed  renewable  energy  sources,  would  trigger  up  to  1%  GDP 
increase  over  the  next  decade.  The  Impact  Assessment  for  the  revised  EED  and  its 
supporting background studies show that especially in the case of energy efficiency the 
synergies  between  clean  energy  policies  and  overall  environmental  improvement  are 
substantive (a detailed description of synergies is  in  point 3.1.  Increased synergies and 
impacts).  Unlocking  these  potentials  does  not  only  require  new  technologies  or 
techniques  but  rather  a  massive  up-take  of  existing  good  practices  throughout  Europe. 
Especially  disadvantaged  actors  or  territories  such  as  energy  poor  households  need 
special attention to enable them to catch up with the frontrunners in Europe. 

9.1.2.  Overall failures and specific barriers impeding a clean energy transition 

As  discussed  in  Annex  4,  there  are  several  overall  failures  and  specific  barriers  of  the 
aforementioned  persistent  problems.  Many  of  the  failures  concerning  climate  and 
environmental policies similarly exist with the deployment of clean energy solutions, but 
there are also the specific barriers to energy efficiency and small-scale renewables, which 
require a distinctive approach. 

9.1.2.1.  Overall failures against a clean energy transition, which are in common with 

climate and environmental policies 

Overall  failures  against  a  clean  energy  transition  exist  at  the  level  of  individuals  and 
communities  and/or  at  the  overarching  governance  levels.  These  failures  are  especially 
pronounced  with  catching-up  actors  and  territories,  which  do  not  have  the  institutional 
capacity  or  the  financial  leverage  to  roll  out  existing  clean  energy  blueprints.  This 
underlines  the  need  for  public  intervention  to  support  a  clean  energy  transformation 

160 COM(2016) 860 final 

161 COM(2017) 688 final 

162 COM(2017) 688 final Annexes 2-4 

163 Financing A Sustainable European Economy, Interim Report, High-Level Expert Group on Sustainable Finance 

200 

 
                                                      
especially with these stakeholders. Clean energy problems are driven by several market 
and institutional failures, for example:  

  Public goods failure: As discussed above, diverse and healthy nature and good 
environmental  status  are  considered  as  public  goods  since  their  preservation 
benefits  all,  while  without  intervention  the  costs  of  preserving  them  would  be 
borne  unequally  only  by  some.  This  is  especially  true  in  combination  with  the 
external  effects  caused  by  the  use  of  fossil  fuels  (see  below).  Without  public 
intervention such as policy, legislation or financial incentives, there would be no 
incentive  to  internalise  the  external  costs.  This  failure  is  especially  pronounced 
with regions facing a lock-in on fossil fuels where additional social and economic 
concerns cement the barriers against clean energy. 

  Negative  externalities:  Unintended  negative 

impacts  of  production  and 
consumption of energy are often not fully internalised into the market price. This 
lack  of  pricing  results  in  the  inability  of  the  market  to  value  the  full  social  and 
economic benefits of clean energy solutions. Local pollution caused by fossil fuel 
use  is  a  classic  example  for  this  case.  Often  the  external  effects  occur  in  cross-
border situations, necessitating intervention on EU level. 

  Imperfect 

Insufficient 

information: 

of 
comprehensive  information  on  available  clean  energy  solutions  leads  to 
behavioural bias through incorrect signals. This barrier against clean energy both 
acts  on  the  macroeconomic  as  well  as  on  the  individual,  microeconomic  level. 
Creating networks and sharing information on best practices on energy efficiency 
can strongly mitigate this failure.  

asymmetric 

distribution 

or 

  Government, institutional, regulatory or policy failure: As described in Annex 
4, this failure refers to the imperfect nature of intervention by governance actors. 
In  the  case  of  poor  enforcement  or  non-uniform  implementation  of  rules  at  the 
Member  State  level  the  clean  energy  transition  and  the  EU’s  clean  energy  and 
climate  objectives  are  hampered.  Sub-optimal  or  delayed  implementation  of  the 
clean energy policy framework might lead to missing up to 1% increase in GDP 
over  the  next  decade.164  A  clear  support  with  capacity  building  and  deployment 
can facilitate the setting and implementation of clean energy policies. This type of 
failure  can  be  avoided  at  EU-level  by  ensuring  strong  and  coordinated  policy 
action,  with  effective  monitoring  and  enforcement.  Furthermore,  capacity-
building, best practice sharing and financial support for market-uptake are needed 
to address this failure. 

  Innovation  up-take  failure:  By  failing  to  take  up  existing  good  practices  on 
clean  energy  solutions,  governments  and  economic  agents  miss  out  on  cost-
savings,  growth  incentives  and  the  related  environmental  and  social  benefits. 
Tailored support such as the Clean Energy Transition programme can ensure the 
systematic and comprehensive up-take of these solutions at European level.   

  Socio-cultural  failure:  The  lack  of  societal  acceptance  of  the  need  to  change 
behaviour, reduce consumption and/or improve sustainability. This is particularly 

164  

This economic growth would be achieved by mobilising up to an additional 177 billion euro of public and 
private investment per year from 2021, as estimated in the impact assessments of the revised legislation and 
indicated in the Communication on the CE4AE. 

201 

 
                                                      
visible  in  cases  where  financial  or  welfare  gains  are  dominant  in  producer  and 
consumer choices. 

  Infrastructure  lock-in  and  investment  failure:  Lack  of  capacity  to  scale  up  the 
investment  in  energy  efficiency  and  small-scale  renewables  to  leverage  finance 
and  to  improve  access  and  de-risk  financing  for  the  energy  transition.  Clean 
energy financing is often seen as high-risk investment or the institutional capacity 
for the up-take of finance is missing. 

9.1.2.2  Specific barriers against energy efficiency and distributed renewable energy 

solutions, which require a dedicated approach 

The  table  included  in  Appendix  1  reviews  the  specific  market  barriers  acting  against 
taking  up  energy  efficiency  or  distributed  renewable  energy.  This  review  complements 
the  overall  review  performed  in  Annex  4  to  mirror  the  additional  needs  regarding  the 
clean energy transition. It should be noted that only major barriers have been taken up in 
the  following  review.  In  many  cases,  a  combination  of  the  barriers  identified  exists, 
especially in situations where territories or actors are still in the process of catching up. 

9.1.3.  Who is affected by barriers against the clean energy transition 

As  identified  in  Annex  4  of  this  Impact  Assessment,  running  short  on  implementing 
environmental and climate policies seriously affects several groups in the EU. The same 
is  true for not  acting  on the impediments that  stand against the clean energy transition. 
The  following  analysis  complements  the  need  analysis  presented  above  from  the  clean 
energy perspective. As is the case with the other two policy fields, acting on the uptake 
of clean energy solutions can contribute to comprehensive positive effects on individuals, 
businesses, civil society, and governments. It should be noted that these effects are often 
addressing  environmental  and  climate  change  problems  in  a  synergetic  way.165  (For  a 
detailed description of synergies see point 3.1. Increased synergies and impacts.) 

  Individuals are affected by low level of deployment of clean energy solutions in 
multiple ways. They face the environmental degradation and local pollution from 
the  use  of  fossil  fuels,  exposing  them  to  health  risks  and  damages.  The 
environmental and climate hazards described above in Annex 4 are largely caused 
by the use of fossil fuels. Energy poverty creates a lock-in effect for low-income 
households who spend a large part of their income on energy costs leaving in low 
energy  performance  houses,  whereas  energy  efficiency  improvements  could 
provide  a  solution  and  improve  both  economic  situation  and  living  conditions. 
Lowering  households’  energy  demand  and  the  share  of  energy  costs  in 
households'  budgets  through  improved  buildings’  energy  performance166  will 
contribute  to  reduce  energy  poverty  and  support  Europe’s  most  vulnerable 
consumers. 

