COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation of the Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) 2014-2020 Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the ex-post evaluation of the Programme for Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) 2014-2020
Date: 2024-07-31
Institutions: Directorate-General for Environment, European Commission
Subjects: EU environmental policy, EU financial instrument, EU programme, biodiversity, climate change policy, environmental cooperation, environmental law, environmental protection, green economy, sustainable development

EN 

  EN 

   EUROPEAN COMMISSION  Brussels, 31.7.2024  SWD(2024) 198 final  COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT Evaluation of the Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) 2014-2020 Accompanying the document Report from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the ex-post evaluation of the Programme for Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) 2014-2020 {COM(2024) 359 final}  
 
 
Table of contents 

1. 

INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1 

1.1  Purpose and scope ................................................................................................. 1 

1.2  Overview of methodology .................................................................................... 1 

1.3  Limitations and mitigating measures .................................................................... 2 

2.  EXPECTED OUTCOMES OF THE INTERVENTION ............................................ 3 

2.1  Intervention logic: description and objectives ...................................................... 3 

2.2  Role of the 2014-2020 LIFE Programme in the MFF .......................................... 5 

2.2.1. The objectives and functions of the LIFE Programme .................................... 7 

2.2.2. Programme structure and activities .................................................................. 8 

2.2.3. Performance framework ................................................................................. 12 

2.3  Points of comparison .......................................................................................... 13 

3.  PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION .................................................................... 15 

3.1  Allocation of funding in budgetary terms ........................................................... 15 

3.2  Implemented projects and project demand ......................................................... 15 

3.3  Types of beneficiaries ......................................................................................... 17 

3.4  Geographical distribution ................................................................................... 17 

3.5  Financial instruments .......................................................................................... 17 

4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS ..................................................................................... 19 

4.1  To what extent was the intervention successful and why? ................................. 19 

4.1.1 Was the LIFE Programme effective? .............................................................. 19 

4.1.2. Was the LIFE Programme efficient? ............................................................. 34 

4.1.3 Was the intervention of the Programme coherent? ......................................... 40 

4.2  How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? ......................... 44 

4.2.1. Environment specific instrument ................................................................... 44 

4.2.2. LIFE added value through support of innovative solutions ........................... 44 

4.2.3. LIFE supporting transnational cooperation and knowledge sharing ............. 45 

4.3  Is the intervention still relevant? ......................................................................... 46 

EN 

EN 

 
 
 
 
5.  CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED ....................................................... 47 

ANNEX I.   PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ............................................................... 51 

ANNEX II. METHODOLOGY AND ANALYTICAL MODELS USED ....................... 61 

2.1. Approach used in the evaluation (Staff Working Document) ............................ 61 

2.2. Data gathering ..................................................................................................... 66 

2.3. Approach of the external study ........................................................................... 67 

2.4. Activities ............................................................................................................. 67 

Task 1: Review and analysis of relevant available data and evidence ..................... 67 

Task 2: Stakeholder consultation ............................................................................. 69 

Task 3: Study to support the evaluation ................................................................... 73 

2.5. Limitations and robustness of the findings of the evaluation ............................. 74 

ANNEX III. EVALUATION MATRIX AND, WHERE RELEVANT, DETAILS ON 

ANSWERS TO THE EVALUATION QUESTIONS (BY CRITERION) ............... 77 

ANNEX IV. OVERVIEW OF BENEFITS AND COSTS ................................................ 97 

4.1. What are the costs of the programme? ................................................................ 97 

4.2. What are the benefits of the programme? ........................................................... 99 

ANNEX V. STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION - SYNOPSIS REPORT ............... 107 

5.1. Introduction and objective of the consultation strategy .................................... 107 

5.2. Overview and description of the consultation activities ................................... 107 

5.3. Main stakeholder feedback by consultation activity ......................................... 110 

a. 

Call for Evidence .......................................................................................... 110 

b.  Online survey ................................................................................................ 110 

1. Effectiveness ............................................................................................ 110 

2. Efficiency ................................................................................................. 111 

3. Relevance ................................................................................................. 114 

4. Coherence ................................................................................................ 115 

5. EU added value ....................................................................................... 115 

c. Stakeholder interviews ....................................................................................... 116 

1. Effectiveness ............................................................................................ 116 

2. Efficiency ................................................................................................. 118 

3. Relevance ................................................................................................. 121 

4. Coherence ................................................................................................ 121 

 
 
 
5. EU added value ....................................................................................... 123 

6. Early and expected impacts ..................................................................... 124 

5.4. Participation in events ....................................................................................... 126 

5.5. Validation exercise............................................................................................ 127 

ANNEX  VI.  OVERVIEW  ACHIEVEMENT  OF  TARGETS  SET  IN  MFF 

EVALUATION FRAMEWORK AND PROGRAMME STATEMENTS ............. 128 

6.1. Overview of all performance indicators used and their respective achievements128 

6.2. Performance indicators organised by objective 2,3 and 4: ............................... 161 

ANNEX  VII:  OVERVIEW  OF  MAIN  KPIS  USED  TO  EVALUATE  THE 

PROGRAMME ....................................................................................................... 164 

ANNEX  VIII:  ADDITIONAL  DATA  SUPPORTING  THE  EVALUATION  OF 

LIFE 2014-2020 ...................................................................................................... 165 

 
 
 
 
Glossary 

Term or acronym 

Meaning or definition 

Butler 

CF 

EAFRD 

EGD 

EIB 

EIR 

EMFF 

ERDF 

EWC 

ESIF 

ESF 

GDP 

H2020 

HFC 

HCFC 

Information  system  of  the  Directorate-General  for  the 
Environment used to manage and follow up on projects co-
financed under the LIFE Regulations.  

Cohesion Funds 

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development 

European Green Deal 

European Investment Bank 

Environmental Implementation Reviews 

European Maritime and Fisheries Fund 

European Regional Development Fund 

Environmental Waste Crime 

European Structural and Investment Funds 

European Social Fund 

Gross Domestic Product 

Horizon 2020 

Hydrofluorocarbons 

Hydrochlorofluorocarbons 

Interreg programmes 

European  territorial  cooperation  programmes  under  the 
European Regional Development Fund 

IPCC 

IT 

LIFE 

MFF 

MS 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 

Information technology 

L'Instrument Financier pour l'Environnement 

Multiannual Financial Framework 

Members States of the Europen Union 

 
 
 
NCFF 

NGO 

PAs 

PF4EE 

SOER 

Co-financing  

Leverage of funding  

Leverage of funding thanks to the 
coordination of activities 

Natural Capital Financing Facility 

Non-Governmental Organisations 

Partnership Agreements 

Private Finance for Energy Efficiency 

European  Environmental  Agency:  European  environment  – 
state and outlook report 

Co-financing  means  the  part  of  funding  necessary  for  the 
implementation of a LIFE project, which is not covered by the 
Programme and thus has to come from other sources.  

Leveraging of funding means that thanks to the activities of 
the LIFE Programme more investments are channelled into a 
specific activity. The required co-financing of LIFE projects 
is a  way to  leverage funding,  the financial  instruments also 
leverage funding and investments.  

Integrated  projects  play  a  specific  role,  as  they  coordinate 
typically a larger number of activities, in order to implement 
a Union plan. It is assumed that the coordination of activities 
(and its funding) can also help to leverage the linked funding. 
The  coordinated  activities  can  be  financed  by  other  EU 
funding programmes.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
List of figures, tables, and boxes 

Figure 1: Intervention Logic ................................................................................................... 4 

Figure 2: LIFE 2014-2020 And Other EU Programmes ........................................................ 6 

Figure 3: Life Programme 2014-2020 .................................................................................... 7 

Figure 4: Hierarchy of Objectives .......................................................................................... 7 

Figure 5: Project Types Eligibility ......................................................................................... 9 

Box 1: Eligibility And Selection Criteria For The Traditional Projects ............................... 10 

Table 1: Key Environment/Climate Challenges During Regulation Adoption .................... 14 

Figure 6: Traditional Projects Financed Vs Proposals Non-Financed, 2014-2020 .............. 15 

Figure 7: Distribution Of Beneficiaries by Organisation Type ............................................ 17 

Box 2: Example of a project with impact on emission reduction......................................... 19 

Table 2: LIFE, climate mitigation, adaptation and resource-efficiency ............................... 20 

Table 3: LIFE, protection of environment, nature, and biodiversity .................................... 20 

Table 4: Aggregated project mobilisation and awareness raising by stakeholders .............. 26 

Box 3: Projects convening scientists, public administration, and CSOs  ........................ 28 

Table 5: Overall management costs of the LIFE Programme (EUR million) ...................... 35 

Table 6: LIFE management costs compared to other programmes managed by EASME as a 

share on the total commitments delegated to EASME ......................................................... 35 

Table 7: Quantification of the benefits of the Programme ................................................... 36 

Figure 8: Number and total amount of proposals that could not be financed (LIFE 

traditional projects 2014-2020) ............................................................................................ 38 

Figure 9: Share of projects incorporating results of previously funded research ................. 41 

TABLE 8: REPORTING LIFE CONTRIBUTIONS BY MS IN THE PAST AND IN THE 

2019 EIR ............................................................................................................................... 42 

Figure 10: In the absence of LIFE Programme,  to what extent is it likely that the project(s) 

would have been funded by other sources? .......................................................................... 44 

 
 
 
 
1.  INTRODUCTION 

Launched in 1992, l’Instrument Financier pour l’Environnement (LIFE) is the only EU 
programme specifically dedicated to environment and climate action. This staff working 
document evaluates the LIFE Programme, established by Regulation (EU) No 1293/20131 
(hereinafter “LIFE Regulation”), operating in the period 2014-2020 with a budget of 3.46 
billion EUR (0.3% of the total EU budget). 

1.1  Purpose and scope 

The evaluation fulfils the legal requirement of Article 27 of the LIFE Regulation for an ex-
post  assessment  of  the  Programme’s  implementation  and  results.  Other  pieces  of  EU 
legislation  further  define  the  background  of  the  assessment:  Commission  Delegated 
Regulation 2018/932, which raised action grants for nature and biodiversity from 55% to 
60.5%, Regulation (EU) 2018/933 defining LIFE contributions to the European Solidarity 
Corps, and the Commission implementing decisions adopting the two MAWPs4.  

Following  the  Commission’s  Better  Regulation  guidelines,  the  evaluation  assesses  the 
achievement of the LIFE Programme objectives through a cost-benefit analysis, synergies 
with other programmes and policies, continued relevance and EU added value across the 
27 Member States and the United Kingdom. The evaluation provides valuable insights for 
the ongoing LIFE Programme (2021-2027), preparations of the LIFE Multiannual Work 
Programme  (MAWP)  2025-2027,  and  reflections  on  a  potential  Programme  successor 
during the next Multiannual Financial Framework. 

1.2  Overview of methodology 

The evaluation uses  project  data as  the primary indicator of programme  progress. Case 
studies and stakeholder perspectives, captured by an online survey and focused interviews, 
as well as a literature review complement the data. 

Project data are the main source of information for monitoring progress on Programme 
implementation  and  evaluating  achievements  and  early  impacts.  Grants  for  projects 
represent the bulk (around 80%) of LIFE funding5, captured primarily through Key Project 
Indicators  (KPIs)  and  performance  indicators.  The  evaluation  is  limited  to  data  of 
completed projects and projects in advanced phase of implementation offering relatively 

1  Regulation  (EU)  No  1293/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  11  December  2013  on  the 
establishment of a Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) and repealing Regulation (EC) No 
614/2007. OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p. 185–208. 

2  Commission  Delegated  Regulation  (EU)  2018/93  of  16  November  2017  on  the  increase  of  the  percentage  of  the 
budgetary  resources  allocated  to  projects  supported  by  way  of  action  grants  under  the  sub-programme  for 
Environment dedicated to projects supporting the conservation of nature and biodiversity according to Article 9(4) 
of  Regulation  (EU)  No  1293/2013  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  the  establishment  of  a 
Programme  for  the  Environment  and  Climate  Action  (LIFE)  and  repealing  Regulation  (EC)  No  614/2007. 
C/2017/7538. OJ L 17, 23.1.2018, p. 5–6. 

3 Regulation (EU) 2018/1475 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 2 October 2018 laying down the legal 
framework of the European Solidarity Corps and amending Regulation (EU) No 1288/2013, Regulation (EU) No 
1293/2013 and Decision No 1313/2013/EU, OJ L 250, 4.10.2018, p. 1–20. 

4  Commission  Implementing  Decision  on  the  adoption  of  the  LIFE  multiannual  work  programme  for  2014-2017  - 
C(2014)1709 and Commission Implementing Decision on the adoption of the LIFE multiannual work programme 
for 2018-2020 - C(2018)686. 

5 The LIFE Programme 2014-2020 has also financed procurement contracts (14%) and financial instruments (5%). 

1 

 
 
 
reliable  outcomes6  (“evidence-based  scenario”).  Information  has  been  systematically 
triangulated  with  other  sources  (e.g.,  stakeholder  opinions)  and  outliers  were  removed 
from  the  data.  Case  studies  identify  causal  links  between  project  activities,  dynamics 
generated beyond project activities, and outcomes at local level. They exemplify LIFE’s 
intervention logic and describe the processes contributing to results and impacts.  

(19%),  universities  and 

A survey and focused interviews gather stakeholder views. The online survey garnered 
436  respondents  representing  a  range  of  stakeholders:  private  companies  (30%),  civil 
(16%),  public 
society  organisations 
administrations  (16%),  private  citizens  (4%)  and  others  (15%)  including  business 
associations, networks, and contractors. Among respondents, 67% have direct experience 
with  LIFE  as  project  beneficiaries,  4%  as  unsuccessful  applicants,  and  29%  have  not 
previously  participated  in  a  call  for  proposals  or  projects.  In  addition,  60  focused 
interviews  were  conducted  with  beneficiaries,  Member  State  representatives,  National 
Contact Points (NCPs), and EU-level bodies such as the European Investment Bank (EIB), 
the European Commission, and CINEA (the executive agency of LIFE).  

research  centres 

A desk review provides additional data used to reconstruct the Programme’s initial logic 
and to clarify the details of its implementation. Finally, a study7 constructs the analytical 
framework to identify the impacts generated by LIFE-funded activities at macro, meso, 
and  micro  levels.  This  methodology  is  being  refined  for  the  forthcoming  mid-term 
evaluation of the current LIFE Programme, operational from 2021 until 2027. 

1.3  Limitations and mitigating measures 

The  LIFE  Regulation  established  the  LIFE  Programme  2014-2020  with  a  designated 
financial envelope. In June 2023, 58% of 2014-2020 LIFE projects were still ongoing.  

The evaluation captures only partial results given that only about 42% of projects funded 
under LIFE 2014-2020 were closed at the time of the evaluation. Performance indicators 
set at the time of the establishment of the Programme in 2014 are not suitable to evaluate 
results  and  impacts.  Based  on  data  from  the  MFF  Evaluation  Framework,  they 
predominantly quantify  outputs (e.g., formulated as “number of interventions”) without 
differentiating between output, impact, and result indicators. These performance indicators 
are therefore complemented by newly introduced KPIs. The KPIs collect information on 
environmental benefits at project level. No information system for collecting KPIs existed 
when LIFE was founded, nor was there any experience in using KPIs. Nonetheless, KPIs 
contribute to the evaluation by indicating project impacts.  

LIFE projects vary in scope and objective, which creates evaluation challenges. Best use 
was  made  of  the  available  information,  and  the  evaluation  offers  evidence  of  progress 
towards the general objectives of the Programme and environmental benefits created. 

6 The reliability and plausibility of project data was reviewed and validated at the time of the interim evaluation. 
7 AAVV, “A method for the identification and estimation of economic, social and environmental impacts generated by 

LIFE funding”, Valdani Vicari & Associati and Living Prospects, 2023. 

2 

 
 
2.  EXPECTED OUTCOMES OF THE INTERVENTION 

LIFE complements other EU funding programmes by aiming to catalyse environmental 
and climate action. LIFE interventions support the objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy 
through  projects  tailored  to  environmental  and  climate  needs.  The  2014-2020  LIFE 
Programme  was  conceived  in  2011  within  the  broader  framework  of  the  Europe  2020 
strategy  to  foster  smart,  sustainable,  and  inclusive  growth8  (2011-2020).  During  this 
period, the EU was in the wake of a global economic downturn and sovereign debt crisis.  

The  Europe  2020  strategy  sought  to  transform  these  challenges  into  economic 
opportunities  and  quality  growth.  It  addressed  key  long-term  issues  for  economic 
development and competitiveness, notably the transition to a knowledge-based economy, 
demographic aging, and climate change. It also put greener, sustainable growth at the heart 
of Europe’s economic strategy, recognising that greater resource efficiency would help the 
EU prosper in a low-carbon, resource-constrained world while preventing environmental 
degradation, biodiversity loss and unsustainable use of resources. Transitioning to a low 
carbon  economy,  increased  resource  efficiency,  and  investments  in  cleaner,  low  carbon 
technologies were seen as tools to enhance EU competitiveness, to help the environment 
and contribute to fighting climate change.  

The Communication on the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF Communication) for 
2014-20209  identified  environmental  protection  and  the  fight  against  climate  change  as 
cross-cutting policy priorities. These priorities were mainstreamed into a range of funding 
instruments  in  other  policy  areas  to  ensure  optimal  achievement.  Climate  action  and 
environment  objectives  were  consequently  financed  under  several  EU  instruments, 
including  Horizon  202010,  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development 
(EAFRD)11 and the Structural Funds12. This is however different from the objective of the 
LIFE intervention, which is described below.  

2.1 Intervention logic: description and objectives 

To assess expected intervention outcomes, it’s crucial to understand the role played by the 
LIFE  Programme  within  the  broader  MFF,  its  targeted  objectives,  and  its  operational 
structure. The intervention logic, used as the basis for the present evaluation, shows the 
link between the drivers of environmental problems, the needs the LIFE Programme sought 
to address, its general objectives, its inputs, its activities, its outputs and results, and its 
expected impacts.  

Due to the limitations in the performance framework of the LIFE Programme 2014 – 2020, 
which captures mainly outputs, results and impacts have been considered together. Results 
and impacts are assessed using KPIs and other qualitative sources of information. Figure 
1 illustrates the intervention logic. 

8  Communication  from  the  Commission  “Europe  2020  A  strategy  for  smart,  sustainable  and  inclusive  growth”, 

COM(2010) 2020 final. 

9 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 

Committee and the Committee of the Regions “A Budget for Europe 2020 - Part I”, COM(2011) 500 final. 

10 Horizon 2020 was the EU's research and innovation funding programme from 2014-2020, see here.  
11 The EAFRD finances the EU's contribution to rural development programmes, see here.  
12 The structural and investment funds supported job creation and sustainable investments, see here.  

3 

 
 
FIGURE 1: INTERVENTION LOGIC 

4 

 
 
2.2 Role of the 2014-2020 LIFE Programme in the MFF  

In the MFF Communication, LIFE is presented as “additional” and complementary to the 
mainstreaming approach. The Preamble of the Regulation underpins the specific role of 
LIFE,  emphasising  that  other  “Union  funding  programmes  cannot  address  all  specific 
needs relating to environment and climate action”, requiring specific approaches to deal 
with  “uneven  integration  of  their  objectives  into  Member  States’  practices,  uneven  and 
inadequate  implementation  of  the  legislation  in  the  Member  States,  and  insufficient 
dissemination of information about, and promotion of, policy goals”13. The stated role of 
the LIFE Programme is to “catalyse changes in policy development and implementation 
by providing and disseminating solutions and best practices”14.  

Given  its  characteristics  and  limited  budget,  the  Programme  “cannot  solve  all 
environmental and climate problems”15. The LIFE budget of 3.46 billion EUR represents 
0,3% of the total EU budget. LIFE aims to close environmental and sustainability gaps by 
providing a platform that facilitates sharing best  practices and knowledge as well as by 
supporting local-level projects via its bottom-up approach. It acts as a catalyst to start-up 
action by providing one-off investments, while dissemination of best practices ensures a 
more  homogenous  implementation  of  EU  legislation.  EU  funding  likewise  can  help 
address transboundary and transnational environmental and climate problems. 

The impact assessment16 confirms that LIFE should address four key institutional drivers 
of environmental problems: 

1)  The level of environmental protection is variable and inadequate due to weaknesses 
in  policy  implementation  and  development,  difficulties  of  transposition,  and 
inadequate capacity to implement and enforce polices and legislation at national 
level.  LIFE  aims  to  address  this  through  projects  supporting  implementation, 
enforcement of EU legislation, and project financing, all of which can be replicated 
by larger EU funds (“project pipeline”); 

2)  LIFE  mitigates  insufficient  synergy  and  integration  with  other  EU  financial 
instruments  by  promoting  a  project  pipeline17  with  the  research  programme18, 
offering additional support to projects funded from other sources and enhancing 
information  dissemination,  capacity  building  and  knowledge  sharing  on 
environmental solutions19; 

13 LIFE Regulation, Recital 3. 
14 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), COM(2011) 874. 

15 Ibid. 
16  See  the  following:  GHK  Consulting,  with  Arcadis,  IEEP  and  Milieu  “Combined  Impact  Assessment  and  Ex  Ante 

Evaluation of the Review of the LIFE+ Regulation: Options Development”, 2011. 

17 A project pipeline is when a project is funded at different stages by different funding instruments. 
18  “At  the beginning  of the project  lifecycle  the projects  may  conduct  research  funded by  DG  RTD.  Following  this, 
concepts may be tested /piloted using LIFE funds and finally rolled out and mainstreamed under CIP”. See also 
recital 11 of the LIFE Regulation. 

19 This is reflected in recitals 3 and 11 of the LIFE Regulation: Recital 3 “[..]  In order for Union funding to achieve 
substantial impact, close synergies and complementarity should be developed between the LIFE Programme and 
other  Union  funding  programmes”.  Recital  11:  “The  Commission  and  Member  States  should  ensure  such 
complementarity  at  all  levels.  At  Union  level,  complementarity  should  be  ensured  by  establishing  structured 
cooperation between the LIFE Programme and the shared-management Union funding programmes in the Common 
Strategic Framework, established by Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council (EU) No 1303/2013 
(15) ("Common Provisions Regulation"), in particular in order to promote funding of activities that complement 

5 

 
 
 
 
 
3)  Inadequate  awareness  about  EU  environmental  problems  and  possible  solutions 
dampens civil society interest to put pressure for change. In that context, recital 33 
of  the  LIFE  Regulation  highlights  the  crucial  role  of  NGOs20  and  projects  that 
support communication and awareness rising channel support to this issue; 

4)  Market  failures  due  to  the  lack  of  pricing  for  environmental  benefits  hamper 
adequate  support  for  eco-innovation  (i.e.,  innovation  that  seeks  to  improve 
environmental performance).  

LIFE develops and tests innovative environmental and climate solutions, best practices, 
and knowledge development to advance the green transition. Figure 2 shows the niche that 
LIFE targets compared to other EU funding programmes: 

FIGURE 2: LIFE 2014-2020 AND OTHER EU PROGRAMMES 

stages 

Research/Innovation

Demonstration/Pilot

Best 
Practice/Awareness

Planning
deployment

Large scale deployment

Horizon 2020 

LIFE traditional projects 

LIFE 

Integrated projects 

LIFE advisory services  

European Structural  

and Investment Funds 

InvestEU 

Unlike Horizon 2020, LIFE does not directly fund primary research, though small-scale 
research activities aligned with project objectives can be funded. Unlike structural funds, 
LIFE  does  not  finance  large  scale  projects  that  implement  environment/climate  action 
legislation  and  policies.  LIFE  creates  a  pipeline  for  larger-scale  implementation  of 
important projects through other EU funding programmes.  

The LIFE Programme was clearly assigned specific functions within the MFF 2014-2020. 
It fills a gap by fostering innovation and dedicating funding exclusively for environment 
and climate actions. This complements the mainstreaming of environmental and climate 
objectives across all EU funding programmes. 

integrated projects or support the use of solutions, methods and approaches developed under the LIFE Programme. 
The LIFE Programme should also encourage the uptake of the results of environmental and climate-related research 
and innovation of Horizon 2020”. 

20 Recital 33 of the LIFE Regulation “[..] The work of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and networks of non-
profit-making entities which pursue an aim of general Union interest should [..] be supported, since they are effective 
in supporting the aims of the Aarhus Convention by advocating the concerns and views of Union citizens as part of 
the  policy  development  process  as  well  as  in  supporting  its  implementation,  and  in  raising  awareness  of 
environmental and climate-related problems and policy responses”. 

6 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 3: LIFE PROGRAMME 2014-2020 

LIFE Programme 2014-2020 
(3.5 billion EUR - 0.3% of EU budget) 

2.2.1. The objectives and functions of the LIFE Programme 

and 

one 

one 

Sub-programme for 
Environment  
(2.6 billion EUR - 75%) 

The  LIFE  Regulation  sets  out 
four  general  objectives  (Art. 
3(1))  and  22  specific  objectives 
(Art.  10-12  &  14-16).  The 
Programme  defines  two  sub-
for 
programmes: 
for 
Environment 
Climate  Action  (Art  3(2)).  The 
Regulation defines three priority 
areas  (see  Figure  3)  for  each 
subprogramme, 
each  with 
specific  objectives.  Since  the 
specific objectives are difficult to 
evaluate  and  do  not  follow  the 
SMART21  criteria,  the  focus  of 
this evaluation is on the general 
objectives and overall function of the LIFE Programme22.  

Environment and Resource 
Efficiency 

Environmental Governance 
and Information 

Nature and Biodiversity 

Sub-programme for 
Climate Action  
(0.86 billion EUR - 25%) 

Climate Change Mitigation 

Climate Change Adaptation 

Climate Governance and 
Information 

The general objectives assessed in this evaluation are shown in Figure 4 below.  

FIGURE 4: HIERARCHY OF OBJECTIVES 

The  main  objectives  follow  a  hierarchical  structure.  The  overarching  goal,  outlined  in 
Regulation Article 3(1a), is “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” (Objective 1). Three 
general objectives in Article 3 (1) of the Regulation support the main goal:  

• 

(b)  to  improve  the  development,  implementation  and  enforcement  of  Union 
environmental and climate policy and legislation, and to act as a catalyst for, and 

21 Specific, measurable, achievable (or attainable), relevant, and time bound. 
22 For the detailed approach of this evaluation, see Annex II, section 2.1 “Approach used in the evaluation”.  

7 

 
 
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. 

In  this  evaluation,  support  for  the  implementation  of  the  7th  Environment  Action 
Programme is not presented separately as its evaluation would be operational and covered 
by Objective 1. The catalytic effect and promotion of integration and mainstreaming into 
other EU policies and practices is looked at separately through a distinct objective.  

In  addition  to  the  general  objectives,  experience  with  the  implementation  of  LIFE 
demonstrates three crucial functions essential for its success and for its capacity to generate 
transformative change in support of its objectives (“building blocks”):  

1)  Direction – support policies and legislation through pioneering projects that inspire 
legislation  and  the  implementation  of  European  environmental  and  climate 
legislation and policies. 

2)  People  –  engage  and  mobilise  project  stakeholders  and  generate  behavioural 

changes and raise public awareness. 

3)  Solutions  –  facilitate  the  application  of  environmental  solutions  into  public  and 
private sector practices through innovation, close-to-market processes, integrated 
approaches, and knowledge enhancement. 

These functions are coming together in different ways in each LIFE-funded project.  

2.2.2. Programme structure and activities 

The structure of the LIFE Programme is meant to support the implementation of objectives. 
It  is  organised  along  two  sub-programmes.  The  ‘Environment’  sub-programme  is  the 
historic root of the Programme. It has existed since LIFE’s inception in 199223. The second 
sub-programme, ‘Climate Action’, was conceived in 2014 to increase support for climate 
action following recommendations in the MFF Communication. For a detailed explanatory 
diagram details, see Figure 1 in Annex II. 

Project categories 

LIFE  2014-2020  consists  of  two  main  project  categories:  traditional  and  integrated 
projects. Traditional projects, carried over from the Programme’s predecessor (LIFE+), 
represent the long-lasting intervention strand. They support innovative and environmental 
projects  across  the  EU  and  receive  the  highest  budget  allocation.  LIFE  finances  a 
maximum of 60% of eligible project costs, up to 75% in exceptional cases.  

Traditional  projects  include  pilot,  demonstration,  and  best  practice  projects  for  priority 
areas such as  nature and biodiversity, environment  and resource efficiency, and climate 
mitigation  and  adaptation,  as  well  as  dissemination/awareness-raising  projects  for  the 

23 LIFE’s functions, particularly in environmental areas, have expanded over the years. See its growth history here. 

8 

 
 
priority  areas  on  environment  and  climate  governance  and  information.  See  Figure  5 
below. 

FIGURE 5: PROJECT TYPES ELIGIBILITY 

Eligibility  and  award  criteria  for  traditional  projects  have  been  refined  over  the 
Programme's  30-year  history  to  prioritise  innovation,  measurable  and  positive  impacts, 
sustainability, and replicability or transfer of outcomes. Eligibility hinges on a proposal's 
ability  to  anticipate  significant,  measurable  positive  impacts  on  the  environment  and 
climate,  ensure  project  result  sustainability,  and  facilitate  replication  and  transfer. 
Additional incentives are available for proposals that integrate research results or foster 
critical synergies. The criteria prioritise projects demonstrating distinct EU added value or 
a catalyst effect. Box 1 illustrates eligibility criteria for project types. 

9 

LIFE projects already existing before 2014New projecttypes introduced in LIFE 2014-2020 
 
BOX 1: ELIGIBILITY AND SELECTION CRITERIA FOR THE TRADITIONAL PROJECTS 

Integrated  projects,  introduced  in  LIFE  2014-2020,  enhance  environment  and  climate 
policy  implementation  by  integrating  priorities  into  other  policies  and  coordinating 
funding  from  EU,  national  and  private  sources  toward  environment/climate  objectives. 
They focus on nature, water, waste, air, climate change mitigation and adaptation topics 
and follow a top-down approach as per the building blocks (direction, people, solutions).  

Integrated projects require Member States to utilise various EU funding sources, including 
agricultural, structural and research funds, as well as national/regional funds and/or private 
sector investments24. In practice, LIFE projects often coordinate a wide range of activities 
that all contribute to the implementation of a single plan. This means that although LIFE 
contributions  to  integrated  projects  are  limited  to  60%,  further  funding  sources  can  be 
leveraged and coordinated during implementation. 

24  European Commission (2021), Integrated projects.  

10 

Eligibility and Award criteria for traditional projectsEligibility criteriaAward criteria1. Contributions to the programme objectives2.Within the scope of the priority areas3.Contribution to priority topics (1)1. Pilot, demonstration or best practice projects2.Replication and transfer potential of the project results3.Synergies: multipurpose, integration and complementarityBonus4.Uptake of research results under research programmesBonusSupport to environmental and climate governance and mobilisation of actors1.Information, awareness and dissemination projects2.TransnationalityBonus1.Substantial and measurable direct and indirect effects on the environment and climate (2)2.Sustainability of the project results3.Use of Green Public procurement or eco-labelling schemesBonusOther1.Technical coherence and quality of the proposal2.Financial coherence and quality of the proposal(1)only under the Sub-Programme for Environment(2)under the priority area Nature and Biodiversity,  at least 25 % of the eligible costs dedicated to concrete conservation actionsCatalytic role and support to integrationa and mainstreaming, including eco-innovationSupport environmental and climate legislation and policies (implementation, monitoring and enforcement)Contributions to the shift towards a resource-efficient, low-carbon and climate-resilient economy and to the protection and improvement of the quality of the environment  
 
 
 
 
Other categories of projects in the 2014-2020 LIFE Programme include: 

▪  Technical assistance projects support the preparation of integrated projects. 

▪  Capacity building projects, introduced alongside the progressive phasing out of 
national  allocations  under  LIFE  2007-2013,  aim  to  bolster  Member  States’ 
participation in LIFE. Specific eligibility criteria tied to the absorption of national 
allocations and GDP are outlined in the Regulation. 

▪  Operating  grants  support  NGOs  following  a  call  for  proposals.  These  entities 
must primarily work on environment/climate action and actively contribute to the 
development, implementation, and enforcement of EU policy and legislation. LIFE 
emphasises the importance of NGOs in alignment with the Aarhus Convention25. 
The  Regulation  outlines  that  operating  grants  should  enable  organisations 
advocating  for  EU  citizens'  concerns,  to  contribute  to  policy  development  and 
implementation,  and  raise  awareness  about  environment/climate  issues  and 
policies. 

▪  Preparatory projects address emerging political and legislation priorities and/or 
respond  to  ad-hoc  challenges. They  enhance  programme  flexibility  by  annually 
defining topics in consultation with Member States.  

For a visual representation of the different project types, see Annex VIII.  

Type of project financing 

Procurement  

Most  LIFE  financing  goes  to  grants.  The  budget  allocated  to  procurement  contracts  is 
crucial for developing, monitoring, evaluating, and ensuring compliance with environment 
and climate legislation and policies. The LIFE budget funds activities needed to meet legal 
obligations  or  activities  related  to  the  lifecycle  of  relevant  policies,  such  as  analysing 
Member  States’  reporting,  managing  infringements,  organising  stakeholder  events,  and 
maintaining information systems and communication channels. 

Financial instruments  

Two financial  instruments  support resource mobilisation and capacities enhancement to 
manage and finance investments for climate adaptation and biodiversity (Natural Capital 
Financing  Facility  -  NCFF)  and  for  energy  efficiency  (Private  Finance  for  Energy 
Efficiency - PF4EE). Both are delegated to the European Investment Bank (EIB).  

Beneficiaries  

LIFE targets a broad range of beneficiaries and can finance public or private bodies as well 
as environmental and climate solutions at all levels. Capacity building projects specifically 
target Member States authorities. 

25  UNECE  Convention  on  Access  to  Information,  Public  Participation  in  Decision-making  and  Access  to  Justice  in 

Environmental Matters, see here. 

11 

 
 
Direct management and delegation to an executive agency  

In  2014,  the  Commission  delegated  the  management  of  LIFE  grants  to  the  Executive 
Agency  for  SMEs  (EASME)  for  increased  efficiency.  In  2021,  the  European  Climate, 
Infrastructure  and  Environment  Executive  Agency  (CINEA)  replaced  EASME  in  the 
management of ongoing projects from the 2014-2020 LIFE Programme, as well as new 
projects for the period 2021-2027.  

LIFE achieves its objectives through a combination of  a direct management component 
implemented by the Commission services and the Executive Agency for small and medium 
enterprises (EASME) and a component indirectly managed by the European Investment 
Bank (EIB) for the two pilot financial instruments (NCFF and PF4EE). 

2.2.3. Performance framework 

In  2014,  as  part  of  the  Commission's  commitment  to  results-based  budget  allocation,  a 
comprehensive  set  of  indicators,  milestones  and  targets  was  established  to  evaluate  the 
performance of the EU budget (hereinafter “MFF Evaluation Framework”)26.  

To measure performance, output indicators with baselines and targets were defined for the 
general  objectives.  Specific  criteria,  milestones,  and  targets  are  further  defined  in  the 
Programme statements attached to the Draft Budget. The statements for 2014-2020 provide 
a yearly account of LIFE's implementation and its advancement towards targets. 

Since 2014, projects are required to report on project-level Key Project Indicators (KPIs) 
measuring project contributions to environmental and climate challenges. At the start of a 
project, beneficiaries must choose at least one indicator and define a baseline and expected 
results. These results are reviewed by external experts, and then validated by the project 
officer and the KPI coordinator. The data are progressively checked and updated by experts 
and the executive agency, gaining robustness with successive controls. KPIs measure net 
change  at  project  level  to  evaluate  project  results.  While  the  KPIs  capture  projects’ 
contribution to the Programme's overarching goal, KPIs cannot capture all environmental 
benefits created by LIFE.  

Both types of indicators are used to evaluate the achievement of objectives 2-4 against base 
targets. Objective 1 is evaluated based on benefits reported under the KPIs and results of 
additional  research  activities  used.  The  performance  indicators  in  the  MFF  Evaluation 
Framework  do  not  fit  neatly  into  the  categories  of  output,  result,  and  impact  indicators 
because their definitions include a mix of expected outcomes and achieved outcomes. The 
KPIs,  along  stakeholder  consultation,  case  studies  and  literature  review  support  the 
analysis  of  results.  Project  results  are  further  validated  by  triangulation.  A  detailed 
overview of indicators can be found in Table 16, Annex VII and Table 20, VIII.  

Overall,  the  indicators  have  some  weaknesses  and  the  data  used  for  this  evaluation  are 
limited, since many projects are still in progress. In the absence of modern KPIs agreed at 
the start of the programme period (around 10 years ago), the indicators identified are those 

26 Commission Staff Working Document ‘Overview of the Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation Frameworks for the 
MFF  2014-2020  Programmes  Accompanying  the  document  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European 
Parliament  and  the  Council  on  the  evaluation  of  the  Union's  finances  based  on  the  results  achieved’, 
SWD/2014/0200 final. 

12 

 
 
as set at the time in the 2014-2020 MFF Evaluation Framework and the KPIs collected at 
project level. While the indicators used for the programme provided valuable evidence, 
they  exhibited  weaknesses  in  scope,  completeness,  and  comparability,  which  posed 
challenges  in  assessing  the  programme’s  efficiency  and  effectiveness.  The  KPIs 
implemented  for  the  LIFE  2021-27  Programme  partially  address  these  weaknesses. 
Although the data used is limited to certain project aspects, this limitation is not expected 
to  compromise  the  robustness  of  the  measured  achievements  but  may  result  in  an 
underestimation of actual outputs and impacts.   

To  ensure  robust  indicators,  findings  are  cross-checked  through  triangulation  with 
stakeholder consultations, literature reviews, and case studies. The final evaluation report 
(see Annex II and III for details) clarifies the indicators and detail the evidence used, as 
well as the challenges faced due to the lack of modern KPIs. 