  Businesses  depend  on  the  use  of  energy  to  produce  goods  or  services,  but  they 
also provide on the market energy related products and services. The clean energy 
business  (such  as  EE  and  RES  technology  and  services  providers)  is  still 
underdeveloped. Missing awareness, skills, and lacking access to capital impede a 

165  

166  

IEA (2014): Capturing the Multiple Benefits of Energy Efficiency. 

COM(2016) 860 final. Accelerating clean energy in buildings. 

202 

 
                                                      
stronger  up-take  of  energy  efficiency  and  small-scale  renewables.  Regulatory 
barriers persist in MS to develop and scale-up sustainable clean energy business 
models. Taking up business models in these fields would translate into economic 
growth and additional creation of jobs.167  European companies can improve their 
competitiveness  by  further  developing  local  sustainable  energy  business  and 
improving  energy  efficiency  of  their  own  business  operation  to  protect 
themselves  against  energy  price  differentials  that  occur  with  importing  fossil 
fuels.    This  is  especially  relevant  for  SMEs  with  a  high  share  of  energy  costs 
related to total production costs.  

  Local  communities  are  affected  strongly  by  the  absence  of  clean  energy 
solutions.  Air  pollution  from  fossil  fuel  use  causes  damages  with  the  local 
population and infrastructure alike, provoking out-migration or making it harder 
to  attract  new  inhabitants,  thereby  safeguarding  a  balanced  age  structure  in  the 
community.  Applying  energy  efficiency  and  distributed  renewable  energies 
reduces  local  pollutants  and  greenhouse  gas  emissions.  They  create  locally 
available jobs in the high-quality segment. These jobs are not subject to increased 
pressure of global economic competition. The savings on fossil fuel imports can 
be  channelled  to  projects  supporting  a  further  up-take  of  clean  energy.  By  this, 
they  can  create  economic  multiplier  effects  and  socially  inclusive  growth.  With 
high-skilled  jobs  available  throughout  Europe,  the  social  fabric  of  especially 
vulnerable  territories  can  be  expected  to  improve,  leading  to  synergies  with 
environmental and climate policy issues as well as economic and social benefits. 
As has been described above with the environmental and climate effects, a strong 
and  active  local  community  can  ensure  accountability,  sustainable  natural 
resource  governance,  environmental  protection,  and  inclusive  economic  growth. 
Thus, empowering local communities helps governments to obtain effective and 
democratic policy-making and is critical to achieve sustainable development.  

  Governments  can  benefit  from  lowering  energy  imports  and  macroeconomic 
effects of global energy price instability by supporting energy transition to benefit 
from  energy  efficiency  and  locally  available  renewable  energy  resources.  This 
leads to overall positive effects on employment and improved energy security of 
supply.  

to  support  non-clean  energy  financing.  With 

  Financial sector actors and institutional investors increasingly face the risk of 
investing  in  stranded  assets  such  as  fossil-based  infrastructure.  Shareholders  are 
increasingly  reluctant 
the 
development  of  sustainable  finance  properly  valuating  the  green  value  of  clean 
energy  investments,  these  investors  can  add  new  type  of  investments,  attract 
additional  shareholders  and  create  an  overall  green  investment  portfolio.  A 
broader  move  towards  clean  energy  finance  allows  to  develop  methods  of  de-
risking, increasing investment security and broad public support. This in turn will 
attract new clients, enlarging the business area for the sustainable finance sector. 

167 Without stringent energy efficiency deployment, up to 900,000 new jobs would not be created, as estimated in the 

impact assessments of the revised legislation and indicated in Communication on the CE4AE. In particular, industrial 
production could increase in the construction sector by up to 5%, in the engineering, iron and steel sectors by up to 
3.8 and 3.5% respectively, translating into 700.000 additional jobs in construction, 230,000 in engineering and 
27,000 in the iron and steel sectors. Impact Assessment for the amendment of the Energy Efficiency Directive, 
SWD(2016) 405 (detailed results derived from the macroeconomic analysis). 

203 

 
                                                      
9.1.4.  Addressing  the  barriers  -  intervention  logic  of  the  Clean  Energy  Transition 

Programme 

There  are  multiple  ways  of  addressing  the  identified  problems  and  needs  as  well  as 
failures concerning the implementation of clean energy solutions. Further to the options 
discussed above in Annex 4, the Clean Energy Transition Programme will continue the 
successful approach of Intelligent Energy Europe programme by acting on the: 

  Political and regulatory environment: Facilitating Clean Energy policy setting 
and  implementation  can  provide  different  governance  levels  with  the  non-
financial  capacity 
to  clean  energy  policy-making;  ambitious  political 
commitment,  strategic  planning  and  policy  development;  support  at  different 
levels  for  developing  and  spreading  good  practice  in  clean  energy  policy 
implementation;  support  for  a  continuous  dialogue  with  Member  States’ 
authorities  on 
transposition  and 
implementation; and support to joint surveillance actions for market surveillance 
by  the  Member  states  with  the  aim  to  strengthen  coordination  between  the 
relevant authorities, explore synergies in product testing and improve compliance 
with legislation. 

the  question  related 

legislation 

to  EU 

  Financial  environment:  Developing  and  mainstreaming  financing  for  Clean 
Energy to leverage finance and improve access to finance for energy transition by 
acting  on  both:  clean  energy  financing  supply  and  demand;  public  investment 
mainstreaming  through  Technical  Assistance  Grants,  with  or  without  leverage 
obligation,  which  aim  at  supporting  development  of  technical  and  financial 
expertise  of  public  authorities;  Private  investment  mainstreaming  through 
Technical  Assistance  Grants,  which  aim  at  supporting  development  of  technical 
and financial expertise of project promoters to launch large-scale investments in 
sustainable energy; developing a large offer of Clean Energy financing products 
to  help  financiers  and  investors  consider  sustainable  energy  investments  as  a 
specific market segment offering clear incentives and new business opportunities; 
installing  a  de-risking  framework  with  new  valuation  methods  and  new  risk 
assessment methods. 

  Business environment: Developing Clean Energy business to prepare the market 
players to the new conditions required for the clean energy transition; developing 
new markets for Clean Energy services and business models; improving existing 
business  processes  and  value  chains;  improving  skills  of  the  workforce; 
empowering and engaging 'influencers'  

  Socio-cultural  environment:  There 

is  a  clear  need 

to  enable  societal 
transformation  for  the  clean  energy  transition.  This  can  be  supported  by: 
Awareness raising, targeted education; consumers' activation and engagement to 
change their energy consumption behaviour and increase their uptake of different 
forms  of  active  demand  solutions  and  services,  including  collective  actions; 
addressing  energy  poverty  by  applying  existing  good  practices168  throughout 
Europe. 

168 For example the Irish pilot action of the project EPISCOPE has produced an interactive map of north Dublin that 
combines  data  from  Energy  Performance  Certificates  with  other  data  from  the  population census.  In  this way  it  is 
possible to map areas of fuel poverty, by identifying districts that overlap poor energy performance with low income 

204 

 
                                                      
 
9.2.  Lessons learnt from the current and past programmes and assessment of the 
next MFF proposal  

9.2.1.  Current and past programmes and their results  

Intelligent  Energy  Europe  III  (IEE  III)  programme  is  a  part  of  Horizon  2020-  Energy 
Challenge  (Societal  Challenge  3)  representing  15%  of  overall  energy  challenge 
budget,  according  to  Declarations  of  the  Commission  (2013/C  373/02)  annexed  to 
Horizon 2020 regulation (EU) N°1291/2013169. 

Intelligent  Energy  Europe  II  (IEE  II)  programme,  which  was  part  of  the CIP,  ran  from 
2007-2013.  The  programme  supported  sustainable  energy  policy  development  and 
implementation to create right market conditions for energy transition. The results were 
monitored  using  common  KPIs  based  on  EU  2020  targets  for  EE  and  RES  (primary 
energy  savings  compared  to  projections  (GWh/year);  reduction  of  greenhouse  gas 
emissions (t CO2e/year); renewable energy production triggered (GWh/year); cumulative 
investment made by European stakeholders in sustainable energy (M Euro). The results 
reported  under  IEE  II  programme  regarding  the  common  KPIs  are  shown  in  the  table 
included in Appendix 2. 

To ensure coherence and continuity of monitoring with the predecessor programme, the 
following indicators are reported in Horizon 2020-SC3-Energy Efficiency market uptake 
(IEE III) by the beneficiaries after the end of a project and in the mid-term reporting: 

   Primary  energy  savings  triggered  by  the  market  uptake  project  (GWh/year  per 

EUR million) 

   Total  amount  of  money  invested  by  the  stakeholders  in  sustainable  energy  as 
direct or indirect result from the measures developed by the market uptake project 
(amount in EUR million) 

These  indicators  will  only  be  available  after  the  mid-term  reporting  has  been 
accomplished. 

However, at the proposal stage, the market uptake projects indicate the estimated values 
for the indicators (see the figures reported in Horizon 2020 Monitoring report 2015, page 
148).170 

9.2.2.  Lessons learnt from the current MFF 

The  integration  of  IEE  III  in  Horizon  2020  followed  the  logic  of  installing  a 
comprehensive programme covering all steps from basic research to market uptake and 

households. Additionally, the UK partner BRE supported the annual UK housing surveys, which track both energy 
performance and fuel poverty. In ACHIEVE project over 150 people were trained and carried out about 3000 home 
visits  in  Bulgaria,  Germany,  France,  Slovenia,  United  Kingdom  where  they  provided  free-of-cost  installation  of 
devices to save water and energy and gave advice on energy saving behaviour. The project achieved primary energy 
savings  of  just  under  250  toe/year,  with  an  average  decrease  of  10%  for  electricity,  6%  for  heating,  and  18%  for 
water consumption per household. Some 920 kWh were saved annually by each household in electricity and heating. 

169 The Commission will endeavour to ensure that at least 85 %, of the energy challenge  budget of Horizon 2020 is 
spent in non-fossil fuels areas, within which at least 15 % of the overall energy challenge budget is spent on market 
up-take  activities  of  existing  renewable  and  energy  efficiency  technologies  in  the  Intelligent  Energy  Europe  III 
Programme.  This  Programme  will  be  implemented  by  a  dedicated  management  structure  and  will  also  include 
support  for  sustainable  energy  policy  implementation,  capacity  building  and  mobilisation  of  financing  for 
investment, as been undertaken until today.  

170 https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/news/horizon-2020-monitoring-report-2015  

205 

 
                                                                                                                                                              
deployment.  However,  delivering  capacity  building  under  the  R&I  framework,  with 
different  intervention  logic,  clients  and  delivery  modes,  proved  to  be  difficult.  In  the 
report on the first results of Horizon 2020 on energy efficiency171 the evaluators point out 
that  mainly  large  consortia  are  funded.  Especially  higher  barriers  to  participate  in 
Horizon 2020 than in IEE actions are mentioned. As one of them the evaluators see the 
need to include a larger number of stakeholders into the funding actions and a complex 
application process. These impediments can be expected to be significantly higher with 
disfavoured actors and territories.  

9.2.3.  Rationale of the proposal to integrate the Clean Energy Transition Programme 

in LIFE  

9.2.3.1. 

The Horizon Europe programme does not specifically cover 'capacity 

building' activities in its scope 

The  R&I  programme  objective  is  to  fund  excellent  research  and  innovation, 
supporting pioneers who will show the way. But the EU has also the responsibility to 
help  laggards  and  followers  'catching  up'  by  building  the  capacity  in  order  to  quickly 
narrow the gap. There is also a need to address specific  barriers hampering the wide 
uptake  of  the  existing  clean  energy  solutions.  For  the  massive  market  roll-out, 
'expected impact' and 'quality of implementation' criteria should outweigh the criterion of 
'scientific excellence', which has less of relevance for capacity building.  

As  stated  in  the  Horizon  Europe  impact  assessment  improving  market  uptake  of 
innovative solutions is a broad concept encompassing various activities, which help R&I-
driven innovation to succeed on the market and create new value for market players and 
consumers/citizens alike. However, market uptake goes beyond research and innovation. 
Therefore, activities under the Framework Programme alone cannot suffice to incentivise 
broad  market  uptake  and  dissemination  of  innovative  solutions.  Other  EU  programmes 
need  to  also  play  a  key  role  (see  Horizon  Europe  Impact  Assessment  Annex  7  on 
Synergies). 

9.2.3.2.  LIFE  provides  the  best  suitable  framework,  while  the  differences  in  the 
implementation know-how will be mutually enriching when integrating the 
Clean Energy Transition window. 

Integrating  the  Clean  Energy  Transition  Programme  into  LIFE  would  address  the  key 
shortcoming of the current approach and increase the coherence of the intervention logic.  

LIFE  has  a  suitable  nature,  objectives  and  delivery  mechanisms  aiming  to  support  the 
transition  processes  by  building  capacity, 
removing  barriers  and  addressing 
environmental  and  climate  related  vulnerabilities.  As  the  development  of  clean  energy 
solutions  would  rest  with  Horizon  Europe,  the  clear  distinction  between  excellent 
research and innovation, including technology development, socio-economic innovation 
and first of a kind approaches on the one side, and supporting capacity building for the 
rolling-out and catching-up processes, barriers removal and market shaping on the other 
side, leads to improving the coherence of EU funding landscape. This coherence will 
allow the Clean Energy Transition Programme to tailor its interventions more closely to 
the  often  limited  capacity  of  catch-up  actors  and  territories  and  lower  the  barriers  for 
participation  in  the  programme.  Finally,  it  would  enable  comprehensive  multiplier 

171 Ricardo AEA, CE Delft (2017): Report on the first results of Horizon 2020 on energy efficiency and system 

integration – Final report 

206 

 
                                                      
effects,  which  can  be  triggered  by  the  projects  implemented  under  the  common 
framework (tackling energy efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions and local air pollutants 
at the same time). The potential synergies are assessed in detail in the chapter below and 
appendix 3. 

The integration of the clean energy transition capacity building actions would extend the 
current  thematic  coverage  of  LIFE  to  explicitly  include:  energy  efficiency  and  small-
scale  renewable  energy  sources.  These  funding  priorities  will  be  included  in  as  a 
dedicated  window  of  LIFE,  complementing  the  environment  and  climate  change  sub-
programmes. 

The objective of the clean energy transition capacity building actions is to enable socio-
economic transformation for the clean energy transition in Europe, especially with those 
regions,  sectors  and  actors  who  need  to  catch  up.  This  objective  is  fully  aligned  and 
contributing  to  LIFE  programme  objectives  of  supporting  and  catalysing  the  transition 
towards sustainable and  low-carbon economy. In line with  the LIFE intervention logic, 
the Clean Energy Transition Programme's activities address four elements of the market 
environment  by  developing  and  spreading  best  practice  in  policy  implementation, 
mobilising  investments,  improving  skills,  creating  market  conditions  for  technology 
deployment and providing support to address underperformance. 

However  these  actions  funded  under  IEE  and  continued  under  H2020  have  developed 
their  own  specific  implementation  intelligence,  know-how  and  close  interactions  with 
policy-making,  which  are  unique  and  exemplary  across  all  the  centrally-managed  EU 
funding  activities.  This  precious  experience  luggage  needs  to  be  preserved,  while  the 
implementation  modalities  and  instruments  available  in  LIFE  are  definitely  worth 
exploring. 