The  identified  targets  in  the  MFF  evaluation  framework  for  LIFE  help  measure 
performance27. Results are difficult to quantify, so expected achievements are identified 
via  stakeholder  consultation,  case  studies  and  a  literature  review. The  wider  impact  of 
LIFE is difficult to assess quantitatively given the limits of the LIFE and MFF performance 
indicators. LIFE’s bottom-up approach and the difficulty to establish a direct causal link 
between  activities and impacts  especially complicate the evaluation.  Impacts  are linked 
with  transformational  changes  generated  by  LIFE  via  the  building  blocks,  which  are 
captured qualitatively through case studies.  

2.3 Points of comparison 

To  assess  the  Programme,  the  starting  point  is  the  analysis  of  the  initial  situation,  the 
evaluation criteria and the milestones and targets set during the Programme’s inception. 

Environmental and climate issues at the time of the adoption of the Regulation 

The  European  Environmental  Agency’s  2011  and  2015  State  and  Outlook  Reports28 
provide an overview of environmental challenges in the policy areas covered by the LIFE 
Regulation. Table 1 depicts the various environmental issues during the preparation and 
adoption of the Regulation, which LIFE projects and interventions aimed to address: 

27  The  targets  and  milestones  in the  Multiannual  Work Programme  2018-2020  (Commission  Implementing  Decision 

(EU) 2018/210) are presented in Annex VI. 

28 See “EEA, 2010. The European environment — state and outlook 2010. European Environment Agency, Copenhagen” 
and  “EEA,  2015.  The  European  environment  —  state  and  outlook  2015.  European  Environment  Agency, 
Copenhagen”. 

13 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE 1: KEY ENVIRONMENT/CLIMATE CHALLENGES DURING REGULATION ADOPTION 

Source: SOER 2010 and SOER 2015 

Baselines under the MFF evaluation framework and KPIs 

In  the  MFF  evaluation  framework,  baselines  are  defined  for  all  indicators  to  measure 
progress towards general objectives. Indicators are quantified and phrased as "attributable 
environmental improvements" or "number of LIFE interventions" therefore the baseline is 
generally  zero29.  The  newly  established  KPIs  likewise  have  a  baseline  of  zero.  For  a 
detailed overview of the indicators, refer to Annex VII, and for a comprehensive list and 
explanation, see Annex VI. 

29  

The targets and milestones in the MAWP 2018-2020 are presented in Table 12, Annex VI. 

14 

ThemeKey challengesKey indicators• Air quality remains an ongoing concern, in particular for levels of particulate matter• In 2014, about 290 920 premature deaths in the EU-27 were attributed to fine particulate matter (PM2.5).Some national emissions ceilings requirements as well as air quality requirements likely to be missed• 88% of Europe's agricultural area exposed to high ozone concentration in 2011•  For many chemicals, information is lacking on how they affect the environment• REACH and related EU legislation are addressing the problem; however REACH implementation is at an earty stage•  The impacts of climate change are already being observed and are projected to become more pronounced, including extreme weather events (heat waves, droughts and floods), rising temperatures in southern Europe and the Arctic, a decrease in precipitation in southern Europe and increases in the north• 11 EU Member States had adopted a national adaptation strategy by spring 2010•  These changes will affect ecosystems, economies and the quality of lifeIn 2008, the EU's greenhouse gas emissions decreased for the fourth consecutive year and the EU is on track to meet its Kyoto targets• EU annual emissions of GHG in 2011 corresponded to around 75,2% of the 1990 levelThe EU is making good progress towards its goal of a 20% emissions reduction 2020 (compared to 1990), though additional efforts are needed• In 2012, the share of renewable energy consumed in Europe reached 11% EU leaders are discussing increasing Ihe EU's 2020 commitment to a 30% reduction• EU legislation has been a key factor in reducing pollution to Europe's rivers and other water bodies in recent decades• 40% of rivers and coastal water bodies were affected by diffuse pollution from agriculture, while between 20% and 25% were subject to point source pollution• Major issues remain, including ongoing pollution problems and the modification of water bodies; cimate change will bring new impacts in coming decades• Europe is not on track to meet the objective of achieving good ecological status for all surface waters by 2020•  Implementation of the Water Framework Directive and related legislation is a key issue here. More focus on quantitative issues (scarcity, droughts and flooding) needed• Land use conflicts, including sprawl, remain a key concern for Europe's environment• Land use is addressed through urban, coastal zone and other EU strategies and the European Spatial Development Perspective• The INSPIRE Directive will provide new information on land useNature and Biodiversity• Freshwater ecosystems face numerous threats, from water scarcity and droughts to pollution to modification; the Water Framework Directive is a key instrument for their protection• EU Common birds index : 92,4% compared to 2000 level Out of which 95,6% for common forset species (excluding farmland species) • Forests cover a large area of Europe, but face threats from climate change, fragmentation, airborne pollution and unsustainable management• A high proportion of protected species (60%) and habitat types (77%) are considered to be in unfavourable conservation status •  Marine ecosystems are facing a range of pressures, including climate change, ocean acidification and overfishing; the Marine Strategy Framework Directive is a key instrument here • Climate change is increasingly affecting species and habitats • Implementing EU legislation (especially the Habitats and Birds Directives) remains a strong concern, with a high level of ECJ infringement cas• Only 23% of animal and plant species and only 16% of habitat types were considered to be in a favourable conservation status • Natura 2000 network covers some 780 000 terrestrial km2 , about 18 % of Europe's total land area, and about 4% of the EU marine waters• Terrestrial protected areas as a whole covered somenthing less than 25% of the EU territory. 807.001 KM2 (19% of EU area) Air pollutionChemicalsClimate change impacts/ vulnerability/ adaptationClimate change mitigationFreshwater managementLand useNo priorityareasassociatedClimateChangeAdaptationClimateChangeMitigationClimateGovernanceandInformationEnvironmentEnvironmentalGovernanceandInformationNatureEU CONTRIBUTION71,799,360253,505,759244,178,89640,297,057775,337,54695,549,5271,175,714,979CO-FINANCING96,583,244233,288,081251,656,70632,622,631794,442,05771,515,258789,719,3590%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%CO-FINANCINGEU CONTRIBUTIONThemeKey challengesKey indicators• Improving resource efficiency (including energy and materials) is a key goal of the Commission's EU 2020 Strategy• Generation of waste 5062 Kg per capita in 2014• Some Member States as well as regions and cities, have made progress in waste prevention and recycling and establishing innovative programmes• In 2014 Raw material consumption (RMC) – 14 T pro capite• Overall, implementation of EU waste legislation is a serious concern and a major area for ECJ infringement cases• Circular material use rate (CMUR) 11.2% in 2014 Urban environment• Although the quality of life in Europe's cities has improved in recent decades, many challenges remain, including health problems related to noise and air pollutionResource use and wasteNo priorityareasassociatedClimateChangeAdaptationClimateChangeMitigationClimateGovernanceandInformationEnvironmentEnvironmentalGovernanceandInformationNatureEU CONTRIBUTION71,799,360253,505,759244,178,89640,297,057775,337,54695,549,5271,175,714,979CO-FINANCING96,583,244233,288,081251,656,70632,622,631794,442,05771,515,258789,719,3590%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%CO-FINANCINGEU CONTRIBUTION 
 
      
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
3.  PROGRAMME IMPLEMENTATION 

This section outlines the state of play of the LIFE Programme’s implementation in June 
2023. It presents the allocation of funds per priority area, intervention type, and beneficiary 
category, including supplementary funds mobilised. It also presents progress made towards 
the targets and milestones defined in the MFF evaluation framework for LIFE, as well as 
progress against KPIs. 

3.1 Allocation of funding in budgetary terms    

Programme implementation took place under two Multiannual Work Programmes (2014-
2017 and 2018-2020) adopted by the Commission in collaboration and with the approval 
of  Member  States  representatives  within  the  LIFE  Committee.  Prior  to  its  preparation, 
targeted consultations on specific topics, such as monitoring services and types of calls for 
proposals, were conducted. There is an overall increasing trend in the allocation of funds, 
meaning that the final years received more funds than the preceding years. 

Of the total funding, 75% was allocated to the sub-programme for environment. See Annex 
VIII for a representation of the allocated funding per priority area (see Figure 13, Annex 
VIII). Figure 6 in the following section depicts the EU contribution per instrument type as 
well as the total budget per instrument type.  

3.2 Implemented projects and project demand 

Over  2014-2020,  a  total  of  1,163  action  grants  were  financed.  Total  project  costs 
exceeded EUR 4.8 billion, of which EUR 2.6 billion was provided by LIFE and averaged 
EUR 2 million per project30. 

Traditional  projects  represent  the  highest  funding  allocation  under  LIFE  with  1019 
projects  implemented.  Of  these,  316  projects  are  closed,  635  are  open,  60  have 
decommitment  orders,  and  8  have  recovery  orders.  Demand  for  traditional  projects 
remained high throughout the seven years. Figure 6 depicts the high oversubscription for 
traditional of projects for all priority areas. 

FIGURE 6: TRADITIONAL PROJECTS FINANCED VS PROPOSALS NON-FINANCED, 2014-2020 

4500
4000
3500
3000
2500
2000
1500
1000
500
0

Environment
and Ressource
efficiency

Nature and
biodiversity

Environment
governance and
information

Climate Change
Adaptation

Climate Change
Mitigation

Climate
governance and
information

The total value of traditional projects is EUR 3.5 billion out of which EUR 1.9 billion were 
provided by the LIFE programme and € 1.6 billion by beneficiaries. The average duration 

30 See Study to support the evaluation of the LIFE programme 2014-2020, page 81, ff. 

15 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
of a project is four years31. Project duration was impacted by the pandemic, the energy 
crisis, and the war in Ukraine32.  

70 integrated projects33 were financed under LIFE 2014-2020 for a total cost of EUR 1.3 
billion. About  EUR  700  million  were  provided  directly  by  LIFE  while  the  remaining 
amount by complementary funds. Integrated projects coordinated an additional EUR 31.6 
billion from a range of complementary funding sources. LIFE projects coordinate activities 
partly  financed  by  other  EU  funds:  EUR  16.4  billion  from  EU  funds  (European 
Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural  Development  (EAFRD),  European  Regional  Development 
Fund (ERDF) including Interreg programmes, Cohesion Fund (CF), European Social Fund 
(ESF),  European  Maritime  and  Fisheries  Fund  (EMFF),  Horizon  2020,  Norwegian  and 
European Investment Bank, EUR 13.3 billion from public sources, and EUR 2.0 billion 
from private financing. 

The  remaining  74  action  grants  supported  technical  assistance  projects  (37  projects 
accounting for EUR 2.6 million of EU contribution), 16 capacity building projects34 aimed 
to support Member States in achieving more effective participation in the LIFE Programme 
(accounting for EUR 11.2 million) and 21 preparatory projects (receiving EUR 9.9 million 
of EU contribution). The total value of these grants amount to EUR 35.5 million, of which 
23.8 million were provided by LIFE. 

Preparatory  projects  addressed  emerging  political  and  legislation  priorities  and/or 
responded  to  ad-hoc  challenges. These  were  also  used  to  react  to  the  challenges  of  the 
pandemic, for example in the following ways: 

- 

- 

In 2018, LIFE joined forces with the Erasmus programme35. It contributed to the 
launching  of  the  European  solidarity  corps,  providing  opportunities  to  young 
people to participate in nature, biodiversity, and climate activities. 

In 2020, a specific call for “NGOs4GD” (NGOs for Green Deal) was launched to 
help  EU  environmental  and  climate  NGOs  operating  at  the  Member  State  level, 
which were in a difficult situation due to the pandemic.  

A visual representation of the allocation of LIFE funding and co-financing among different 
project types can be found in Annex VIII, Figure 14. For details on distribution and amount 
of co-financing by priority area, see Annex VIII, Figure 13.  

31 Data from Butler, the software programme used to manage grants before 2020. 
32 While half of the projects increased their duration following the Covid pandemic, according to a survey among all 
LIFE beneficiaries, about 20% of on-going LIFE projects have been seriously impacted by: (1) unexpected price 
hikes for materials like steel, iron, timber, fuels, energy, and construction works, and important delays in the delivery 
of electronic materials and components (e.g., Programmable Logic Controllers (PLCs), microprocessors, etc.); (2) 
uncertainties regarding gas and energy prices, which disrupted their business models. For example, a project focused 
on producing natural gas from green waste using innovative technology encountered difficulties due to increased 
energy costs, making the operation of the pilot plant more expensive than anticipated. These circumstances had an 
impact  on  prolonged  project  durations,  for  the  need  to  reissue  tenders/contracts  (e.g.,  fixed  price  contracts 
terminated  by  suppliers  due  to  unsustainable  pricing,  requiring  a  relaunch  to  align  with  market  prices)  and  the 
implementation of additional activities (e.g., fundraising to cover escalated project costs and seeking cost-effective 
substitutes by altering materials and/or modifying processes). 

33 Integrated projects were introduced since 2014 by following a top-down approach. Out of this number, 68 are still 

open at the time of this evaluation. 

34 They were introduced as an accompanying measure in view of the progressive phasing out in 2014-2020 of the national 
allocations applied under the LIFE programme 2007-2013. Specific eligibility criteria for these projects linked to 
the absorption of the national allocation and the GDP are included in the Regulation. 

35 EU programme for education, training, youth and sport, see here. 

16 

 
 
3.3 Types of beneficiaries 

In line with its predecessors, LIFE beneficiaries are equally spread among stakeholders:  

FIGURE 7: DISTRIBUTION OF BENEFICIARIES BY ORGANISATION TYPE 

public administration and agencies

Private companies

Research institutes and technology
centres

Civil society organisations and
foundations

other

Source: European Commission (2023), Analysis of the beneficiaries of the LIFE Programme 2014-2020 

Beneficiaries of LIFE include: 

•  Public administrations and agencies, including Member State authorities and public 

agencies.   

•  Private  companies,  including  joint  stock  companies  and  similar  limited  liability 

companies, suggesting that companies of various sizes participated. 

•  Research institutes, technology centres and universities. This shows the capacity of 
LIFE  to  mobilise  the  research  community  and  related  actors  in  innovation 
development  and  testing,  propelling  the  transition  towards  a  circular,  climate-
neutral, and resilient economy. 

•  Civil society organisations, including NGOs, foundations, and other non-profits. 

Most (about 80%) were first-time beneficiaries and only implemented one project, whereas 
11% of beneficiaries were involved in two projects during the concerned period.  

3.4 Geographical distribution 

Country participation in traditional projects is not balanced: Spain and Italy were awarded 
the largest share of projects (25% and 22% respectively), which is linked to their high share 
of proposals (23% and 29% respectively).  

Eight countries (FR, DE, GR, NL, BE, BG, PT, PL) registered average numbers36 in terms 
proposals submitted and projects awarded. Organisations from the UK and Sweden were 
awarded  a  higher-than-average  number  of  projects  but  submitted  a  lower-than-average 
number  of  proposals.  16  countries  recorded  a  lower-than-average  number  of  projects 
submitted and awarded. National budget allocations and specific capacity building projects 
supported the participation of less successful countries in LIFE. Financial instruments.  

3.5 Financial instruments  

The Commission introduced two pilot financial instruments under LIFE to test innovative 
approaches for the leveraging of funding: 

36 Average calculated excluding IT and ES data. SE registered a lower number of proposals submitted.  

17 

 
 
 
-  Private  Finance  for  Energy  Efficiency  (PF4EE)  to  increase  the  availability  of  debt 
financing for investments supporting Member States’ energy efficiency priorities set 
in their National Energy Efficiency Action Plans (NEEAPs). PF4EE envisaged a risk 
participation mechanism for private commercial banks and other financial institutions, 
EIB long-term funding and expert support for financial intermediaries. 

-  Natural Capital Financing facility (NCFF) aimed to establish a pipeline of replicable, 
bankable operations to serve as a ‘proof of concept’ and to demonstrate to potential 
investors  the  attractiveness  of  operations  addressing  biodiversity  and  climate 
adaptation objectives. NCFF provided a risk-sharing mechanism in the form of loans 
or equity on biodiversity and climate adaptation, backed by a EUR 50 million portfolio 
first loss guarantee and a EUR 50 million technical assistance component both financed 
by LIFE.  The objective was to  support and build capacity of promoters/borrowers, 
financial intermediaries and/or final recipients. 

EUR 215 million were initially allocated from LIFE 2014-2020 for investments through 
PF4EE (EUR 155 million under the sub-programme Climate Action) and NCFF (EUR 60 
million  equally  divided  between  sub-programmes).  77%  of  this  amount  had  been 
committed by the end of 2020, but only 34% of the committed funds (EUR 72.7 million, 
with 60,1% for PF4EE and 12,1% for NCFF) had been paid within the same period.  

The start-up of the two instruments has been slower than originally envisaged: 

▪  PF4EE: delays were due to a lack of infrastructure for energy efficiency lending 
across  European  financial  intermediaries.  Additionally,  the  cash  collateral  setup 
hindered the dynamic reallocation of funds, impeding optimal deployment. 

▪  NCFF:  the  first  loan  was  signed  in  2017.  Several  operations,  evaluated  against 
criteria set by the Commission and EIB, were deemed insufficient for biodiversity 
protection  and  climate  adaptation,  or  not  mature  enough  for  bank  financing. 
Although  recipients  welcomed  the  technical  assistance  services,  the  size,  risk 
requirements, and duration of the proposed operations limited the establishment of 
the project pipeline and the mobilisation of the instrument. 

By 2022, PF4EE had provided funding to support investments in 10 Member States (BE, 
CZ, ES, FR, GR, IE, IT, LV, PL, PT) for a total amount of EUR 510.2 million of Energy 
Efficiency Investments. After a slow start, the trend of investments grew strongly since 
2016 and is currently on track to reach its lifetime target of EUR 700 million.  

NCFF provided funding in 11 Member States (AT, BE, ES, FI, FR, GR, HR, IE, LU, PL, 
RO). By 2022, a total  amount of EUR 82 million for 11 projects  (on  average  EUR 7.5 
million per project) had been signed under NCFF, which is  close to the initial target of 
EUR 100-125 million for 9-12 operations. Investments made reach EUR 114.4 million. 
The NCFF provided important lessons learned that are feeding into on-going reflections 
on natural capital financing. 

Thanks to co-financing, complementary funds coordinated through integrated projects, and 
investments  by  PF4EE  and  the  NCFF,  LIFE  leveraged  and/or  coordinated  at  least 
coordinated EUR 34.7 billion .  

18 

 
4.  EVALUATION FINDINGS  

4.1 To what extent was the intervention successful and why? 

This section assesses the success of the LIFE Programme  in achieving or advancing its 
general objectives effectively, efficiently, and coherently. In addition to outputs and results, 
denoted by the performance indicators and KPIs, this section evaluates the broader impact 
of the Programme, particularly in terms of transformative change. Progress on Objectives 
2, 3, and 4 is examined first because they feed into the evaluation of the progress towards 
overarching Objective 1, which encompasses long-term impacts. 

4.1.1 Was the LIFE Programme effective?  

The  effectiveness  of  LIFE  is  measured  against  targets  established  for  the  performance 
indicators at the inception of the programme in the MFF evaluation framework. For each 
performance indicators a baseline, milestones, and a target was defined.  

The milestones and 2020 targets set in the MFF evaluation framework for the LIFE 
programme were largely achieved. This is clear from the detailed overview of targets 
and milestones and achievements included in the Annex VI. In case of a missed target, the 
results  are  mostly  close  to  the  target.  The  envisioned  numbers  of  projects  for  the 
performance indicators for each of the four main objectives were implemented.  

Table 12 in Annex VI groups the performance indicators by general objective. The first 
column lists performance indicators as defined in  the MFF Communication/programme 
statements,  the  second  column  shows  the  2020  targets,  and  the  third  column  displays 
results. A second set of tables is available in Tables 13-15 in Annex VI, where indicators 
are grouped according to the objectives: Indicators are selected based on initially defined 
targets,  either  in  terms  of  (1)  potential  for  replicability/transferability,  (2)  support  to 
integrated plans and/or mobilisation of complementary funding (integrated projects) or (3) 
development of the knowledge base.   

have 

BOX 2: EXAMPLE OF A PROJECT WITH IMPACT 
ON EMISSION REDUCTION 

The results of the performance indicators are complemented with results from the in 2014 
newly  introduced  KPIs,  which  can 
capture results and impacts achieved 
thanks 
to  LIFE  Projects.  The 
analysis  of  aggregated  data  of  the 
that  LIFE 
KPIs  demonstrates 
projects 
considerably 
contributed  to  create  environmental 
net benefits. Tables 2 and 3 describe 
improvements 
environmental 
reported 
KPIs. 
by 
Contributions are divided by the two 
sub-programmes.  It  is  important  to 
note that the data are based on completed or advanced-phase projects, with 42% of projects 
still ongoing and therefore not included. The data of the advanced projects has been further 
checked through triangulation, so that results represent a  high level of confidence. Based 
on  this,  tables  2  and  3  summarise  LIFE  projects’  contributions  to  Objective  1:  "Shift 
towards a resource-efficient, low-carbon, and climate-resilient economy."  

The  project  “CO2  emissions  reduction  by  industrial  integration 
and  value  chains  creation”  (LIFE-CO2-INT-BIO)  focussed  on 
three  energy-intensive  industrial  sectors,  namely,  biomass 
power  plants,  commercial  CO2  gas  production,  and  intensive 
agri-farming  greenhouses.  By  applying  new  techniques  and 
methods, the project contributed to the creation of new value 
chains for CO2 as a raw material.  
The  project  has  demonstrated  the  technical  and  economic 
viability of a continuous and sustainable capture and cleaning 
of CO2 from biomass flue gas (very limited experience to date) 
to define an optimum size and promote replicability. 

project 

19 

 
Climate 
mitigation 

Climate 
adaptation 
Resource 
efficiency 
and 
circular 
economy 

TABLE 2: LIFE, CLIMATE MITIGATION, ADAPTATION AND RESOURCE-EFFICIENCY 

Impact 
type  

Key project indicator 

Measurement 
unit 

Estimated 
– 
Results 
evidence-based 
scenario  

Emission of CO2 prevented 

Tonne/year 

11,823,906.25  

Other greenhouse gasses prevented 

tonne CH4/year 

-2,582.95 

Area in which climate adaptation were implemented  

km2 

22,709.35 

tonne N20/year 

-75.08 

Water abstraction/diversion 

Waste: mass reduction of non-appropriately managed 
waste 
Reduction in primary energy consumption 

Increase in the production of renewable energy 

Soil’s surface remediated 

Others 

Jobs (implementation) 

Jobs (impact - 5 years beyond) 

Jobs - temporary, not kept after the end of the project 

million 
m3/year 
tonne/year 

MWh 

MWh 

km2 

No of Full 
Time 
Equivalents 
(FTE) 

-25.15 

-4,266,621.09 

-3,532,210.63 

2,089,092.08 

-411.25 

5,827.31 

4,527.79 

1,299.52 

Source: External evaluation report based on project-level key performance indicators 

As  seen  in  Table  2,  LIFE  projects  contributed  significantly  to  climate  mitigation  and 
resource efficiency. The aggregated project data estimates these contributions as follows: 

▪  Achieving a CO2 reduction of 11.8 million tonnes/year, exceeding Cyprus’s 2021 

net GHG emissions37; 

▪  Reducing improper waste management by 4.3 million tonnes/year38; 
▪  Decreasing  the primary energy consumption by 2.4 million MW/h,  a figure that 
corresponds  to  the  average  yearly  electricity  consumption  of  over  970,000 
European households39.  

TABLE 3: LIFE, PROTECTION OF ENVIRONMENT, NATURE, AND BIODIVERSITY 

Impact type   Key project indicator 

Measurement 
unit 

Results  –  evidence-
based scenario  

Environment 

Noise level/frequency - terrestrial 

db Lden (Humans) 

-28.20 

Air Emissions 

tonne CO/year 

-42.44 

tonne NO2/NOX/year 

-152,466.20 

tonne VOC/year 

-31.15 

Chemicals substitution 

tonne 
substituted/year 

Water surface and length affected by 
hydrodynamic pressure addressed by projects 

km2 

278.62 

-15.36 

Natura 2000 sites 

Species 

N° of Natura 2000 
sites 

2315 

N° of species types 

435 

37 Annual European Union greenhouse gas inventory 1990–2021 and inventory report 2023. Submission to the UNFCCC 

Secretariat. European Environmental Agency. EEA/PUBL/2023/044. 15 April 2023. 

38 Eurostat, Generation of waste. Hazardous and non-hazardous - Total. EU's total was 2,154 million tonnes. 
39 The average electricity consumption per household in the European Union (EU) in 2020 was 3,641 Kwh. 

20 

 
 
Natura and 
biodiversity40 

Habitats 

Ecosystem  

Habitats 

N° of habitat types 

152 

km2 

km2 

36,908 

16,940 

Source: External evaluation report based on project-level key performance indicators 

Table  3  highlights  the  impact  of  LIFE  projects  on  environmental  protection,  nature, 
biodiversity,  and  pollution  reduction.  According  to  the  aggregated  data  reported  by 
projects, the contribution can be estimated as follows: 

▪  Reducing nitrogen oxides (N02/Nox) emissions to about 152,000 tonnes per year, 

surpassing Portugal’s 2019 NOx emissions41.  

▪  For  nature  and  biodiversity,  improving  the  conservation  status  of  435  distinct 
species  and  intervene  in  2315  Natura  2000  sites.  In  quantitative  terms,  this  is 
equivalent to the Natura 2000 sites in France and Ireland.  

▪  LIFE  contributed  to  improve  the  conservation  status  of  about  30,000  km2  of 

ecosystems and 14,000 km2 of habitats.   

▪  The  LIFE  Programme  supported  the  development  and  implementation  of  Air 
Quality  Plans  at  national,  regional,  and  municipal  levels,  targeting  specific 
pollutants and introducing specialised monitoring tools (e.g., dust binders to reduce 
PM10). These efforts resulted in marked improvements in air quality benefiting over 
6 million EU citizens.  

▪  Projects funded by LIFE have contributed to reduce the pressures or address the 
risks of pollution from agriculture, both from nutrients and pesticides, in around 
230 km of watercourses and 190 km² of water bodies.  

▪  LIFE played a significant role in the expanding the Natura 2000 network through 
land  purchase.  Between  2014-2020,  3,127  km2 of  protected  areas  for  an  overall 
amount of EUR 83 million have been co-financed through LIFE projects42.  

The following section discusses the effectiveness of LIFE Objectives 1-4 using additional 
evidence from case studies, stakeholder consultation, desk research and survey.  

How has LIFE contributed to the development, implementation and enforcement of 
EU environmental and climate policy and legislation (Objective 2)? 

LIFE  contribution  to  the  development,  implementation,  and  enforcement  of  EU 
environmental and climate policy and legislation is twofold: 

1.  At project level, LIFE “enables the alignment in each project between a bottom-up 
approach  based  on  local  priorities  in  each  specific  context  of  intervention  with 
objectives  and  targets  stated  in  supranational  policy  frameworks”43.  Projects  are 
selected  for  contribution  to  policy  and  legislation  priorities.  Integrated  projects 
support  implementation  of  plans  or  strategies  mandated  by  EU  policies  and 
legislation.  In  the  external  evaluation  study,  specific  projects  were  found  to 

40 Based on past experience, data on Natura 2000 sites, species and habitat types was considered of higher reliability 

therefore, a sensitivity analysis with multiple scenarios was not needed. 
41 OECD data, Air and GHG emission series, Nitrogen oxides (NOx), 2018 – 2021. 
42 Data from the LIFE proposal database. 
43 See: Ferrannini, Martino, Biggeri, Peiffer-Smadja, Ravet, “The integration of key transformative R&I principles in 
European  policies.  A  multiple  case  study  analysis”,  European  Commission,  R&I  Paper  Series,  Working  Paper 
2023/02, March 2023. 

21 

 
 
contribute  to  development  of  environment/climate  policies  and  legislation  by 
providing inputs for changes, feedback to policy/legislation, by actively pursuing 
enforcement or increased compliance with environmental and climate legislation. 

2.  At  programme  level,  LIFE  non-grant  activities  (studies,  technical  assistance 
contracts, prizes, etc) play an important role in the implementation, development, 
evaluation and enforcement of environment/climate legislation and policies. 

Evaluating the achievement of objective 2 based on the initially set targets on milestones, 
LIFE reached or exceeded its targets for Objective 2 under the performance indicators as 
seen in Annex VI, Table 13. For 4 out of 18 indicators, a strong overachievement compared 
to  the  initial  target  can  be  observed.  This  could  be  explained  by  some  initial 
underestimation  of  potential  project  results  due  to  a  lack  of  experience  with  LIFE 
indicators, and/or by the high quality of projects selected following high competition.  

Numerous types of interventions contributed to Objective 2 and thus to the achievement 
of  initially  set  targets.  These  include  12  Integrated  Projects  (IPs)  targeting  river  basin 
management plans, 8 IPs focusing on waste management and prevention programmes, 7 
IPs addressing air quality plans, 24 IPs implementing prioritised action frameworks, 12 IPs 
dedicated  to  climate  change  mitigation  plans,  and  7  IPs  focused  on  climate  change 
adaptation.  These  findings  demonstrate  strong  alignment  between  LIFE  projects  and 
enhance policy development, implementation, and enforcement.  

In  order  to  understand,  whether  the  achievement  of  targets  actually  translates  into 
improved  development,  implementation  and  enforcement  of  EU  environmental  and 
climate policy and legislation, other information sources have been used as outlined below.  

Case Study Outcomes 

Case studies demonstrate how LIFE projects improve compliance and enforcement of 
EU  environmental  legislation  through  greater  organisational  effectiveness,  enhanced 
cooperation,  training,  and  better  tools  by  analysing  in  depth  a  set  of  LIFE  projects. 
Examples of projects include: 

▪  LIFE-ENPE established a European Network of Prosecutors for the Environment. 
Its goal was to enhance the efficiency and effectiveness of prosecutors and judges 
in tackling environmental crime throughout Europe by boosting capacity, fostering 
cooperation, and facilitating information exchange. 

▪  LIFE  PROWhIBIT  enhanced  collaboration  among  judicial,  enforcement,  and 
inspection  officers,  bolstering  their  tools  and  strategies  to  prevent  and  combat 
environmental waste crime. 

Moreover,  beneficiaries  report  that  LIFE  projects  have  directly  influenced  the 
implementation  of  specific  legislation  and  policies  at  both  EU  and  national  levels. 
Examples  are  identified  across  all  analysed  case  studies44.  Specific  LIFE  projects  have 
directly influenced the design and update of legislation and regulation in areas such as: 

•  LIFE Re-Vultures bolstered enforcement of the Birds Directive in Bulgaria through 
the  establishment  of  a  national  anti-poisoning  plan,  including  a  dedicated  unit 
supporting criminal investigations; 

44   For a complete overview, please see the case studies annexed to the external study. 

22 

 
 
•  LIFE-IP  AdaptInGR  aids  the  implementation  of  Greece’s  national  adaptation 
strategy  and  13  Regional  Adaptation  Action  Plans  in  alignment  with  the  EU 
Strategy on climate change adaptation; 

▪  LIFE  DEBAG  influenced  changes  in  Greek  legislation  concerning  plastic  bag 
usage45 and facilitated agreements with five major supermarket chains to reduce 
single-use plastic bags, resulting in an 85% decrease on surveyed beaches and a 
60% decrease on the seafloor. 

The  case  studies  suggest  that  LIFE  significantly  contributes  to  the  development  of 
legislation  and  policies.  It  supported,  for  instance,  the  definition  of  new  legislative 
standards to  sustain  forest  ecosystems  and to  improve forest  management  in  support of 
climate  adaptation  policy  (e.g.,  the  LIFE  MOTTLES  and  the  LIFE  MixForChange 
projects)46. Environmental crime policies were developed following up on LIFE projects 
(e.g. LIFE VENENO NO and LIFE HELICON projects)47. The Programme has supported 
the definition and implementation of national and regional adaptation strategy and action 
plans in line with the EU Adaptation Strategy that sets out how the European Union could 
become climate resilient by 2050. 

Outcomes of stakeholder consultations 

In the surveys, 82%48 of stakeholders agreed or strongly agreed that LIFE has effectively 
contributed to the development, implementation, and enforcement of EU environmental 
and climate policies and legislation. During  interviews, several  beneficiaries mentioned 
various  national  strategies  whose  development  was  supported  by  LIFE  projects49, 
including the Austrian Peatland Strategy, the Austrian Floodplain Strategy, the Declaration 
of Nijmegen and the Dutch Green Deal Shipping and Ports.  

Findings from the literature review 

The literature review provided additional examples, where LIFE projects have contributed 
to  the  design  of  specific  legislation  and  policies  -  both  for  environmental  and  climate 
policy. The LIFE SIDE project, supported for example the design and implementation of 
the  forth  phase  of  the  EU  Emission  Trade  System50.  Other  projects  allowed  for  the 
development of monitoring tools and reporting methods for further improvement of low-
carbon development strategies51.  

The  role  of  LIFE  projects  in  the  implementation  of  legislation  and  policies  is 
acknowledged by Member States in the Environmental Implementation Reviews (EIR)52: 

45   The  resulting  legislation  (article  6  of  Law  4496/2017  and  Joint  Ministerial  Decree  ΦΕΚ  Β’  2812  number 
180036/952/10.8.2017) and measures introduced were closely based on the proposals that came out of project’s 
stakeholder meetings, and/or the proposals of the Ministry and the Hellenic Recycling the Agency (EOAN). 
46 European Commission (2019), Ready, steady, green! LIFE helps farming and forestry adapt to climate change. 
47 European Commission (2018), LIFE & the marine environment; Source: LIFE & wildlife crime. 
48 LIFE External Report, pp. 54. Eliminating those who did not express an opinion or declared that they did not know, 

the share is even 95% (303 out of 320 respondents). 

49 Directly or through the participation of projects’ beneficiaries in relevant debates. 
50  Directive  (EU)  2018/410  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  of  14  March  2018  amending  Directive 
2003/87/EC  to  enhance  cost-effective  emission  reductions  and  low-carbon  investments,  and  Decision  (EU) 
2015/1814, OJ L 76, 19.3.2018, p. 3–27. 

51 European Commission (2018), LIFE and energy intensive industries. 
52 The EIR individual country reports map out the implementation of the key environmental policies in each EU country. 
They identify causes of implementation gaps as well as solutions that have been successfully implemented. Country 

23 

 
 
50% of Member States mention LIFE projects in 2017 and 90% in 2019. As underlined in 
the  external  report,  between  2017  and  2019,  there  has  been  a  positive  evolution  of  the 
reporting of LIFE contributions to national policy objectives. Compared to 2017, the 2019 
reports give more visibility to LIFE projects implemented in the MS (in 2017 only 50% of 
the reports mention LIFE projects whereas 90% did so in 2019); and outcomes and results 
are more frequently illustrated (only six country reports provide details on LIFE projects 
in 2017, whereas in 2019, all reports except one mention them)53.  

Contribution of the non-grant activities  

Studies and service contracts financed by LIFE are used to support impact assessments and 
evaluations  carried  out  by  the  Commission.  Scoping  studies,  technical  assistance, 
stakeholder consultation and public information campaigns support the implementation of 
environmental and climate policies.  

LIFE supported activities that allowed the Commission and Member States to comply with 
the legal obligations stemming from various legislation and policies, for example:  

- 

- 

- 

analysis of Member States reports (e.g., River Basin Management Plans prepared 
under  the  Water  Framework  Directive,  the  air  quality  reporting,  MS  reports 
submitted  for  the  implementation  of  the  Nitrates  Directive  or  the  Seveso 
Directive)  and  support  to  EU  and  Member  States  reports  to  international  fora 
(COPs, UN, OECD), such as the implementation of the mandatory elements of the 
Nagoya Protocol (cd ABS Regulation). 

financing  aspects  of  the  EU  emissions  trading  system,  the  main  instrument  to 
ensure a well-functioning EU carbon market (e.g., the Union registry that keeps 
track of the ownership of allowances held  in  electronic accounts), and security 
measures related to confidentiality, integrity and/or availability of the system to 
help protect the financial interest of Member States and the Union.  

classification of chemical substances for the protection of human health and the 
environment, the protection of animals used for scientific purposes, the support 
for restricting the use of certain hazardous substances.  

LIFE  also  financed  preparatory  activities  related  to  the  design  and  development  of 
environmental and climate policies and legislation. Initiatives supported by the Programme 
2014-2020  include:  the  proposal  for  a  European  ‘Climate  Law’54  enshrining  the  2050 
climate neutrality objective; the EU Biodiversity Strategy for 203055; the EU Strategy on 

reports cover the following areas: circular economy and waste management; biodiversity and natural capital, zero 
pollution (namely air quality, industrial emissions, major industrial accidents prevention, noise, water quality and 
management), chemicals and climate action. 

53 Where LIFE is quoted, nature and biodiversity are the most addressed area (by 85% of the Member States), followed 
by resource efficiency as well as air quality and emissions (respectively 28% and 25% of the Member States). 
54 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council establishing the framework for achieving 
climate neutrality and amending Regulation (EU) 2018/1999 (European Climate Law). COM/2020/80 final. 
55 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee and the Committee of the Regions “EU Biodiversity Strategy for 2030 Bringing nature back into our 
lives”, COM/2020/380 final. 

24 

 
 
Adaptation to Climate Change56; the European Climate Pact57; the proposals to revise the 
climate legislation included in the Fit for 55 package, (e.g., the extension of the EU ETS58); 
the legislation on batteries59 in support of the Strategic Action Plan on Batteries and the 
circular  economy;  the  EU  Forest  Strategy60  and  measures  to  support  deforestation-free 
value  chains;  the  Chemicals  strategy  for  sustainability  to  guarantee  a  toxic-free 
environment61. 

Conclusions 

Evidence  from  different  sources  consistently  shows  that  LIFE  has  contributed  to  the 
development, implementation, and enforcement of EU environment and climate policies 
and legislation. This was achieved through both project- and programme-level activities. 
The  Programme  consistently  met  or  exceeded  targets,  and  case  studies  and  stakeholder 
consultations  also  confirmed  the  positive  impact.  The  non-grant  activities  of  the 
Programme have played a crucial role in supporting impact assessments, evaluations, and 
the implementation of environmental and climate policies.  