Implementation knowledge cross-fertilization would be facilitated by the fact that both 
LIFE and IEE/H2020 EE are implemented by EASME and the frequent interactions and 
common  initiatives  (e.g.  common  projects  feedback  workshops)  are  already  in  place 
between the units implementing both programmes. 

9.3.  Assessment of impacts of the Clean Energy Transition Programme in LIFE 

9.3.1.  Assessment of increased synergies and impacts  

The  proposed  integration  of  the  Clean  Energy  Transition  Programme  in  LIFE  would 
produce  synergies  between  the  funded  actions  enabling  a  multiplier  effect  of 
environmental, climate and clean energy policies on the ground. Such a synergetic action 
between the projects and the underlying policies is already observed and will be further 
strengthened172. Some examples of such synergies are described in Appendix 3 Examples 
of synergies in the projects and initiatives for environment, climate and clean energy.  

The assessment of the proposed integration of the Clean Energy Transition Programme 
into LIFE in comparison to the business as usual scenario showed the following pros and 
cons: 

172  With  the  implementation  of  clean  energy  policies,  environmental  vulnerabilities  such  as  local  air  pollutants  are 
addressed as well. The same is true for economic synergies, such as the creation of jobs. Whereas these economic 
and  environmental  indicators  have  not  been  systematically  addressed  by  the  present  programmes  KPIs,  several 
projects have identified these co-benefits. 

207 

 
                                                      
+ Increased synergies in energy, environmental and climate policies implementation on 
the ground and improved coherence of the EU funding landscape. 

+ Expanded range of beneficiaries, reaching out to those who are currently discouraged 
by  difficulties  to  form  large-size  consortia  and  a  complex  application  process  under 
Horizon 2020.  

+  Better  tailored  interventions  to  the  limited  capacity  of  catch-up  regions  and  actors, 
thereby fostering social, economic and environmental inclusion. 

+ Increased coherence in the overall MFF structure since the actions to be financed under 
this  extension  correspond  better  to  the  other  actions  financed  by  LIFE,  as  compared  to 
projects financed under the R&I framework.  

-    A  transition  period  for  necessary  adjustments  and  harmonisation  of  rules  and 
procedures,  however  leaving  a  sufficient  degree  of  flexibility  in  implementation 
modalities  to  ensure  effectiveness  of  the  actions  and  the  continuity  in  their  modus 
operandi.  Creating  a  dedicated  sub-programme  or  delimited  part  for  clean  energy  with 
clearly attributed budgets will allow the required flexibility in implementation modes.  

-  Increased  communication  efforts  and  close  coordination  with  other  sub-programmes 
will  also  have  to  be  made  to  provide  clear  and  coherent  information  to  external 
stakeholders on the funding opportunities under LIFE.   

Overall  the  positive  expected  impacts,  resulting  from  synergies  and  increased 
coherence of the intervention logic, largely outweigh the potential risk factors.   

Therefore  the  impacts  in  the  following  areas  are  expected  to  be  strengthened  in 
comparison to the business as usual scenario: 

1) Economic impacts 

The  Clean  Energy  Transition  Programme  will  contribute  to  timely  and  effective 
implementation of the Clean Energy policy package and, as a consequence, achieving its 
economic impacts estimated in the policy impact assessment up to 1% increase in GDP 
over  the  next  decade  by  mobilising  up  to  an  additional  177  billion  euro  of  public  and 
private  investment  per  year  from  2021.  Greater  energy  efficiency  will  help  European 
companies  improve  their  competitiveness  by  keeping  their  costs  down,  with  electricity 
prices  for  household  and  industry  expected  to  be  reduced  on  average  from  161  to  157 
€/MWh. It  will create  local business opportunities and jobs, with  an estimated 400,000 
additional jobs in all sectors by 2030, especially in the construction sector, including by 
increasing the demand for skilled manual labour. Finally, pollution control costs & health 
damage costs should be reduced by €4.5 – 8.3 billion and energy security will be greatly 
improved, reducing gas imports by 12% in 2030.173 

Specifically  the  contribution  of  the  Clean  Energy  Transition  programme  to  achieving 
these results can be quantified based on the positive experience of the Intelligent Energy 
Europe  programme.  Based on IEE projects reporting it can  be  estimated that  each year 
calls  of  total  100  M€  EU  funding  generated  around  EUR  500  million  investments  in 
sustainable energy. Specifically the project development assistance grants were required 
to  secure  a  minimum  of  EUR  15  of  investments  for  each  euro  of  public  support 

173  

Impact Assessment for the amendment of the Energy Efficiency Directive, SWD(2016) 405 (detailed results 
derived from the macroeconomic analysis). 

208 

 
                                                      
provided174.  These  grants  turned  out  to  be  very  effective  to  mobilise  large  scale 
investments in sustainable efficiency. ELENA reaches a leverage ratio largely above 20, 
it means that each euro spent from European funds triggers more than 20 euro investment 
into clean energy.175 

2) Social impacts 

The  Clean  Energy  Transition  programme  will  contribute  to  timely  and  effective 
implementation of the Clean Energy policy package and, as a consequence, achieving its 
social impacts of up to 900,000 new jobs, as estimated in the impact assessments of the 
revised  legislation  and  indicated  in  Communication  on  the  CE4AE.  In  particular, 
buildings renovation could increase employment in the construction sector by up to 5%, 
translating into 700.000 additional jobs. 

Specifically  the  social  impacts  of  the  Clean  Energy  Transition  Programme  can  be 
estimated based on the past experience of its predecessor IEE. Skills improvement was 
supported through the projects belonging to the BUILD UP Skills initiative. The BUILD 
UP Skills target group (craftsmen and on-site workers) in the participating countries can 
be estimated at a total of about 7.6 million workers and make up for around 57% of the 
construction sector.  

In  terms  of  awareness-raising  among  consumers/market  actors,  the  outreach  of  these 
projects was of 1 300 000 people reached through media and 5000 organisations. 

3) Environmental impacts 

The  Clean  Energy  Transition  Programme  will  contribute  to  timely  and  effective 
implementation of the Clean Energy policy package and, as a consequence, achieving its 
environmental impacts: the carbon intensity of the EU's economy will be 43% lower in 
2030  than  now  and  renewable  electricity  representing  about  half  of  the EU's  electricity 
generation  mix.  The  30%  energy  efficiency  target  represents  a  drop  in  final  energy 
consumption of 17% compared to 2005. It will contribute to reduction of CO2 emissions 
and will also lead to improvements in air quality. 

Specifically  the  contribution  of  the  Clean  Energy  Transition  programme  to  achieving 
these results can be quantified based on the IEE project results in this area presented in 
the table in Appendix 2. 

4) Impacts on fundamental rights 

Energy  is  the  first  necessity  service  and  not  a  commodity  as  others.  Therefore  the 
services provided by energy, which are an inherent part of our modern lifestyle, should 
be affordable to all the citizens. 

The Clean Energy package not only empowers the energy consumers and strengthen their 
rights, but also protects the consumers, specifically their vulnerable groups. Therefore the 

174  

175  

Between 2011 and 2017 a total of 33 projects were supported with a total EU contribution of EUR 
27.685.068 which are committed to mobilise EUR 782.613.739 of energy related investment. 

According to the evaluation study requested by the Commission and carried out by PWC in 2016:   

At  the  time  of  this  evaluation,  EIB-ELENA  counted  41  signed  projects  with  a  total  contribution  of 
72.865.683  euro  which  are  committed  to  mobilise  4.663.727.736  euro  of  investments.  The  planned 
investments are expected to generate 2.860.369 MWh/y of energy saving and 618.580 MWh/y of renewable 
energy  production  leading  to  a  GHG  reduction  of  875.565  t  CO2/y.  This  spectacular  result  in  terms  of 
investment mobilisation of ELENA shows the leverage over 1:60. 

209 

 
                                                      
proper  implementation  of  these  policies  will  strengthen  the  energy  consumers  in  their 
rights for clean and affordable energy services. 

The  ambitious  target  on  energy  efficiency  will  specifically  contribute  to  addressing 
energy  poverty  issues  by  lowering  energy  consumption  and  the  energy  cost  share  in 
household's budget. 

9.3.2.  EU added value 

The Clean Energy Transition Programme follows the successful intervention logic of the 
Intelligent Energy Europe I and II as well as IEE III in Horizon 2020 Energy Efficiency 
programmes,  which  have  demonstrated  the  EU  added  value  of  supporting  the 
achievement of the EU sustainable energy policy goals (see point 2.1 and Annex 3.3 for 
evaluation  results).  The  feedback  obtained  from  participant  surveys  (successful  and 
unsuccessful  participants  as  well  as  national  contact  points)  highlights  the  clear  value-
added of the projects. This positive feedback comprises the fact that without EU funding 
almost 70% of the implemented projects would not have been initiated.176 These projects 
have led to a successful spread and up-take of best practices in energy efficiency policy 
implementation  by  supporting 
to 
national/regional or local conditions177. The EU-added value consists in more harmonised 
approaches to clean energy transition across Europe: 1) in terms of supporting a swift and 
effective  implementation  of  EU  policies  in  the  Member  States;  2)  in  supporting  the 
national level in legislation transposition and enforcement through networks (Concerted 
Actions on the Energy Efficiency Directive; Energy Performance of Buildings Directive 
and on the Renewable Energy Directive; support to Market Surveillance Authorities) and 
engaging  local  level  by  developing  policy  dialogue  and  experience  exchange    through 
projects  and  initiatives  (Covenant  of  Mayors,  projects  for  Sustainable  Energy 
Communities178). Both aspects combined ensure that solutions and successful approaches 
are transferred across borders to all EU Member States in order to accelerate the uptake 
and scaling up of good practices. 

their  pan-European  outreach  while 

tailoring 

In  terms  of  mobilising  investment,  IEE/Horizon  2020  projects  generate  high  quality 
solutions  and  good  practices  and  trigger  additional  financing  from  the  side  of  the 
Member  States  and  private  actors.  This  is  demonstrated  by  the  high  co-financing  rates 
that help to attract numerous beneficiaries. 

Finally, an indirect EU value-added occurs: with the grassroot feedback on barriers and 
impediments  to  clean  energy  solutions  and  markets  development,  EU  policies  can  be 
fine-tuned  to  address  these  barriers  and  tailor  support  for  actors,  regions  and  Member 
States in line with the subsidiarity principle. 

176  

177  

178  

Ricardo AEA, CE Delft (2017 

It  should  be  noted  that  this  intervention  logic  is  distinct  to  the  one  of  the    Clean  Energy  Transition 
Programme in comparison to the present approach taken in LIFE. 

The  IEE  programme  and  its  continuation  under  Horizon  2020  supported  projects  focusing  on  developing 
Sustainable Energy Communities across the continent in order to build institutional capacity at a local and 
regional  level.  Support  has  been  given  by  associations  or  active  networks  such  as  Local  Governments  for 
Sustainability in the 1990’s, Climate Alliance and Energy Cities. Projects influenced 650 local authorities to 
join  the  Covenant  of  Mayors  and  helped  to  develop  more  than  500  SEAPs  (Mayors  in  Action,  50000&1 
SEAPs, CASCADE, BEAST, ManagEnergy 

210 

 
                                                      
9.3.3.  Simplification efforts  
The impact reviews of the IEE I-III programmes179 suggest that there is a clear potential 
for simplifying the presently complex Horizon 2020 application procedures. The reviews 
showed  that  the  Horizon  2020  framework  favours  bigger  projects  and  large  consortia, 
putting  forward  resource-intensive  research  and  innovation  efforts.  This  crowds  out 
smaller participants and projects. In consequence there is not only a need for simplified 
administration on the side of the Commission, but also the need to guarantee simple and 
open  access  to  the  programmes  for  the  potential  beneficiaries,  especially  catching-up 
actors with limited capacities. 

Surveyed  simplification  measures  address  reduction  of  administrative  costs  during 
application and  during project.  The  reviewers  recommended  to  reconsider  lowering  the 
level  of  EU  support  provided  to  some  types  of  projects  in  order  to  increase  the 
availability of funds to support more projects. 

It  was  suggested  to  simplify  the  application  procedure  while  at  the  same  time 
reintroducing the possibility to negotiate project framing through the executive agency in 
order to recalibrate project proposals and guarantee a successful implementation.  

In  line  with  the  overall  efforts  to  streamline  LIFE  (see  Annex  9),  the  following 
simplification  measures  are  foreseen  for  the  implementation  of  the  Clean  Energy 
Transition Programme: 

  Simplification  of 

the  application  process, 

including  rationalised  forms  and 

supporting documents 

  Adapting  reporting  requirements  in  proportion  to  the  length  and  complexity  of 

projects and the value of the grant. 

  Simplifying  the  indicators  database,  based  on  project  focus  with  clearly  traceable 
indicators  (primary  energy  savings,  installed  capacity  of  renewable  energy, 
investments  triggered)  that  still  follow  a  clear  linking  to  the  Sustainable 
Development Goals. 

The detailed assessment of the impact of these measures in comparison to the business as 
usual  scenario  follows  the  overall  assessment  for  the  LIFE  programme  presented  in 
Annex 5. 

9.3.4.  Complementarities with other EU programmes 

The Clean Energy Transition Programme and LIFE 

As discussed above, the proposed integration of the Clean Energy Transition Programme 
into  LIFE,  a  multitude  of  synergies  and  complementarities  between  the  three  sub-
programmes on environment, climate change and clean energy can be activated. 

The Clean Energy Transition Programme and Horizon Europe 

A  clear  complementarity  exists  to  the  funding  of  research  and  innovation  action  in  the 
clean  energy  field  under  Horizon  Europe.  The  research  and  innovative  solutions 
developed in Horizon Europe through the support of front-runners will provide the next 
generation of technologies and good practices that at a later stage can be replicated with 
the capacity-building support of the Clean Energy Transition Programme. 

179  

Ricardo AEA, CE Delft (2017) 

211 

 
                                                      
The Clean Energy Transition Programme and ESIF 

IEE/Horizon 2020 support helped to absorb ESIF funds directing them towards the clean 
energy investments, also, in some cases, developing successfully financial instruments180. 
Especially  the  project  development  assistance  grants  are  the  example  where  IEE/the 
Clean  Energy  Transition  Programme  activities  can  trigger  a  considerable  leverage  to 
mobilise investments in clean energy at a very high level.  

Please see the examples of IEE projects which developed synergies with ESIF funding in 
Appendix 4 

The Clean Energy Transition Programme and InvestEU 

In  the  same  manner  the  Clean  Energy  Transition  Programme  will  not  overlap  with  the 
Financial  Instruments  provided  under  InvestEU,  but  will  catalyse  the  investments  in 
clean  energy,  which  then  could  use  InvestEU  funds.  Capital  needs  to  be  channelled 
towards sustainable energy investments often of highly distributed nature (EE and small-
scale RES), in which context the key bottleneck is projects' development and aggregation 
capacity. This has been highlighted at a number of fora, and is an important message of 
the  High-Level  Expert  Group  on  Sustainable  Finance,  whose  recommendations  the 
Commission has expressed its willingness to take into strong consideration.  