How LIFE contributed to better environmental and climate governance at all levels, 
including better involvement of civil society, NGOs and local actors (Objective 3) 

In terms of governance, the LIFE Programme supported: 

▪  active collaboration of key stakeholders, often leading to the establishment of long-

term collaboration and coordination beyond project implementation; 

▪  empowerment of key actors to enhance their capabilities through training, specific 

guidance, and tool development; 

▪  dissemination  of  information  to  enhance  the  diffusion  of  knowledge,  increasing 

awareness and providing support to various actors.  

As seen in Table 14 in Annex VI, LIFE reached most targets initially set for this objective 
under the performance indicators.  

LIFE  projects  contribute  to  environmental  and  climate  governance  at  project  level  by 
involving several stakeholders and creating partnerships. LIFE projects often bring diverse 
types of beneficiaries together, a feature strongly encouraged and assessed as part of the 
award  criteria. All  LIFE  projects  likewise  support  awareness  raising  and  dissemination 

56 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  “Forging  a  climate-resilient  Europe  -  the  new  EU  Strategy  on 
Adaptation to Climate Change”, COM(2021) 82 final. 

57 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 

Committee and the Committee of the Regions “European Climate Pact”, COM/2020/788 final. 

58 Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Directive 2003/87/EC establishing 
a system for greenhouse gas emission allowance trading within the Union, Decision (EU) 2015/1814 concerning 
the establishment and operation of a market stability reserve for the Union greenhouse gas emission trading scheme 
and Regulation (EU) 2015/757. COM/2021/551. 

59 Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council concerning batteries and waste batteries, 

repealing Directive 2006/66/EC and amending Regulation (EU) No 2019/1020. COM/2020/798 final. 

60 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 

Committee and the Committee of the Regions “New EU Forest Strategy for 2030”. COM/2021/572 final. 

61 Communication from the Commission to the European Parliament, the Council, the European Economic and Social 
Committee  and  the  Committee  of  the  Regions  “Chemicals  Strategy  for  Sustainability  Towards  a  Toxic-Free 
Environment”, COM/2020/667 final. 

25 

 
 
through communication activities, such as the publicly accessible layman report and a post-
project  ‘after  LIFE  communication  plan’  outlining  activities  to  be  continued  after  a 
project’s completion.  

Evidence from aggregate project data 

Figures on aggregated projects results show the involvement of different stakeholders and 
other  awareness  raising  or  information  activities.  Given  the  absence  of  specific  targets, 
these provide an overview of the extent to which such activities occur.  
Table 4 gives an overview. 

TABLE 4: AGGREGATED PROJECT MOBILISATION AND AWARENESS RAISING BY STAKEHOLDERS 

Source: External evaluation report based on project-level key performance indicators 

Between 2014-2020, 383 projects  specifically addressed environmental  governance and 
information priorities, including operating grants to support the activities of NGOs. 

Outcomes of Case Study  

Case studies provide further insights on project-level dynamics. The involvement of key 
actors is exemplified by projects such as: 

▪  Clean  Sea  LIFE  engaged  around  170,000  people,  including  sea  users  (e.g. 
divers,  boaters,  recreational  and  professional  fishermen,  tourism  and  beach 
operators), students, teachers, associations, institutes, businesses and citizens 
in “fishing for litter” activities;  

▪  LIFE Olivares Vivos brought together local governments, research institutions 
and  all  the  actors  of  the  production  chain  of  olives  to  work  towards  the 
conservation and sustainable management of olive groves and their associated 
ecosystems.  

Capacity building and behavioural changes are embodied by projects such as: 

▪  LIFE  DoppelPlus,  where  low-income  households  were  coached  on  how  to 
minimise  costs  arising  from  apartment  heating,  cooling,  and  ventilation,  as 
well  as  how  to  optimise  water  and  electricity  management.  806  households 
benefitted from free advice and energy and climate checks. This helped to raise 
awareness,  facilitate  access  to  resources  and  empower  individuals,  while 
addressing climate mitigation issues. The initiated change in behaviour helped 
to save around 2000 kWh per year at household level.  

26 

KPI nameMeasurement unitEvidence-based scenarioForward looking scenarioNGOs4,212.004,994.79Others134,354.00159,636.81Nb. of Private entities6,166.007,306.02Nb. of Public bodies11,480.1013,619.03Surveys carried outNumber of individuals surveyed121,477.00133,211.43Professional training & EducationNumber of individuals263,448.00294,730.93Involvementofnon-governmentalorganisations(NGOs)andotherstakeholdersinproject activities 
 
▪  LIFE  FOR  DANUBE  STURGEONS,  which  targeted  fishermen  to  increase 
their acceptance and willingness (1) to avoid overfishing of sturgeons, the most 
endangered fish species globally, (2) to find alternative income sources and (3) 
to  collaborate  to  scientific  fish  monitoring  and  reporting  bycatch  using  the 
smartphone.   

▪  Canemure: Towards Carbon Neutral  Municipalities and Regions in  Finland, 
which developed a method to calculate municipalities’ climate emissions, and 
provided  training  and  capacity  building  to  the  different  municipalities. This 
method is now used throughout Finland. 

Awareness raising on environmental and climate matters exemplified by: 

▪  The work programme of Climate Action Network (CAN) Europe, which runs 
campaigns, such as “Fossil Free EU”, and initiatives to raise public awareness 
of  climate  and  environmental  issues.  The  network  has  engaged  around  50 
million citizens through its members.  

Additional case studies provide evidence of LIFE´s contribution to creating conditions for 
long-standing  collaboration  and  coordination  practices  among  actors  and  authorities  at 
various levels, increasing knowledge at all levels. The data demonstrates that: 

→  27  out  of  30  analysed  projects  improved  governance,  exemplified  by  LIFE-IP 
AdaptInGR, which enhanced structures, participation, and collaboration. It aimed 
to boost the implementation of adaptation policy across Greece by building national 
and regional capacity for coordinating, prioritising, monitoring, and mainstreaming 
of adaptation policy.  

→  23 out of 30 analysed projects built capacity and generated behavioural change. 
The  LIFE  Fit  for  REACH  project  created  changes  in  industrial  products  and/or 
processes, which resulted in a significant emissions reduction of substances of very 
high concern (SVHC) listed in the EU REACH regulation.  The  demonstrates  the 
possibility to  substitute chemicals  even  for small- and medium-sized enterprises 
(SMEs). The project also increased awareness of chemical risks in 1500 companies 
in the Baltic countries, through guidelines for the substitution, online tools targeted 
to SMEs and scientific publications addressed to experts in the field.   

→  28  out  of  30  projects  improved  awareness  on  environmental  and  climate 
matters.  For example, SOS4LIFE produced guidelines and tools for the mapping 
monitoring  of  ecosystem  services  provided  by  soils  that  were  transferred  to 
municipalities  and  local  authorities  in  Europe.  Numerous  activities  were  carried 
out to raise awareness among decision makers and local citizens about the need to 
safeguard soils (e.g., photo exhibitions, an educational kit on ecosystem functions 
of  soil  and  a  video  specifically  addressed  to  children).  The  project  influenced 
related research and is mentioned in several scientific articles and books.  

27 

 
Outcomes of stakeholder consultations  

Partnerships  between  public,  research  and  civil  society  organisations  are  particularly 
effective to address some environmental and climate issues (examples in Box 3). Survey 
respondents62  perceive  LIFE  to  be  effective  in  supporting  better  environment/climate 
governance  at  all  levels.  Similarly,  the  engagement  of  stakeholders  is  considered  to 
contribute  to  results:  70%  of  survey  respondents  confirmed  that  LIFE  generated 
behavioural changes (82% when isolating the 64 non-respondents from the sample).  

on 

operating 

The external stakeholder survey suggests that the operating grants for NGOs also support 
objective 3. According to the survey, 72% of respondents agree that LIFE mobilised civil 
society organisations and financed projects under the European Solidarity Corps to engage 
young  people  in  environmental  protection  activities.  It  must  be  emphasised  that  data 
availability 
grants’ 
contribution to objective 3 is limited, due 
their 
to 
contribution to the objective and due to the 
unavailability  of  reliable  and  relevant 
data. 

Box 3: Projects convening scientists, public 
administration, and CSOs 

The project “Boost conventional agricultures confidence: 
new organic bio stimulants to reduce water, nutrients and 
pesticide demand” (LIFE Plants for Plants) identified and 
implemented  an  innovative  solution,  at  least  in  part 
because  it  brought  together  scientists,  farmers  and 
enterprises.  The  project  was  pilot-scale  and  has  the 
potential to generate a 20% reduction in fertiliser. 

Findings from the literature review 

the  difficulty 

to  estimate 

literature 

is  ensured 

review 
the 
Findings 
support  the  contribution  to  Objective  3. 
Ferrannini et al. state: ‘A whole-of-society 
the  LIFE 
approach 
Programme  by  engaging  multiple  actors 
within  local  communities  during  the  design  and  implementation  of  each  project.  The 
success  of  Strategic  Integrated  Projects  and  Strategic  Nature  Projects  depends  on  close 
cooperation  between  national,  regional,  and  local  authorities  and  the  non-State  actors 
within countries’63. 

The  project  “Enhancing  climate  change  adaptation 
strategies  and  measures  in  the  Metropolitan  City  of 
Milan”  (LIFE  METRO  ADAPT)  created  a  long-standing 
collaboration  among  municipalities,  research  entities, 
technological enterprises and NGOs. 

from 

in 

LIFE’s capacity to mobilise relevant actors, and its importance for nature restoration, is 
also acknowledged in the Proposal for the Nature Restoration Law64. While mentioning 
the complex and varying structure and actors to manage coastal wetlands in different EU 
Member States, the proposal says: ‘Actors such as local banks and private companies (e.g., 
in tourism), nature site managers, research institutions and civil society have all, to varying 
degrees,  been  consulted,  and  sought  for  involvement  in  coastal  wetland  restoration  in 
several EU LIFE projects. This multi-actor involvement is crucial to ensure that restoration 
projects  are  well  understood  by  all  actors  concerned  by  the  marsh,  either  directly  or 
indirectly, and that these projects can receive funding from as many sources as possible.’ 

62  92%  of  survey  respondents  (295  respondents  out  of  319  replies)  consider  the  programme  effective  in  supporting 
environmental governance at all levels and 95% (N.318 out of 333 replies) consider that the engagement of the 
stakeholders has contributed to its results on the grounds. 

63  Ferrannini  A.,  Martino  R.,  Biggeri  M.,  Peiffer-Smadja  O.,  Ravet  J.  ‘The  integration  of  key  transformative  R&I 
principles in European policies. A multiple case study analysis’, European Commission, R&I Paper Series, Working 
Paper 2023/02, 2023, p. 20. 

64  Proposal  for  a  Regulation  of  the  European  Parliament  and  of  the  Council  on  nature  restoration.  COM(2022)304. 

SWD(2022)168. 

28 

 
  
 
The  mutually  beneficial,  public-private-partnerships  are  considered  useful  to  mobilise 
funding for restoration projects – including from the private sector.  

Contribution of the non-grant activities  

LIFE  finances  several  awareness  raising  initiatives,  such  as  communication  campaigns 
(e.g.  the  single-use  plastics  campaign,  EU  biodiversity  campaign,  Generation Awake), 
stakeholders  groups 
(e.g.,  Environmental  Technology  Verification  Stakeholder 
Conferences,  Eco-Innovation  Forum,  Workshops  for  ship  recyclers,  Business  and 
Biodiversity Platforms) and prizes (e.g., European Green Capital Awards, European Green 
Leaf Award, European Business Award). Moreover, the “capacity to act” of various actors 
is  supported through guidance  and tools  developed for industrial  sectors  and individual 
enterprises, enabling compliance with legislation on chemicals, plastics, waste, air quality, 
greenhouse gas emissions and nature protection, among others. 

Conclusions 

Overall, the LIFE Programme has supported to some extent better governance at all levels, 
by improving involvement of civil society, NGOs, and local actors. The Programme has 
facilitated  active  collaboration  among  key  stakeholders  and  closer  cooperation  between 
national, regional, and local authorities, leading to long-term coordination and cooperation 
beyond  project  implementation.  It  has  also  empowered  key  actors  through  training, 
guidance, and tool development, enhancing their capabilities and overcoming opposition 
to ensure project results and their sustainability. The Programme has achieved its targets 
for  most  indicators  related  to  environmental  and  climate  governance. The  three  targets 
which  were  not  achieved  concern  complementary  funding  mobilised  by  integrated 
projects. This  was  not  always  more  than  the  total  value  of  the  budget  of  the  integrated 
projects as formulated under the targets, but it was at least 80%. The case studies offer 
various examples of successful project outcomes, such as improved capacity, behavioural 
changes,  and  increased  awareness  on  environmental  and  climate  matters.  Stakeholder 
consultations and literature review confirm the positive dynamics. The Programme’s non-
grant activities have also contributed to awareness-raising, communication campaigns, and 
guidance development, contributing to improved environmental and climate governance. 

How has LIFE acted as a catalyst for, and promoted the integration and mainstreaming 
of  environmental  and  climate  objectives  into  other  Union  policies,  as  well  as  within 
public and private sector's capacity? (Objective 4)  

The LIFE Programme has acted as a catalyst by: 

(1) catalysing  environmental  and  climate  objectives  into  private  and  public 
action,  by  financing  innovation  and  best  practices  and  ensuring  replicability  of 
project results.  

(2) catalysing investments for environmental and climate objectives, specifically 
though  co-financing  of  projects,  coordination  of  a  wider  range  of  activities  and 
financing through integrated projects as well as through the financial instruments.  

(3) support the mainstreaming of environmental and climate objectives across EU 

policies, specifically through financing of preparatory studies.  

29 

 
LIFE reached most targets initially set for this objective under the performance indicators. 
Targets were missed for only 4 out of 15 indicators, but three of those still achieved over 
80% of the target (see Annex VI, Table 15 for more details). 

(1) The evaluation shows that LIFE has structures in place to act as a catalyst for the 
integration and mainstreaming of environmental and climate objectives into other 
Union policies and public and private sector practice. LIFE promoted the integration 
of  environmental  and  climate  objectives  into  private  sector  practices.  LIFE  traditional 
projects are selected for their innovation potential, best practices, as well as the replication 
potential.  Upon  completion,  all  projects  are  required  to  produce  After-LIFE  Plans 
detailing achievements, transferable results, and a strategy for ongoing dissemination of 
results. Among the 30 projects analysed for case studies, 21 projects developed or tested 
solutions. Examples can be found in Annex VIII.  

Evidence  of  replicability  and  transferability  of  LIFE  projects  is  demonstrated  by  their 
inclusion  in  platforms  designed  to  share  data  and  information  on  high-potential  and 
effective solutions. Examples include: 

- 

Innovation  Radar  Platform  showcases  cutting-edge  EU-funded  innovations  by 
leading researchers and innovators. Among these, 204 LIFE projects are featured: 
71 are market-ready, 55 are business-ready, 49 are technology-ready, and 29 are in 
an exploratory stage. 

-  Climate-ADAPT  offers  data  and  information  on  research,  innovation  projects, 
tools, and practices to support Europe's climate change adaptation. It features 147 
LIFE  projects,  comprising  31%  of  its  total  projects,  alongside  those  funded  by 
Horizon, ERDF, national sources, and Copernicus. 

Integrated projects can also have a pilot character for the implementation of EU plans. The 
LIFE-IP MALOPOLSKA project contributed significantly to improve air quality in one of 
the most  polluted EU regions. Similar solutions are  currently implemented in  Hungary, 
Bulgaria, and Slovakia tough integrated projects. 

The  stakeholder  survey65  underlines  LIFE’s  role  to  catalyse  the  integration  and 
mainstreaming of environmental and climate objectives into broader policy frameworks 
and practices. 74% of respondents consider the Programme effective in this aspect.  

The specific case study on the catalytic effect (case study 5) shows that all five projects 
pursue a catalytic effect though the replication and transfer of project results, such as:  

▪  Better Life for Lesser Kestrel in North-eastern Greece developed sustainable 
this  falcon  species  and 
agriculture  management  practices  respecting 
exchanged  knowledge  and  experience  with  other  EU  countries  and  LIFE 
projects. There is further replication in the Balkans.  

▪  LIFE YEAST developed a new extraction methodology to convert brewers’ 
spent  yeast  into  raw  materials  for  various  industrial  applications.  Initially 
refined on a small scale, the process was validated, scaled to semi-industrial 
level, and replicated in AB InBev breweries globally.  

65 LIFE External Report, pp. 54. 

30 

 
 
(2) LIFE also played a role in  catalysing investments for environmental and climate 
objectives  through  the  required  co-financing  for  projects,  the  coordinating  role  of  the 
integrated projects, as well as financial instruments (PF4EE and NCFF). 

The  mobilisation  and  coordination  of  other  funds  required  for  integrated  projects 
contributes  to  the  financial  dimension  of  the  catalytic  effect66.  Of  the  70  integrated 
projects financed, 54 received complementary funding from the ERDF (including 8 from 
Interreg programmes), 36 from the EARDF, 21 from the research programme, 13 from the 
Cohesion Fund, , and projects from the ESF and EMFF. LIFE projects coordinated EUR 
34.3 billion, ten times its budget. Although it is difficult to evaluate whether the funding 
could have been mobilised without the Programme, LIFE projects played a useful role in 
coordinating funding. Since LIFE funding comes first, it is assumed that the Programme’s 
coordinating role creates a leveraging effect for coordinated funding.  

The specific case study on the catalytic effect (case study 5) also exemplifies how two 
integrated projects leverage additional funding: 

▪  LIFE  Finland  Carbon  Neutral  IP  ensured  replication  of  project  results  by 
providing  methodologies  such  as  calculating  the  municipalities’  climate 
emissions to every municipality in Finland.  

▪  The Belgian Nature Integrated Project (BNIP) involved 28 stakeholders and 
covers  the  entire  Belgium  territory  to  support  18  specific  conservation 
activities. The project increased the involvement of administrations (Flemish, 
Walloon  and  federal  governments),  strengthened  participation,  empowered 
stakeholders, and built bridges between various EU funding programmes and 
national resources. The project facilitates the coordinated use of €203 million 
of  complementary  funding  from  the  European  Agricultural  Fund  for  Rural 
Development (EAFRD), the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF), 
and national and private funds, as applicable. 

Contribution of the non-grant activities  

 mainstream  climate 
(3)  The procurement activities were specifically important to 
and environmental objectives across EU policies. Studies supported the development of 
Commission-wide methodologies for tracking climate and biodiversity expenditures. The 
following studies were financed with LIFE funds: “Biodiversity financing and tracking”, 
“the  meta-review  of  CAP  mainstreaming”,  “Mainstreaming  climate  change  into  CSF-
Funds 2014-2020” or “Scoping study on climate mainstreaming in the programming of EU 
policies”.  

Conclusions 

While it is difficult to quantify the catalytic effect, the selection criteria for LIFE projects 
ensure the support for innovation, replication potential and general pilot character of LIFE 
projects. Evidence from project data, case studies, literature and stakeholder consultations 
illustrate the different dimensions of that the catalytic effect can have. Furthermore, the 
LIFE  Programme  leverages  additional  funding  and  through  studies,  the  ground  was 

66 Cfr. P. Harju-Autti, M. Sahla, E. Rinta-Kanto, ‘Life Integrated Projects – What did we learn? Assessment of EU Life 

integrated projects 2014-20’, 2022. 

31 

 
 
prepared for the mainstreaming of environmental and climate objectives across several EU 
policies. 

How  has  LIFE  contributed  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 (Objective 1)? 

Evaluating Objective 1 is more complex because this objective is pursued through several 
activities  and  functions;  it  requires  assessment  of  results  measured  by  KPIs,  and  the 
identification of long-term impacts. In this context, the LIFE Programme’s three building 
blocks (direction, people, solutions) are crucial.  

Outputs and results contributing to objective 1  

The previous sections demonstrated that LIFE met most of its targets for the performance 
indicators  (output),  and  that  its  projects  yield  considerable  environmental  net  benefits 
(results)  –  specifically  compared  to  its  limited  budget.  Tables  2  and  3  summarise  the 
aggregated benefits of completed or advanced-phase projects based on KPIs, contributing 
to Objective 1. With 57.6% of projects still ongoing, the actual benefits of LIFE 2014-2020 
are  expected  to  be  even  higher.  KPIs  show  that  the  projects  collectively  reduce  CO2 
emissions, lower air pollution, enhance biodiversity, and more. Importantly, the benefits of 
LIFE  extend  beyond  project  results,  as  the  Programme  has  the  potential  to  support 
transformational change beyond project results.  

Transformative changes  

As outlined in section 2.1.2, the LIFE Programme drives transformation through three key 
pathways (building blocks: direction, people, solutions): (1) direction: support policies and 
legislation through pioneering projects that inspire legislation and the implementation of 
European  environmental  and  climate  legislation  and  policies,  (2)  people:  engage  and 
mobilise project stakeholders and generate behavioural changes and raise pubic awareness, 
and  (3)  solutions:  facilitate  the  application  of  environmental  solutions  into  public  and 
private  sector  practices  through  innovation,  close-to-market  processes,  integrated 
approaches  and  knowledge  enhancement. To  better  demonstrate  how  the  three  building 
blocks can drive transformation, two objectives of the Europe 2020 strategy will be used 
to analyse LIFE contributions. After all, the 2014-2020 LIFE Programme was conceived 
in a political context around the 2020 strategy and should contribute to its objectives. The 
analysis of the following two objectives is supported by evidence from a literature review, 
survey results, and case studies: 

(1) a resource-efficient, low-carbon, and climate-resilient economy, and  

(2) the protection and enhancement of environmental quality, including initiatives to 
halt and reverse biodiversity loss.   

(1) Support  to  the  transformative  change  towards  a  resource-efficient,  low-carbon, 

and climate-resilient economy  

83%  of  survey  respondents  agree  that  LIFE  has  successfully  contributed  to  the  shift 
towards  a  resource-efficient,  low-carbon,  and  climate-resilient  economy67.  Moreover, 

67 Only respondents who answered the question are considered, excluding blanks and “I do not know” answers. 

32 

 
 
according  to  the  European  Commission’s  Report  on  Critical  Raw  Materials  and  the 
Circular Economy68, the LIFE Programme has  contributed to  sustainable  use, recovery, 
and recycling of raw materials, by funding a cluster of projects dealing with Critical Raw 
Materials (CRM) such as indium, platinum group metals and magnesium.  

Examples  of  projects  include  the  Critical  Raw  Material  Closed  Loop  Recovery  which 
demonstrates viable methods to enhance the recovery of target CRMs from waste electrical 
and electronic equipment through trials in Italy, Germany, the UK, and the Czech Republic. 
The LIFE RECUMETAL project has shown the recycling of flat panel displays to recover 
plastics, indium, and yttrium for reuse in new applications. 

Case study 2 on “LIFE contribution to resource efficiency, climate change adaptation & 
mitigation”  provides  valuable  insights  into  project-level  dynamics  contributing  to  a 
resource-efficient, low-carbon, and climate-resilient economy across the building blocks: 

1)  Direction: The LIFE Programme has supported the definition and implementation 
of national and regional adaptation strategies and action plans in line with the EU 
Adaptation Strategy that sets out how the European Union could become climate 
resilient by 2050.   

2)  People: Initiatives like  LIFE CLIMARK established a local market for 'climatic 
credits' to promote multifunctional forest management in rural areas experiencing 
declining populations.  

3)  Solutions: Innovative forestry practices in LIFE CLIMARK are assessed for their 
impact on carbon sink capacity and overall ecosystem health. Other innovations 
focus  on  emissions  reduction,  such  as  the  introduction  of  a  distributed  street 
lighting dimming system (demonstrated by LIFE Diademe) and the development 
of new refrigeration technology to reduce Global Warming Potential (GWP)69 to 1, 
demonstrated by LIFE C4R. 

(2) Support to the transformative change towards the protection and enhancement of 

environmental quality 

93% of survey respondents affirmed that the LIFE Programme effectively contributes both 
to  enhancing  and  safeguarding  environmental  quality,  as  well  as  halting  and  reversing 
biodiversity decline. Specifically focusing on nature and biodiversity, 73% of respondents 
to the survey strongly agreed or agreed that the LIFE Programme has been successful in 
meeting its objectives.  

A  majority  of  respondents  from  NGOs  (82%)  and  Member  State  authorities  (81%) 
expressed  a  positive  stance.  Excluding  blank  or  ‘I  do  not  know’  responses,  91%  of 
respondents indicated Nature and Biodiversity is the most effective priority area within the 
LIFE Programme. 

United Nations Environmental Programme (UNEP) found that, LIFE was a major funder 
of  restoration  projects:  €1.247  billion  was  committed  to  412  marine,  freshwater,  and 

68 European Commission, “Report on Critical Raw Materials and the Circular Economy”, SWD(2018) 36, part 2/3. 
69 GWP is a measure of how much heat a greenhouse gas traps in the atmosphere over a specific time period, compared 
to carbon dioxide (CO2), which has a GWP of 1. Reducing GWP to 1 means the new technology has the same 
impact on global warming as CO2, significantly lowering its environmental impact compared to gases with higher 
GWPs.  For  further  readings,  see  the  European  Commission’s  explanation  on  GWP:  European  Commission  - 
Climate Action. 

33 

 
 
terrestrial European ecosystem restoration projects. It funded 76% of the projects analysed 
and represented 48% of all restoration funding in Europe70. 

The Nature & Biodiversity sub-programme's effectiveness is substantiated by the evidence 
in  Case Study 1 on "LIFE's  contribution  to the implementation and management of the 
Natura 2000 network", supported by recurring building blocks: 

▪  Direction: GrassLIFE increased Latvian farmers’ capacity to manage and restore 
Natura  2000  grassland  habitats  via  training  and  demonstration.  This  helped 
improve the capacity to plan the Natura 2000 expansion with the elaboration of the 
first grassland connectivity model for Latvia. The model offers Natura 2000 site 
habitats connectivity information that can be used in setting up new sites. 

▪  People: In Natura 2000 sites, crucial stakeholder engagement is highlighted. The 
Intermares project used a participatory approach including fisherman and touristic 
stakeholders for the definition of the management plans and the establishment of 
protection measures in protected marine sites.  

▪  Solutions: Examples include the implementation of sustainable management and 
conservation action plans, the Fire Protection Plan for the Cedar Forest in LIFE-
KEDROS, and the development of Latvia's first grassland connectivity model as 
part of GrassLIFE. 

Conclusions 

Establishing a direct causal link between the LIFE Programme's activities and their impacts 
poses challenges. However, LIFE played an important role in producing positive effects 
on the environment, circular economy, climate mitigation, climate adaptation, nature, and 
biodiversity. Key achievements directly contributing to the Europe 2020 strategy include 
reductions in CO2 emissions, waste reduction, reduced primary energy consumption, and 
improvements in resource efficiency and the circular economy.  

Similarly,  evidence  shows  the  Programme's  involvement  in  expanding  the  Natura  2000 
network,  enhancing  the  conservation  status  of  ecosystems  and  habitats,  and  exploring 
solutions for challenges posed by climate change, notably reducing air emissions and water 
pollution.  These  outcomes  underscore  the  Programme's  role  in  promoting  sustainable 
development and environmental stewardship beyond project scale. 

4.1.2.   Was the LIFE Programme efficient? 

This section encompasses: (1) an evaluation of the Programme's costs, compared to those 
of other programmes, (2) an  estimation  of the Programme's benefits,  (3)  a comparative 
analysis of its costs and benefits, and (4) an analysis of its management efficiency.  

Programme costs 

LIFE costs were evaluated in an external study. Costs of management were based on the 
management  of  grants  and  financial  instruments,  which  represent  together  87%  of  the 
overall Programme budget. Details of cost estimations can be found in Annex IV.  

70 UNEP-WCMC, FFI and ELP (2020). Funding Ecosystem Restoration in Europe: A summary of funding trends and 

recommendations to inform practitioners, policymakers and funders. 

34 

 
 
TABLE 5: OVERALL MANAGEMENT COSTS OF THE LIFE PROGRAMME (EUR MILLION) 

LIFE  

2014 

3,28 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Total 

5,74 

8,91 

11,46 

14,24 

18,66 

18,16 

80,46 

Source: External study elaborations based on EASME AARs 2014-2020 

An overall amount of EUR 80.5 million was necessary for running and implementing the 
action and operating grants between 2014 and 2020. This represents 3.2% of the overall 
amount of 2.5 billion EUR allocated to EASME for LIFE71. 

Comparison between different programmes 

A comparative analysis of grant management costs for various programmes administered 
by EASME is presented in Table 6. These costs encompass expenditures on external staff 
employed to assist in project monitoring and evaluation. 

TABLE 6: LIFE MANAGEMENT COSTS COMPARED TO OTHER PROGRAMMES MANAGED BY EASME AS A SHARE 
ON THE TOTAL COMMITMENTS DELEGATED TO EASME 

EUR 
million 

2014 

1.4% 

LIFE 
COSME  7.3% 
3.1% 

H2020 

2015 

2.2% 

8.2% 

3.6% 

EMFF 

2.6% 

5.0% 

2016 

3.2% 

6.9% 

3.4% 

7.5% 

2017 

3.7% 

8.1% 

3.8% 

8.0% 

2018 

3.3% 

8.4% 

3.6% 

7.6% 

2019 

4.0% 

8.5% 

3.9% 

7.8% 

2020 

3.8% 

8.9% 

3.7% 

7.4% 

Total 

3.3% 

8.1% 

3.6% 

6.6% 

Source: External evaluation study’s elaboration  

Over the 7-year period, managing grants under LIFE costs slightly less than under Horizon 
2020 and significantly less than under other funding programmes. 

Monetised Programme benefits 

To give an overall idea of the benefits achieved by the Programme, some of the project 
environmental net improvements (based on KPIs) have been monetised. In order to ensure 
that  benefits  can  be  clearly  associated  to  LIFE,  integrated  projects  were  excluded  from 
monetisation, as it is not possible to differentiate between benefits created by LIFE funding 
and other co-financing sources. The monetary value could only be identified for a very 
limited selection of indicators, due to a lack of an internationally agreed methodology (e.g., 
improvements  in  the  conservation  status  of  species,  in  the  quality  of  waters,  in  the 
awareness  raising  or  in  environment  or  climate  governance).  For  other  indicators  (e.g., 
waste  management,  noise  reduction,  chemical  substitution,  and  soil  remediation),  a 
monetisation  was  not  possible  due  to  proportionality  reasons  and/or  because  reliable 
estimates  would  have  required  data  at  a  granularity  level  not  available  (e.g.,  chemical 
substances  replaced  and  related  substitutes).  The  monetised  benefits  cover  thus  only  a 
small  part  of  benefits  of  the  Programme  and  only  the  benefits  of  projects  which  were 
completed or in an advanced phase.  

The benefits for the following indicators can be monetised using internationally recognised 
methodologies:  air  quality,  water  savings,  CO2  reduction,  energy  savings,  and  habitat 
restoration. Detailed methodology and reference values are provided in Annex IV. 

71 To be noted that cost for managing ongoing projects after 2020 are not included in the calculation. 

35 

 
 
 
Based on limited estimations, projects supported by LIFE generated monetised benefits of 
6.8 billion. A large part of the benefits accrues from habitat restoration, improvements in 
air quality and CO2 reduction. Actual benefits can be considered much higher.   

TABLE 7: QUANTIFICATION OF THE BENEFITS OF THE PROGRAMME 

Indicator 

Quantification 

Air 
emissions 
(KPI 6.1) 

Water saved  
(KPI 2.3.5.2) 

CO2-
equivalent 
reduction 
(KPI 8.1.1 and 
8.1.2) 

Indirect 
CO2-
equivalent 
reduction 
(from reduced 
energy 
consumption, 
KPI 4.1.1) 

Natura 2000 
habitats       
(KPI 7.3) 

- The KPI database allows for an aggregation of values for 
CO, NO2/NOX, and VOC. Specifically, the air benefits 
stemming from LIFE in the evidence-based scenario are: 
42.44 ton of CO, 152,466.20 tonnes of NO2/NOX, and 31.15 
tonnes of VOC 
- LIFE contributed to waster savings is generated thanks to the 
use of treated wastewater or other measures to reduce pressure 
on surface and groundwaters. 
- The water saving benefit stemming from the LIFE 
Programme in evidence-based scenario is:  
21.35 million of m3. 

- LIFE KPI database allows for an aggregation of values for 
CO2, CH4 and N2O. Specifically, the GHG reduction benefit 
stemming from LIFE in the evidence-based scenario is: 
11,304,203,75 tons of CO2, 1,878.47 tons of CH4, and 67.62 
tons of N2O 
- According to the aggregation of KPI values related to 
primary energy consumption, the primary energy consumption 
reduction stemming from LIFE in the evidence-based scenario 
is: 3,532,210 MWh 
- By applying an emission factor of 0.228 (kg CO₂e/kWh)72 
that convert kilowatt-hours into avoided units of carbon 
dioxide-equivalent emissions 
- The reduction of CO2-e indirectly generated thanks to 
reduced energy consumption in the evidence-based scenario 
is: 784,815,587.64 kg CO₂ 
- According to aggregated KPI values, the benefit of 
conserving Natura 2000 habitats stemming from LIFE in the 
evidence-based scenario is 16,877.93 km2 

Total  

- Evidence-based scenario: EUR 6.8 billion 

Value 

Evidence-based 
estimate: 
EUR 2.7 billion 

First method, evidence-
based estimate:    
EUR 32 million  
Second method, 
evidence-based 
estimate:    
EUR 12 million 
Evidence-based 
estimate: 
EUR 1.1 billion 

Evidence-based 
estimate: 
EUR 74 million  

Evidence-based 
scenario: 
EUR 2.9 billion 

The monetised benefits produced by a limited part of the projects amount to the double of 
the total budget allocated to the Programme (EUR 3.46 billion). 

270  LIFE  projects  have  been  considered  for  the  calculation  of  these  benefits  with  total 
costs  amounting  to  580  million  EUR.  Additionally,  the  costs  for  the  preparation  of 
successful and unsuccessful applicants can be estimated at 32.4 million EUR73. Therefore, 
estimated  benefits  of  the  270  projects  (EUR  6.8  billion)  significantly  outweigh  total 
estimated costs (EUR 612.4 million, about 55% stemming from LIFE), providing further 
evidence on the value of LIFE.  

Administrative burden and error rate  

The external study underlined that evidence collected from interviews (especially with the 
monitors) and from the document analysis shows that the LIFE Programme has performed 

72 See here for more EEA data.  
73 For the details, please see Annex IV.  

36 

 
 
 
 
 
 
better  than  other  programmes  in  terms  of  error  rate.  In  2020,  this  indicator  is  close  to 
0.37%74, below EMFF (0.72%) as well as Horizon 2020 and COSME (both exceeding the 
threshold of 2%)75. 

Based  on  the  survey  results,  between  57%  and  82%  of  respondents  consider  the 
administrative procedures of LIFE “very efficient” or “moderately efficient”, depending 
on  the  stage  (application,  evaluation,  implementation,  and  reporting),  with  the 
implementation  being  considered  most  efficient,  while  the  application  process  is 
considered  least  efficient76.    Over  90%  of  those  who  answered  the  question  had  prior 
experience with LIFE calls, either as beneficiaries or (non-successful) applicants, and thus 
had first-hand knowledge of the procedures.  

Despite overall positive feedback, respondents considered that the application phase, the 
evaluation process, and the KPIs could be simplified: 

•  Application Phase: A significant number of respondents highlighted the need for 
simplifying the application phase. They raised concerns about the complexity of 
the application form and the extensive information and data required, which could 
potentially discourage first-time applicants. 

•  Evaluation Process: More demanding award criteria in the 2014-2020 programme 
period  led  to  a  decrease  in  submitted  projects.  To  attract  more  beneficiaries  by 
simplifying  the  application  process,  a  two-step  approach  was  introduced  for 
traditional projects in 2018. This involved submitting a concept note first, followed 
by a full proposal for selected applicants based on the best concept notes. While it 
increased application numbers, it had limited impact on proposal quality, resulting 
in  more  non-financed  proposals.  Many  survey  respondents  considered  the 
evaluation process too long. Figure 8 shows the amount of proposals that could not 
be financed especially in Nature and Biodiversity and Environmental Governance 
and Information. 

74 This indicator assesses the legality and regularity of transactions. A 0.37% rate means that out of every EUR 100 
invested in LIFE, EUR 0.37 is misspent, while EUR 99.63 is spent correctly. It is calculated from ex-post audits 
conducted internally and by the Court of Auditors. 

75 EASME, 2020. Annual Activity Report 2020. 
76 For more details, please see Figure 14 in Annex V. 

37 

 
 
FIGURE 8: NUMBER AND TOTAL AMOUNT OF PROPOSALS THAT COULD NOT BE 
FINANCED (LIFE TRADITIONAL PROJECTS 2014-2020) 

•  KPIs: The KPI reporting was considered disproportionate by 35% of respondents. 
Respondents indicated that KPIs become complicated and difficult to handle during 
implementation  and  at  project  completion.  They  are  considered  too  technically 
complex, not user-friendly, and not fully capturing the range of benefits of LIFE 
projects.  

Unequal participation of Member States  

Thanks  to  the  rather  general  calls  for  proposals  for  traditional  projects  and  the  direct 
competition between applicants from different Member States, a large variety of projects 
can be financed. This offers the possibility to finance solution well adapted to the regional 
or local conditions. Nevertheless, programme uptake largely depends on the initiative of 
possible applicants to submit proposals.  

Although LIFE does not have the vocation to ensure a proportional distribution of funds 
among Member States, the unbalanced distribution of funds represents a clear limitation 
of  the  Programme’s  efficiency  and  has  been  addressed  with  several  measures  analysed 
below. Experience shows that the number of proposals submitted plays a key role in the 
award of projects and that the active role of the National Contact Points (NCPs) is also a 
key factor for the country success.   

Several measures have been put in place to support less successful countries: 

1)  Indicative  national  allocations  for  traditional  projects  within  the  nature  and 
biodiversity and environment and resource efficiency priority areas were introduced 
in 2007 but phased out between 2017 and 2020. These allocations proved ineffective 
in engaging less active countries and failed to achieve a more equitable distribution 
of  projects  across  the  EU.  Additionally,  they  had  a  counterproductive  effect  on 

38 

 
 
smaller Member States by discouraging proposal submissions due to limited funding 
opportunities. 