Please see the examples of IEE projects which developed synergies with EFSI funding in 
Appendix 4. 

The Clean Energy Transition Programme and CEF 

There  is  no  overlap  between  the  Clean  Energy  Transition  sub-programme  and  CEF, 
neither  in  terms  of  nature  and  size  of  projects  funded  nor  the  underlying  intervention 
logic. CEF supports the investment stage, its scope addresses large-scale trans-European 
energy  infrastructure  projects.  The  Clean  Energy  Transition  sub-programme  aims  at 
mobilising  and  preparing  the  investments  or  aggregating  small-scale  energy  efficiency 
and  RES  related  projects  mainly  in  buildings  or  local  infrastructure.  The  possible 
integration of RES window under CEF will not increase the risk of overlaps, because still 
the  focus  under  CEF  will  remain  on  the  cross-border  projects  in  the  field  of  planning, 
development and cost-effective exploitation of renewable energy sources. 

9.4.  Conclusion 

The enabling framework supporting the energy transition requires a systemic approach 
and synergetic actions through a coherent set of programmes and instruments. In this 
process  the  EU  will  support  front-runners  in  showing  the  way  and  providing  new 
solutions.  But  the  EU  has  also  the  responsibility  to  help  those  'lagging  behind',  by 
building the capacity, where there is underperformance, in order to help quickly narrow 
the gap. 

The Clean Energy Transition Programme, building on the positive experiences of the 
former programmes, Intelligent Energy Europe (IEE), is proposed to build capacity, 
stimulate investments and support policy implementation in the most challenging fields 
and areas of clean energy transition.  

180 For example the IEE project MLEI MARTE helped the Italian Region of Marche to set up the Energy and Mobility 

Fund, blending in ERDF and private funds. (http://www.marteproject.eu/en)   

212 

 
                                                      
The  proposed  integration  of  the  Clean  Energy  Transition  Programme  into  LIFE  would 
trigger numerous economic, environmental and social benefits by addressing key barriers 
which presently stand against the up-take of clean energy solutions. The main arguments 
can be summarized as follows: 

  LIFE follows the same objectives, intervention logic and delivery mechanisms as 
the  Clean  Energy  Transition  Programme,  building  capacity,  removing  barriers 
and addressing environmental and climate related vulnerabilities. 

  This coherence would allow The Clean Energy Transition Programme to tailor its 
interventions  more  closely  to  the  often  limited  capacity  of  catch-up  regions  and 
actors and lower the barriers for their participation in the programme.  

  The  proposed  integration  would  allow  developing  stronger  synergies  in  energy, 

environmental and climate policies implementation on the ground. 

  Finally, it would enable comprehensive multiplier effects, which can be triggered 
by  the  projects  implemented  under  the  common  framework  (tackling  energy 
efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions and local air pollutants at the same time). 

1   Appendices 

Appendix 1: Barriers against energy efficiency and distributed renewable energies    

(1.) Energy efficiency barriers181 

*Legend:  I  –  individuals;  B  –  business;  C  –  communities;  G  –  governments;  F  – 
Financial sector and investors 

Environment/ 
barrier 

Economic 

Feature/description 

Who is 
affected ?* 

Information barriers  Market fails to operate properly due to: imperfect 

information, incomplete markets (lack of 
knowledge, awareness, information 

I/B/C/G/F 

Lack of appropriate 
market structure 

Limited suppliers of energy efficiency solutions, 
such as ESCOs 

I/B/C/G/F 

Principal-agent-

Imperfect competition and uncertainty; Difficulty 

I/B/C/F 

181 Literature review based on: Kowalska-Pyzalska (2018): What makes consumers adopt to innovative energy services 
in the energy market? A review of incentives and barriers Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82, pp. 3570–
3581; Sorrell S. Reducing energy demand: a review of issues, challenges and approaches. Renew Sust Energy Rev 
2015;47:74–82;  Nygren  AN,  Kontio  P,  Lyytimaki  J,  Varho  V,  Tapio  P.  Early  adopters  boosting  the  diffusion  of 
sustainable  small-scale  energy  solutions.  Renew  Sust  Energy  Rev  2015;46,  pp.:79–87;  Hu  Z,  Kim  JH,  Wang  JH, 
Byrne  J.  Review  of  dynamic  pricing  programs  in  the  U.S.  and  Europe:  status  quo  and  policy  recommendations. 
Renew Sust Energy Rev 42. 2015, pp. 743-51; Good N, Ellis KA, Mancarella P. Review and classification of barriers 
and enablers of demand response in the smart grid. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2017;72, pp. 57–72; Bukarica V, Tomsic 
Z.  Energy  efficiency  policy  evaluation  by  moving  from  techno-economic  towards  whole  society  perspective  on 
energy efficiency market. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2017;70; pp. 968–75; Karakaya E, Hidalgo A, Nuur C. Diffusion 
of eco-innovations: a review. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2014;33:pp. 392–9; Gadenne D, Sharma B, Kerr D, Smith T. 
The influence of consumers’ environmental beliefs and attitudes on energy saving behaviors. Energy Policy 2011;39, 
pp. 7684–94; Bertoldi, P., Boza-Kiss, B. (JRC) (2017): Analysis of barriers and drivers for the development of the 
ESCO markets in Europe. Energy Policy, 107, pp. 345-355. 

213 

 
 
 
                                                      
Environment/ 
barrier 

Feature/description 

Who is 
affected ?* 

problems 

in proper pricing of energy efficiency services 

Limited access to 
capital and high 
transaction costs 

Lack of appropriate long-lasting financial and 
legal support; high costs for negotiating and 
enforcing energy efficiency solutions 

I/B/C 

Financial cost 

High up-front investment costs; fear of additional 
service and maintenance costs 

I/B/C 

Perceived high risks  Energy efficiency seen as high-risk investment, 

High uncertainty on 
payback 

thereby leading to high interest rates to cover risk 
factor. 

I/B/C/F 

Up-front investments occur directly, whereas 
benefits only refinance these investments in future 
periods. This leads to high discount rates for future 
benefits, making energy efficiency investments 
less attractive. 

I/B/C/F 

Split 
incentives/investor 
user dilemma 

Landlord-tenant problem: Investment costs for e.g. 
building refurbishment would need to be 
shouldered by landlord, whereas benefits (energy 
cost savings) would be fully on the tenant side. 

I/B/C 

Organizational 
barriers 

Lack of agreement  

E.g. how dedicated provision of energy service 
should be measured and remunerated 

I/B/C/G 

Lack of supporting 
networks/structures 

Missing fora/formats for gaining access to best 
practices in terms of technologies, policies or 
solutions 

I/B/C/G 

Missing 
qualifications or 
knowledge 
management 

Political and 
regulatory barriers 

Missing or 
insufficient capacity 
to implement energy 
efficiency solutions 

Limited availability 
(e.g. program 
unavailability, 
inaccessibility) 

Unavailability of trained and qualified experts to 
implement energy efficiency solutions. 

B/C/G 

E.g. insufficient staffing  

B/C/G 

Missing or insufficient support structures (e.g. 
energy agencies) to implement capacity building. 

I/B/C/G/F 

214 

 
 
 
 
 
Environment/ 
barrier 

Feature/description 

Lack of supply 
chains, services and 
conventions 

Missing standardization of applying, measuring or 
monitoring energy efficiency; missing standards 
on training and qualification schemes 

Who is 
affected ?* 

I/B/C/G/F 

Technological 
barriers 

Limited supply of 
energy efficiency 
technologies 

Technological ‘lock-
in’ 

Limited availability of technological choice. 

I/B/C/ 

Path-dependency on fossil fuels. 

I/B/C/G 

Need of 
technological 
standardization  

Missing technological solutions for metering and 
computing the large number of data to determine 
energy savings. 

I/B/C/ 

Communication and 
private data security 

Delay in taking up energy efficiency solutions 
based on smart metering. 

I/B/C/G 

Behavioral barriers 

Cognitive biases in 
decision-making 
process 

Potential factors are bounded rationality, 
resistance to change, confusion of choice (lack of 
professional advice) 

Credibility and trust   Unwillingness to adopt unknown energy 
efficiency solution. 

I/B/C/G/F 

I/B/C/G/F 

Negative perceptions 
(negative values, not 
understanding) 

Negative word-of-
mouth (i.e. negative 
information shared 
within a social 
network about the 
innovation) 

Perceived idea that energy efficiency necessarily 
implies sufficiency or reduction of comfort 

I/B/C 

E.g. negative press reports on energy efficiency 
solutions (energy-efficient lighting, building 
refurbishment options) 

I/B/C/G/F 

Lacking information  non-awareness of saving options leading to 

suboptimal consumer choices 

I/B/C 

(2.) Barriers against distributed renewable energy sources182 

182  Literature  review  based  on:  Pirlogea,  C.  (2011):  Barriers  to  Investment  in  Energy  from  Renewable  Sources. 
http://www.management.ase.ro/reveconomia/2011-1/12.pdf;  Negro  SO,  Alkemade  F,  Hekkert  MP.  Why  does 

215 

 
 
 
 
 
 
                                                      
 
*Legend:  I  –  individuals;  B  –  business;  C  –  communities;  G  –  governments;  F  – 
Financial sector and investors 

Field/barrier 

Feature/description 

Who is 
affected* 

Economic barriers 

High upfront 
investment costs 

High economic risk 

Investment costs occur at the beginning of the 
project, benefits to cover up-front investments 
only with following periods. 

I/B/C 

Several distributed RES installations are still seen 
as high-risk projects, leading to higher interest 
rates to compensate for this higher risk. 

I/B/C/ F 

High transaction 
costs 

Costs of assembling project partners, information 
on project or approval procedures. 

I/B/C/ F 

Missing finance 

Lack of financial support, especially in catching-
up regions; missing capacity to provide financial 
support 

I/B/C/G 

Missing information 
on business models 
to deploy distributed 
renewables 

Sharing of distributed renewables between 
neighboring buildings/among tenants of the same 
building is a relatively new concept with limited 
experience in catching-up regions. 

I/B/C 

Missing supply 
structure, market 
imperfections 

Especially in catching-up regions limited choice of 
suppliers of distributed RES options. 

I/B/C/G 

Market barriers for 
new competitors 

Market access can be blocked for newcomers by 
incumbent energy companies. 

I/B/C 

Missing/imperfect 
information on cost-
sharing models 

E.g. with the use of distributed renewables in 
multi-owner buildings where cost-sharing 
agreements have to be found. 

I/B/C/G/F 

Lack of possibility 
to achieve 
economies of scale 

Depending on the technology, solutions have to be 
adapted to the individual situation. This makes 
installations overly costly, compared to standard 
solutions where economies of scale in the 
production can be achieved. 

I/B/C 

Political/regulatory

renewable energy diffuse so slowly? A review of innovation system problems. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2012;16, pp. 
3836–46; Hobman EV, Frederiks ER. Barriers to green electricity subscription in Australia: “love the environment, 
Love renewable energy…but why should I pay more?”. Energy Res Soc Sci 2014;3, pp. 78–88; Nygren AN, Kontio 
P, Lyytimaki J, Varho V, Tapio P. Early adopters boosting the diffusion of sustainable small-scale energy solutions. 
Renew  Sust  Energy  Rev  2015;46,  pp.  79–87;  Ma  Ch,  Rogers  AA,  Kragt  ME,  Zhang  F,  Polyakov  M,  et  al. 
Consumers' willingness to pay for renewable energy: a meta-regression analysis. Resour. Energy Econ 2015;42, pp. 
93–109. 

216 

 
 
 
 
 
                                                                                                                                                              
Field/barrier 

/ barriers 

Imperfect/missing 
framework for 
deploying 
distributed RES 
solutions 

Insufficient spatial 
planning 

Lack of experience 

Feature/description 

Who is 
affected* 

E.g. political preference for centralized RES 
installations as this fits better with the existing 
centralized production structure. 

I/B/C/G/F 

Duration and procedures for installing e.g. wind 
turbines; barriers against solar PV use on multi-
owner buildings. 

I/B/C/G/F 

Lack of experience on good practice regulation on 
deploying distributed RES or adopting a financing 
framework scheme allowing private investors to 
take this up as a business model 

I/B/C/G/F 

Appreciation against 
other values 

Resistance due to considerations of local interest 
such as tourism, landscape, or reluctant attitude to 
take up project of general interest (NIMBY – not 
in my backyard) 

I/B/C 

Shattered actor 
barrier 

Too many authorities involved in implementation 
of project (licensing etc.) 

Information barriers  Lack of information/transparency about 

administrative procedures 

Uneven application 
of law 

Different legal provisions depending on territory 
where the installation is set up 

I/B 

I/B 

I/B 

Technological 
barriers 

Infrastructure needs  Need to invest/find technological solutions for 

supporting infrastructure for distributed 
renewables energies (storage, smart grid) 

I/B/C/G 

Lack of technical 
skills 

Missing qualification/specialization of smaller 
distributed renewable energy projects 

I/B/C 

Lack of information 
on best available 
technology 

Inadequate 
supporting 
technologies/technol
ogical skills 

Lock-in effects 

Missing/inadequate information on available 
schemes especially in catching-up territories 

I/B/C/G 

E.g. incorrect measurements of solar radiation 
with disfavoured sites leading to lower yields. 

I/B/C 

Path dependency on past choices such as fossil 
fuels for energy generation or heating systems 

I/B/C/G/F 

217 

 
 
 
Field/barrier 

Behavioural 
barriers 

Feature/description 

Who is 
affected* 

Credibility and trust   Unwillingness to adopt unknown RES solution 

I/B/C/G/F 

Lacking information  Non-awareness of installation options leading to 

suboptimal consumer choices 

I/B/C 

Appendix 2 IEE impacts 

IEE Project data/ Indicator 

Call 
2009 

Call 
2010 

Call 
2011 

Call 
2012 

Call 
2013 

Number of projects funded 

52 

46 

56 

57 

63 

EU funding (Million Euro) 

54,10 

57,30 

64,80 

71,60 

73,00 

Total investment in sustainable energy 
triggered  by  the  projects  (Million 
Euro) 

Cumulative 
emissions by the projects (tCO2e/yr) 

reductions  of  GHG 

production 
energy 
Renewable 
triggered  per  million  Euro  funding 
(GWh/year) 

500 

500 

491 

498 

530 

350.000  400.000  496.000 

498.000 

458.423 

11 

11 

9 

9 

7 

Primary  energy  savings  triggered  per 
million Euro funding (GWh/year) 

13 

17 

16 

18 

25 

Appendix 3:  Examples of synergies in the projects and initiatives for environment, 

climate and clean energy 

1.  Enhancing  Energy  efficiency  to  improve  the  Air  Quality  in    Małopolskie  i 
Śląskie  regions  under  the  'Poland  Catching-Up  Regions'  TA  programme- 
building on  the project 'LIFE IP MALOPOLSKIE'  

The  project  'IP  MALOPOLSKIE'  funded  from  LIFE  aimed  to  support  the  Małopolskie 
region,  the  neighbouring  Śląskie  region  and  adjacent  regions  in  Slovakia  and  Czech 
Republic in the development and implementation of the regional air quality plans and the 
regional  and  local  air  quality  policies.  This  project  provided  also  'a  mine'  of  useful 
technical and statistical recent data from the surveys conducted in 2016 on number and 

218 

 
 
 
 
type  of  individual  heating  systems  based  on  coal  in  single  family  houses,  as  well  as  a 
thorough analysis of their impact on air pollution and energy consumption183.   