•  Considering  the  data  from  2014  to  2017,  when  national  allocations  were  in 
place, 15 countries did not reach their indicative national allocations because 
applicants from these countries did not submit enough proposals. This confirms 
that the unbalanced distribution of funds is linked to a limited participation and 
not only to a lack of success. The limited participation can be attributed to a 
range of factors, e.g., the lack of interest or policy prioritisation, difficulties in 
finding co-financing and/or the existence of other more advantageous and/or 
ease  of  access  (implying  less  competition/less  requirements  or  simpler 
administrative  procedures)  for  sources  of  financing  other  than  LIFE  at 
national/regional/local level. 

•  The  phasing  out  from  the  system  of  national  allocations  registered  mixed 
results: Among the countries that were not reaching their national allocations, 
10 countries experienced an increase in the awarded amount and 5 countries 
registered a decrease. Among the countries that exceeding national allocations, 
10 (including IT and ES) registered a decrease in the awarded amount and three 
registered an increase. 

2)  Capacity building projects were introduced in 2014 to support national authorities 
of those Member States with a lower uptake of projects. During the first MAWP 14 
countries received such support, while under the second MAWP, only two capacity 
building  projects  could  be  financed  based  on  very  restrictive  eligibility  criteria 
indicated in the Regulation. Looking at the impact on the awarding of the traditional 
projects,  results  are  mixed:  beneficiary  countries  registered  an  increase  in  their 
participation rate (9 countries out of 14) but only one country registered an increase 
in the award rate. Building on this experience, the eligibility criteria for countries 
that can apply for capacity building projects are no longer indicated in the Regulation 
of the LIFE Programme 2021-2027 but have to be defined by the Multiannual Work 
Programmes.  This allows for more flexibility in adjusting the criteria that define the 
eligibility for capacity building projects. This has proved to be useful under the LIFE 
Programme 2021-2027. 

3)  Indicative allocations for integrated projects per country were introduced in 2014 
together with this type of projects. Results are satisfactory: 24 countries have been 
awarded  with  strategic  integrated  projects,  including  15  of  the  less  successful 
countries, although three countries did not submit any proposal.  

Conclusion 

The analysis highlights both positive aspects and shortcomings. Even with the significant 
underestimation of monetised benefits due to a lack of agreed methodology and a limitation 
to less than half of the funded projects and traditional project, LIFE demonstrated cost-
efficiency,  significant  monetised  benefits,  and  good  performance  in  terms  of  error  rate. 
However,  challenges  related  to  application  complexity,  KPIs,  evaluation  duration,  and 
unequal  distribution  of  funds  across  Member  States  indicate  areas  for  improvement,  to 
reduce administrative burden. Even though LIFE projects are not equally distributed across 
Member  States,  the  effectiveness  of  LIFE  does  not  hinge  on  an  equal  distribution  but 

39 

 
derives from its focus on supporting exemplary projects and offering funding to applicants 
that want to implement local solutions.  

4.1.3 Was the intervention of the Programme coherent?  

The  internal  coherence  of  LIFE  is  evident  in  how  its  various  funded  activities 
complement  each  other.  Traditional  projects  emphasize  innovation,  best  practices,  and 
awareness-raising,  while  integrated  projects  focus  on  implementing  and  applying  EU 
environmental  and  climate  regulations.  Financial  instruments  support  these  efforts  by 
mobilising  private  investments  to  expand  successful  project  results.  Together,  these 
different  types  of  interventions  target  specific  aspects  of  the  programme's  four  main 
objectives, fostering transformative changes. 

Additionally,  many  LIFE  projects  pursue 
integrated  approaches  and  contribute 
simultaneously to multiple thematic objectives. While beneficiaries are obliged to report 
on  the  main  thematic  objective  of  a  project,  they  can  voluntarily  report  whether  their 
project  contributes  to  additional  areas.  Besides  the  77  projects,  focusing  primarily  on 
water, 43 other projects reported contributions to improving water quality and efficiency 
as secondary objective. 168 projects reported “enhancing resource efficiency” as primary 
objective, while additional 127 reported to address this as secondary objective. Projects 
with climate mitigation as a secondary objective almost tripled those with it as the primary 
objective  (90  projects).  Many  projects  cite  "governance,  information,  and  awareness-
raising" as secondary objectives, illustrating their frequent recurrence in LIFE projects and 
their simultaneous contribution to multiple goals. This holistic approach, where thematic 
areas  reinforce  each  other,  is  promoted  through  bonus  rewards  for  projects  that 
demonstrate significant synergies during or after implementation. 

LIFE is likewise externally coherent, bridging the gap in EU funding between research 
and  large-scale  deployment  while  complementing  national  programmes.  Horizon  2020 
supports fundamental research and innovation, and LIFE synergistically translates these 
research results into practical applications, ready for large-scale implementation through 
structural funds or the European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF). To promote this 
integration, LIFE offers a bonus for proposals incorporating findings from Horizon 2020 
or earlier Framework Programmes. This incentive has resulted in significant synergy, with 
over a third (39%, 371 projects) of LIFE projects integrating EU research, amounting to 
EUR  1.236  billion  in  project  costs.  Figure  9  shows  the  distribution  of  these  projects 
benefiting from the research bonus across various strands. 

40 

 
 
FIGURE 9: SHARE OF PROJECTS INCORPORATING RESULTS OF PREVIOUSLY FUNDED RESEARCH 

Source: European Commission, CINEA data on 2014-2020 projects 
Even if there can be some overlaps as Horizon 2020 can also finance innovation actions, 
demonstration cases and pilots, LIFE focuses more on place-based piloting and solution-
based demonstration. In general, synergies are created as shown by the analysis of LIFE 
funded projects that received a bonus for uptake building on Horizon results.  

Significant parts of the successive research programmes focused on fundamental research 
which does not systematically generate immediate practical applications. LIFE facilitated 
putting the results of fundamental research into practice. In this way the two programmes 
interact  and  allow  the  development  of  a  pipeline  of  projects  and  testing  of  innovative 
technologies.  According  to  interviewees,  LIFE  projects  typically  start  at  Technology 
Readiness Level77 6, which is when a technology is demonstrated in a relevant environment 
(industrially relevant environment in the case of key enabling technologies). Projects that 
stem from scaling up previous initiatives and that incorporate scientific insights tend to 
achieve greater success, with knowledge derived from a project using knowledge further 
developed in a new project. 

Specific examples of synergies include: 

-  LIFE  SMART  builds  on  Torrefaction  technology  developed  by  ArcelorMittal 
Belgium, advancing from Horizon 2020 projects Torero and Steelanol. It integrates 
renewable  energies  (biomass  and  waste)  in  the  steelmaking  sector,  aiming  to 
demonstrate economic feasibility at a demonstration scale and reach the final stage 
before commercialisation by project completion. 

-  Lambro  vivo  targeted  improved  water  quality  in  a  severely  affected  river  post-
ecological  disaster,  stemming  from  sewage  network  failures  and  illegal  pollutant 
discharges.  It  deployed  filter  ecosystems,  including  water  phyto-purification 
techniques.  This  system  was  integrated  into  MULTISOURCE,  a  Horizon  2020 
initiative focused on showcasing enhanced natural treatment approaches for various 
urban water sources. 

Representatives  of  the  NCPs  mentioned  that  they  have  developed  dialogue  with  the 
national contact point for the HORIZON 2020 programme to promote synergies between 
the LIFE Programmes mentioned specific projects, such as the project RE.LIFE and the 
project BIODAPH. The external study conducted a comprehensive examination of various 

77 The Technology Readiness Level is a method used to measure the maturity level of a technology.    

41 

 
 
 
 
programming  documents78  to  investigate  synergies  and  complementarities  with  the 
structural funds. Almost all Partnership Agreements (PAs) (21 out of 23 examined, shown 
in Table 8) refer to complementarities of ESIF instruments with LIFE.  

Based on programming documents, the external study concludes that while the ERDF and 
the EAFRD focused to a significant extent on major investments with benefits for smart, 
sustainable  and 
inclusive  growth,  LIFE  focused  on  management  approaches, 
environmental  restoration  (especially  for  nature  and  ecosystems)  and  demonstration  of 
new solutions for environment and climate problems (acting as a “gap filler”). 

LIFE  projects  supported  the  objectives  of  interventions  financed  by  national/regional 
operational  programmes  under  ERDF  and  by  national/rural  development  programmes 
under  EAFRD,  while  avoiding  overlaps  and  reinforcing  synergies.  For  example,  in  the 
Czech  Republic,  LIFE  was  expected  to  provide  financing  for  several  activities 
complementary to specific objectives of the Operational Programme for Environment. The 
ERDF has been complementary to LIFE acting as a source of follow-up funding after LIFE 
projects have come to an end.  

TABLE 8: REPORTING LIFE CONTRIBUTIONS BY MS IN THE PAS AND IN THE 2019 EIR 

        Source: External study 

78 23 Partnership Agreements on the European Structural and Investment Funds and 84 regional and national Operational 
Programmes funded from ESIF (33 Rural Development Programmes funded from the European Agricultural Fund 
for Rural Development (EAFRD), 20 National Operational Programmes funded from the European Maritime and 
Fisheries  Fund  (EMFF),  and  31  National  and  Regional  Operational  Programmes  funded  from  the  European 
Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and the European Social Fund (ESF). 

42 

AustriaPAEIRBelgiumEIREIRPABOTHEIRBulgariaEIRCroatiaEIREIRCyprusEIREIRCzech PAEIRPAPADenmarkPAPAPABOTHPAEstoniaEIRFinlandEIRFranceBOTHEIREIREIRBOTHPAEIREIREIRGermanyBOTHGreeceEIREIREIRungaryPAIrelandEIREIREIREIRItalyPAPAEIREIRBOTHBOTHBOTHEIRLatviaEIRLithuaniaBOTHPALuxembourgEIREIREIRMaltaEIRPAPANetherlandsEIREIRPolandEIRPAPortugalBOTHEIRRomaniaBOTHEIRSlovakiaEIREIRSloveniaEIRSpainEIRBOTHSwedenEIRUnited PAPA 2014-2020 Partnership Agreements (PAs)= orange; 2019 Environmental Implementation Review (EIRs) = blue; PAs + EIRs= greenNature and biodiversityEnvironmental governance and informationCC MitigationCC adaptationCC gov. and informationOtherWaterWasteResource efficiencyEnvt. And healthAir quality and emissions 
   
 
The  Regional  Rural  Development  Programme  in  Andalucia  refers  explicitly  to  the 
synergies between the objective of EAFRD on “promotion of carbon sequestration in the 
agricultural and forestry sectors” with the LIFE project “Dehesa ecosystems: development 
of  policies  and  tools  for  the  management  and  conservation  of  biodiversity  (LIFE 
bioDEHESA  project).  In  the  Czech  Republic,  the  LIFE  team  of  the  Butterflies  project 
developed  and  proposed  a  new  agri-environmental  measure  to  target  butterfly  species 
aimed at mosaic management of their grassland habitats. This measure was incorporated 
into the Rural Development Programme and is therefore, available for farmers across the 
whole country. 

At project level, linkages were also found between LIFE and LEADER: according to the 
case  studies  presented  in  the  “Evaluation  Support  Study  on  the  Impact  of  Leader  on 
Balanced Territorial Development”79, LIFE projects were mentioned in three of the regions 
studied (Belgium-Wallonia, Czechia, and Sweden).  

Synergies exist as well with the EMFF. The EMFF funded national programme in Cyprus 
mentions the LIFE project "Development of the National Strategy for Adaptation to the 
Impacts  of  Climate  Change  in  Cyprus”,  which  led  to  the  identification  of  impacts  of 
climate change as well as the key priorities for adaptation actions. Many EMFF-projects 
supported the management of Natura 2000 marine areas, sometimes in cooperation with 
LIFE. For example, LIFE and EMFF supported in the integrated project INTEMARES the 
implementation of the Prioritised Action Framework in the Spanish marine Natura 2000 
network.  

While EU funding programmes can pursue similar objectives, the risk of overlapping in 
funding of the same action is generally avoided through pre-commitment checks to ensure 
that projects have not received funds from several instruments to cover the same costs. In 
any case, LIFE has a specific scope and its approach and management mode differs from 
those  used  by  the  other  EU  funding  programmes,  which  offers  the  opportunity  for 
synergies. This is indirectly confirmed by the replies to the survey: most of the responders 
declared not to have received any other funding in the same period.  

Conclusion  

LIFE ensures synergies with other EU funding instruments. It plays an important role in 
supporting innovation across the EU and financing projects with primarily environmental 
objectives.  The  above-mentioned  examples  illustrate  links  and  synergies  at  both 
programming and implementation level. LIFE made a difference by supporting European 
projects  and  initiatives  that  focus  solely  or  primarily  on  environmental  conservation, 
biodiversity  protection,  and  climate  action,  without  requiring  contributions  to  other 
objectives such as regional development or job creation. By that and its specific approach 
(bottom up, direct management) LIFE complements the mainstreaming approach used for 
other  European  funding  instruments  and  ensures  that  EU  support  can  target  specific 
environmental and climate needs.    

79  European  Commission  (2021)  Evaluation  support  study  on  the  impact  of  LEADER  on  Balanced  Territorial 

Development. 

43 

 
 
4.2 How did the EU intervention make a difference and to whom? 

This  section  looks  at  the  EU  added  value  of  the  LIFE  Programme  which  is  additional 
(‘above  and  beyond’)  to  the  value  that  would  have  been  otherwise  created  by  Member 
States individually at national and/or regional level.  

As described in the intervention logic (section 2.1.), LIFE fulfils a specific function among 
EU funds, which is to provide tailored support to specific environmental and climate needs, 
complementary to the mainstreaming approach, and  to  act  a  catalyst for  more effective 
investments to foster smart, sustainable, and inclusive growth. 

4.2.1. Environment specific instrument  

 The ex-ante impact assessment highlights the EU added value of a dedicated environment 
and  climate  funding  programme,  emphasising  that  natural  capital  is  a  shared, 
transboundary resource. Given the uneven distribution of environmental and climate assets 
across the EU, European-level action is essential for fostering international cooperation, 
responsibility sharing, and solidarity. 

Having an instrument, focusing on environment and climate action is specifically crucial 
when conflicting priorities arise, with environmental priorities or climate action are only 
taking a secondary position. Case studies provide examples of projects where these trade-
offs could be avoided with support from LIFE. Examples include LIFE RE-Vultures and 
LIFE  Cedrus,  which  focus  on  protecting  specific  species,  and  LIFE  Fit  for  REACH, 
demonstrating  that  companies  and  small  businesses  can  successfully  enhance  their 
chemical risk management processes with adequate support. 

FIGURE 10: IN THE ABSENCE OF LIFE PROGRAMME,  
TO WHAT EXTENT IS IT LIKELY THAT THE PROJECT(S) 
WOULD HAVE BEEN FUNDED BY OTHER SOURCES? 

EU-specific 

Survey results highlight the necessity of 
an 
environmental 
instrument,  as  many  Member  States 
lack  equivalent  funding.  According  to 
the survey, 79% of respondents believe 
that  without  LIFE,  Member  States 
would not provide alternative funding, 
particularly for nature and biodiversity, 
environmental and climate governance, 
soil  protection,  and  climate  change 
adaptation.  

As  seen 
in  Figure  10,  79%  of 
their 
stakeholders  confirmed 
projects  would  not  have  secured 
financing without the support of LIFE. 

that 

4.2.2. LIFE added value through support of innovative solutions  

The additionality of LIFE lies in its ability to leverage funding in a transnational context – 
particularly through integrated projects – to support innovation, fill funding gaps, catalyse 
action, influence policies, and build capacity, thereby generating environmental benefits 
that  otherwise  would  not  have  occurred  with  such  a  clear  European  dimension.  Even 
though  LIFE  projects  are  not  equally  distributed  across  Member  States,  this  does  not 

44 

 
 
impede the EU added value. The EU-added value of the Programme derives from its focus 
on supporting exemplary projects with high innovation potential, which can be replicated 
in other Member States generating knowledge and eco-innovation.  

The bottom-up approach, combined with the incentives embedded into the award criteria 
for  innovative,  integrated,  and  transnational  solutions  promote  projects  which  are  more 
difficult to finance under other funding schemes. This is because the other instruments, 
under a direct management mode, usually apply a more prescriptive top-down approach 
(e.g.,  research  programme,  COSME)  or,  where  Member  States  are  responsible  for  the 
management 
transnational 
collaborations are not necessarily encouraged.  

(shared-management 

programme), 

innovation 

and 

4.2.3. LIFE supporting transnational cooperation and knowledge sharing  

52%  of  LIFE  projects  also  received  the  bonus  for  the  transnational  activities, 
demonstrating  the  role  of  LIFE  in  targeting  cross-boundaries  challenges,  promoting 
solidarity and/or sharing responsibilities. The LIFE RE-Vulture Project,  analysed in  the 
framework  of  the  case  study  on  Nature  and  Biodiversity,  is  a  good  example  of 
transnationality and solidarity sharing because it is implemented and co-financed by a non-
for-profit foundation registered in the Netherlands (coordinator) together with Bulgarian, 
Greek,  and  Dutch  organisations  that  ensured  the  conservation  of  Black  and  Griffon 
vultures in the cross-border Rhodopes mountains.  

Stakeholder consultations confirm the added value of LIFE transnational cooperation and 
knowledge sharing. When asked about EU added value, 68% of stakeholders80 mentioned 
the capacity of LIFE to  enable transnational  cooperation, followed by the possibility to 
pursue  more  ambitious  objectives  compared  to  other  sources  of  funding.  80%  of  the 
interviewees  mentioned  that  the  Programme  has  acted  as  a  platform  for  exchange  of 
practice  and  knowledge-sharing  across  the  EU,  addressing  specific  environmental  and 
climate problems more effectively and efficiently than Member States' individual action 
by setting up an increased pooling of resources and expertise.   

The  LIFE  Programme’s  network  of  National  Contact  Points  offers  opportunities  for 
exchange  so    that  regions  that  receive  less  funding  can  learn  from  successful  projects 
implemented in other parts of the EU.  

Conclusions 

LIFE has made a difference at EU level by supporting projects and initiatives specifically 
focused on environment that foster transnational innovative cooperation and knowledge-
sharing.  and  climate  objectives.  It  offered  possibilities  to  address  environmental  and 
climate  challenges  transnationally.  According  to  stakeholders,  without  LIFE  support, 
many projects would simply not have been funded, particularly in the areas of nature and 
biodiversity, environmental and climate governance, soil protection, and climate change 
adaptation in urban and rural areas.  

80 44 in total, excluding 7 from EU bodies. 

45 

 
 
4.3 Is the intervention still relevant? 

LIFE was established under the MFF 2014-2020 in the context of the Europe 2020 strategy, 
with  the  specific  function  to  complement  the  mainstreaming  approach  for  climate  and 
environment 
specific 
environment/climate needs. Furthermore, LIFE had to act as a platform for the exchange 
of best practices among Member States and as a catalyst for more effective investments.  

funding  programme 

a  dedicated 

addressing 

through 

The scope and objectives of LIFE remained fully relevant over the implementation period. 
The  Multi-Annual  Work  Programmes  (MAWPs)  ensured  that  LIFE  funding  addressed 
relevant needs and objectives from 2014-2020, updating priorities as needed. The LIFE 
programme flexibly adjusted to unexpected challenges, such as supporting NGOs during 
the COVID-19 pandemic with a specific call. The pandemic seriously impacted about 20% 
of ongoing LIFE projects, causing material price hikes and unstable energy prices, which 
prolonged project durations and required alternative solutions like fundraising or process 
modifications. 

Midway  through  the  2014-2020  period,  the  relevance  of  the  LIFE  intervention  logic 
increased significantly. This was evident in the widespread climate activism across Europe, 
particularly  among  the younger generation. Equally, the European Green  Deal81 (EGD) 
catching this momentum with its overarching approach towards climate and environmental 
policy  has  contributed  to  more  prioritisation  of  environmental  and  climate  policy  and 
legislation. The goals and targets of the EGD boosted the urgency of the green challenges 
in the European Union and LIFE has subsequently registered a significant rise in requests 
of  support. The  capacity  to  finance  projects,  particularly  during  2018-2020,  was  under 
considerable strain, which required an increased programme budget for 2021-2027. LIFE-
funded projects are clearly contributing towards the strategies and goals of the EGD and 
the recently adopted Nature Restoration Law. Details of the contributions of LIFE to the 
EGD are provided in Table 18 of Annex VIII.   

Science  is  clear  that  the  environmental  and  climate  crisis  continue  to  intensify.  The 
Commission's  2023  strategic  foresight  report82  emphasizes  the  EU’s  commitment  to 
“unprecedented action for achieving climate neutrality and sustainability.” Transforming 
our society and economy to  respect  planetary boundaries is  seen as “key to  reinforcing 
Europe’s long-term competitiveness and societal model, and thus its global leadership in 
the new, net-zero economy, also  by supporting other regions and building  a sustainable 
future.”  This  political  context  highlights  that  innovative  solutions  and  a  catalyst 
programme for transformative change towards a sustainable economic and societal model 
are  as  essential  now  as  in  2014.  The  recently  adopted  Nature  Restoration  Law  further 
reinforces the relevance of the LIFE Programme with its nature and biodiversity priority 
area.  

The LIFE intervention logic, which combines different types of projects (traditional and 
integrated projects) and is largely implemented by a bottom-up approach, has proven its 
merit, even when evaluated against the evolving policy context. The bottom-up approach 
of LIFE, with its calls for proposals that are not over-prescriptive, has proven to be useful 

81 COM(2019) 640 final. 
82 COM(2023) 376 final. 

46 

 
 
since  the  inception  of  the  first  LIFE  Programme  in  1992  to  provide  funding  for 
implementation  of  environmental  solutions  adjusted  to  local  and  regional  needs. 
Nevertheless, the downside is that this approach can limit somehow the strategic steer of 
the  funding.  In  times  of  increased  budgetary  constraints,  the  benefits  of  the  bottom-up 
approach need to be weighed against the benefits of more targeted funding.  

LIFE 2014-2020 already increased the possibilities for more strategic steer by introducing 
integrated  projects  and  prioritised  areas  under  each  sub-programme.  Integrated  projects 
have  proved  their  benefits  for  channelling  EU  funding  towards  compliance  and 
enforcement of EU environmental acquis. Under the 2021-2027 LIFE Programme, specific 
projects focusing on policy and legislative priorities give the possibility to define targeted 
calls. Also, the newly added sub-programme for the clean energy transition is implemented 
in a top-down approach. Both bottom-up and top-down approaches offer advantages, but 
it is the predominantly bottom-up strategy that has driven the LIFE Programme's success 
and popularity over the past decades. 

In  the  context  of  EU  funding  in  2024,  the  mainstreaming  of  climate  and  biodiversity 
objectives across EU funds has been rolled out under the MFF 2021-2027. This experience 
confirmed  what  was  already  expressed  by  the  MFF  Communication  2014:  the 
mainstreaming  of  environmental  and  climate  objectives  across  EU  funding  instruments 
cannot replace a dedicated funding instrument, which addresses the specific needs within 
these areas without trade-offs for the priorities.  

Conclusions 

The intervention logic, the scope and objectives of the LIFE Programme have remained 
fully relevant  over the implementation  period. The project  demand even  increased with 
LIFE projects contributing to the European Green Deal policies and goals.  

5.  CONCLUSIONS AND LESSONS LEARNED 

Within the limits of the evaluation framework set at the time of the adoption of the MFF, 
this evaluation made best use of available information to evaluate the success, EU added 
value and relevance of the LIFE Programme 2014-2020.  

Even though this evaluation considers only environmental benefits produced by less than 
half  of  the  financed  projects,  most  targets  of  the  MFF  performance  framework  were 
reached  and  considerable  environmental  net  benefits  were  achieved.  Even  if  almost  all 
initially set targets for the performance indicators were reached, these indicators mostly 
capture output and allow limited conclusions on results and impacts. Thanks to the KPIs 
some  conclusions  could  be  drawn  on  the  results  of  the  Programme  based  on  the  net 
environmental benefits created by projects.  

Given that a consistent reporting on KPIs was only introduced in 2014 and self-reported 
data  are  checked  by  monitors  successively,  the  reliability  of  the  KPIs  increases  with 
repeated checks. The reliability of the environmental benefits reported under the KPIs is 
thus less reliable than for example, when all projects are completed.   

47 

 
 
The KPIs at project level were used to quantify and monetise environmental net benefits. 
monetisation, an evidence-based scenario was used, which considers only 
For this  
data  of  completed  projects  and  projects  in  an  advanced  phase  of  implementation  offer 
relatively reliable outcomes, also  supported by triangulation  of data. At  the time of the 
evaluation,  advanced or  completed projects  represented only  42% of projects.  Due to  a 
lack  of  agreed  methodologies,  only  some  indicators  among  the  available  data  could  be 
monetised. Nevertheless, the analysis found at least EUR 6.8 billion of monetised climate 
and  environmental  benefits,  making  the  Programme  cost-efficient.  Considering  all 
indicators  and  implemented  projects,  actual  benefits  are  expected  to  be  considerably 
higher.  

Besides the two types of indicators, the evaluation was complemented with  stakeholder 
consultations, a survey, desk research and six case studies. These helped to analyse links 
between  the  types  of  interventions  and  achieved  results  and  impacts  and  supported  the 
analysis of the transformative changes through concrete and specific examples. Thanks to 
these  mostly  qualitative  evaluation  methodologies,  conclusions  on  the  impacts  of  the 
Programme  could  be  drawn  despite  this  evaluation  being  based  only  on  completed  or 
advanced stage projects. 

The analysis of the combined results of performance indicators and KPIs, complemented 
by the stakeholder consultations, the survey, desk research and the six case studies, have 
led to the conclusion that the LIFE Programme achieves its four main objectives:  

-  The LIFE Programme contributed to support the shift towards a resource-efficient, 
low-carbon  and  climate-  resilient  economy  and  to  deliver  on  environment  and 
climate objectives, thus contributing to the Europe 2020 strategy. 

-  The Programme improved the development, implementation and enforcement of EU 

environment/climate policy and legislation.  

-  The Programme supported better environmental/climate governance at all levels. 

-  The Programme acted as a catalyst and promoted the integration and mainstreaming 

of environment/climate objectives into other policies and practices.  

These objectives were achieved thanks to the different project types implemented by the 
Programme and the transformative changes it generates:  

1)  LIFE  gives  direction  by  inspiring  European  environmental  and  climate  policy 

legislation and supports its implementation; 

2)  LIFE engages people and raises awareness; 

3)  LIFE facilitates the application of environmental solutions and innovation.  

The newly introduced category of integrated projects proved useful to Member States in 
the  implementation  of  environmental  and  climate  legislation  and  policies,  as  well  as  to 
improve  environment  and  climate  governance  structures  and  processes.  Traditional 
projects continue to test innovative approaches for environmental solutions, a key function 
of the Programme.  

In fact, the role of the LIFE Programme was defined at its inception to act as a catalyst for 
change and to provide funding to address all specific needs relating to environment and 
climate action. The LIFE Programme realised this role in coherence and complementarity 
to other EU funding instruments. LIFE projects are generally replicable and over a third of 

48 

 
LIFE project integrated research results financed by Horizon 2020. Some LIFE Projects 
have been continued with support under the structural funds. Overall, the LIFE Programme 
coordinated and possibly leveraged 34.7 billion EUR.   

The LIFE Programme and its specific role in the MFF framework are still as relevant as in 
2014. The environmental and climate crises are intensifying and with the EGD the EU has 
an  ambitious  agenda  for  transforming  our  society  and  economy  towards  a  model  that 
respects  planetary  boundaries.  In  this  context  dedicated  funding  towards  climate  and 
environmental objectives is even more important and the transformative changes initiated 
by LIFE and its function as catalyst are extremely valuable. Despite its small budget (0,3% 
of  the  total  EU  budget),  the  Programme  tests  sustainable  solutions,  brings  various 
stakeholders together in the project implementation and raises awareness. These functions 
are crucial for the achievement of the EGD.   

The demand for the Programme stays high with oversubscription to the calls and a variety 
of stakeholders implementing projects: public administrations including national, regional, 
and  local  authorities,  small  and  large-sized  private  companies,  research  institutes  and 
technology centres and civil society organisations / NGOs. 

Overall, the LIFE Programme adds much value with exemplary projects that are financed, 
the common EU natural capital that is supported as well as projects that, according to most 
stakeholders consulted, would not have been financed otherwise.  

Besides the positive results described, the evaluation also highlights some lessons learnt 
and identifies areas for improvements: 

(1) Although  LIFE  is  not  designed  to  ensure  equal  fund  distribution  among  Member 
States,  this  imbalance  limits  the  programme's  overall  efficiency.  The  measures 
implemented to address this issue did bring a  more balanced distribution only for 
integrated projects: 

-  National allocations for traditional projects did not lead to a more balanced 

distribution of projects across the EU. 

-  The indicative allocations for integrated projects lead to the participation of 

most of the less participating countries.  

-  Capacity  building  projects  to  support  the  participation  of  less-successful 
countries led to an increase in their participation, but not in the success rate. 
The  extremely  restrictive  eligibility  criteria  mentioned  in  the  LIFE 
Regulation  hindered  the  financing  of  a  large  second  call  for  capacity 
building  projects  with  only  two  countries  identified  as  eligible  in  this 
second call.  

- 

In the framework of the preparation of the Multiannual Work Programme 
2025-2027  and  the  mid-term  evaluation  of  2021-2027  LIFE  Programme, 
the participation and success rates of the less successful countries is further 
analysed to identify mitigating measures.  

(2) While  improvements  were  identified  compared  to  the  mid-term  evaluation, 
beneficiaries  still  see  room  for  improvement  as  regards  specific  aspects  of  the 
application and evaluation and monitoring process. The Programme's administrative 
procedures  are  generally  viewed  as  efficient,  still  beneficiaries  see  room  for 

49 

 
simplification on the application forms, reduction of KPI complexity, and shortening 
of the evaluation timeline.  

(3) While the two pilot financial instruments financed by the LIFE Programme met only 
partially  the  related  expectations,  they  provided  important  lessons  learned  for 
redirecting the action of the Programme in  support to  green investments.  LIFE is 
currently  financing  technical  assistance  services  in  the  framework  of  InvestEU, 
through  Green  Assist  -  aimed  to  provide  technical  assistance  free  of  charge  to 
support green investment and through the InvestEU Advisory Hub.  

(4) The  indicators  initially  set  up  for  the  assessment  of  the  Programme  performance 
presented various shortcomings and did not allow to provide a comprehensive view 
of  the  Programme’s  success.  They  had  to  be  complemented  with  additional 
indicators and specific analysis.  Thanks to the experience acquired in 2014-2020, 
these additional indicators have been included in the performance framework of the 
LIFE Programme 2021-2027 with related baselines, milestones, and targets. Further 
simplification of the indicators and the building up of the capacity of beneficiaries 
and  monitors  will  improve  the  overall  quality  and  smooth  functioning  of  the 
Programme.  Multiple  database  and  sources  of  information  on  the  LIFE  projects 
should be unified to ensure consistent presentation and up-dates. This is currently in 
progress.  

The above-mentioned challenges will be further addressed in the upcoming mid-term 
evaluation of the LIFE Programme for 2021-2027.   

50 

 
Annexes 

Annex I.   Procedural Information 

Lead DG, Decide reference and, if relevant, Work Programme reference 

DG ENV, DG CLIMA 
PLAN/2021/12959 

Derogations granted and justification 

No derogations from the Better Regulation Guidelines. 

Organisation and timing 

The Call for Evidence (CfE) was published for feedback by the Commission from 
the 16th of March 2022 until the 13th of April 2022. 

A  targeted  consultation  for  the  stakeholders  that  have  direct  experience  in 
implementing  the  programme  took  place  between  July  2022  and  March  2023.  It 
consisted of focus groups, interviews, an online survey and validation workshop. The 
online  survey  was  open  for  feedback  to  the  general  public,  while  for  the  other 
consultation  activities  those  stakeholders  having  experience  with  the  programme 
were targeted to receive feedback on specific aspects of the programme.  

An Inter Service Steering Group composed of representatives from 13 DGs83 (SG, 
SJ,  BUDG, AGRI,  COMM,  ECFIN,  ECHO,  ENER,  JRC,  MARE,  REGIO,  RTD, 
SANTE), with DG ENV and DG CLIMA as chef de file followed the key steps of 
the evaluation, providing comments on the Terms of Reference of the external study, 
the inception report and the draft Staff Working Documents. Two hybrid meetings, 
meaning combing online and physical presence, were held in 2022 and 2023. Not all 
the  representatives  participated  to  the  meetings  and  provided  feedback.  The 
comments to the various documents were followed bilaterally. 

Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (if relevant) 

This evaluation has been selected for scrutiny by the Regulatory Scrutiny Board 
(RSB).  

An upstream meeting was held with the RSB, DG CLIMA and DG ENV in October 
2022. Advice  from  the  Board  members  led  to  a  revision  of  the  schedule  and  the 
contents envisaged for the report.  

The outcome of the RSB’s scrutiny was the issuance of a negative opinion, following 
a  dedicated  meeting  on  13  March  2024.  In  the  negative  opinion  the  Regulatory 
Scrutiny Board pointed at areas for improvement relating to points presented in table 
1. The evaluation was not re-submitted.   

83   OLAF, CNCT, DEFIS, EAC and GROW were invited to participate at the Inter-Service Steering Group. 

51 

 
 
 
 
 
RSB comment: 

(1)  

The report should be clear on the type and scale of 
the gaps LIFE aimed to tackle. It should be more 
specific on the role LIFE played in closing the gaps 
and how it interacts with related initiatives.  

On this basis, the intervention logic should be 
clarified as currently general and specific objectives 
appear to overlap. 

The report should clarify how the references to the 
‘catalytic effect’ or to ‘innovation’ form part of the 
intervention logic.  

The report should be clear and specific as to what 
types of projects are funded by LIFE.  
The intervention logic should show how measures 
under the programme relate to specific objectives to 
allow for effectiveness and efficiency to be assessed. 
The report should discuss to what extent the specific 
objectives are SMART enough to be evaluated.  
It should explain how LIFE’s activities were 
expected to deliver on the objectives and bring about 
the impacts. 

(2)   The report should provide the list of indicators used 

in the analysis and be clearer about their usefulness 
or, conversely limitations they bring in 
understanding how projects contribute to the 
programme’s specific objectives.  

How it was addressed:  
The type and scale of gaps has been clarified in section 2.1. The type and scale 
of gaps has been clarified by explaining more in detail the foreseen role in the 
MFF communication, in the impact assessment and in the LIFE regulation. 
The type of gaps has been further clarified by moving a section on the niches 
LIFE aims to tackle up to this section.  
The specific objectives have been removed from the evaluation, as a strategic 
decision had been made to evaluate mainly the main objectives of the LIFE 
Programme.  
The catalytic effect is covered by the main objective 4 ”Act as a catalyst and 
promote integration and mainstreaming into other policies and practices”. The 
part of innovation and the extra mention of innovation have been removed 
from the diagram of the objectives and the intervention logic.  
The specific types of projects and descriptions have been added in section 
2.2.2. 

Indeed, the specific objectives are not SMART enough to be evaluated, 
therefore, the evaluation now focuses only on the general objectives of the 
LIFE Programme. (reference added in section 2.2.2.) 

The specific types of projects and descriptions have been added in section 
2.2.2. This also explain how the different project types function and help to 
deliver on the objectives identified.  

A list of indicators has been added in Annex VI and VII and is referenced in 
2.3.  

52 

 
 
 
(3)  

It should explain how the indicators are measured 
and if they measure achieved results, expected results 
or extrapolated results.  
It should be clear about the areas of uncertainty and 
weaknesses in the evidence base including by 
providing a better explanation of how robust the 
indicators are and what the validation process 
entailed. 

On the benefits, the report should clarify what inputs 
(data, evidence and assumptions) were used in the 
calculations.  

It should make an effort to disaggregate the data 
and show what benefits are attributed specifically 
to the LIFE spending, and what to the other funds 
including co-financing. Any challenges relating to 
this should be transparently discussed and reflected 
in the presentation of benefits. 
On the costs, the report should better explain LIFE’s 
role in and the impact of other funding including 
co-financing. It should explain what is meant exactly 
when the report states that LIFE ‘mobilised’, 
‘coordinated’ or ‘leveraged’ additional funds.  

It should indicate how LIFE’s track record of private 
finance leveraging compares with other EU 
programmes.  

A specific paragraph has been added in section 2.2.3. “performance 
framework”.  

A specific paragraph has been added in section 2.2.3. “performance 
framework”.  

It has been clarified, that the report only covers advanced and terminated 
projects. The forward looking scenario has been removed entirely as clarified 
below. By removing the integrated projects from the benefit analysis (see 
below), the inputs are much clearer. 
For the efficiency analysis, Integrated Projects have been removed from the 
calculation. It is impossible to attribute benefits of a project which is financed 
by LIFE and by other funding instruments as it is the project as a whole, 
which brings the benefits. In order to address the RSB’s comment, the benefits 
of the projects receiving co-financing i.e. the integrated projects have been 
excluded from the analysis of the benefits.   

The terms have been clarified across the document, specifically in the 
descriptions of the integrated projects (section 2.2.2.) and the financial 
instruments (section 2.2.2.). Additionally, an explanation has been introduced 
in the glossary.  

We note the request to assess LIFE's track record of private finance 
leveraging compared to other EU programmes, as well as the additional 
impact of fund coordination through LIFE projects. Considering the 
diversity of funds in terms of scope, management mode and initiatives 
financed, we consider that these estimates would be extremely challenging 

53 

 
The report should clarify to what extent the other 
funds are considered when comparing costs and 
benefit.  

The additional impact of coordination of the funds 
through LIFE projects should be clarified. 

(4)   The report should further develop the discussion of 
the potential for simplification and burden 
reduction.  
It should be more explicit in the lessons learned and 
conclusions about the issues that require 
improvement while being clear on the reporting 
requirements that are indispensable for effective 
progress monitoring reasons. 

(5)   The report should not use the results of (ex-ante) 

forward-looking scenarios in the analysis. Although 
the report does not give the impression that results of 
ex-ante analysis are used as a substitute to the ex-post 
evaluation, in principle, the ex-ante modelling work 
and its results are conceptually misplaced and should 
not be used here.  

and/or would risk not to provide meaningful results. They exceed the scope 
and proportionality of this evaluation. 

For the efficiency analysis, Integrated Projects have been removed from the 
calculation. It is impossible to attribute benefits of a project which is financed 
by LIFE and by other funding instruments as it is the project as a whole, 
which brings the benefits. In order to address the RSB’s comment, the benefits 
of the projects receiving co-financing i.e. the integrated projects have been 
excluded from the analysis of the benefits. The costs represent that the running 
of the programme as a total, while the benefits are underestimated, covering 
only benefits achieved by other project categories.  
This was clarified in several sections, first and foremost under the description 
of integrated projects in section 2.2.2. 

A paragraph was added in section 4.1.2. 

On reporting, while fully acknowledging the importance of improvements, a 
detailed analysis may be better suited for the ongoing programme 
management rather than in the retrospective evaluation. 

The decision to include forward-looking scenarios was made with the 
intention of using all available information to provide a comprehensive and 
fair assessment of the LIFE programme's results. However, we understand the 
need to avoid ex-ante modelling results within an ex-post evaluation 
framework. 

54 

 
 
(6)   The report should improve its analysis of relevance. 
It should better explain the continued relevance of 
the LIFE programme in the context of the Green Deal 
and the renewed ambitions, commitments, 
requirements and goals in other initiatives in 
particular Horizon 2020 which funds pilot, 
demonstration and deployment projects in similar 
areas to LIFE.  
It should discuss more thoroughly whether the 
current set of Union environmental and climate 
policies still require a programme such as LIFE.  
It should indicate whether the current scope of 
programme activities fits with the evolution of the 
policy framework and whether there are learnings in 
terms of greater prioritisation both in terms of issues 
to be tackled and activities to be supported. 

(7)  

The report should strengthen the analysis of the EU 
added value of the programme.  

It should be clearer about the reasons and lessons 
learned regarding the unbalanced geographical 
distribution of projects and beneficiaries.  
It should explain whether the gaps to be tackled are 
broadly evenly spread across the Member States or 
whether these are more concentrated in some 

The forward-looking scenario was removed from the evaluation, while it is 
still included in the Annexes.   

The analysis of relevance has been complemented by the reference to the main 
functions LIFE should support according to the MFF Communication of 2014, 
namely being complementary to a mainstreaming approach. In the analysis of 
relevance, it has been further evaluated, whether the factors leading to this 
approach still applies in the current context of the EGD.   

Section 4.3 has been complemented in this respect.  

In section 4.3 a paragraph was added on the historic typical bottom-up 
approach for the LIFE Programme and a reflection on its relevance for the 
evolving political situation.  

A specific section on “coherence” was added under 4.1.3. This also 
complements the EU added value. The section 4.2. on EU added value was 
reinforced. 
On the reasons a paragraph has been added in section 4.1.2. Under the same 
section the lessons learned were already well described. This aspect has also 
been reinforced in the conclusion.  
The objective, gaps and added value of the intervention logic of LIFE has 
been clarified in sections 2.1 and 4.1. In fact, the scale of the gaps that the 
programme bridges in those areas can vary depending on the specific context 

55 

 
  
Member States and thus could justify a spending 
focus.  

It should also explain how the unbalanced 
distribution of LIFE funds across Member States may 
affect the overall effectiveness and efficiency of the 
programme and whether the current project 
evaluation and selection criteria are sufficiently fit 
for purpose (e.g. prioritising integrated projects and 
projects with a clear transboundary dimension). 

and region. The Programme cannot fill specific gaps at national or local level 
due to its bottom-up approach, but it provides opportunities for funding, where 
applicants aim at closing such gaps and contribute to environmental 
sustainability and resilience, especially at local level. However, these gaps 
generally represent significant challenges that the EU faces in achieving its 
environmental and climate objectives.  

Regarding the analysis of project evaluation and selection criteria, we 
understand the importance of assessing their contribution to the EU added 
value of the programme. However, such an analysis would need to be done at 
the level of each project type, given their different evaluation and selection 
criteria. It would require a level of detail that exceeds the scope of the current 
evaluation. It would also need to consider factors such as absorption capacity 
and existing political priorities at the Member State level. Additionally, this 
analysis should cover not only the EU added value but also the relevance, 
effectiveness, and efficiency of the programme, as each criterion may serve 
different purposes. 

A paragraph on the impacts for the unbalanced distribution has been added in 
section 4.1.2. 

(8) 

The report should be clearer about the additionality 
of LIFE - to what extent similar effects could have 
been achieved with a different instrument at Union 
level or by Member States. Currently, it does not 
provide sufficient justification that some projects 
would not have been funded in the absence of LIFE.  

The section 4.3. has been restructured and complemented. Across the 
document, the function of LIFE among the EU funding instruments has been 
clarified to demonstrate its specific added value.  The narrative has been 
shifted to focus only on the value added of having the EU instead of a mix 
between value of EU and loss without EU, as suggested in the better 
regulation guidelines.    

56 

 
 
 
If stakeholder views are the only underlying 
evidence, this needs to be clearly reflected in how the 
conclusions are worded.  

(9) 

The report should also explain how the additionality 
was accounted for in the modelling. 

The conclusions should closely reflect the available 
evidence and its robustness.  
The report should better explain how the available 
evidence, especially the indicators, allow conclusions 
to be drawn about impacts such as transformational 
changes, mainstreaming of environmental and 
climate objectives into other policies, and 
contribution to the shift towards a low carbon, 
resource-efficient economy, and be transparent on the 
challenges in identifying specific impacts.  
The report should be clearer about the fact that so 
many of the projects remain ongoing and whether 
this affects the assessment of effectiveness, whether 

Additional elements have been introduced in  4.1.3. on the specific function 
fulfilled by the LIFE Programme. Evidence is supported by the external study, 
which undertook a comprehensive examination of various programming 
documents at national level. The identified synergies are presented. 

In section 4.2. on EU added value, the link with the impact assessment and the 
MFF communication was clarified. It is explained how the bottom up 
approach and the support for innovation creates benefits across the EU. 
Furthermore, the value of transnational cooperation and knowledge sharing is 
put forward. The line of argumentation is supported by the stakeholder 
consultation and a case study.    

The modelling as such did not account for additionality. The additional value 
of the LIFE Programme is confirmed by its specific function in the MFF and 
funding landscape. This has been clarified as mentioned above.  

The conclusion has been clarified in this respect.  

In section 5, a specific paragraph on the indicators and their reliability was 
included.  A second paragraph was included on the sources, which helped to 
evaluate the impacts and transformative change.  

In section 4.1.2, it has been clarified that the effectiveness of the programme 
can be evaluated well based on the evidence provided by completed projects, 

57 

 
 
 
the project profile evolved during the evaluation 
period.  
Specifically, the conclusions on the value for money 
should more closely reflect the analysis and its 
limitations. 

The report should present more explicitly the views 
of stakeholders, indicating any differences across 
groups, and underlining if any dissenting views that 
could bring insights into possible issues.  

specifically as the benefits already considerable compared to invested budget 
only based on the implemented and completed projects.    
A specific paragraph was introduced in section 5. The limited number of 
projects was considered and the lack of available methodologies for the 
monetisation of benefits was mentioned.  
Additional information of stakeholder vies have been added, where possible. 
However, the underlying study does not include the level of granularity that 
would be needed to address this comment. Opinions are not represented 
according to specific groups. Consequently, differences across groups could 
not be addressed.   

(10)  

58 

 
 
Evidence used together with sources and any issues regarding its quality (i.e. has the 
information been quality assured?) 

Evidence on the results of the programme is based with few exceptions on the analysis 
of data coming from various sources: 

(1) Performance indicators for reporting on the implementation of the programme were 
initially  defined  in  the  MFF  Communication  and  successively  developed  in  the 
programme statements.  

These indicators are structured per objective with baselines, milestones, and targets. 

They have been used to provide a picture of the implementation of the programme vs 
the targets initially defined. However, they do not sufficiently describe the performance 
of the programme. 

Their formulation appears sometimes ambiguous with units of measure not always well-
defined or consistent. They reflect the concern to incorporate the time variable in the 
monitoring and evaluation framework of the programme and their definitions imply a 
mix  of  expected  and  reached  results  (e.g.  Percentage  of  species  targeted  by  ongoing 
projects  that  are  progressing  towards  and  percentage  of  species  targeted  by  finalised 
projects  that  achieved  an  improved  conservation  status).  The  overreliance  on  output 
indicators (e.g. number of interventions, number of projects) while it is very useful for 
the monitoring of the programme implementation, do not provide sufficient information 
on its performance.  

(2) Key  project  indicators  (KPIs).  Project  Indicators  are  collected  at  the  level  of  each 
project and included in a KPI database. This database includes the contribution of the 
projects to a set of indicators to catch the contribution of each project to environmental 
and climate challenges. At the beginning of the project, the beneficiaries are required to 
select at least one indicator and define baseline and expected results of the project. The 
data provided are subject to expert controls, and progressively updated and confirmed.  

These  indicators  were  introduced  at  the  beginning  of  the  programme  2014-2020, 
therefore the definition of milestones and targets was considered aleatory in the absence 
of any experience. They were therefore not integrated among the indicators of the MFF 
Evaluation Framework. 

Thanks to the experience acquired, milestones and targets are now defined for the LIFE 
programme 2021-2027 and are currently used in the Programme Statements.  

These indicators were used in the absence of predefined targets to provide a quantitative 
dimension of the contributions of the projects to the programme’s overarching objective 
(to  support  the  shift  toward  a  resource-efficient,  low-carbon  and  climate-resilient 
economy and the  protection and improvements of the environment). Considering  the 
wide scope of the programme, these indicators capture only some projects' results and 
should be considered a de minimis contribution to this objective.  

Some of these benefits have been monetised as part as the cost/benefit analysis. 

CINEA provided the full dataset extracting project data and run the first set of quality 
control, in particular identifying data considered relevant  for the assessment of LIFE 
programme  progress  and  achievements,  checking  reliability  of  data  and  identifying 

59 

 
 
outliers  also  with  the  support  of  project  monitors  and  desk  officer.  The  external 
consultant smoothed the data to reduce variances, including by eliminating outliers, or 
other statistical noise. 

(3) Case  studies.  Case  studies  were  used  to  illustrate  the  dynamics  at  project  level.  A 
sample  of  4-5  representative  projects  was  selected  and  analysed  to  capture  the 
contribution  to  (1)  halting  and  reversing  biodiversity  loss;  (2)  resource  efficiency, 
climate change mitigation and adaptation, (3) protection and improvement of the quality 
of environment (4) enforcement of legislation (5) governance and involvement of civil 
society (6) catalytic effect. Information on the procedures for the selection of the case 
studies and their results are annexed to the external report. They were further elaborated 
by the Commission.  

(4) An additional study that aimed to assess the macro impacts of the LIFE programme. 

(5) The stakeholder opinions as resulting from various consultation activities.  

The primary data collection was complemented with a data gap assessed during the data 
collection phase to identify the stakeholders and define the contents of the consultation. 
The stakeholder consultation activities can be divided as follow:  

▪ 

 Feedback to the Call for Evidence84. 

▪  Targeted consultation of stakeholders, namely consisting of: 

o  Focus groups 

o 

Interviews  (124  interviews  including  scoping,  core  interviews  and 
interviews dedicated to the case studies) 

o  Online survey run from December 21st, 2022, to March 23rd, 2023 

o  Validation exercise 

▪  Participation of the external consultant in two stakeholder events: the “Workshop 
on EU Life Integrated Projects–- What did we learn?”, held in Helsinki on the 
14th of September 2022, organised by the Finnish Minister of Environment, and 
the  conference  “Celebrations  in  Italy  of  the  3rd  anniversary  of  the  LIFE 
programme  and  the  Habitat  Directive”  (Celebrazioni  in  Italia  del  30° 
anniversario  del  programma  LIFE  e  della  direttiva  habitat)  organised  by  the 
Italian Ministry of Environment in Rome on the 12th of December 2022. 

(6) The literature review complemented the information collected with the findings from 
other  sources.  Documents  consulted  include:  legislative  documents,  including  LIFE 
Multiannual work programmes, annual activity reports and previous evaluation studies 
of  the  LIFE  programme,  strategy  documents  (e.g.  Europe  2020  Strategy,  7th  Union 
Environmental  Action  Programme),  reports  on  specific  thematic  areas  of  the  LIFE 
programme,  reports  and  studies  financed  by  other  funding  programmes  that  have 
thematic  focus  connected  to  the  one  to  the  LIFE  programme,  delegation  agreements 
with the ЕIB for the financial instruments, etc..  

While the external study concluded on the reliability of the figures provided, some data 
limitations were noticed, which are described in section 2.5.   

84 The full CfE Summary Report can be found in Annex 5 to the External Report. 

60 

 
 
Use of external expertise 

Study to support the evaluation of the LIFE programme 2014-2020 
Specific Contract N° 090202/2022/874592/SFRA/ENV.A.3, under framework 
contract ENV.F.1/FRA/2019/0001 

Annex II. Methodology and Analytical Models used 

2.1. Approach used in the evaluation (Staff Working Document)    

The ex-post evaluation was prepared with the help of an external study. While the external 
study undertook a more detailed and thorough approach, the ex-post evaluation focuses on 
the functions and objectives considered most relevant for the role and implementation of the 
LIFE Programme. The evaluation focuses on the main objectives of the LIFE programme.  

The LIFE Regulation sets out four general objectives (Art. 3(1)) and 22 specific objectives 
(Art. 10-12 & 14-16) for the LIFE Programme. The Programme defines two sub-programmes: 
one  for  Environment  and  one  for  Climate Action  (Art  3(2)). The  Regulation  defines  three 
priority areas for each subprogramme, each with specific objectives.  

The LIFE Programme defines four general objectives, which are outlined in Article 3(1) of 
the LIFE Regulation: 

• 

• 

• 

• 

(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. 

The objective in Article 3(1a) can be considered overarching compared to the other three, as 
these mainly support the first objective.  

61 

 
 
a 

FIGURE 1:  LIFE Programme 2014-2020 

Environment and Resource 
Efficiency 

Sub-programme for 
Climate Action  
(0.86 billion EUR - 25%) 

Sub-programme for 
Environment  
(2.6 billion EUR - 75%) 

LIFE Programme 2014-2020 
(3.5 billion EUR - 0.3% of EU budget) 

The  22  specific  objectives  (Art. 
10-12  &  14-16)  for  the  LIFE 
Programme  per  priority  area  are 
complex and overlap to a certain 
extent.  While  these  objectives 
provide 
comprehensive 
framework,  they  do  not  follow 
the  SMART  criteria  of  being 
specific, measurable, achievable, 
realistic and timely and allowing 
for  a  straightforward  evaluation. 
For  the  evaluation,  the  strategic 
choice was taken to focus on the 
main  objectives,  as  these  can  be 
in  a  reliable  way. 
evaluated 
Overall, the specific objectives of LIFE 2014-2020 are challenging to measure. In the absence 
of  modern  KPIs  agreed  at  the  start  of  the  programme  period  (around  10  years  ago),  the 
indicators identified are those as set at the time in the MFF Evaluation Framework and the 
KPIs  collected  at  project  level.  While  the  indicators  used  for  the  programme  were  able  to 
produce some valuable evidence, there were weaknesses in terms of scope, completeness and 
comparability of the resulting data that presented challenges for the assessment of efficiency 
and effectiveness of the programme. Due to these weaknesses, is was decided to focus the 
evaluation on the general objectives.   

Environmental Governance 
and Informationn 

Climate Governance and 
Information 

Climate Change Adaptation 

Climate Change Mitigation 

Nature and Biodiversity 

Figure  2  depicts  the  Programme  structure,  including  the  three  priority  areas  of  each  sub-
programme. The priority area ‘environment  and resource efficiency’ encompasses resource 
efficiency  as  well  as  priorities  concerning  air  quality  and  emissions,  water  quality  and 
efficiency,  soil,  waste,  and  environment  and  health  concerns  including  chemicals.  Both 
subprogrammes include priority areas for information and governance, introduced to enhance 
the Programme’s strategic focus compared to its predecessor.  

The full list of general and specific objectives according to the regulation can be found in in 
the table below:  

62 

 
 
List of LIFE general and specific objectives

63 

General Objective 3: To support better environmental and climate governance at all levels, including better involvement of civil society, NGOs and local actorsGeneral Objective 4: To support the implementation of the 7th Environment Action ProgrammeSpecific objectives for the priority area Environment and Resource EfficiencySpecific objectives for the priority area Nature and BiodiversitySpecific objectives for the priority area Environmental Governance and InformationSpecific objectives for the priority area Climate Change MitigationSpecific objectives for the priority area Climate Change AdaptationSpecific objectives for the priority area Climate Governance and Informationto develop, test and demonstrate policy or management approaches, best practices and solutions, including development and demonstration of innovative technologies, to environmental challenges, suitable for being replicated, transferred or mainstreamed, including with respect to the link between the environment and health, and in support of resource efficiency-related policy and legislation, including the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe;to contribute to the development and implementation of Union policy and legislation in the area of nature and biodiversity, including the Union Biodiversity Strategy to 2020, and Directives 92/43/EEC and 2009/147/EC, in particular by applying, developing, testing and demonstrating approaches, best practices and solutions;(cid:9)to promote awareness raising on environmental matters, including generating public and stakeholder support of Union policy-making in the field of the environment, and to promote knowledge on sustainable development and new patterns for sustainable consumption;to contribute to the implementation and development of Union policy and legislation on climate change mitigation, including mainstreaming across policy areas, in particular by developing, testing and demonstrating policy or management approaches, best practices and solutions for climate change mitigation;(cid:9)to contribute to the development and implementation of Union policy on climate change adaptation, including mainstreaming across policy areas, in particular by developing, testing and demonstrating policy or management approaches, best practices and solutions for climate change adaptation, including, where appropriate, ecosystem-based approaches;(cid:9)to promote awareness raising on climate matters, including generating public and stakeholder support of Union policy-making in the field of the climate, and to promote knowledge on sustainable development;to support the application, development, testing and demonstration of integrated approaches for the implementation of plans and programmes pursuant to Union environmental policy and legislation, primarily in the areas of water, waste and air;(cid:9)to support the further development, implementation and management of the Natura 2000 network set up under Article 3 of Directive 92/43/EEC, in particular the application, development, testing and demonstration of integrated approaches for the implementation of the prioritised action frameworks prepared on the basis of Article 8 of that Directive;to support communication, management, and dissemination of information in the field of the environment, and to facilitate knowledge sharing on successful environmental solutions and practice, including by developing cooperation platforms among stakeholders and training;(cid:9)to facilitate the development and implementation of integrated approaches, such as for climate change mitigation strategies and action plans, at local, regional or national level; (cid:9)to contribute to the development and demonstration of innovative climate change mitigation technologies, systems, methods and instruments that are suitable for being replicated, transferred or mainstreamed.to facilitate the development and implementation of integrated approaches, such as for climate change adaptation strategies and action plans, at local, regional or national level, prioritising, where appropriate, ecosystem-based approaches; to contribute to the development and demonstration of innovative climate change adaptation technologies, systems, methods and instruments that are suitable for being replicated, transferred or mainstreamed.(cid:9)to support communication, management, and dissemination of information in the field of the climate and to facilitate knowledge sharing on successful climate solutions and practice, including by developing cooperation platforms among stakeholders and training;to improve the knowledge base for the development, implementation, assessment, monitoring and evaluation of Union environmental policy and legislation, and for the assessment and monitoring of the factors, pressures and responses that impact on the environment within and outside the Union.(cid:9)to improve the knowledge base for the development, implementation, assessment, monitoring and evaluation of Union nature and biodiversity policy and legislation, and for the assessment and monitoring of the factors, pressures and responses that impact on nature and biodiversity within and outside the Union.to promote and contribute to more effective compliance with and enforcement of Union environmental legislation, in particular by promoting the development and dissemination of best practices and policy approaches;to improve the knowledge base for the development, assessment, monitoring, evaluation and implementation of effective climate change mitigation actions and measures and to enhance the capacity to apply that knowledge in practice;to improve the knowledge base for the development, assessment, monitoring, evaluation and implementation of effective climate change adaptation actions and measures, prioritising, where appropriate, those applying an ecosystem-based approach, and to enhance the capacity to apply that knowledge in practice;to contribute to the development and demonstration of innovative climate change adaptation technologies, systems, methods and instruments that are suitable for being replicated, transferred or mainstreamed.(cid:9)to promote and contribute to more effective compliance with and enforcement of Union climate legislation, in particular by promoting the development and dissemination of best practices and policy approaches;to promote better environmental governance by broadening stakeholder involvement, including NGOs, in consultation on and implementation of policy.to promote better climate governance by broadening stakeholder involvement, including NGOs, in consultation on and implementation of policy.Sub-programme for EnvironmentSub-programme for Climate ActionGeneral Objective 1: To contribute to the shift towards a resource-efficient, low-carbon and climate-resilient economy, to the protection and improvement ofthe quality of the environment and to halting and reversing biodiversity loss, including the support of the Natura 2000 network and tackling the degradation of ecosystemsGeneral Objective 2: 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 
 
is 

FIGURE 2: HIERARCHY OF THE OBJECTIVES 

In this evaluation,  a simplified 
approach  has  been  used. 
Support for the implementation 
of the 7th Environmental Action 
Programme  (Ar.2(1d))  is  not 
presented  separately  as 
its 
evaluation  would be similar as 
the  one  of  the  first  general 
already 
objective.it 
operational and covered by the 
first  general  objective.85  To 
the  aspects 
focus  more  on 
covered  in  Article  3  (1b),  the 
study  evaluates  the  catalytic 
effect  and  the  promotion  of 
integration  and  mainstreaming 
into  other  EU  policies  and 
practices  separately  through  a 
distinct 
The 
objective  highlights  LIFE’s 
specific  role  in  the  MFF  Communication  and  addresses  key  institutional  drivers.  Figure  2 
shows the general objectives considered in the evaluation.   

objective. 

Additionally,  to  the  four  objectives,  reference  is  made  to  three  “building  blocks”,  which 
represent crucial functions for the success of the LIFE Programme.   

4)  Direction – support policies and legislation through pioneering projects that inspire 

legislation and the implementation of European environmental and climate 
legislation and policies  

5)  People – engage and mobilise project stakeholders and generate behavioural changes 

and raise public awareness  

6)  Solutions – facilitate the application of environmental solutions into public and 

private sector practices through innovation, close-to-market processes, integrated 
approaches, and knowledge enhancement  

The evaluation of the 2014-2020 LIFE Programme's performance relies on a structured 
framework  of  indicators  and  targets  established  at  its  inception.  The  Programme's  role  is 
outlined as complementary to mainstream approaches, focusing solely on environmental and 
climate  action.  Its  objectives  encompass  a  shift  towards  a  resource-efficient,  low-carbon 
economy  and  the  protection  of  biodiversity.  Evaluation  criteria  include  the  Programme's 
ability  to  catalyse  change,  engage  stakeholders,  and  implement  innovative  solutions. 
Indicators measure outputs, results, and impacts, with a focus on project-level KPIs alongside 
Programme-level  indicators.  Baselines  are  often  zero,  reflecting  the  starting  point  for 
improvements. The Programme's success is assessed through stakeholder consultations, case 

85 Details can be found in the report “Study to support the evaluation of the LIFE programme 2014-2020”. 

64 

 
 
 
studies  and  a  literature  review  acknowledging  transformative  potential  and  qualitative 
impacts. 

The  evaluation  of  the  four  objectives  and  building  blocks  is  based  on  KPIs,  performance 
indicators and the other sources used for the evaluation.  

In  2014,  a  comprehensive  set  of  performance  indicators,  with  respective  milestones  and 
targets  was  established  to  evaluate  the  performance  of  the  EU  budget  as  outlined  in  the 
Commission  Staff  Working  Document  ‘Overview  of  the  Monitoring,  Reporting,  and 
Evaluation Frameworks for the MFF 2014-2020 Programmes’86. For the LIFE Programme, 
output indicators with baselines and targets were defined for the general objectives, in order 
to evaluate the performance of the Programme. Specific criteria, milestones, and targets are 
further defined in the Programme statements attached to the Draft Budget. The statements for 
2014-2020  provide  a  yearly  account  of  the  LIFE  Programme's  implementation  and  its 
advancement towards targets. 

Since 2014, projects have been required to report on project-level Key Project Indicators 
(KPIs) which measure project contributions to environmental and climate challenges. At the 
start  of  a  project,  beneficiaries  must  choose  at  least  one  indicator  and  define  baseline  and 
expected results. The data is progressively checked by experts and updated over time, gaining 
robustness with successive controls. The KPIs, however, measure net change at the project 
level,  helping  to  evaluate  project  results.  The  data  show  that  projects  contribute  to  the 
Programme's  overarching  goal  and  produce  net  benefits.  KPIs  cannot  capture  all 
environmental benefits created by the Programme.  

The indicators for objectives 2, 3 and 4 are evaluated against base targets. The performance 
indicators in the MFF Evaluation Framework do not fit neatly into the categories of output, 
result, and impact indicators because their definitions include a mix of expected outcomes and 
achieved outcomes. For example, they might measure the percentage of species targeted by 
ongoing projects that are making progress towards a certain goal, or the percentage of species 
targeted by completed projects that have improved their conservation status. Most of these 
indicators focus on the number of interventions and projects, providing information on how 
the LIFE Programme is being implemented rather than the actual results or impact. The KPIs 
can support the analysis of results.  A detailed overview of indicators can be found in Annexes 
VII and VIII.  

To  evaluate  the  Programme's  general  objectives,  particularly  Objective  1,  performance 
indicators, KPIs, and additional sources are utilized. The LIFE Programme, operating within 
the  MFF,  aims  to  complement  mainstream  approaches  by  acting  as  a  catalyst  for 
environmental and climate actions, addressing specific needs not covered by other funding 
programmes. Objective 1 focuses on shifting towards a resource-efficient, low-carbon, and 
climate-resilient economy while protecting and improving the environment. To assess this, 
KPIs at  project  level  measure net  changes,  complementing  overall performance indicators. 
The LIFE Programme includes two sub-programmes: Environment and Climate Action, each 
with  distinct  priorities  and  project  categories. Traditional  projects  focus  on  innovation  and 
sustainability, while integrated projects coordinate funding sources for policy implementation. 

86 Commission Staff Working Document ‘Overview of the Monitoring, Reporting and Evaluation Frameworks for the MFF 
2014-2020  Programmes  Accompanying  the  document  Report  from  the  Commission  to  the  European  Parliament  and  the 
Council on the evaluation of the Union's finances based on the results achieved’. SWD/2014/0200 final. 

65 

 
 
Evaluation  criteria  include  baseline  assessments  and  targets  set  during  the  Programme's 
inception, supported by data from the European Environmental Agency. While quantitative 
assessment  may  be  challenging  due  to  the  Programme's  bottom-up  approach,  qualitative 
analysis  through  case  studies  and  stakeholder  consultation  demonstrates  transformative 
changes aligned with Programme objectives. 

The report acknowledges challenges in identifying specific impacts, particularly in areas such 
as  transformational  changes  and  mainstreaming  environmental  and  climate  objectives  into 
other policies. The evolving nature of project profiles and the ongoing status of many projects 
pose obstacles to precisely measuring long-term impacts. Despite these challenges, the report 
utilises available evidence to assess the programme's contribution to the shift towards a low-
carbon,  resource-efficient  economy.  By  synthesising  data  from  evaluations,  case  studies, 
stakeholder input, and supplementary studies, the report strives to provide a comprehensive 
understanding  of the programme's effects. While  acknowledging  the  limitations, the report 
aims to offer reasonable assurance regarding the programme's effectiveness in achieving its 
objectives and overarching goals. 

This evaluation of LIFE was conducted midway through its implementation therefore faces 
significant limitations due to the ongoing status of many projects. Approximately half of the 
projects remain ongoing, while the other half have closed, reflecting the programme's typical 
duration of 4 to 5 years. Consequently, the evaluation includes anticipated results and early 
impacts  alongside  actual  outcomes.  The  assessment  of  effectiveness  is  challenged  by  the 
evolving nature of project profiles during the evaluation period. Moreover, the Programme's 
evolved  during  the  evaluation  period,  further  complicating  the  assessment.  Despite 
challenges, the evaluation provides reasonable assurance of the programme's contribution to 
its  objectives.  Shortcomings  in  indicator  selection  and  the  absence  of  a  comprehensive 
information  system  for  performance  data  hinder  a  full  assessment  of  outcomes.  Efforts  to 
address  these  challenges  are  ongoing,  with  further  improvements  expected  in  future 
evaluations.  Further  limitations  in  evidence  and  data  are  outlined  in  the  respective  section 
annex II 5).  

2.2. Data gathering  

The initial aim of the evaluation of the ex-post evaluation of the LIFE Programme 2014-2020 
was  to  reply  to  a  total  of  16  evaluation  questions  and  51  sub-questions.  This  had  been 
developed  along  six  evaluation  criteria,  namely:  Effectiveness,  Efficiency,  Coherence, 
Relevance, EU added value (the five key criteria) and Early impacts. The evaluation report 
does not represent the details of this analysis as it follows the simplified logic and focuses on 
the most relevant aspects.  

As  indicated  in  the  Commission’s  Better  Regulation  Toolbox  2021,  the  evaluation  criteria 
questions  aim  to  assess  in  a  comprehensive  manner  each  aspect  of  the  Intervention  Logic 
underpinning the LIFE Programme. The figure below summarises what aspect of the LIFE 
Programme and/ or Regulation is analysed per each evaluation criterion. 

66 

 
 
 
FIGURE 3: EVALUATION CRITERIA 

In order to reply to the abovementioned evaluation questions, the support study triangulated 
in a balanced way qualitative and quantitative information retrieved from different sources, 
following the approach described below.  

2.3. Approach of the external study 

The  overall  approach  of  the  support  study  was  based  on  a  mixed  methods  approach. 
Important data analyses  of this mixed methods  approach included  an analysis of the LIFE 
Programme’s key performance indicators, collected at project level as well as six case studies 
that assessed the impacts of a group of LIFE funded projects across six of the main objectives 
of  the  programme.  Both  these  analyses  used  LIFE  projects  as  their  unit  of  analysis  their 
assessment of effectiveness and impact. 

This approach was complemented with an additional study that aimed to assess the macro 
impacts of the LIFE programme. The rationale for this ad-hoc study was to develop a pilot 
method for the identification and estimation of economic, social, and environmental impacts 
generated by LIFE funding, i.e., macro level impacts of the programme, since the current data 
gathered are focused on the project level. In this way, the additional research would provide 
complementary  findings  to  the  support  study  and  overall  evaluation.  The  macro  impacts 
study’s draft methodology can also be adapted, improved and deployed for future assignments 
(e.g.,  impact  assessments,  mid-term  and  final  evaluations  of  the  LIFE  programme).  Please 
refer to the section ‘limitations and robustness of the findings’ for a thorough overview of the 
limitations encountered and mitigated in the conduction of the study. Please find below a brief 
overview  of  the  tasks  that  ensured  the  mix  of  qualitative  and  quantitative  methodologies 
applied to this end. 

2.4. Activities 

Task 1: Review and analysis of relevant available data and evidence 

In the first phase of the project, the external study team focused on reviewing and analysing 
relevant  available  data  and  evidence  for  the  purposes  of  the  evaluation.  Firstly,  a  data 
gathering  plan  (Task  1.1)  has  been  developed,  in  order  to  establish  a  comprehensive  and 

67 

 
 
 
 
 
structured  approach  to  collect  the  necessary  data  (secondary  sources  and  databases).  An 
appropriate assessment of the data needs, and of the data collection tools to be used was, then, 
possible  and  paved  the  way  to  the  data  collection  activities  and  the  identification  of 
information to cover through primary data (Task 2).  

Through  the  literature  review  (Task  1.2),  the  team  mainly  aimed  to  identify,  analyse  and 
synthesise qualitative data available EU-level documents on the LIFE programme. Documents 
consulted  include:  Legislative  documents,  including  LIFE  Multiannual  Work  Programmes 
(MAWPs), Annual update reports and previous evaluation studies of the LIFE programme, 
Strategy  documents  (e.g.  Europe  2020  Strategy,  7th  Union  Environmental  Action 
Programme), Reports on specific thematic areas of the LIFE programme, Reports on other 
funding  programmes  that  have  thematic  focus  similar  to  the  LIFE  programme,  Delegation 
agreement  with  the  ЕIB  for  the  financial  instruments,  among  others.  Initially,  the  team 
identified  around  130  potentially  relevant  EU-level  sources  which  were,  then,  screened  to 
assess their relevance. The team has, then, compiled all sources in a matrix extraction tool to 
support assessment of available evidence and remaining gaps.  The matrix allowed the team 
to  screen each source of information  and record in  a systematic way evidence relevant  for 
each of the evaluation criteria, the research questions and related sub-questions. Finally, this 
helped the team analyse and synthesise initial findings. 

On the other hand, the analysis of quantitative data (crucial for the efficiency criterion and 
the performed cost-benefit analysis mentioned below) ran in parallel, being structured along 
4 phases: i) mapping and selection, ii) data organisation, iii) cleaning and harmonisation and, 
finally,  iv)  data  aggregation.  More  specifically,  the  quantitative  analyses  have  been  key  in 
supporting the evaluation through:  

1)  Descriptive  statistics  on  budget,  applications  and  projects  funded  under  the 

respective LIFE 2014-2020 sub-programmes and thematic priority.  

2)  Provision  of  data  to  evaluate  the  achievement  of  the  LIFE  quantitative  and 
qualitative outcomes and 2020 targets (for each priority area and type of projects) 
set out in the LIFE Multiannual Work Programmes 2014-2017 and 2018-2020 (KPI 
analysis).  

3)  Provision  of  data  for  assessment  of  the  achievement  of  the  milestones  of  the 
Programme  Statement  indicators  and  the  achievement  of  the  LIFE  Regulation 
indicators. 

4)  Provision  of  additional  punctual  analysis  to  show  the  LIFE  contribution  for 
instance to (1) innovation and competitiveness (2) the investments for environment 
and climate action and (3) to jobs  

5)  Provision of additional data and analyses related to the efficiency criterion (incl. 

cost-benefit analysis). 

In this, the collaboration with DG ENV, DG CLIMA and CINEA has been key in gathering 
all needed sources of information (e.g. Management costs and benchmarks), clarifications on 
internally used methodologies (e.g. for tracking expenditure), as well as the access granted to 
LIFE databases (e.g. Butler, eProposal).  

68 

 
Task 2: Stakeholder consultation 

In  this  evaluation,  the  Consortium  ran  several  consultation  activities,  aimed  at  gathering  a 
wide  range  of  primary  data,  at  different  level  of  granularity  and  by  different  types  of 
stakeholders, in order to complement the data gathered in the previous task. To this end, a 
Stakeholder Consultation Strategy (SCS) was developed, also with the aim to ensure that each 
consultation activity complements each other as well as the data gaps assessed on secondary 
data.  

The stakeholder consultation activities carried out can be divided as follow:  

•  Feedback to the Call for Evidence 

•  Targeted consultation of stakeholders, namely consisting of: 

o  Focus Group  

o 

Interviews 

o  Survey 

o  Validation exercise 

•  Participation in at least two events.  

The overall objective of the consultation is to gain a deeper understanding of the LIFE 2014-
2020  Programme,  in  order  to  evaluate  it  against  the  six  evaluation  criteria  and  research 
questions under analysis. 

The  scope  of  the  consultation  strategy  extended  to  all  of  the  various  actors  directly  and 
indirectly involved in the implementation of LIFE or who benefit from their implementation, 
ensuring that all relevant stakeholders were appropriately engaged and consulted. By having 
a wide consultation scope to include all key stakeholders in the implementation of the LIFE 
2014-2020, we aimed to gain knowledge of the different opinions of the current programme 
and suggestions on how to further improve future programmes. More specifically, we aimed 
to  identify  any  gaps,  challenges  and  opportunities  faced  by  stakeholders  as  well  as  their 
perspectives  and  ideas  on  how  to  remedy  gaps  or  challenges  or  build  on  opportunities. 
Involved stakeholders (that differed depending on the specific consultation stream) included: 

•  Beneficiaries of the LIFE programme 

•  EU-level bodies 

•  National Contact Points (NCPs) and Member States’ authorities 

•  Evaluators 

•  Monitors  

•  Citizens 

The  consultations  involved  both  backward-  and  forward-looking  questions,  and  explored 
various dimensions of the LIFE 2014-2020 programme. These include, among other elements, 
views  on  LIFE’s  design,  relevance,  impacts,  synergies,  and  challenges  hampering  the 
successful implementation of the programme as well as suggestions for improvements. This 
approach helped the team focusing on causality links when analysing the responses in light of 
the criteria under evaluation. Furthermore, through this exercise the team aimed to consult on 
the costs and benefits of the programme as well as of implemented projects. This allowed the 

69 

 
team  to  gain  an understanding  of the cost-benefit ratio of the programme and identify any 
areas for improvement. 

1.  The Call for evidence was published for feedback by the Commission from the 16th 
of March 2022 until the 13th of April 2022 gathered a total of 32 contributions from a 
wide range of stakeholders (e.g. member state competent authorities, national contact 
points, monitors, various categories of LIFE programmes beneficiaries). The analysis 
of  received  contributions  was  carried  out  in  the  first  phase  of  the  project 
implementation.  