The analysis carried out by the project has provided a meaningful input to the initiative 
run by DG REGIO in partnership with the World Bank: Enhancing Energy efficiency to 
improve the Air Quality in  Małopolskie i Śląskie regions under the Poland Catching-Up 
Regions  TA  programme.  This  initiative  is  strongly  supported  by  DG  ENER  for  the 
potential synergies it can develop with the Smart Finance for Smart Buildings initiative. 
Indeed,  this  large-scale  support  initiative  is  designed  to  deliver  its  ultimate  objective, 
which is the improvement of air quality, by carrying out deep renovation of single family 
houses  in  Poland  together  with  incentives  for  installing  cleaner  heating  sources.  This 
initiative,  designed  on  the  conclusions  of  the  LIFE-funded  project,  fully  applies  the 
'energy  efficiency  first'  principle.    'IP  MALOPOLSKIE'  developed  also  the  scientific 
evidence of the environmental benefits of the EE Ecodesign legalisation 184.  

2.  Covenant of Mayors  

Many local authorities have adopted ambitious sustainable energy strategies and, in many 
instances, this was done through voluntary commitments to the Covenant of Mayors, an 
initiative  launched  by  the  European  Commission  in  2008.  As  of  today,  this  successful 
initiative  counts  over  7700  local  authorities  and  6000  Sustainable  Energy  Action  Plans 
submitted.  The  IEE  programme  overall  supported  more  than  34  projects  focusing  on 
developing  Sustainable  Energy  Communities  across  the  continent  in  order  to  build 
institutional capacity at a local and regional level. Projects influenced at least 650 local 
authorities  to  join  the  Covenant  of  Mayors  and  helped  to  develop  more  than  500 
SEAPs185. This support continues to be provided under Horizon 2020- Energy Efficiency 
calls focusing on capacity building of local public authorities.  

As  of  2015  Covenant  of  Mayors  integrated  climate  &  energy  policies  under  one 
initiative,  which  became  the  “world’s  biggest  urban  climate  and  energy  initiative” 
bringing  together  thousands  of  local  and  regional  authorities  voluntarily  committed  to 
implementing EU climate and energy objectives on their territory. 

Future  projects  and  initiatives  supporting  Covenant  of  Mayors  should  aim  at 
strengthening the synergetic action of energy and climate policies at the local level and 
therefore  should  be  provided  under  a  common  capacity-building  EU  framework 
programme for energy and climate.  

2   Appendix 4: Synergies of IEE projects and ESIF and ESFI 

IEE II and its continuation under Horizon 2020 developed the following links with ESIF 
and EFSI funding: 

The  project  "LEMON"  (Less  Energy  More  OpportuNities)  funded  under  Horizon 
2020/EE/PDA focuses on the energy retrofit of 622 dwellings in the social housing sector 
of two regions of Emilia-Romagna to achieve 40% energy savings guaranteed by ESCOs 
to 
(Energy  Service  Companies).  The  envisaged 
approximately EUR 15 million. The financing structure involves loans to be repaid, inter 

investment  volume  amounts 

183 Also taking into consideration of the upcoming entering into forces of the Ecodesign regulations for solid fuel 

boilers (EU) 2015/1189 

184 Ecodesign for solid fuel boilers (EU) 2015/1189 

185 ICF International (2015) Evaluation of Intelligent Energy Europe Support for Sustainable Energy Communities 

219 

 
                                                      
alia, within the framework of 'Energy Performance Tenancy Agreements' and combines 
different  financing  instruments  available  at  National  and  Regional  level  (ERDF  funds, 
National 
incentive 
Website: http://www.lemon-project.eu 

financing,  National 

termico' 

'Conto 

and 

loans).                             

The  project  "SUNShINE"  (Save  your  bUildiNg  by  SavINg  Energy)  funded  under 
Horizon 2020/EE/PDA addresses the poor conditions of the around 28 000 multi-family 
buildings  in  Latvia  which  have  a  huge  untapped  energy  savings  potential.  To  support 
owners in renovating, the project offers a solution by bundling the renovations in 'Energy 
Performance Contracts'. The project aims at boosting the ESCO market for deep retrofit 
by  building  a  pipeline  of  80  refurbished  multifamily  buildings  and  establishing  a 
forfeiting  fund  in  support  of  ESCOs  cash  flows.    Projects  are  eligible  for  ERDF 
(European Regional Development Fund) support which reduces the payback time of the 
investment 
Website: http://sharex.lv/en 

deep 

for 

refurbishment.                                                                                

The  project  "Transition  Zero"  funded  under  Horizon  2020/EE  aims  at  establishing  the 
right market conditions for the wide-scale introduction of net zero energy homes across 
Europe. It builds on the success of Energiesprong in the Netherlands and intends to kick-
start  net-zero  energy  refurbishment  markets  in  the  UK  and  France,  using  the  social 
housing  sector  as  a  catalyst.  The  Energiesprong  initiative  has  also  secured  EUR  5.4 
million of European funding through the Interreg Northwest Europe (NEW) programme, 
with  a  view  to  further  spread  concept.  The  grant  will  be  used  in  the  UK,  France, 
Luxemburg  and 
the  market  for  net-zero  energy 
to  stimulate 
refurbishments. Website: http://sharex.lv/en 

the  Netherlands 

Energies  POSIT’IF  was  one  of  the  first  projects  validated  under  EFSI,  along  with 
Picardie  Pass  Renovation,  both  projects  were  developed  through  technical  assistance 
grants provided by IEE II and scaled up by EFSI.  

Energies POSIT’IF acts as a one-stop-shop for deep energy renovation. Just finalised, it 
supported the Ile-de-France Region in launching a semi-public Energy Service Company, 
Energies  POSIT'IF,  which  developed  an  all-inclusive  "Design-Implement-Operate" 
package  with  guaranteed  energy  savings  and  provision  of  Third  Party  Finance  through 
Energy  Performance  Contracting.  The  delivered  €37m  of 
the 
refurbishment of 8 condominiums comprising  2.000+ dwellings and created  nearly 600 
jobs.  By  2020,  Energies  POSIT'IF  plans  to  renovate  10,000  dwellings  triggering  an 
investment of €175m. 

investments  for 

Energies  POSIT'IF  was  first  to  benefit  from  a  €400m  support  programme  for  energy 
refurbishment in France set up under the European Fund for Strategic Investment (ESFI). 
EFSI provided a guarantee for a €100m loan from the European Investment Bank used to 
implement the Third Party Finance offer. The project has been a showcase across Europe 
and  particularly  in  France  where  several  regions  replicated  the  project's  approach. 
Website: http://www.energiespositif.fr / 

The  project  MLEI  MARTE  has  supported  the  set-up  of  an  innovative  financial 
instrument  -  Energy  and  Mobility  Fund  (EMF)  -  in  the  Region  of  Marche,  Italy.  The 
EMF combines private financing by energy service companies (ESCOs) based on energy 
performance  contracting  (EPC)  and  public  financial  resources  provided,  in  particular, 
under  the  Regional  Operational  Programme  of  the  European  Regional  Development 
Fund  2014-2020  (ROP  Marche  ERDF  2014-2020  –  Intervention  13.1.1)  in  the  form  of 
grants  by  the  Managing  Authority  and  further  public  (budgetary)  resources;  and  soft 

220 

 
loans  by  the  revolving  Energy  and  Mobility  Fund  (EMF)  established.    At  least  energy 
investments of EUR 10.6 m are documented by signed contracts with ESCOs.  

Website: http://www.marteproject.eu/en  

221