2.  The targeted consultation gathered feedback from the for the stakeholders that have 
direct experience in implementing the programme. It took place  between July 2022 
and  March  2023.  It  consisted  of  focus  groups,  interviews,  an  online  survey  and 
validation workshop. The online survey was open for feedback to the general public, 
while for the other consultation activities those stakeholders having experience with 
the  programme  were  targeted  to  receive  feedback  on  specific  aspects  of  the 
programme.  

a.  In the inception phase, both scoping interviews and focus groups have been 
key  to  have  a  better  understanding  of  the  evaluation  and  to  validate  the 
approach  of  the  external  consultant  (available  literature  sources,  SCS, 
definition  of  judgement  criteria,  better  understanding  of  synergies  and 
interferences of LIFE programme with other external policy areas and fundings 
instrument, better understanding of the internal interferences between internal 
six  priorities  of  the  LIFE  programme).  Furthermore,  these  activities  also 
allowed for a better calibration of stakeholder mapping  and development of 
research  tools. The  7  scoping  interviews  carried  out  in  the  inception  phase 
have been key in gaining a better understanding of the subject matter and key 
elements to be taken into account in this ex-post evaluation. More specifically, 
the  scoping  interviews  allowed  to  have  a  deeper  understanding  of  the  main 
topics  from  the  most  knowledgeable  officers  of  relevant  DGs,  as  well  as  to 
gather their opinion on the programme and sub-programme’s priorities and on 
the outcome of the mid-term evaluation (2017). The interviews followed semi-
structured  questionnaires,  tailored  on  the  basis  of  the  expertise  of  each 
interviewee  working  for  DG  ENV,  DG  CLIMA  and  CINEA.  Apart  from 
interviews having a more general focus on the LIFE programme, more specific 
interviews  focused  on  Nature  and  Biodiversity,  Climate  Adaptation  and 
Mitigation and Procurement.  As per the focus groups conducted with CINEA, 
they have been crucial for the for the validation of the methodological approach 
of the study. In these occasions, the team discussed with CINEA topics such as 
data  access  and  availability,  the  case  studies  scope  and  criteria  for  their 
selection, as well as KPIs and LIFE databases, among other things.  

b.  From the 21st of December 2022 until the 24th of March 2023, the study team 
collected the views of different categories of stakeholders through an online 
survey. The survey was carried out electronically through a web-based tool. A 
total of 436 stakeholders provided replies to the survey, which was targeting 
organisations  participating  in  one  or  more  LIFE  projects  and/or  proposals, 

70 

 
NGOs,  Member  States  authorities,  National  Contact  Points,  Evaluators, 
Monitors of LIFE projects and private citizens. For this consultation activity a 
single survey questionnaire was proposed to all types of stakeholders, although 
some  questions  were  only  targeting  specific  categories.  The  survey 
questionnaire was structured along all the criteria considered in the evaluation. 
Although much of the collected data is, however, “qualitative” in its nature, 
the  study  team  aimed  to  quantify  the  input  as  much  as  possible  by  offering 
mainly closed questions and rating scales (on level of agreement with specific 
statements). The online survey aimed to verify the robustness of data collected 
from  interviews.  It  aimed to  support the findings with  objectively  verifiable 
evidence based on a larger and more representative sample of population. The 
the  European 
link 
Commission’s  channels  (e.g.  advertised  on  Twitter  and  on  DG  ENV  and 
CLIMA websites), while the client also mobilised part of its network to ensure 
to  reach  as  many  relevant  stakeholders  as  possible.  During  the  survey,  we 
regularly reviewed which groups provided responses and which not, to guide 
sending  out  of  reminders  and  other  activities  for  take  up.  At  the  end  of  the 
survey, we checked again which groups were reached sufficiently and which 
not,  to  ensure  that  we  were  aware  of  eventual  biases  in  the  analysis  of  the 
results.  

the  online  survey  was  disseminated 

through 

to 

c.  Differently from the survey, for the interviews the external study team targeted 
the most knowledgeable stakeholders who directly or indirectly play important 
roles  in  the  context  of  the  LIFE  programme.  Overall,  between  January  and 
April  2023,  the  team  consulted  91  stakeholders.  In  terms  of  timing,  the 
interviews  started  after  approximately  four  weeks  from  the  launch  of  the 
survey, which partially run in parallel. The stakeholders’ interviews aimed:  

•  To  refine  the  study  team’s  knowledge  and  understanding  of  the  LIFE 
programme 2014-2020, complementing the findings of the desk research 
and literature review;  

•  To verify the relevance of the LIFE programme objectives and the projects 

funded; 

•  To  identify  what  worked  well  and  what  could  be  improved  in  terms  of 

implementation; 

•  To evaluate the monitoring and evaluation of projects funded under LIFE; 

•  To  discuss  potential  and  actual  results  and  outcomes  of  projects  funded 

under LIFE; 

•  To identify recommendations for the future. 

The  interviews  majorly  supported  the  evaluation  of  the  efficiency, 
effectiveness and early and expected impacts criteria. This is mainly because 
for these criteria, gathered information have to be adequately contextualised. 

71 

 
The  interviews  were  split  between  7  ‘scoping  interviews’,  58  ‘core 
interviews’ and those dedicated to the analysis of the case studies, namely 26. 
Interview  guidelines  differed  depending  on  the  type  of  stakeholders 
addressed, namely: beneficiaries, EU-level bodies, evaluators, monitors, MS 
competent authorities, NCPs.  Interviewed beneficiaries were selected with 
the aim to cover a fair proportion of EU Member State and, where possible, 
also to have a fair sectoral representation. The selection was made based using 
a set of criteria aimed at ensuring fair representation of stakeholders involved 
(e.g. for beneficiaries, targeting a fair distribution per sub-programme/priority 
area, type of funding, category of stakeholder and geographical representation 
across MS-28). The final list of mapped beneficiaries was, then, submitted to 
the Client for receiving suggestions and validation. Once the interviews were 
concluded, they were all transcribed into a common excel template divided 
per criterion under analysis, to ease the extraction and comparison of data for 
the subsequent analysis.  

d.  The  validation  exercise  was  the  last  activity  run  in  the  context  of  the 
consultation  strategy.  It  aimed  to  validate  the  findings  of  the  other  research 
tools and the analysis carried out by the team (Task 3 below), including the 
conclusions and final recommendations. The questions that were proposed in 
this occasion majorly differed from the ones asked under the other streams of 
work,  as  the  team  proposed  final  key  findings  to  be  validated.  Given  the 
successful conduction of the stakeholder consultation, as well as the limited 
availability of contacted stakeholders during the ending period of the project 
(i.e., Summer period), the team re-designed the validation exercise to better fit 
the study needs and possibility at its disposal. Instead of a validation workshop, 
stakeholders were contacted through bilaterally iteration and the conclusions 
and recommendations were shared with them. Each stakeholder was invited to 
comment  on  each  of  the  findings  shared,  in  order  to  let  the  study  team 
incorporate their feedbacks in the final report. 

3.  The participation of the external study team in already planned events helped consult 
beneficiaries  of  the  LIFE  and  LIFE+  programme  and  national  stakeholders  and 
Member State representatives. The particular added value of this type of research tool 
is  that it can give the possibility to  participate in  events  having  a specific focus  on 
certain  areas  of  great  interest  for  the  evaluation.  The  first  event  to  which 
representatives  of  the  team  participated  was  the  “Workshop  on  EU  Life  Integrated 
Projects - What did we learn?”, held in Helsinki on the 14th of September 2022, which 
was focused on integrated projects. The second event to which the team participated 
was held in Rome on the 12th of December 2022, namely the Conference “Celebrations 
in  Italy  of  the  30th  anniversary  of  the  LIFE  programme  and  the  Habitat  Directive” 
(Celebrazioni  in  Italia  del  30°  anniversario  del  programma  LIFE  e  della  direttiva 
habitat).  During  these  occasions,  the  team  tried  to  liaise  with  the  most  relevant 
stakeholders,  in  order  to  disseminate  information  on  the  support  study  and,  thus, 
involve them in the consultation activities (e.g. interviews). 

The findings are included in the main report (SWD).  

72 

 
Task 3: Study to support the evaluation 

The last task of the project consists of the analysis of the data gathered, through the synthesis 
and triangulation of the evidence collected, and through the presentation of case studies and 
the development of conclusions and recommendations. 

Firstly, the evaluation questions matrix (EQM) was developed, being considered as the basis 
of the study’s data collection and subsequent analysis. During the inception period, this has 
been refined and finalised in collaboration with DGs ENV and CLIMA. 

Secondly,  the  study  team  developed  six  in-depth  case  studies. The  case  studies  provided 
important input to the synthesis analysis, and helped understanding the causal effects and the 
reasons  why  and  how  LIFE  projects  can  be  efficient,  effective  and  how  and  why  impacts 
occur.  By  analysing  project  circumstances,  and  project  setups  and  actions  the  case  studies 
enabled  a  more  comprehensive  understanding  on  the  impacts  of  LIFE  projects,  also 
complementing the information gathered through the previous tasks (in particular the survey 
and  the  interviews).  The  topics  of  the  case  studies  were  selected  with  the  aim  to  give  a 
demonstrative illustration of the types of impacts that LIFE projects can achieve. The topics 
are the following: 

▪  Case Study 1: LIFE contribution on the implementation and management of the Natura 

2000 network   

▪  Case  Study  2:  LIFE  contribution  to  resource  efficiency,  climate  change  adaptation  & 

mitigation 

▪  Case Study 3: Contribution of LIFE to environmental improvement 

▪  Case Study 4: Contribution of LIFE to enforcement of EU environmental legislation 

▪  Case Study 5: Contribution of LIFE programme on trigging replication or transfer and 
interventions  achieving  synergies  with  or  mainstreamed  into  other  Union  funding 
programmes 

▪  Case  Study  6:  Contribution  of  LIFE  in  supporting  dissemination  of  information  and 

governance of environmental and climate aspects. 

From a methodological standpoint, the case studies were developed through a  theory-
based approach, aimed at better contextualising the general analysis. In doing this, the 
study team  aimed to  identify and analyse both  enabling factors that contributed to  the 
success  of  the  LIFE  programme  and  projects  and  eventual  barriers  hampering  the 
achievement  of  the  programme’s  objectives.  The  case  studies  were  developed  both 
through desk-based research and interviews with the 5 projects’ representatives selected 
for each case study topic. As per the selection criteria for the projects to be considered 
under each case study, the study team observed the following three general criteria:  

▪  Purpose:  selecting  the  right  cases  for  demonstrating  impacts  that  the  programme  was 

intended to trigger. 

▪  Meaningfulness:  for  illustrating  specific  aspects,  relevant  interventions  were  selected 
within the projects’ sample as examples of success stories and best practices or of failure 
and lessons learnt. 

73 

 
▪  Representativeness: trying to reach – to the possible extent - a balanced sample of projects 
in order to ensure a comprehensive and impartial analytical base. The selection was made 
on the basis of pre-defined criteria e.g.: most representative thematic areas (in terms of 
number  of  projects);  average  size  of  the  investment  (EU  contribution  for  the  project); 
types  of  the  projects  and  grants  (including  “traditional”,  integrated  projects  and,  to  a 
limited  extent,  other  projects);  most  representative  types  of  interventions;  status  of 
implementation  (including  completed  and  on-going  interventions);  commonalities  and 
differences among projects will be shown up in the analysis in a way it could feed into 
ex-post evaluation exercise. All evidence was collected under the previous streams of data 
collection  activities  (both  for  secondary  and  primary  data),  and  then,  triangulated  and 
synthetised in order to develop the findings of all research tools. The final analysis of this 
information was carried out through a variety of methods and a systematic approach to 
answer the above-mentioned evaluation questions across all considered criteria. The key 
principle of the data analysis was to cross-reference emerging conclusions from different 
sources and via the different tasks to ensure the consistency, reliability and validity of 
findings (which was particularly important for themes like EU added value and catalytic 
effects where different stakeholders are likely to have different points of view). The team 
worked on the information gathered in different matrices per each task, categorised per 
each  evaluation  criterion  to  ease  the  comparison  and,  thus,  synthesis  of  results.  This 
approach allowed to explore similarities and differences in perspective between different 
countries,  different  types  of  interviewees,  and  also  to  factor  in  objectively  verifiable 
evidence and thus reach a balanced judgement. This approach will also enable us to be 
clear as to the role of different types of data and interpretation in the judgements reached 
(e.g.  opinion).  The  quantitative  data  analysed  comprise  project  data  (on  financing, 
geographical  coverage,  effects  etc.)  and  other  micro,  meso  or  macro  data  as  collected 
through the Tasks. The analysis of this data was guided by the same principle of template 
analysis  used  for  the  qualitative  data  analysis.  Analysis  of  this  dataset  was  broadly 
descriptive in nature, using frequency distributions to organise and display data. In this 
way, all the evidence collected was reviewed to identify patterns, themes or differences 
(for  example,  by  country,  sub-Programme,  type  of  project),  building  up  a  set  of 
generalisations from which conclusions and recommendations have been drawn. 

In addition, the validation was a key exercise for external stakeholders to critique and refine 
conclusions and recommendations that were developed on the basis of the previous analysis 
and based on the Better Regulation Toolbox.  

2.5. Limitations and robustness of the findings of the evaluation 

While the external study concluded on the reliability of the figures provided, the following 
data limitations were noticed:  

Data limitation 1: completeness vs reliability of data 

Success of LIFE project is measured through the Key Project-level Indicators (KPIs), which 
are self-reported by beneficiaries at least twice during the project implementation. KPIs 
are a set of Environmental and Socio-economic indicators used to measure the impact of the 
LIFE programme funding. The fact that the progress is measured by beneficiaries themselves 
can create incentives to overestimate the actual results and can create inconsistencies in the 
way different beneficiaries report. Still, the Commission and CINEA have several safeguard 
measures in place to ensure that data are reliable: project results are checked by the monitors, 

74 

 
the project officers and a specific KPI coordinator in CINEA. Monitors are country and sector 
experts, project officers have experience in the sector across different countries and the KPI 
coordinator undertakes checks taking into account the data across all the projects in the same 
sectors in the KPI database (e.g. analysis of outliers). In total, KPI data should thus be reliable, 
even though they are self-reported by beneficiaries.  

Secondly, in their nature, case studies cannot demonstrate an overall effect of the LIFE 
programme  but  are  used  to  analyse  in  depths  effect  in  a  specific  area.  Nevertheless,  the 
selected  projects  for  the  six  case  studies  were  picked  based  on  a  methodology  to  ensure 
representativeness. Projects were selected to illustrate concrete examples of actions covering 
the  various  aspects  of  an  objective  (e.g.  for  the  LIFE  programme  objective  of  supporting 
Natura  2000,  both  aspects  ‘improvement  of  species  and  habitats  conservation  status’  and 
‘Projects 
to  Natura  2000’  were  covered).  
Representatives of projects and project results was ensured by selection projects based on:   

integrated  approaches 

illustrate 

that 

•  a geographic balance (i.e. wide EU coverage),  

•  a variety of actions (standard action projects and integrated projects) 

•  average budget per types of projects 

•  A focus on closed or almost closed projects  

Each specific case study complemented these criteria by others, specific to its objective. The 
case  study  on  Natura  2000  selected  for  example  five  representative  EU  biogeographical 
regions in order guarantee representativeness of member states and biogeography among the 
analysed projects in the case study. Furthermore, projects had to cover as far as possible all 
types of species and habitats under the Natura Directives. In total, even though the case studies 
focus  on  a  limited  number  of  projects,  representativeness  among  selected  projects  was 
ensured. 

The evaluation was complicated by the fact that in the programming period 2014 -2020 KPIs 
and targets and milestone defined in the MAWP did not match entirely. As a consequence, 
data were not collected for some of the targets/milestones mentioned in the MAWP (e.g., the 
number of persons Union-wide targeted by ongoing or finalised projects aiming at reducing 
chemicals). This was remedied by combining several KPIs to assess the achievement of the 
respective evaluation criteria defined in the MAWP. This was corrected in the MAWP 2021-
2024.  

At the time of the implementation of this study, not all projects were completed yet and 
did not yet report final project results. Some projects reported expected KPI values. In 
order to ensure precision, the ex-post evaluation considered only the results of completed 
and validated projects. Expected results for the ongoing project were extrapolated.  

Mitigating measure: Two scenarios were elaborated to mitigate the risk of completeness vs 
reliability of data: 

- an evidence-based scenario, including data on finalised projects and data on projects 
considered to be in an advanced phase of implementation, which makes their outcomes 
relatively certain87; 

87   The reliability and plausibility of data of these projects have been reviewed and validated at the time of the interim 

evaluation. 

75 

 
 
- a forward-looking scenario including data on all other projects. This provides a more 
comprehensive  picture  that  shows  what  is  expected  to  happen,  based  on  the  state  of 
implementation  at  the cut  off date of June 2023. While this scenario was  used for the 
evaluation work, it is not included in the SWD with the evaluation report, following the 
recommendation of the RSB to not use this scenario.  

Data limitation 2: comprehensiveness - attribution of projects to policy goals, programme 
objectives and programming targets.  

Mitigating measure: although contributing to more than one goal/objective/targets, the 
projects have been flagged for their primary destination and those data have been used for 
the core of the analysis, while the information stemming from the other destinations of the 
projects have been used as complementary information. 

Furthermore, the contractor carried out an additional macro-impacts study. The contractor 
carried out a pilot study to produce a method for the identification and estimation of 
economic, social and environmental impacts generated by LIFE funding. This report is 
submitted separately. 

Data limitation 3: coherence and consistence of data - merging information from different 
sources.  

The multiplicity of the sources of the data and their partial incoherence represented a minor 
challenge  for  the  present  analysis.  Data  sources  were  CINEA,  eProposal,  LIFE  Public 
Database, Butler, data files directly shared by EC, and the KPI database for LIFE. Since each 
data source pursues its own objective, the theme’s classification of a project differs. CINEA 
is  currently  working  on  ensuring  more  coherence  and  interoperability  between  the  LIFE 
Public Database, the KPI database for LIFE and the land purchase database.  

76 

 
Annex III. Evaluation matrix and, where relevant, Details on answers to the evaluation questions (by criterion) 

TABLE 4:  Evaluation Matrix 

Evaluation 
question 

EQ 1.1  
Which are the 
quantitative 
and qualitative 
results 
achieved so far 
by the LIFE 
projects 
financed in 
2014-2020 on 
the general 
objectives 2,3 
and 488? 

SUPPORT FOR EVALUATION OF THE LIFE PROGRAMME 2014-2020 

Sub-questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators 

Sources 

1.  Effectiveness 

Based on the sources consulted, the 
groups of projects funded under the 
LIFE programme 2014-2020, have 
achieved or are likely to achieve 
results in line with the general 
objectives of the LIFE programme.  

To cross-reference with the results 
presented in the mid-term evaluation 

EQ 1.1.1. To what extent 
have the project activities 
funded under LIFE 
contributed to the 
achievement of the general 
objectives 2,3, and 4? What 
internal and external factors 
have contributed or inhibited 
the implementation and 
results of the interventions? 
What can be done to 
encourage further effects?  

Extent to which the qualitative 
(outputs in terms of numbers, 
percentages) results to date are 
in line with those indicated in 
the multiannual work 
programmes and the indicators 
developed per sub-programme  

Sources for collecting 
quantitative information:  
- Data of the LIFE KPI webtool  
- Reporting on performance 
indicators (programme 
statements, etc.)  
- Data from the eButler database 
- Data from eProposal database 

Extent to which the 
quantitative (contextual, 
descriptive outputs) results to 
date are in line with those 
indicated in the multiannual 
work programmes and the 
indicators developed per sub-
programme  

Sources for collecting 
quantitative and qualitative 
information:  
- Literature review on project 
results (sample, Layman 
reports) 

88 (2) to improve the development, implementation and enforcement of EU environment/climate policies and legislation ; (3) to support improved environmental and climate governance at all levels; include 
civil society, NGOs, and local stakeholders, (4) to act as a catalyst and promote the integration and mainstreaming of environmental/climate objectives into other EU policies, as well as within public 
and private sector practices.  

77 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation 
question 

SUPPORT FOR EVALUATION OF THE LIFE PROGRAMME 2014-2020 

Sub-questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators 

Sources 

EQ 1.1.2. To what extent 
have each type of 
intervention contributed to 
reach the three general 
objectives of LIFE (i.e., 
action grants, NGO operating 
grants, financial 
instruments)? To what extent 
can an increased 
effectiveness be expected as 
a result of to the mix of 
actions (traditional project + 
the new integrated, capacity 
building, technology 
assistance and financial 
instruments)?  
EQ 1.2.1. To what extent 
have the results of the LIFE 
interventions met the 2017 
and 2020 targets/ milestones 
as enlisted in the relevant 

EQ 1.2. To 
which extent 
do these 
results 
correspond to 
the expected 

Based on the sources to be consulted, 
each type of interventions offered by 
the LIFE programme contributed to at 
least one, possibly more, of the 
general objectives in line with the 
objective of intervention  

Estimation of financial 
resources mobilised per each 
category of intervention.  

Results achieved for each type 
of instrument/intervention 

Level of satisfaction of 
beneficiaries and immediate 
stakeholder in terms of 
effectiveness and 
appropriateness in terms of 
results per type of intervention  

- After-LIFE reports, after-LIFE 
plans 
- Data from the eButler database 
- Data from eProposal database 
- Ex-post reports of projects 
- Desk Research (selected 
sample of projects' final 
technical reports) 
- Semi-structured Interviews 
with evaluators, NEEMO, 
beneficiaries, NCP, local 
authorities  
- Survey with project 
beneficiaries  
- case studies  

Based on the sources to be consulted, 
the groups of projects funded under 
the LIFE programme 2014-2020, 
clustered by general objective, have 
achieved their respective results (in 

Qualitative and quantitative 
assessment of the achievement 
of results of the specific 2017 
and 2020 targets/milestones as 
enlisted in the relevant 
MWPs91 

Sources for quantitative 
information 
- MWPs 
- Data of the LIFE KPI webtool  
- Data from the eButler database 
- Data from eProposal database 

91 For a comprehensive overview of relevant indicators to be analysed please refer to the COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION of 19 March 2014 on the adoption of the LIFE multiannual work 
programme for 2014-17 and the COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2018/210 of 12 February 2018 on the adoption of the LIFE multiannual work programme for 2018-2020 table 
7.1, 7.2 (page 57 to 67) 

78 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation 
question 

results 
indicated in 
the relevant 
Multiannual 
Work 
Programmes 
and the MFF 
evaluation 
framework? 

SUPPORT FOR EVALUATION OF THE LIFE PROGRAMME 2014-2020 

Sub-questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators 

Sources 

MWPs and the MFF 
evaluation framework?89, 90 

line with their respective objectives 
and budgets) 

Extent to which all types of 
beneficiaries are well 
represented in line with the 
MWP 

The selection and award criteria were 
adequate/ in line with the respective 
objectives the MWPs and thus lead to 
the achievement of expected results.  

All stakeholders envisaged to 
participate according other MWPs 
were represented (e.g., private 
landowners) 

- Reporting on performance 
indicators (programme 
statements, etc.)  

Sources for quantitative and 
qualitative information 
- Data from the eButler database 
- Data from eProposal database 
- Literature review on project 
results, expected results and 
activities (sample, Layman 
reports) 
- After-LIFE reports, after-LIFE 
plans 
- Ex-post reports of projects 
- Desk Research (selected 
sample of projects' final 
technical reports) 
- MWPs 
- Interviews with evaluators, 
NCPs, policy officers, local 

89 COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION of 19 March 2014 on the adoption of the LIFE multiannual work programme for 2014-17, – table 7.1, 7.2 (page 44 to 54) 

CELEX_32014D0203_EN_TXT.pdf (sharepoint.com).  

90 COMMISSION IMPLEMENTING DECISION (EU) 2018/210 of 12 February 2018 on the adoption of the LIFE multiannual work programme for 2018-2020 table 7.1, 7.2 (page 57 to 67).  

79 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation 
question 

SUPPORT FOR EVALUATION OF THE LIFE PROGRAMME 2014-2020 

Sub-questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators 

Sources 

EQ 1.2.2. To what has the 
flexibility of the LIFE 
Programme has contributed 
its effectiveness?  To what 
extent has the programme’s 
outputs and results 
contributed to policy 
developments?  

LIFE has contributed to policy 
developments and could adjust to 
unexpected challenged (e.g. Covid-19 
pandemic)  

Extent to which LIFE results 
and outputs have contributed 
to policy developments  

LIFE showed flexibility in 
responding to new challenges  

EQ 1.3. Which 
results are 
contributing to 
the 
achievement 

EQ 1.3.1. To what extent 
have the results of the LIFE 
programme contributed 
towards reaching the 
European Green Deal related  

Capability of the LIFE programme to 
contribute to achieving the European 
Green Deal overall objectives and 
associated policies (e.g. contribution 
to circular economy) 

Extent to which applications 
submitted before and after the 
adoption of the Green Deal 
(clustered by sub-programme 

80 

authorities, beneficiaries, EU 
officials 
- Survey with beneficiaries  
- Literature review on project 
results, expected results and 
activities (sample, Layman 
reports) 
- After-LIFE reports, after-LIFE 
plans 
- Ex-post reports of projects 
- Desk Research (selected 
sample of projects' final 
technical reports) 
- MWPs 
- Interviews with evaluators, 
NCPs, policy officers, local 
authorities, beneficiaries, EU 
officials 
- Survey with beneficiaries 
- Data of the LIFE KPI webtool  
- Literature review on EGD 
related policies  
- LIFE database 
- Interviews with monitors, 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation 
question 
of the LIFE 
Programme’s 
overarching 
objective 192 
and, thereby, 
to the 
European 
Green Deal? 

SUPPORT FOR EVALUATION OF THE LIFE PROGRAMME 2014-2020 

Sub-questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators 

Sources 

objectives and targets (e.g. 
no net emissions of 
greenhouse gases by 2050, 
zero pollution in air, water 
and soil, economic growth 
decoupled from resource use, 
improved circular economy 
etc.) and all associated 
policies?  

Capability of the LIFE programme to 
contribute to achieving other EU 
goals, notably the EGD and the 
targets of Europe 2020. 

EQ.1.3.2. To what extent did 
the LIFE Programme 
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 

Projects implemented by the LIFE 
Programme achieved environmental 
net benefit which 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 

and priority) were aligned to 
its objectives. 

Extent to which activities 
financed by LIFE have 
contributed to the strategic 
development of the European 
Green Deal or consequent 
initiatives (climate 
mainstreaming, biodiversity 
mainstreaming, strategies 
adopted by the Commission) 
Aggregated data on 
environmental net benefits of 
implemented LIFE Projects 
checked thanks to 
triangulation  

NCPs, evaluators, policy 
officers (e.g. CINEA, DG ENV) 
- desk research  
- case studies  

- Data of the LIFE KPI webtool  
- LIFE database 
- Interviews with monitors, 
NCPs, evaluators, policy 
officers (e.g. CINEA, DG ENV) 

92  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. 

81 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation 
question 

SUPPORT FOR EVALUATION OF THE LIFE PROGRAMME 2014-2020 

Sub-questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators 

Sources 

network and tackling the degradation 
of ecosystems 

Existence of internal and external 
synergies of LIFE programme with 
other EU programme and 
interventions which leverage the 
overall achievement of the EU’s 
Green Deal Ambition.  

Extent to which the 
environmental and climate 
objective of the LIFE 
programme were likely to 
achieved when the synergies 
with other programmes occur. 

loss, including the support of 
the Natura 2000 network and 
tackling the degradation of 
ecosystems?   

EQ 1.3.3 Did the LIFE 
Programme build synergies 
with other European and 
national funding 
programmes, that have 
positively or negatively 
contributed to the 
achievement by LIFE 
interventions of the Green 
Deal ambition? 

- Data of the LIFE KPI webtool  
- Literature review on EGD 
related policies  
- LIFE database 
- Interviews with monitors, 
NCPs, evaluators, policy 
officers (e.g. CINEA, DG ENV) 
-Environmental implementation 
Review  
- reporting of Member States, 
for example in partnership 
agreements  

82 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation 
question 

EQ 2.1 What 
are the costs 
and benefits of 
the 
programme? 

SUPPORT FOR EVALUATION OF THE LIFE PROGRAMME 2014-2020 

Sub-questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators 

Sources 

- Management  costs  data  of 
LIFE programmes on grants 

- Data from the AARs 
- For 

financial 
Delegation Agreement 

instruments: 

EQ 2.1.1 What are the costs 
of the programme? 

2.  Efficiency 

The costs (of control, management, 
monitoring) are 
perceived as appropriate and justified 
by all stakeholders.  

Description and estimation of 
costs of the LIFE programme 
for one or, if possible, more 
types of intervention (e.g. 
management costs of the 
programme within DG ENV 
and DG CLIMA, the budget 
transferred from the 
Commission to EASME to 
manage the programme and 
the costs for monitoring 
contractors),   
More specifically: 

-  Qualitative assessment 

of the resources 
deployed.  

-  Quantitative estimate 
inputs (management 
costs and financial 
contributions allocated 
to projects). 

EQ 2.1.2 What are the 
benefits of the programme? 

The LIFE Programme generates 

Description and estimation of 
benefits of the LIFE 

LIFE Database of Key 
Performance Indicators: 

83 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
Evaluation 
question 

SUPPORT FOR EVALUATION OF THE LIFE PROGRAMME 2014-2020 

Sub-questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators 

Sources 

quantified and non-quantified 
vironmental results. 
The results achieved by the LIFE 
programme are easily aggregable. 

programme (clustered by 
categories of interventions and 
priority area). This involves: 

-  Qualitative assessment 

of the achieved 
benefits.  

-  Quantitative estimate 

 -Final results of LIFE and 
LIFE+ traditional projects 
 -Data on the expected results of 
on-going LIFE projects. 
 (as far as possible the 
aggregation of results will be 
retrieved from EQ1) 

After-LIFE Conservation 
reports (sample) 
Projects technical reports 
(sample) 

Literature and databases on 
monetised benefits generated by 
environmental projects. 

of the benefits 
generated by the 
programme (e.g. 
million hectares of land 
protected, tons of CO2 
avoided, etc.). For a set 
of benefits, at least for 
a group of activities 
and/or projects of the 
Programme, a 
monetisation of 
benefits will be 
attempted (so to 
express benefits in 
EUR).  

84 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation 
question 

SUPPORT FOR EVALUATION OF THE LIFE PROGRAMME 2014-2020 

Sub-questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators 

Sources 

EQ 2.1.3 What is the 
additional EU and non-EU 
funding mobilised by the 
LIFE Programme as a whole, 
per sub-programme, and per 
type of 
intervention? 

co-financing  

The additional EU and non-EU 
funding (especially private funding) 
mobilised by the LIFE Programme: 
- 
-  mobilised investments by 
financial instruments 
funding required for the activities 
coordinated by integrated 
projects  

- 

Estimation of financial 
resources mobilised from 
beneficiaries, Member States, 
other EU programmes and 
(other) co-financing entities 
and co-investors (with focus 
on funds mobilised by the 
private sector). 
Estimation of the budget for 
the activities coordinated by 
the integrated projects  

EQ 2.2.1 How do costs and 
benefits of the programme 
compare? 

EQ 2.2 To 
what extent 
have the 
resources for 
the 
implementatio
n of the 
programme 
been adequate 

The benefits outweigh the costs 
generated by the programme. 

Comparison of costs and 
benefits of the programme: 

-  Qualitative assessment 

of the resources 
deployed in 
comparison with the 
achieved monetised 
benefits and quantified 
results.  

85 

- Data  on  grants  awarded  by 
type  of  applicant  and  priority 
area, with information on total 
Union 
costs, 
European 
and 
contribution 
beneficiary/third  party’s  co-
financing. 

- EIB’s 

annual 

operational 
reports  with  information  on 
EIB  contribution  (if  any)  and 
leverage.  

- Data from the AARs 
- LIFE  Database 

of  Key 

Performance Indicators.  

Evidence from EQ2.1.2 “What 
are costs and benefits of the 
programme?” 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation 
question 
to achieve its 
objectives?    

SUPPORT FOR EVALUATION OF THE LIFE PROGRAMME 2014-2020 

Sub-questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators 

Sources 

-  Quantitative estimate 
of proportion between 
the inputs (programme 
management costs and 
financial contributions 
allocated to projects) 
and the results 
generated by the 
programme. 
Evolution of the budget per 
year/ subprogramme 
Evolution of the staff in the 
Executive Agency 

Comparison of demand for 
funding and available 
resources across thematic 
priorities 

Opinion of consulted 
beneficiaries and experts 
regarding the adequacy of the 
resources allocated to sub-
programmes and priorities. 

Work 

- Butler information system  
- e-Proposal system 
- Multiannual 
Programmes 
- Semi-structured interviews 
- Survey 
- Evolution  of  the  budget  per 
year/ subprogramme 
- Evolution  of  the  staff  in  the 
Executive Agency 

EQ 2.2.2 To what extent have 
the resources for the 
implementation of the 
programme been sufficient? 

The resources dedicated to the 
programme were sufficient  

86 

 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation 
question 

SUPPORT FOR EVALUATION OF THE LIFE PROGRAMME 2014-2020 

Sub-questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators 

Sources 

EQ 2.2.3 How do LIFE costs 
and human resources 
compare to other 
programmes managed by 
EASME? 

LIFE costs and the number of human 
resources necessary for its 
implementation (EC, 
EASME/CINEA) are proportionally 
lower than the resources used for 
similar EU programmes.   

EQ 2.3.1 What are external 
factors influencing the 
delivery of the LIFE 
programme? 

Identification of patterns (or lack 
thereof) in terms of external factors 
influencing the delivery of LIFE and 
the relationship between costs and 
benefits.   

EQ 2.3 What 
are the factors 
positively and 
negatively 
influencing the 
delivery of the 
LIFE 
programme? 

87 

Quantitative assessments of 
the LIFE programme’s costs 
and human resources (EC, 
EASME/CINEA). 

-  Management  costs  data  of 

LIFE programmes 

-  Management  costs  data  of 
comparable programmes 

Quantitative assessments of 
costs and human resources 
involved in other programmes 
delegated to EASME in 2014-
2020: COSME, the SME 
Instruments, parts of Horizon 
2020 and the European 
Maritime and Fisheries Fund. 
Analysis of external factors 
influencing the delivery of the 
LIFE programme (possibly 
distinguishing by category of 
intervention), among which:  
-  economic context 

- 

(including COVID-19 
pandemic);  
regulatory and policy 
framework (brief 
description of applicable 

-  Semi-structured 
LIFE 

with 
beneficiaries, 
financial intermediaries 

interviews 
NCP, 
NEEMO, 

-  Survey 

 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation 
question 

SUPPORT FOR EVALUATION OF THE LIFE PROGRAMME 2014-2020 

Sub-questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators 

Sources 

national regulatory and 
policy framework);  

-  administrative or technical 

capacity (general 
shortcomings or 
advantages in capacity, 
e.g. in terms of 
knowledge, previous 
experiences with LIFE, 
staff availability). 
Identification of key barriers 
and drivers towards progress 
experienced during the 
application phase and the 
implementation of the projects 

Identification of patterns (or 
lack thereof) in terms of 
external factors influencing the 
delivery of LIFE and the 
relationship between costs and 
benefits.  

88 

 
 
 
 
Evaluation 
question 

SUPPORT FOR EVALUATION OF THE LIFE PROGRAMME 2014-2020 

Sub-questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators 

Sources 

EQ 2.3.2 What are internal 
factors influencing the 
delivery of LIFE? 

Identification of patterns (or lack 
thereof) in terms of internal factors 
influencing the delivery of LIFE and 
the relationship between costs and 
benefits. 

EQ 2.3.3 How timely and 
efficient is the LIFE’s 
administrative/ 
implementation process? 

The feedback and payments were 
provided to applicants/beneficiaries in 
timely manner. 
The reporting and monitoring are 
carried out in a timely manner. 
The projects are implemented within 
expected timeline.  

89 

Analysis of internal factors 
influencing the delivery of the 
LIFE programme (possibly 
distinguishing by category of 
intervention), among which:  
-  adequacy of human 

resources in EASME;  
-  programme requirements 

and administrative burden  

Specific analysis on financial 
instruments: burden for 
applicants to access financial 
instruments (application, 
management, reporting) and 
visibility of financial 
instruments and related 
projects. 
Assessment of the extent to 
which the average duration of 
application, evaluation, award, 
payment procedures are 
reasonable for beneficiaries 
and experts.  
Indicators:  

Semi-structured interviews with 
EC, EASME, EIB, LIFE NCP, 
beneficiaries 

Survey 

Specific analysis on financial 
instruments: 
-  Delegation Agreement 
-  NCFF guidelines and 
application templates 
-  Interviews with EIB, 

financial intermediaries, 
final beneficiaries. 

Butler information system  

e-Proposal system 

Semi-structured interviews with 
beneficiaries, EASME, 
NEEMO.  

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation 
question 

SUPPORT FOR EVALUATION OF THE LIFE PROGRAMME 2014-2020 

Sub-questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators 

Sources 

EQ 2.3.4. Financial 
Instruments: To what extent 
did the adopted risk sharing 
approach facilitate portfolio 
expansion? 

Analysis of risk sharing approach, 
i.e., individual loan / portfolio based, 
amount of risk allocation, type of 
security 

-  average duration of 

evaluation procedures 
-  projects implemented on 
time, delayed projects, 
average delay.  
-  payments in time 
Balance provided by risk 
sharing,  
approach in terms of 
incentives to portfolio 
expansion and opportunity 
cost of capital 

Survey 

Interviews with EIB and 
financial intermediaries 

90 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation 
question 

EQ 3.1. To 
which extent is 
the structure of 
the LIFE 
programme 
internally 
coherent and 
has achieved 
synergies 
between its 
two sub-
programmes, 
general 
objectives and 
types of 
interventions 
(internal 
coherence)? 

SUPPORT FOR EVALUATION OF THE LIFE PROGRAMME 2014-2020 

Sub-questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators 

Sources 

-  Quantitative  assessment  of 
projects'  data,  clustered  by 
priority / objective 

- European 

Procedures 
monitoring  

Commission 
LIFE 
for 

-  Projects report to contribute 
to  more  than  one  thematic 
priority thus contributing to 
several  objectives  of  the 
Programme  

- LIFE  Database  of  KPIs: 
projects’ 

on 

Information 
objectives 

- Projects 
(sample) 

technical 

reports 

- Semi-structured Interviews 
- Case studies  

3.  Coherence 

EQ 3.1.1. To what extent is 
the LIFE sub-programmes 
and priority areas working 
well together, ensuring 
“consistency and synergies, 
and avoiding overlaps”? 

At programme level: 
- Clarity of programme’s objectives 
-different interventions are 
complementary (traditional projects, 
integrated projects, financial 
instruments)  

At project level: 
- clarity of projects’ objectives  
- projects’ objectives complement 
each other (general objectives + 
thematic objectives)  

91 

 
 
 
 
  
 
-  LIFE Database of KPIs 
-  Other 

programme 
evaluations  (e.g.,  of  ESIF 
Operational Programmes) 
Projects 
reports (sample) 

technical 

-  LIFE 

-  Semi-structured Interviews 
-  Survey 
-  Environmental 

Implementation Review 

-  Case study  

EQ 3.2 To 
what extent 
does the LIFE 
Programme 
fulfil its 
function as 
signed under 
MFF, to 
complement 
environmental 
and climate 
mainstreaming
?  (external 
coherence) 

EQ 3.1.1. To which extent is 
the LIFE programme 
working well together with 
other relevant Union funding 
programmes (external 
coherence), ensuring 
“consistency and synergies, 
and avoiding overlaps”? 

LIFE projects acted as pilot actions 
and then were scaled up using other 
sources of funding (identification of 
good practices). 

Member States report the LIFE 
support as being complementary to 
national funding instruments  

LIFE’s contribution to environmental 
and climate action policy shaping, the 
implementation and enforcement of 
relevant legislation. 

LIFE projects would not have been 
financed and implemented without 
LIFE support  

- 

- 

Information  and  awareness 
raising of the general public 
(KPI)  What  is  the  relation 
with synergies 
Interrelationship with other 
EU  policies  and 
funds 
(KPI) 

-  Reporting  my  Member 

States 

-  Survey among beneficiaries  

92 

 
 
  
 
 
 
   
Evaluation 
question 

SUPPORT FOR EVALUATION OF THE LIFE PROGRAMME 2014-2020 

Sub-questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators 

Sources 

Projects uptake is reported or 
identified. 

EQ 3.1.3. To what extent has 
the LIFE Programme 
encouraged the uptake of the 
results of environmental and 
climate-related research and 
innovation of Horizon 2020, 
and previous framework 
programmes for research? 

Number of identified projects 
which encouraged the uptake 
of the results of environmental 
and climate-related research 
and innovation projects  

Continuation/replication/transf
er scope (KPI) 

Interrelationship with other 
EU policies and funds (KPI) 

4.  Relevance 

Q 4.1.1: What were the 
needs, problems and issues 
that the programme aimed to 
address?  

Identification of needs and problems 
to be addressed as described in the 
impact assessment, the proposal for 
the LIFE Programme and the MFF 
communication.  

Typology of needs and 
problems at the start of the 
programming period and as 
described in the respective 
documents  

Results (qualitative and 
quantitative) of projects 
showing that the needs, 
problems and issues that 
particular LIFE projects were 
addressing relevant needs  

93 

Q 4.1: To what 
extent have the 
LIFE 
programme, its 
objectives and 
activities, 
remained 
pertinent, 
relevant and 
suitable for the 
needs, 
problems and 

-  LIFE  Database  of  Key 
Indicators 

Performance 
(KPIs) 

-  Semi-structured Interviews 
-  Survey 
-  Evaluation  study  on 

coherence 

the 
external 
and 
synergies  of  Horizon  2020 
within the European research 
and 
support 
system (forthcoming)  

innovation 

-  Case studies  

-  Proposal 

for 

programme, 
communication, 
sassessment 
programme,  

for 

the 

IFE 
MFF 
impact 
tehIFE 

 
 
 
 
  
  
  
  
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
SUPPORT FOR EVALUATION OF THE LIFE PROGRAMME 2014-2020 

Sub-questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators 

Sources 

Evaluation 
question 
issues it aimed 
to address? 

Q 4.1.2: To what extent the 
needs, problems and issues 
that the LIFE programme 
aimed to address have 
remained valid across the 
overall period? If the needs, 
problems and issues changed 
over time, how did they 
change?  

The LIFE programme objectives, 
activities and resources were relevant 
and suitable for the needs, problems 
and issues it aimed to address across 
the whole programming period (2024-
2020) 

Typology of needs and 
problems across the 
programming period 

Typology of actions and 
activities implemented across 
the LIFE programme 

Mapping and comparison of 
current needs and needs at the 
start of the LIFE programme 
(where within the scope of 
LIFE to act) 

Q 4.1.3: To what extent have 
the LIFE programme 
objectives and activities 
corresponded to evolving 
needs within the EU?  (How) 
did the LIFE programme 

The LIFE programme objectives, 
activities and resources are still 
relevant and suitable for the needs 
under the evolving political context. 
The LIFE Programme could adjust to 

Proportion of stakeholders that 
agree that the 
objectives/activities of LIFE 
programme are aligned with 
the actual needs and problems 

94 

on 

and 

and 

reports 
evaluating 
programme 
impact 
level  and 

- Documents 
monitoring 
LIFE 
implementation  and 
(overarching  EU 
project level) 
- LIFE  Databases  providing 
project 
information 
applications  describing 
the 
needs the projects were trying 
to  address  and  final  project 
reports  describing  how  these 
needs have been addressed 
- Interviews with experts, policy 
officers, 
authorities, 
local 
beneficiaries 
(particularly 
those with knowledge of the 7th 
EAP objectives) 
- Survey of project beneficiaries  
- Analysis  of  results  of 
the 
and 
specific 
activities  of  both  the  LIFE 

objectives 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
 
 
 
 
Evaluation 
question 

SUPPORT FOR EVALUATION OF THE LIFE PROGRAMME 2014-2020 

Sub-questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators 

Sources 

remain relevant in the 
context of priorities defined 
in the EU strategies and 
programmes such as 
European Green Deal? 

political developments like the 
European Green Deal.  

(use of representative sample 
of stakeholders) 

Comparison of the objectives , 
activities and resources of the 
LIFE 2014-2020 Regulation 
and MAWPs with the key 
policy priorities (problems to 
be addressed) outlined in the 
European Green Deal, and 
other key policy documents  

5.  EU Added value 

through 
the 

programme 
the 
specific 
MAWPs  and 
projects  through  the  ex-post 
project reports  
- Data  from  the  analysis  of  the 
Call for Evidence 

EQ 5.1. What 
is the 
European 
added value of 
the 
programme?  

EQ 5.1.2. 
What is the EU added value 
of the LIFE programme in 
terms of coordination gains, 
legal certainty, greater 
effectiveness or efficiency 
gains, complementarities, 
synergies, etc.? 

The LIFE programme allowed for the 
achievement of greater results in 
comparison to the activities 
performed solely at Member State or 
local level, respecting the 
proportionality and subsidiarity 
principles. 

Interrelationship with specific 
national policies as reported 
by MS at national/regional 
level MS (main 
programme/funds: ERDF, 
ETC, RDP, ESF and CF)   

Share of beneficiaries that 
would have not implemented 
projects in absence of EU 
funding (yes/no variable, and 

- Analysis of intervention logic 
- Partnership agreements  
- Open  data  sources  ESIF  keep 
open 
https://keep.eu/), 
cohesion 
platform 
(https://cohesiondata.ec.europ
a.eu/); 
- Climate-adapt platform  
- https://climate-
adapt.eea.europa.eu/countries-
regions/countries/france 
- Interviews  

95 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
  
 
SUPPORT FOR EVALUATION OF THE LIFE PROGRAMME 2014-2020 

Sub-questions 

Judgment criteria 

Indicators 

Sources 

comments from beneficiaries)  

- Survey with beneficiaries 

Qualitative assessment from 
beneficiaries and experts on 
their perception of EU added 
value of projects (qualitative 
variables to be defined in the 
questionnaires).  
Qualitative and quantitative 
assessment based on 
interviews and survey to 
beneficiaries 

- Interviews with beneficiaries 
- Survey with beneficiaries 

Assessment of the level of activities 
that would have been performed in 
absence of the LIFE financing 

Evaluation 
question 

EQ 5.3. To 
which extent 
the activities 
would have 
happened in 
the absence of 
the LIFE 
financing/supp
ort?  

96 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex IV. Overview of benefits and costs  

Given that roughly 42% of projects funded under LIFE 2014-2020 have been completed at 
the  drafting  of  the  study,  the  evaluation  initially  constructed  two  scenarios  to  optimise 
available project data: 

-  an evidence-based scenario that uses data from completed or advanced-phase 

projects, offering relatively reliable outcomes93; 

- 

a forward-looking scenario that incorporates data from all other projects to provide 
a comprehensive overview of expected outcomes based on the current state of 
implementation. 

The staff working document includes only the evidence-based scenario following the advice 
of the Regulatory Scrutiny board.  

4.1. What are the costs of the programme? 

Assessing  the  costs  related  to  the  LIFE  Programme  required  to  distinguish  between  the 
resources used to finance the projects, the management costs for the Commission/Executive 
Agency and the applicants/beneficiaries94. 

Three steps were undertaken for estimating the costs of the programme: 

1.  Analysis of the figures related to the initial cost assessment done at the time of the 
definition of the delegation to EASME in the financial statement (SFS) prepared by 
the European Commission95. They were estimated at EUR 81.7 million for the period 
2014-2020. 

2.  Comparison of these figures with the ex-post figures included in the EASME Annual 
Activity Reports on administrative budget. These figures reached EUR 79.5 million, 
slightly below the estimates of the financial statement. 

3.  Estimate of the costs of the Commission  supervising  EASME’s grant management, 
which were estimated at about EUR 1 million in the relevant financial statement. 

Resources to cover the projects’ costs 

A total of € 3.5 billion were allocated to the LIFE programme over 2014-2020 programming 
period. 

Management costs 

The  costs  for  the  management  of  the  LIFE  programme  are  (1)  the  administrative  costs 
sustained  by  DG  ENV,  DG  CLIMA  and  EASME  including  the  external  monitoring  and 
evaluation  contractors  for  the  management  of  grants  (2)  the  management  costs  related  to 
financial instruments. 

93The reliability and plausibility of project data was reviewed and validated at the time of the interim evaluation. 
94 The cost for Member States to support NCPs is unknown. 
95 SPECIFIC FINANCIAL STATEMENT Submitted to the Committee for Executive Agencies and the Budgetary 
authority in case of delegation to an executive agency of tasks related to the management of EU programmes. 
AGENCY:  European Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation. The Document was provided by DG ENV in 
January 2023. At the time this document was signed, the name of the agency was still EACI. 

97 

 
 
 
TABLE 5: Administrative costs for the grants (EUR million) 
2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Total 

LIFE (ABB 
activities 
07.02 and 
34.02) 

3.145 

5.609  8.772  11.324  14.101  18.516  18.016  79.484 

Source: External study based on EASME AARs 2014-2020 and DG ENV data (2016-2020) from April 2023 

It  is  worth  pointing  out  that  figures  presented  in  the  table  above  also  include  the  cost  of 
monitoring and evaluation contracts financed under Title III of the subsidy to the Executive 
Agency. According to the evidence collected96, if we consider only these costs, they amount 
to  €  59  million  over  the  period  2014-2020,  out  of  which  €  19  million  are  costs  for  the 
evaluation of the call for proposals (performed by STANTEC) while € 40 million are costs for 
monitoring LIFE projects (performed by NEEMO). 

The costs incurred by the applicants for the preparation of proposals can be estimated at EUR 
5,000 on average per proposal. Considering 8,500 successful and unsuccessful proposals, the 
resulting estimate reaches EUR 42.5 million that need to be considered for a comprehensive 
view of the programme’s costs.  

TABLE 6:  Costs of for the supervision of the Agency (EUR – million) 

2014  2015  2016  2017  2018  2019 

2020 

TOTAL 

Costs of 
for the 
supervision 
of the 
Agency 

0.131  0.134  0.136  0.139  0.142  0.145 

0.148 

0.975 

Source: Data provided by DG ENV on the basis of SDFS. 

By adding this amount to the administrative costs previously estimated (see Table 3 below), 
an overall amount of € 80.5 million for running and implementing the LIFE Programme’s 
action and operating grants between 2014 and 2020. This amount represents 3% of the overall 
amount of € 2.65 billion allocated in the MAWP to EASME for action and operating grants 
under the LIFE programme.97  

TABLE 7:  : Overall costs of the LIFE programme (EUR million) 

2014 

2015 

2016 

2017 

2018 

2019 

2020 

Total 

LIFE 
Programme 

3.276 

5.743  8.908  11.463  14.243  18.661  18.164  80.459 

Source: External study based on EASME AARs 2014-2020, DG ENV data (2016-2020) provided on April 2023 

For  the  financial  instruments,  both  PF4EE  and  NCFF  are  implemented  by  the  European 
Investment Bank based on the Delegation Agreements signed with the Commission at the end 
of  2014.  The  total  fees  paid  to  the  EIB  during  2014-2020  amount  to  €  6.1  million, 
representing about 6% of the EU’s contribution. 

96 Data provided by DG ENV on March 2023. 
97 To be noted that cost for managing ongoing projects after 2020 are not included in the calculation. 

98 

 
 
 
 
 
 
4.2. What are the benefits of the programme? 

Overall,  quantifiable  benefits  can  be  identified  only  for  a  restricted  number  of  projects 
supported by LIFE. Out of them, the monetary value could only be identified for a very limited 
selection  of  indicators,  due  to  a  lack  of  an  internationally  agreed  methodology  (e.g., 
improvements in the conservation status of species, in the quality of waters, in the awareness 
raising  or  in  environment  or  climate  governance).  For  other  indicators  (e.g.,  waste 
management, noise reduction, chemical substitution, and soil remediation), a monetarisation 
was not possible due to proportionality reasons and/or because reliable estimates would have 
required  data  at  a  granularity  level  not  available  (e.g.,  chemical  substances  replaced  and 
related substitutes).  

Therefore,  the  monetised  benefits  indicated  below  cover  only  a  small  part  of  Programme 
benefits and only the benefits of projects which were completed or advanced phase.  

As it can be seen from Table 4 below, a large part of the benefits identified accrues from habitat 
restoration, improvements in air quality and CO2 reduction: 

Table 8: Benefits quantified  

Indicator 

Quantification  
(using aggregated KPI 
values calculated in 3.1 and 
excluding the values related 
to integrated projects) 

Noise 

(KPI 5.2.1) 

The noise reduction 
benefit stemming 
from the LIFE 
Programme is 28.20 
dB (Lden).  

Monetisation 

Value 

Ambient noise is an 
environmental problem with 
a range of impacts on 
people’s well-being and 
health as well as on the 
natural world. The unit most 
used for measuring noise 
nuisance is the A-weighted 
decibel dB(A). The decibel is 
a measure of noise level, and 
‘A-weighting’ is applied to 
correct for the sensitivity of 
the human ear to noise pitch. 
Besides intensity and pitch, 
the time and duration of the 
noise are also important 
factors, and these are also 
included in some the noise 
indicators. The indicator 
Lden takes evening and 
nighttime noise to be more of 
a nuisance than daytime 
noise. The 2018 Handbook 
on Environmental Prices98 

N.A. 

The 
information 
available in the 
KPI database 
does not allow 
for a proper 
estimation of 
the benefit 
‘noise 
reduction’ 
because it lack 
details about 
the source and 
the level of 
noise avoided 
as well as the 
number of 
people affected. 

98   https://cedelft.eu/publications/environmental-prices-handbook-2023/  

99 

 
 
 
provides prices for noise 
(both nuisance and health 
components). Prices are 
expressed in €2015 per dB 
(Lden) per person per annum 
and broken down by source 
involved (road, rail, aviation) 
and noise level.  
The 2018 Handbook on 
Environmental Prices100 
provides average EU28 
prices for key atmospheric 
emissions. Prices are 
expressed in €2015 per kg. 
All prices are expressed as 
upper, lower, and central 
values. For the present 
analysis we considered the 
central values. Specifically, 
for carbon monoxide (CO) 
the central value is 0.0526 
€/kg, for nitrogen oxides 
(NOx) the central value is 
14.8 €/kg, for volatile 
organic compounds (VOC) 
the central value is 1.15 €/kg. 

EUR 
2,685,909,278 

Substitution options can 
include switching to a less 
hazardous chemical, using an 
alternative technique or 
creating a different product 
design. In practice, it is 
usually a combination of 
these actions that leads to 
success. Often, these actions 
improve production 
efficiency, drive innovation, 
help companies to gain a 
competitive advantage and 
save costs, and ultimately 

N.A. 

The 
information 
available in the 
KPI database 
does not allow 
for a proper 
estimation of 
the benefit 
because it lacks 
details about 
the chemicals 
as well as the 

LIFE KPI database 
allows for an 
aggregation of 
values for CO, 
NO2/NOX, and 
VOC. Specifically, 
the air benefits 
stemming from the 
LIFE Programme99 
are:  

•  42.44 ton of CO,  

•  152,466 tonnes 
of NO2/NOX, 
and  

•  31.15 tonnes of 

VOC. 

The aggregation of 
values under the KPI 
on chemical 
substitution gives 
the number of tons 
substituted. The 
chemical 
substitution benefit 
stemming from the 
LIFE Programme is 
278 tonnes.  

Air emissions 

(KPI 6.1) 

Chemical 
substitution 
(KPI 5.1.2) 

99  These  data  consider  primary  and  secondary  KPIs’  results  of  only  open,  validated,  and  verified  traditional  projects, 

excluding integrated projects and outliers. 

100 https://cedelft.eu/publications/environmental-prices-handbook-2023/  

100 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Water saved 
(KPI 2.3.5.2) 

LIFE contributed to 
waster savings is 
generated thanks to 
the use of treated 
wastewater or other 
measures to reduce 
pressure on surface 
and groundwaters.  

The water saving 
benefit stemming 
from the LIFE 
Programme101 is 25 
million of m3.  

benefit human health and the 
environment.  

number of 
people affected. 

The benefit of water saving, 
while clear in principle, 
depend very much on the 
project implemented and the 
local conditions. The 
typologies of projects 
associated to KPI Water 
abstraction/diversion are very 
uneven and it is not 
straightforward to distinguish 
homogeneous categories of 
projects referring to the same 
type of saving (e.g. savings 
of surface/groundwater for 
alternative use, saving of 
groundwater that are 
overexploited, saving of 
water leakages) that would 
allow for a more precise 
valorisation of the benefit. 
The approach taken is 
therefore to estimate the total 
benefit using two shortcut 
approaches that will give a 
rough indication of the size 
of the benefit. Following DG 
REGIO (2014) the 
opportunity cost of the 
preserved water should be 
estimated on the basis of the 
long run marginal cost of 
production, reflecting the 
total social cost incurred to 
abstract an extra unit of water 
plus transportation cost from 
the source where it is 
abstracted to where it is used. 
Assuming that the water 
tariff is well built (i.e. it 
reflects the long run marginal 

First method, 
evidence-based 
estimate:  

  EUR 
32,417,855.15 

Second 
method, 
evidence-based 
estimate:  

EUR 
12,468,405.83   

101  These  data  consider  primary  and  secondary  KPIs’  results  of  only  open,  validated,  and  verified  traditional  projects, 

excluding integrated projects and outliers. 

101 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
cost of production), the 
benefit is captured by the 
cost savings of the water 
operator which needs to use 
less groundwater to 
guarantee the same level of 
supply. Therefore, the first 
shortcut consists of using the 
component of the water tariff 
that refer to the provision of 
water services102. Based on 
data of EUREAU (2022), the 
median price for water 
services in Europe is €1.3 per 
cubic meter.  The second 
approach consists of 
considering the cost of water 
reuse, which meant to reduce 
irrigation water abstractions 
from surface and 
groundwater bodies. 
Following JRC (2018)103, 
may be argued that 0.5 
Euro/m3 represent as a first 
approximation the combined 
market and non-market value 
of water reuse in Europe, 
provided it contributes to 
water stress.  
Different estimates of the 
economic cost of a CO2-
equivalent are available in 
the literature. In general, 
there are two major 
approaches in which climate 
change costs can be 
calculated: using damage 
costs or abatement 
(avoidance) costs. The 
former values each of the 

evidence-based 
estimate:  

EUR 
1,082,045,083.65 

CO2-
equivalent 
reduction 
(KPI 8.1.1 
and 8.1.2)   

LIFE KPI database 
allows for an 
aggregation of 
values for CO2, 
CH4 and N2O. 
Specifically, the 
GHG reduction 
benefit stemming 
from the LIFE 
Programme104 is:  

102 The elements of the water tariff vary from country to country (and even from region to region), usually they include the 
costs to provide drinking water and wastewater services. Depending on the country, it may comprise additional 
elements such as taxes, fees or rain water charges. 

103 JRC. Pistocchi, A., Aloe, A., Dorati, C., Alcalde Sanz, L., Bouraoui, F., Gawlik, B., Grizzetti, B., Pastori, M., Vigiak, 

O., The potential of water reuse for agricultural irrigation in the EU. A Hydro-Economic Analysis, Publications Office 
of the European Union, Luxembourg, 2018, doi:10.2760/263713. 

104  These  data  consider  primary  and  secondary  KPIs’  results  of  only  open,  validated,  and  verified  traditional  projects, 

excluding integrated projects and outliers. 

102 

 
 
 
 
 
•  11,304,203,75 
tons of CO2, 

•  1,878.47 tons of 
CH4, and  

•  67.62 tons of 

N2O  

Indirect 
CO2-
equivalent 
reduction 

According to the 
aggregation of KPI 
values related to 
primary energy 

individual effects of climate 
change — e.g., sea level rise, 
crop failure, health cost) and 
sums these together. The 
latter centres around the costs 
of avoiding the effects of 
climate change up to a 
desired extent — e.g., the 
target of the Paris 
Agreement. Apart from 
methodological complexities, 
the biggest argument for the 
use of abatement costs rather 
than damage costs approach 
is the fact that countries are 
already signatories to the 
Paris Agreement.  
According to a recent 
publication105, the carbon 
price ranges from € 80 per 
ton in 2020 to 250 per ton in 
2030 (in 2016 prices) 
following the abatement cost 
approach.  
For calculating the value of 
GHG saving stemming from 
LIFE the CO2 value for 
2020, i.e. 80 €/ton (in 2016 
prices), has been considered. 
For the other gases, the CO2-
equivalent values have been 
calculated by applying the 
global warming potentials 
provided by the IPCC106, 
respectively 28 and 265 for 
CH4 and N2O, to the above-
mentioned CO2 value. 

As said above, in the present 
study the CO2 value for 
2020, i.e. 80 EUR/ton (in 

Evidence-based 
estimate:  

EUR 
74,657,295.51 

105 European Investment Bank. 2020. EIB Project Carbon Footprint Methodologies.  It was cited in one of the footnotes of 
the report. The same values are also reported in European Commission (2021), Technical guidance on the climate 
proofing of infrastructure in the period 2021-2027, C(2021) 5430 final, European Commission, Brussels found here: 
https://ec.europa.eu/clima/sites/default/files/adaptation/what/docs/climate_proofing_guidance_en.pdf  

106 See p. 714 in Myhre and Shindell Anthropogenic and Natural Radiative Forcing. See https://ar5-

syr.ipcc.ch/resources/htmlpdf/WG1AR5_Chapter08_FINAL/ 

103 

 
 
 
(from 
reduced 
energy 
consumption) 
(KPI 4.1.1)  

consumption, the 
primary energy 
consumption 
reduction stemming 
from the LIFE 
Programme107 is 
3,532,210 MWh. 

By applying an 
emission factor of 
0.228108 (kg 
CO₂e/kWh) that 
convert kilowatt-
hours into avoided 
units of carbon 
dioxide-equivalent 
emissions, the 
reduction of CO2-e 
indirectly generated 
thanks to reduced 
energy consumption 
is 805,353,318 kg 
CO₂.   

Natura 2000 
habitats       
(KPI 7.3)  

According to the 
aggregation of KPI 
values, the benefit of 
conserving Natura 
2000 habitats 
stemming from the 
LIFE Programme is 
16,940 km2.    

2016 prices), has been 
considered (see footnote 70).  

According to European 
Commission (2013)109 
different methods exist to 
value of the benefits of 
Natura 2000 sites, each with 
pros and cons. 
1)  Ecosystem Service 

Based: This approach 
focuses on the 
contribution of Natura 
2000 to the delivery of 
individual ecosystem 
services, seeking to 
quantify and value each 
service.  

2)  Site Based: Various 

studies are available of 
the benefits provided by 
different Natura 2000 

Evidence-bases 
scenario:  

EUR 
2,915,411,758  

107  These  data  consider  primary  and  secondary  KPIs’  results  of  only  open,  validated,  and  verified  traditional  projects, 

excluding integrated projects and outliers. 

108 See https://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/daviz/co2-emission-intensity-13#tab-googlechartid_chart_11  
109 https://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/ENV-12-018_LR_Final1.pdf 

104 

 
 
 
 
 
 
sites. These can be scaled 
up to estimate the 
benefits at network level. 
A summary of studies 
and their value estimates 
is given in Annex II of 
European Commission 
(2013). The latter shows 
that the available 
estimates give a wide 
range of values for the 
benefits of Natura 2000 
sites, ranging from just 
less than € 90 per hectare 
per year to almost € 
20,000 per hectare per 
year. Two methods are 
employed to upscale 
these estimates to the EU 
level: i) Simple upscaling 
based on mean and 
median per hectare values 
for sites; ii) Upscaling of 
GDP adjusted mean and 
median per hectare values 
for sites.  

3)  Habitat Based: Site based 
estimates can be used to 
estimate per hectare 
values for individual 
habitats, which are then 
combined with data on 
extent of habitats at 
network level, to provide 
EU wide estimates. The 
European Commission 
(2013) study the mean 
and median value for 
Natura 2000 sites (all 
habitats considered), by 
hectare, and adjusted for 
differences in GDP. The 
median value is € 1,721 
Ha/year and the mean 
value is € 3,323 Ha/year 
(2011 prices). 

105 

 
For calculating the value of 
Natura 2020 conservation 
stemming from LIFE the 
most conservative values of 
the Habitat based approach 
(i.e. € 1,721 Ha/year) have 
been considered.  
Emissions to the soil can 
occur via waste dumping or 
leakage or eutrophication, 
potentially impacting 
ecosystems and/or human 
health. The 2018 Handbook 
on Environmental Prices110 
provides average EU28 
prices for several key 
pollutants with respect to soil 
pollution. Prices are 
expressed in €2015 per kg. 
All prices are expressed as 
upper, lower and central 
values.  

N.A. 

The 
information 
available in the 
KPI database 
does not allow 
for a proper 
estimation of 
the benefit 
because it lacks 
details about 
the soil 
pollutants 
removed. 

Soil 
remediation 
(KPI 4.3) 

According to the 
aggregation of KPI 
values, the benefit of 
soil remediation 
stemming from the 
LIFE Programme is 
411 km2.  

Total benefits 

Evidence-based scenario: EUR 6,849,664,612.03 

The total societal benefits produced by a limited part of the programme activities amount to 
more than the double of the total budget allocated to the programme (EUR 3.46 billion). 

These benefits correspond to 270 LIFE projects which total costs amount to 580 million EUR. 
Additionally, the costs for the preparation of successful and unsuccessful applicants can be 
estimated at 32.4 million EUR. 

Therefore,  the  estimated  benefits  of  these  270  projects  –  EUR  6.8  billion  -  significantly 
outweigh their total estimated costs – EUR 612.4 million -, demonstrating the efficiency of 
the LIFE Programme. The return on investment for these projects is substantial, indicating the 
positive impact and the added value of the Programme. 

110 https://cedelft.eu/publications/environmental-prices-handbook-2023/  

106 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Annex V. Stakeholders consultation - Synopsis Report  

5.1. Introduction and objective of the consultation strategy  

This annex constitutes the stakeholder consultation synopsis report of the support study to the 
ex-post evaluation of the programme LIFE 2014-2020. The aim of this report is to summarise 
the results of all consultation activities carried out by the study team, as well as to provide a 
qualitative and a quantitative analytical overview of the main results as they are presented in 
the final report. The overall objective of the stakeholder consultation strategy (SCS) was to 
gain a deeper understanding of the LIFE programme 2014-2020, to evaluate it against the six 
evaluation  criteria  and  research  questions  under  analysis  (i.e.,  effectiveness,  efficiency, 
coherence,  relevance,  EU  added  value  and  early  and  expected  impacts). The  scope  of  the 
consultations  extended  to  all  of  the  various  actors  directly  and  indirectly  involved  in  the 
implementation of the LIFE programme and its projects. As indicated in the Better Regulation 
Toolbox111, the synopsis report fulfils two main aims, namely, to inform: i) policymaking on 
the  outcome  of  all  consultation  activities,  while  differentiating  the  views  of  the  different 
categories of stakeholders; and ii) stakeholders on how their input has been considered and to 
explain why certain suggestions could not be taken up. 

5.2. Overview and description of the consultation activities  

In  the  context  of  the  ex-post  evaluation  of  LIFE  2014-2020,  the  Consortium  ran  several 
consultation activities, aimed at gathering a wide range of information, at different level of 
granularity and by different types of stakeholders based on the consultation methods and tools, 
including  beneficiaries  of  the  LIFE  programme,  EU-level  bodies,  National  Contact  Points 
(NCPs) and Member States’ authorities, evaluators,  monitors and citizens. The stakeholder 
consultation  activities  consist  of  primary  data  collection  and  complement  the  data  gaps 
assessed  during  the  data  collection  phase.  The  stakeholder  consultation  activities  can  be 
divided as follow:  

•  The Call for Evidence - feedbackx112. 

•  Targeted consultation of stakeholders, namely consisting of: 

o  Focus groups 

o 

Interviews (scoping, core and those dedicated to the case studies) 

o  Online survey 

o  Validation workshop 

•  Participation in two events 

The Call for Evidence (CfE) was published for feedback by the Commission from the 16th 
of March 2022 until the 13th of April 2022 gathered a total of 32 contributions from a wide 
range  of  stakeholders  (e.g.,  MS  competent  authorities,  national  contact  points  -  NCPs, 
monitors, LIFE beneficiaries). The analysis of received contributions was carried out in the 
first phase of the project implementation.  

The target consultation covered the following activities:  

111 Better regulation’ toolbox – November 2021 edition, European Commission. Available at:  

https://commission.europa.eu/system/files/2022-06/br_toolbox_-_nov_2021_-_chapter_7.pdf  

112 The full CfE Summary Report can be found in Annex 5 to the SWD. 

107 

 
 
The focus groups, held between July and September 2022 with CINEA’s officers, have been 
key to have a better understanding of best methodological approach to apply to the evaluation, 
regarding the use of LIFE databases, KPIs and data access and availability.  

The interviews conducted in the context of the support study can be divided as follow: i) 
scoping interviews; ii) core interviews; iii) interviews dedicated to the case studies. Between 
July and September 2022, 7 scoping interviews were carried out. These interviews allowed 
to not only gain a deeper understanding of the subject matter, but also to validate/review the 
approach of the external consultant to the analysis. The interviews followed semi-structured 
questionnaires, tailored based on the expertise of each interviewee (of DG ENV, DG CLIMA 
and  CINEA).  Subsequently,  the  core  interviews  ran  almost  fully  in  parallel  to  the  online 
survey,  specifically  between  January  and  April  2023,  when  the  team  consulted  91 
stakeholders. Interview guidelines differed depending on the type of stakeholders addressed, 
namely:  beneficiaries,  EU-level  bodies,  evaluators,  monitors,  MS  competent  authorities, 
NCPs. Candidates to the interviews were initially mapped (and, subsequently reviewed and 
validated by the Commission) with the intent to have a fair representation of each stakeholder 
type. For instance, for beneficiaries, the mapping criteria mixed the geographical and sectoral 
representation, with the representation of LIFE sub-programmes and priority areas, as well as 
type  of  funding  and  legal  status.  The  remaining  26  interviews  were  dedicated  to  the  case 
studies  development  and  followed  different  interview  guidelines,  tailored  to  the  specific 
objectives of this stream of consultation (i.e., more project-oriented).  

Between the 21st of December 2022 until the 23rd of March 2023, the study team collected the 
of 
views 
different 

    FIGURE 9: COMPOSITION OF RESPONDENTS IN THE ONLINE SURVEY 

categories  of  stakeholders  through  an  online  survey. A  total  of  436  stakeholders  provided 
replies to the survey, in which 292 and 89 respondents indicated that they have participated in 
LIFE  projects  and/or  proposals  respectively,  and  324  respondents  indicated  the  types  of 
stakeholder groups they belong to, namely private companies, NGOs, research bodies, MS 
authorities, NCPs, evaluators and/or monitors of LIFE projects and private citizens. For this 
consultation  activity,  a  single  survey  questionnaire  (mainly  including  closed  questions  and 
rating scales), structured along the evaluation criteria in focus was proposed to all types of 
stakeholders, although some questions were proposed only to specific stakeholder categories. 
The link to the online survey was disseminated through the European Commission’s channels 

108 

 
to reach the widest possible audience. The distribution of respondents is shown in the figures 
below: 

FIGURES 10 AND 11: DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS 

Through 
the  participation  in  two  already  planned  events,  the  external  study  team  gathered 
information on specific areas of interest for the evaluation. The validation exercise was the 
last activity run in the context of the consultation strategy, aimed to validate the findings of 
the  team’s  analysis.  The  table  below  summarises  the  number  and  type  of  stakeholders 
consulted under each consultation activity. 

TABLE 12: Stakeholders reached per consultation activity  

Stakeholder 
group 

Scopin
g 

N/A 

Beneficiaries/ 

Applicants 

EU-bodies 

7 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

MS 
Authorities 

NCPs 

Evaluators/ 

Monitors 

Private 
citizens 

Other 

Total 

Consultation methods 

Interviews 

Core 

CS 

Online 
survey 

Call for 
evidenc
e 

Participatio
n in events 

Validatio
n 

30 

10 

7 

3 

8 

26 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

320 

24 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

31 

11 

36 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

14 

8 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

91 

N/A 

109 

24 

436 

N/A 

32 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

N/A 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
5.3. Main stakeholder feedback by consultation activity   

a.  Call for Evidence  

The Call for Evidence was open for feedback from the 16th of March 2022 until the 13th of 
April 2022. A total of 32 contributions were received, half of them represented NGOs (9, 28%) 
and EU citizens (8, 25%). Responses were received from 14 Member States. 

Key themes emerging from CfE data included respondents indicating that:  

(1) LIFE funding is a valuable, important, and successful in meeting environmental goals 

in general, achieving conservation goals, and supporting innovation. 

(2) LIFE programme requires a lot of administrative effort from applicants and funding 
recipients during the application process, and when administrating and reporting. 

(3) The focus of the LIFE programme could be revised in discussions with stakeholders 
to strengthen activities in current focus areas whereas also including other thematic 
areas. 

(4) LIFE’s co-financing should increase. 

(5) The LIFE programme budget and project size should increase.  

b.  Online survey 

1. Effectiveness 

The  topic  on  effectiveness  assesses  the  success  of  the  LIFE  programme  2014-2020  in 
achieving its objectives. In this case, most of the respondents reacted favourably when asked 
the contribution of the programme towards the programme’s objectives, namely towards the 
shift  to  a  resource-efficient,  low-carbon  and  climate-resilient  economy  (66%  positive 
responses), the protection and improvement of environment quality and halting and reversing 
biodiversity  loss  (88%),  the  improvement  in  the  development,  implementation  and 
enforcement of EU environmental and climate policy and legislation (69%), supporting better 
environmental and climate governance at all levels (68%) and lastly promoting the integration 
and mainstreaming of environmental and climate objectives into other EU policies and public 
and private sector practice (61%). When being asked the contribution of the LIFE programme 
in  achieving  results  in  policy  areas,  similar  outcomes  are  shown.  Positive  reactions  are 
recorded  in  areas  such  as  nature  and  biodiversity  (73%  of  responses),  water  quality  and 
efficient  management  (78%),  waste  reduction  and  appropriate  management  (79%),  forest 
protection  (69%),  soil  protection  (52%),  resource  efficiency  and  circular  economy  (78%), 
environment  and  health  (66%),  air  quality  and  emissions  (70%),  ETS  sectors  (energy  and 
greenhouse gas intensive industrial production) and renewable energy (59%), agriculture and 
forestry  (69%),  other  non-ETS  sectors  (transport,  reduction  of  ozone-depleting  substance 
(ODS) and F-gases) and energy efficiency (57%), urban adaptation,  land use planning and 
resilience of infrastructure (65%), agricultural and natural resources and ecosystems (75%), 
water,  flood  and  coastal  management  (74%),  environmental  governance  and  information 
(78%) and lastly  climate governance and information  (78%). Additionally, the respondents 
were  asked  which  factors  have  contributed  the  most  to  the  results  of  the  programme. The 
contributions of some factors are received positively, such as the bottom-up approach of the 
programme (78% of responses), stakeholders’ engagement (65%), projects types (61%), co-

110 

 
 
financing rate (62%), stability of the priorities of the calls for proposals (82%), wide scope of 
the calls for proposals (81%) and focus on ensuring the durability/replication of project results 
(78%). Meanwhile, only 38% of the respondents  agreed  with  the positive  impact  from  the 
administrative procedures of the programme. Aside from that, respondents were asked their 
opinions  on  the  instruments  that  the  LIFE  programme  can  implement  in  achieving  the 
expected results of the projects, such as action grants, pilot financial instruments to support 
investments, operating grants (for NGOs) and public procurement. However, the numbers of 
respondents  who  answered  were  significantly  small  and  not  representative  of  the  whole 
population, most possibly due to only a few respondents having received such instruments. 
Afterwards, the respondents  were asked the external  factors that may positively/negatively 
affect the implementation of the LIFE programme. In that sense, the respondents confirmed 
the positive effects of cooperation with other stakeholders external to the projects (90% of 
responses), funding/co-funding from other organisations external to the project (69%), other 
policies  or  projects  external  to  the  programme  (70%)  and  project  timing  (60%),  whereas 
respondents reacted negatively when asked the effects of the legal framework surrounding the 
project  (only  45%  of  positive  responses)  and  the  COVID-19  pandemic  (83%  of  negative 
responses). Side-to-side with the external factors are internal factors. For this instance, most 
the 
of 
consortium/beneficiaries (85% of positive responses), a good understanding within the project 
team of the needs of end users (92%), importance of the project activities within its context 
(93%),  efficient  cooperation  with  EASME  /  European  Commission  (85%)  and  efficient 
cooperation with the monitoring team (93%) all deemed to have positively contributed  to the 
effective implementation of the LIFE programme. At the end, the respondents were asked on 
suggestions to improve the effectiveness of the LIFE programme. Some suggestions include 
simplifications of the administrative and reporting processes, assistance to and simplification 
of the application process, provision of funding for smaller projects, maintaining a continuous 
monitoring system, wider communication of the projects’ outcomes, greater participation of 
the  private  and  governmental  sectors  and  allowing  projects  with  a  longer  duration,  among 
others. 

the  composition  and  organisation  of 

respondents  answered 

that 

the 

2. Efficiency  

Resources 
According to most survey respondents, resources allocated to Climate Change Mitigation and 
Climate Change Adaptation were assessed insufficient or largely insufficient to achieve the 
objectives stated by more than half of respondents. Conversely, the resources allocated were 
considered proportionate to the objectives set under the Environment and Resource Efficiency, 
Nature and Biodiversity, Climate Governance Information priorities (see Figure below). Some 
respondent claims that considering the existing needs, it would be advisable to increase the 
overall LIFE programme budget, specifically for climate actions, to allow for the possibility 
of implementing more projects.  

111 

 
FIGURE 13: “Q.23. To your knowledge, to what extent do you agree that total resources allocated for the 
implementation of LIFE 2014-2020 were proportionate to the objectives under each priority?” 

Source: Independent consultant’s  elaboration on survey data. Note: this question was answered by 34 respondents.  

Administrative procedures 
Overall,  the  administrative  procedures  of  LIFE  at  all  stages  –  application,  evaluation, 
implementation,  and  reporting  –  are  very  efficient  or  moderately  efficient  for  most  of 
respondents (see Figure below). Amongst the aspects mostly rewarded by respondents, there 
are a very good communication with EASME/CINEA and NEEMO, the support provided by 
NEEMO monitors, as well as the simplification of the application process (from two stages to 
one stage, see the following section for details). The application phase is perceived relatively 
less efficient compared to the other phases. Less satisfied respondents claim it is very resource 
intensive  and  the  long-time  taken  by  the  application  and  evaluation  procedures  (time-to-
inform and time-to-grants, respectively).  

FIGURE 14: “Q.25. To what extent do you agree that the LIFE 2014-2020 Programme’s administrative procedures 
were designed in an efficient way?” 

Source: : Independent consultant’s  elaboration on survey data. Note: this question was answered by 344 respondents.  

Some respondents raised concerns for the reporting phase (around 15% of respondents). The 
system of reporting Key Performance Indicators was particularly criticised. It is worth noting 
that while most respondents (46%) assess KPI reporting as proportionate (see figure below) – 
because they recognise the relevance of having such system in place, especially for tracking 

112 

6%6%3%3%24%29%27%13%12%34%29%20%15%31%29%13%12%20%9%16%15%13%35%23%36%38%38%34%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Environment and Resource Efficiency (979 Million EUR)Nature and Biodiversity (1187 Million EUR)Environmental Governance and Information (362 Million EUR)Climate Change Mitigation (374 Million EUR)Climate Change Adaptation (364 Million EUR)Climate Governance and Information (98 Million EUR)Excessive ResourcesLargely sufficientSufficient resourcesInsufficient resourcesLargely insufficient resourceI do not know20%24%41%30%37%40%41%40%13%10%8%11%15%9%5%11%12%15%3%5%0%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%Application processEvaluation processImplementationReportingVery efficientModerately efficientNeither inefficient nor efficientNot very efficientNot at all efficientI do not know 
 
projects impacts – many respondents claim that the current KPI system is too complicated and 
not user friendly. Moreover, the KPIs does not allow to accurately reflect the impact of some 
categories of projects such as governance and integrated projects. Finally, the continuously 
changing  methodologies  and  lack  of  a  shared  approach  among  the  technical  monitors,  the 
CINEA Pas and the CINEA KPI verifiers led to endless revisions and considerable effort to 
compile the KPI database.  

The lack of clear guidelines and contradictory indications from NEEMO experts and CINEA 
officials were also mentioned with respect to financial reporting.  Finally, some respondents 
mentioned  the  huge  number  of  human  resources  needed  to  comply  with  reporting 
requirements, especially to comply with financial requirements. 

FIGURE 15: “Q27 Applicants/Beneficiaries are required to estimate project impacts through some Key 
Performance Indicators (KPIs). They are very important in the evaluation to select the projects with the highest 
impacts and to assess the performance of the programme. Do you think the related reporting requirements are 
proportioned?” 

Source: : Independent consultant’s  elaboration on survey data. Note: this question was answered by 340 respondents.  

Simplification 
A  number  of  measures  are  suggested  by  respondents  to  the  survey  with  a  view  to  further 
simplify and improve this system, e.g., reducing their number, identifying those KPI which 
are mandatory per type of projects, defining how KPI should be calculated in order to avoid 
that every project uses its own set of data/methodologies, organising specific training activities 
(e.g., on project KPI monitoring and evaluation).  

113 

I do not know19%Not proportionated35%Proportioned46% 
 
FIGURE 16: Could you suggest ways to support applicants/beneficiaries and reduce their burden?” 

Source: External study on survey data.  

3. Relevance  

Evidence  from  the stakeholder survey indicates that all the presented needs, problems  and 
issues that the LIFE programme aimed to address were considered as remaining relevant in 
the  period  2014-2020,  with  similar  share  of  stakeholders  indicating  their  stable  (34-44% 
respondents)  and  increasing  relevance  (31-42%  respondents).  Over  72%  of  respondents 
agreed that the nature and biodiversity priority of LIFE programme was very relevant to their 
country’s national policy objective in the field of environment and climate action, and this 
was the highest percentage across all of the priority area. In addition, the 16 priorities set out 
in  the  MAWPs  were  all  considered  relevant,  with  survey  respondents  indicating  that  their 
relevance increased over time. Over half of respondents noted an increased relevance of the 
following  five  priority  areas:  ‘Nature  and  biodiversity’  (59%),  ‘Water  quality  and  efficient 
management’  (58%  respondents),  ‘Resource  efficiency  and  circular  economy’  (57% 
respondents),  ‘Agricultural  and  natural  resources  and  ecosystems’  (52%  respondents)  and 
‘Water, flood and coastal management’ (51% respondents). Furthermore, for each of the 16 
priorities, respondents selected at which levels (international, national, local or personal) the 
priority remained relevant to the needs of stakeholders; multiple choices could be made. The 
national and EU level had the highest average considered as having remained relevant (cited 
by 47% of all respondents as an average over all priorities). International level was considered 
as remaining relevant by 34% of all respondents, followed by local level (33%), then personal 
level (14%), while 17% did not know. Some survey respondents particularly highlighted the 
climate and biodiversity actions and priorities as being the most relevant across the EU and 
globally. Other areas highlighted included resource efficiency and nature protection. When 
asked about the relevance of the LIFE programme priorities to national policy objectives, most 
respondents  indicated  that  these  were  either  very  relevant  or  moderately  relevant.  A 
disconnection between the needs of locals  or individual  citizens and the priority areas  and 
efforts conducted at the international level was a common theme occurring in the responses 
to  this  survey  question.  Survey  respondents  suggested  that  stakeholder  should  be  more 
involved in the decision-making processes rather than just be seen as information recipients 
and that solutions should be more local. Overall, there was very little variation in the responses 

114 

0510152025303540Reduce the number of KPIsIdentify mandatory and nice to have KPIsOrganise specific training activitiesCollect best practicesIndicate specific  methodologies 
 
by stakeholder groups, countries and their experience and interests. This finding relates to all 
questions related to the LIFE programme relevance.  

4. Coherence 

Most of the participants in the survey seem to not have a strong opinion about the structure of 
the LIFE 2014-2020 priority areas or the existence of any gaps/overlaps. Those who expressed 
an  opinion  believe  that  “Nature  and  biodiversity”  is  very  well  structured,  while  all  other 
priority areas  are moderately well-structured. In relation  to  the usage of any other funding 
available from other EU programmes, most of participants had not received any other funding 
during  the  same  period,  while  18,6%  of  them  had  received  funding  from  the  INTERREG 
programme, 18,2% from the European Framework Programme for Research (Horizon) and 
13,1%  from  the  European  Regional  Development  Fund  (ERDF).  Compared  to  other  EU 
programme funding obtained, the funding obtained from LIFE was very important for 66,7% 
of  the  participants.  In  the  absence  of  the  LIFE  2014-2020  Programme  at  EU  level,  these 
projects would have certainly not been implemented for 46,1% of the participants, while it 
would have probably not been implemented for 39,8% of the participants. 

5. EU added value  

To the question 36 related to the relevance of LIFE in implementing the projects, 284 answers 
were  collected  while  regarding  question  37  on  the  MS’s  capacity  in  implementing  similar 
policies, 404 answers were expressed. When it comes to question 38 on the availability of 
other sources of financing, 278 answers were analysed. The survey results show that LIFE 
beneficiaries’ projects, in their actual characteristics – would have probably or certainly not 
been implemented without the LIFE funding (more than 85% of the answers). In fact, in the 
absence of LIFE funding, it is very unlikely that their project would have been funded by other 
sources (for 77% of the respondents). More specifically, Nature and biodiversity, governance 
actions,  soil  protection,  urban  adaptation  to  CC  and  rural  ecosystems  are  the  main 
environmental areas for which it is unlikely that the MS would have put in place a funding 
scheme to replace the activities of the LIFE programme are. National schemes would have 
more  likely  compensated  the  lack  of  Life  financial  resources  in  the  areas  of  resources 
efficiency  and  circular  economy,  waste,  and  water  management  (all  areas  where  MS  are 
traditionally better organized to implement their own funding schemes). 

Early and expected impacts 
The survey results illustrate positive contributions from the LIFE programme 2014-2020 on 
the  indicated  environmental  and  climate  areas.  The  positive  results  are  confirmed  by  the 
respondents  for  policy  areas  including  nature  and  biodiversity  (95%  of  responses),  water 
quality and efficient management (89%), waste reduction and appropriate management (84%), 
forest  protection  (82%),  soil  protection  (73%),  resource  efficiency  and  circular  economy 
(90%), environment and health (82%), air quality and emissions (81%), ETS sectors (energy 
and greenhouse gas intensive industrial production) and renewable energy (80%), agriculture 
and forestry (81%), other non-ETS sectors (transport, reduction of ozone-depleting substance 
(ODS) and F-gases) and energy efficiency (75%), urban adaptation (81%), land use planning 
and  resilience  of  infrastructure  (84%),  agricultural  and  natural  resources  and  ecosystems 
(84%),  water,  flood  and  coastal  management  (84%),  environmental  governance  and 
information  (85%)  and  lastly  climate  governance  and  information  (85%).  Thereafter,  the 
respondents were asked to name examples of successful LIFE projects  and the key factors 

115 

 
behind  the  success. The  projects  listed  were  diverse,  touching  upon  all  LIFE  programmes 
focus  areas,  and  some  of  the  common  success  factors  identified  include  comprehensive 
approaches and clear project goals, strong partnerships with a high level of coordination and 
cooperation, involvement of stakeholders, committed and competent teams, adequate funding, 
technological innovation and the transferability and replicability of the results. Meanwhile, 
the  number  of  projects  who  failed  to  meet  the  expected  goals  that  were  named  by  the 
respondents is significantly fewer, and common factors behind the failure include unclear or 
unrealistic objectives, low market (or public) uptake or interest, unsustainable post-LIFE plans 
and project mismanagement. Additionally, the respondents were asked the impacts of the LIFE 
programme on selected domains. The survey results mostly indicate a positive impact from 
the programme towards the areas, including scientific knowledge development and/or sharing 
(80% of responses), behavioural changes (70%), job creation and development (65%), support 
to green innovations (services and products) (71%), policy and legislative implementation and 
development (66%), dissemination of good and best practices (82%), leverage of additional 
funding  for  environment  and  climate  (63%),  capacity  building  of  public  and  private 
stakeholders (75%), raising awareness on environmental and climate issues (83%) and lastly 
mainstreaming of environment and climate issues into other policy areas (63%). Furthermore, 
the respondents were asked their perspective on the extent to which the LIFE programme has 
been able to mobilise the participation of several types of organisations. Most of the responses 
in  that  regard  are  positive,  in  which  the  LIFE  programme  is  deemed  to  have  been  able  to 
mobilise  public  bodies  (75%  of  responses),  private  companies  (67%),  civil  society 
organisations (72%) and research institutes (75%). Lastly, the respondents were asked which 
actions that could facilitate the participation of organisations that were not or only slightly 
mobilised.  From  the  indicators  named,  dedicated  communication  activities  (71%  of 
responses), technical assistance in project application process (79%) and higher co-financing 
(81%) are met with positive responses by the respondents, while advertising media campaigns 
are deemed to be less effective with only 50% of positive answers recorded. 

c. Stakeholder interviews 

1. Effectiveness 

Beneficiaries 
According to the beneficiaries interviewed, the projects funded under the programme have 
been effective in achieving their intended objectives to a large extent. The successful projects 
cover diverse policy areas, including renewable energies and energy efficiency, environmental 
and  climate  governance  and  climate  mitigation  and  adaptation.  Some  projects  are  still 
ongoing, but the interviewees affirmed that most of the mid-term targets have been achieved. 
The key factor behind the positive outcomes is having a good value proposal and good project 
management. The  financing  and  technical  assistance  provided,  and  the  contribution  of  the 
monitoring  team  have  been  helpful  as  well. Another  common  thread  is  the  crucial  role  of 
partnerships.  The  consortiums  contain  actors  from  different  domains,  such  as  academia, 
NGOs, local communities, and governmental institutions, which means that each actor offers 
a  different  value  to  the  team.  Among  partners,  many  interviewees  valued  effective 
communication and collaboration processes, which are supported by capacity-building  and 
training measures. Furthermore, the willingness of stakeholders to cooperate is hailed to be a 
vital factor, which is supported by networking activities that have helped in raising awareness 
and growing interest from other stakeholders. The involvement of local actors in the decision-

116 

 
making process has led to increasing engagement and creating a feeling of ownership, thus, 
ensuring the continuation of the initiatives even after the project’s lifetime. Meanwhile, some 
interviewees mentioned obstacles that have hindered the effectiveness of the projects, such as 
the COVID-19 pandemic, political constraints, funding issues and the lack of support for post-
LIFE  roadmaps.  Although  the  projects  have  been  effective  in  achieving  the  targeted 
objectives, implementation issues are identified, in which the rate of implementation is low 
because the solutions tend to not be not market-ready and are difficult to be transplanted in 
commercial companies. For projects, which the results are only be visible after a longer period, 
the duration may pose as a constraint as well. Lastly, some beneficiaries suggested simplifying 
the  administration  and  reporting  process,  which  would  lower  the  barriers  to  entry  without 
compromising the quality of the programme. 

Evaluators / Monitors 
At  the  project  level,  the  LIFE  projects  have  been  effective  in  achieving  their  technical 
objectives.  Cases  where  projects  did  not  deliver  the  expected  contribution  are  very  rare. 
However,  on  a  policy  level,  the  projects  have  not  been  as  successful  in  influencing  the 
policymaking  process,  in  which  the  contribution  may  vary  for  projects  focusing  on  other 
domains.  One  interviewee  suggested  increasing  the  number  of  collaborative  schemes  with 
policymakers and the policy relevance of each project. From the successful projects, a good 
working plan and consortium composition and strong partnerships with relevant stakeholders 
and the monitoring team are denoted as crucial. Ultimately, the success can only be assessed 
at the longer-term. This is complimented by ex-post studies, particularly since not so many 
projects are able to deliver impacts within the project duration. Other points of improvement 
include allocating more time to the application process and provide more sustainable sources 
of funding. 

MS Authorities / NCPs 
From the MS authorities and NCPs interviewed, they perceive the impact of the LIFE projects 
to be strong, both at the national and the EU level. Crucially, the outcomes are well-aligned 
with  the  European  Green  Deal.  Many  projects  have  contributed  to  the  development  and 
demonstration  of  policy  approaches,  interventions,  innovative  solutions  and  technologies 
suitable  for  replication  at  larger  scale  or  to  other  sectors.  Key  factors  behind  the  success 
include good project design and consortium composition, stakeholders involvement via the 
bottom-up approach, good cooperation with the monitoring team, networking opportunities 
and  close  relationships  with  local  communities,  among  others.  Meanwhile,  points  of 
improvement  include  simplifying  the  administration,  reporting  and  application  process, 
increasing  the  co-financing  rate  and  other  funding  opportunities,  providing  more  technical 
assistance,  supporting  the  replicability  of  the  solutions  and  strengthening  communication 
between the project teams and the Commission. Lastly, some interviewees indicated that the 
climate governance and information sub-programme has not been as useful as the other sub-
programmes  because  these  domains  have  been  tackled  to  an  extent  in  the  other  sub-
programmes, and thus can be merged or refocused. 

EU-level Bodies 
The LIFE projects funded have been relatively successful in contributing to biodiversity and 
nature conservation efforts. The nature of the projects itself is done in such a way that does 
not deviate from the European Green Deal and its various components. However, as pointed 
out  by  a  couple  of  interviewees,  LIFE  is  not  a  direct  solution,  but  more  of  an  enabler  to 

117 

 
implement these solutions at a larger scale. In that sense, the impacts from the projects should 
be separated into on the ground impacts that can be measured via the KPIs and the long-run 
impacts that would come through the replication and scaling up of the solutions. A very large 
percentage of the projects have satisfied their KPIs on the ground, but the measurement of the 
long-term impacts are harder to quantify, especially in terms of policy impact. In some cases, 
the monitoring team can carry out ex-post evaluations. Key success factors include funding 
opportunities,  stakeholder  involvement  and  the  bottom-up  approach,  flexibility  of  the 
programme and interconnection with other EU priorities and a good monitoring framework. 
Meanwhile, points of improvement mentioned include increasing the co-financing rate, easing 
the  administrative  burden,  broadening  the  applicants’  pool  and  providing  guidance  with 
writing proposals. Lastly, the nature and biodiversity sub-programme has been more relevant 
compared  to  the  climate  action  one,  which  may  have  been  somewhat  under-represented. 
Consequently, efforts could be made to refocus on these sub-programmes. 

2. Efficiency 

Resources 
• 

Interviewees from EU bodies and Member States authorities agree that, considering 
the  existing  needs,  it  would  be  advisable  to  increase  the  overall  LIFE  programme 
budget, specifically for climate actions. Despite, the increased budget for 2021-2027, 
interviewees from EU bodies still considered it insufficient to face the emerging needs. 
Interviewees  from  EU  bodies  and  Member  States  authorities  agree  that  much  more 
resources need also  to  address  nature and biodiversity  challenges. In their view the 
limited  availability  of  resources  prevents  the  financing  of  additional  potential  good 
projects which are submitted. Every year, good projects from NGOs exceed the budget 
available for operating grants. Also, more capacity-building and technical assistance 
projects  can  be  supported  in  less  active  countries  (especially  Eastern  Europe)  to 
improve their capacity to deliver and implement high-quality projects.  Beneficiaries 
pointed out that the LIFE programme should provide mechanisms for increasing the 
projects’ budget  in  the circumstance of sudden increase of costs caused  by external 
factors such as the disruption of supply chain and high inflation. 

•  From the EIB side, it was stressed that the fees received from the Commission for both 
instruments were limited as compared to what was required in terms of management 
of the programme.  

•  The  EIB  pointed  out  that  NCFF  could  not  meet  the  demand  for  the  smallest  most 
innovative projects. Since the average size of the projects coming to the EIB (not the 
ones that were  financed) was below € 1 million, many just a few € 100 thousands, 
which was well below the expected project  size  (€5-15 million), the EIB could  not 
meet a significant share of demand. The small size of projects is due to the typical low 
capital  intensity  of  physical  works  and  the  fact  that  the  EIB  does  not  finance  land 
acquisition,  while  land  acquisition  is  sometimes  the  main  upfront  cost  for  nature 
projects.  

• 

Interviews – especially with EU bodies, MS authorities and NCP – confirm that LIFE 
provided an incentive to mobilise additional financing. However, this mostly depends 
on  the  country,  type  of  projects  and  type  of  beneficiaries.  In  terms  of  projects, 

118 

 
 
integrated  projects  are  the  ones  which  more  effectively  mobilise  other  sources  of 
funding. In terms of types of beneficiaries, it is recognised that NGOs and SMEs can 
face more difficulties to raise additional funds.  

•  Having a co-financing rate well below 100% is somehow perceived by interviewees 
(especially EU bodies) as way to promote efficiency. A co-financing equal to 60% is 
essential to guarantee a commitment from project promoter. 

• 

Interviews  –  especially  with  EU  bodies  –  confirms  that  human  resources  in 
EASME/CINEA are insufficient to manage the number of projects admitted. Typically, 
30  projects  are  assigned  to  each  project  advisor,  while  other  programmes  (e.g., 
Horizon)  they  would  have  10  projects  on  average.  This  renders  CINEA  staff 
impossible  to  look  at  the  projects’  content  and  policy  feedback  since  resources  are 
overloaded with administrative issues. From the NEEMO perspective, the resources 
allocated  for  monitoring  activities  is  overall  justified.  However,  some  interviewees 
from  NEEMO  claim  that  the  workload  required  to  monitor  LIFE  projects  are  not 
enough for the number of activities required (e.g. reporting to CINEA every 2 months, 
contacts with beneficiaries every month, providing availability to beneficiaries all the 
days and be ready to provide solutions/advice, checking KPI, fostering networking, 
etc.).  and  is  not  adequately  paid.  In  the  new  programming  period,  the  situation  is 
expected  to  worse  since  resources  will  be  even  reduced.  It  is  often  reported  by 
beneficiaries that the number of staff they had planned for the implementation of the 
project were not enough to carry out the planned activities. They were required to work 
more than expected to deal with coordination activities, ensure communication through 
partners as well as comply with LIFE administrative requirements. Beneficiaries found 
the reporting phase (compliance with timesheets, financial requirements and KPI) very 
burdensome.   

External factors influencing the delivery of the LIFE 

•  The  national  regulatory  and  policy  framework:  there  are  countries  where  national 
legislations  or  initiatives  specifically  support  LIFE  priorities,  thus  facilitating  the 
uptake of projects’ results. At the same time, there are national legislation framework 
where  public  procurement  processes  are  very  complex,  and  this  has  an  impact  on 
projects  implementations.  Also,  some  changes  in  legislations  had  impacted  on 
project’s  activities  by  causing  delays.  A  further  aspect  concerns  the  different  tax 
systems  existing  across  EU  countries  which  created  some  challenges  to  projects’ 
partners from different countries since they had to comply with different rules. 

•  Weather  conditions:  this  mostly  concerns  projects  under  priority  area  “nature  and 
biodiversity”  since  it  hampers  field  missions  and  testing  activities  planned  by 
beneficiaries as part of their project.  

•  Covid pandemic situation: in several projects, the restrictions due to COVID situation 
have slowed down the implementation of some activities, often requiring an extension 
of the timeframe. It made difficult the interaction with stakeholders (which were not 
familiar with the use of technologies for communication), the obtainment of permits 
and  other  administrative  documents,  and  the  organisation  of  field  visits  and  the 
performance of sampling and measurement. 

•  Geopolitical situation and instability: the increase of gas prices (due to the Ukraine 
and Russia war) impacted on the projects’ budget, namely getting equipment outside 

119 

 
EU  (e.g.,  from  USA  and  Canada)  became  more  expensive.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
increasing energy prices improved appetite for energy efficiency investments. 

Internal factors influencing the delivery of the LIFE 

•  Capacities of projects stakeholders 

•  Project’s governance: the collaboration amongst projects’ stakeholders who are really 
committed  to  the  achievement  of  the  project’s  objectives  is  crucial  in  delivering 
activities as well as finding solutions for overcoming challenges and difficulties caused 
both by internal (e.g., bankruptcy or withdrawal of some partners, costs overrun, etc.) 
and external factors.  

•  The role of the National Contact Points is crucial in raising awareness about funding 
opportunities from the LIFE programme, in fostering collaborations amongst relevant 
stakeholders, especially in those countries with less capacity, in providing suggestions 
regarding amendments during project’s implementations. 

•  The support provided by NEEMO Monitors has been recognised to be very helpful in 
complying  with  LIFE-programme  requirements,  e.g.,  financial  reporting,  KPI 
reporting,  etc.  In  some  cases,  clarifications  were  asked  to  NEEMO  monitors  and 
advice in terms of budget remodulation.  

•  The proper estimation of the project’s timeframe.  

• 

Informative  events  as  part  of  project’s  activities  –  e.g.,  workshop,  newsletters,  etc- 
helped  to  get  a  better  understanding  of  project’s  results  by  the  community,  raising 
awareness and interest of other potential project’s stakeholders.  

Factors influencing the financial instruments 
Since both NCFF and PF4EE were innovative pilot instruments – their launch took more time 
than planned. In addition, it was difficult to secure investment for the first proposed projects, 
as the EIB guarantees were not sufficient. During the implementation of NCFF and PF4EE, 
the issue of identifying promising products on the market was the main burden for financial 
intermediaries.  More  capacity  building  would  be  needed  to  help  stakeholders  make  use  of 
such instruments. Competition with grants is also found to be a limiting factor. In some MS, 
even  if  there  was  no  direct  competition  with  grants,  some  issues  emerged  because 
beneficiaries had already reached the limits imposed by state aid regulation. With reference to 
NCFF, EIB’s presence in the market as well as its consistent contact base helped deliver the 
instrument.  The  interest  in  the  instrument  increased  tangibly  over  the  lifetime  of  the 
instrument. With reference to NCFF, these factors negatively influenced its delivery: a) small 
promoters struggled with the complex loan requirements, and intermediary bodies with both 
the capital and administrative burden. Interviewed stakeholders argued that capacity building 
activities could have helped address such issues. Engaging partnership between the EIB and 
bigger intermediary bodies which are therefore more used to such instruments also emerged 
as  a  possible  solution.  B)  NCFF’s  setup  was  the  result  of  a  relatively  complex  process  of 
negotiations  between  the  relevant  parties.  This  implied  that  attempts  to  discuss  some 
adjustment over the implementation period faced a level of rigidity. C) At the end of 2020, the 
EIB lost its mandate to equity, which was one component of NCFF along with debt, and had 
to create a contingent debt instrument. D) the EIB does not finance land acquisition, whereas 
it represents a major aspect of biodiversity promotion projects, thus preventing the support of 
certain projects which cannot cover this component with other funds. 

120 

 
3.  Relevance 

Consulted interviewees did not observe changes in the needs, problems and issues that the 
LIFE 2014-2020 programme aimed to address, and in this respect, interviewees agreed that 
they remained relevant throughout the programming period. Interviewees also agreed that the 
LIFE programme addressed key priorities defined in EU strategies and programs, such as the 
European  Green  Deal,  Europe  2020  Strategy,  and  7th  Union  Environmental Action  Plan.  
Overall, stakeholders recognised the relevance of the LIFE programme’s priorities at national, 
EU, and international levels, and recognised that the LIFE programme was a highly valuable 
instrument to help fulfilling objectives of the EU nature directives and biodiversity strategy. 
The programme’s flexibility, design, and inclusion of emerging priorities such as the addition 
of clean energy transition to the priorities, were praised by stakeholders and representatives 
of EU level bodies as allowing the programme to adapt to emerging needs. Interviewees also 
noted that action grants for traditional projects were the most flexible, accessible and universal 
tool capable of adapting to changing needs. Additionally, preparatory projects were considered 
by interviewees as a useful tool which allowed the Commission to address additional topics 
which unexpectedly emerged and were not included in the MAWPs. The COVID-19 pandemic 
was identified as the most significant socio-economic change towards the end of the program’s 
implementation.  While EU level body representatives believed that COVID-19 did not impact 
the  program’s  relevance  due  to  extended  implementation  timelines,  LIFE  program 
beneficiaries  expressed  concerns  about  the  negative  effects  of  the  pandemic  on  project 
implementation as some activities were not able to proceed as planned.  Interviewees generally 
believed that the LIFE program effectively addresses technological changes, enabling testing 
and  innovation  within  projects  and  some  commented  on  observing  greater  awareness  of 
climate  and  environmental  issues  within  the  public  during  the  programming  period.  Many 
interviewed  beneficiaries  also  mentioned  high  administrative  burden  as  a  negative  aspect 
related to the project implementation.  

4. Coherence 

Internal coherence 
The interviewees questioned believe that the internal structure of the LIFE programme 2014-
2020  was  very  consistent  with  the  EU  policies  and  priorities,  covering  the  most  relevant 
climate and environmental topics. The priority areas “Nature and biodiversity”, “Environment 
and resource efficiency”, “Climate change mitigation” and “Climate change adaptation” were 
intended to  address  a range of issues of importance to  various key stakeholders,  while the 
priority  areas  “Environmental  governance  and  information”  and  “Climate  governance  and 
information” were a response to more cross-cutting needs. LIFE Sub-programmes and priority 
areas were very well structured, working very well together and avoiding gaps or overlaps, 
while  overlaps  in  project  topics  have  been  occasionally  identified  in  cases  when  a  project 
builds upon the results and experiences of previous projects, or a project replicates the results 
of a previous project In a new location. For the cases that gaps are identified (in thematic areas 
or geographical areas), stakeholders feel that the EC should decide how to engage potential 
beneficiaries towards this direction. Although the interviewees agree that synergies within the 
Programme exist, they have suggested several improvements to enhance these synergies: 

•  To  increase  synergies  among  the  sub-programmes,  networking  needs  to  be  pushed 
towards  co-designing,  co-implementing,  learning  from  the  difficulties  of  the  past, 
mutual sharing and mutual learning. 

121 

 
•  LIFE  projects  need  to  network  with  other  LIFE  projects,  not  necessarily  under  the 
same sub-programme but between the two sub-programmes. What usually happens is 
business  networking  at  the  level  of  the  same  sub-programme/priority  areas  due  to 
efficiency reasons, or with other funding programmes at EU level, such as H2020. This 
could be done by expanding the scope of the platform meetings, which now focus on 
projects with similar scope. 

•  The consistency of the funds’ allocation vis-à-vis the priorities and objectives of the 

Programme needs to be ensured during the evaluation phase. 

The beneficiaries of LIFE projects, as they seem not to have a clear understanding of the LIFE 
Programme at its whole, were not in the position to provide a clear answer in this question. 
However, most of them believe that synergies exist as stakeholders with different  interests 
were engaged in their projects. In some cases, the beneficiaries have developed collaborations 
with other LIFE projects. 

External coherence 
The  stakeholders  interviewed  have  revealed  many  cases  of  synergies  and  gaps  in  the 
coordination  of  the  several  instruments.  The  integrated  projects  appear  to  be  an 
outstanding  role  in  the  coordination  of  funds.  Strong  consistencies  are  also  identified 
between  LIFE  and  EMFF  in  the  area  of  marine  and  maritime,  specially  focusing  on 
environment and species protection. Beneficiaries find a strong linkage between Horizon and 
LIFE,  as  they  need  to  start  from  an  advanced  TRL  (e.g.,  TRL6)  to  design  their  LIFE 
programme. As  for  the  programmes  financed  by  the  ESIF  2014-2020,  the  main  areas  of 
potential  intersection  with  LIFE  2014-2020  have  been  with  programmes  financed  by  the 
European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) and by the European Agricultural Fund for 
Rural Development (EAFRD). However, these other EU programmes have correctly focused 
to a significant extent on major investments with benefits for smart, sustainable and inclusive 
growth.  LIFE  programme,  on  the  other  hand,  has  naturally  focused  on  management 
approaches,  environmental  restoration  (especially  for  nature  and  ecosystems)  and 
demonstration of new solutions to environmental and climate problems (so working as a “gap 
filler”). Thus, interventions financed by the LIFE Programme have been consistent with other 
interventions  financed  by  national/regional  operational  programmes  under  ERDF  and  by 
national/rural development programmes under EAFRD, avoiding interferences/oppositions or 
overlaps. The ERDF has been complementary to LIFE acting as a source of follow-up funding 
after LIFE projects have come to an end. Synergies with EAFRD have been identified in cases 
where  EARDF  funds  were  mobilised  to  finance  farmers  and  waste  management  projects, 
linked to LIFE objectives. In many cases LIFE projects have revealed – whether directly or 
indirectly – inconsistencies in policy decisions, including at EU level. There is not enough 
consistency  between  some  sectoral  programmes.  This  could  be  seen  as  another  valuable 
contribution  that  could  ultimately  result  in  environmental  protection  being  more  deeply 
integrated into other policy areas, a wakeup call for implementing the systemic change needed. 
Significant inconsistences have been also identified between LIFE, the Common Agricultural 
Policy  (contradictions  on  biodiversity  issues)  and  the  fisheries  policy.  Some  contradictory 
opinions have been also expressed, in relation to the synergies between LIFE and Horizon. 

Contribution to integration of environment/climate objectives into other EU policies 
According to the interviewees, LIFE 2014-2020 and the projects supported by the Programme 
have  strongly  contributed  to  increase  the  public  and  private  sector’s  capacity  for  the 

122 

 
integration  and  mainstreaming  of  environmental,  nature  and  climate  objectives  into  the 
following EU policies:  the Common Agricultural Policy;  Common Fisheries and Maritime 
Policy; Regional and Cohesion policy; Employment policy; Research and Innovation policies. 
In  relation  to  the  coordination  mechanisms  in  place  to  ensure  complementarity  with  other 
programmes  related  to  environment  at  national  and  EU  level,  not  enough  coordination 
mechanisms are in place. The situation is better for IPs, where such mechanisms are evident 
as beneficiaries need to report complementary funding required to implement the projects. For 
other types of projects, specific research needs to be done. CINEA has improved the process 
as the main operator, while many programmes are being managed from common agencies to 
ensure synergy. At national level the responsibility lies within the NCPs. Another organisation 
that  may  be  actively  engaged  is  the  EU  Enterprise  network,  as  this  is  already  engaged  in 
Horizon. 

Contribution to uptake of environment/climate research and Horizon 2020 innovation 
According  to  the  interviewees,  the  LIFE  projects  need  to  start  with TRL6,  so  any  kind  of 
research was  a benefit. Furthermore, projects  that have been implemented as a scale-up of 
previous  projects  and  use  scientific  findings,  end  to  be  more  successful,  as  exchange  of 
knowledge derived from a project is duplicated in new projects. Representatives of the NCPs 
mentioned that they have developed dialogue with the national contact point for HORIZON 
2020  and  keep  on  involving  its  representatives  in  their  activities,  to  promote  synergies 
between the programmes. It also needs to be mentioned that for nature protection project, the 
results from HORIZON 2020 projects deems crucial. A few evaluation monitors believe that 
there are overlaps in place. There are cases where Horizon has been working on similar TRLs 
over the last years. These interviewees don’t believe necessarily that Horizon feeds LIFE and 
LIFE feeds the market. It might also be the other way round. In cases of TRL 5+, there might 
be  some  resemblance,  or  overlap,  which  is  not  necessarily  negative,  as  both  programmes 
provide  funding  opportunities  to  different  beneficiaries.  However,  this  overlap  should  be 
explored,  in  terms  of  policies  addressed,  technologies  developed,  market  fields,  and  users 
addressed. This analysis would lead to better design and prioritisation of policy areas, to avoid 
a surplus of funds in one field (e.g., wastewater versus chemicals or valorisation of waste). 

Coherence with the Green Deal objectives and SDGs 
All interviewees agree that the LIFE Programme is fully aligned to the Green Deal objectives 
and the SDGs, as LIFE projects address the evolving needs and therefore the Green Deal and 
SGD’s priorities. In fact, LIFE is much more relevant today than 4 years ago, especially to the 
Green  Deal  (incl.  the  circular  economy). As  a  financial  tool,  LIFE  actions  contribute  to 
progress towards the same direction of the SDGs and the Green Deal for its environmental 
dimension. 

5. EU added value 

EU added value of LIFE programme actions 
Beneficiaries:  There  is  an  EU  added  value  of  LIFE  projects  compared  to  what  could  be 
achieved by Member States with national and/or local funding. EU added value was mostly 
expressed in  terms of territorial  coverage (especially in  the sense that LIFE enables cross-
border partnerships and collaborations), and objectives.  

123 

 
Programme stakeholders113: LIFE enabled to achieve greater results compared to what could 
be achieved by Member States (around half of the 25 interviewees). The EU added value is 
the  highest  in  terms  of  territorial  coverage  and  objectives.  Low  EU  added  value  of  LIFE 
project was only reported once in terms of policy instrument, thematic coverage, and territorial 
coverage. In addition, synergies and complementarities between Life and intra-MS policies 
were mentioned 5 times with national policies, as well as 4 times with both regional and local 
policies. Only 1 stakeholder disagreed, arguing that it is difficult to coordinate EU funds with 
national/regional ones. 

Evaluators and NEEMO monitors: LIFE fundings could not be substituted by other funding 
sources, especially because of the uniqueness of the instrument, as well as its complementarity 
aspect towards other funding sources.  

Efficiency and effectiveness of LIFE 
Programme stakeholders: Effectiveness and efficiency is the second mostly mentioned EU 
added value to Life projects. 

Beneficiaries: 3 of 13 respondents highlighted effectiveness and efficiency as an EU added 
value. It was also mentioned that LIFE is less appealing from a financial standpoint than other 
Funds in some places due to the higher co-financing required. 

Capacity of LIFE action being developed without LIFE support 
Programme stakeholders: The stopping or withdrawing of LIFE-funded activities would have 
negative  consequences  for  Member  states,  either  in  terms  of  activities  performed, 
achievements, or implementation of climate policy (see graph below). Only one stakeholder 
mentioned that it would not have dramatic consequences. In addition, the absence or lack of 
Life  funding  hamper  or  limit  environmental  and  climate  actions,  especially  for  nature  and 
biodiversity projects. Other aspects that would be affected are academic and NGO’s work, as 
well as the capacity to reach objectives following an ambitious timeline. 

Proportionality and subsidiarity principles 
The few NCPs and EU level bodies interviewed who answered the question about subsidiarity 
(3 out of 15) agreed with the fact that the principle of subsidiarity applies in the case of LIFE.  

6. Early and expected impacts 

Beneficiaries  
Overall,  the  beneficiaries  interviewed  believe  that  the  LIFE  projects  have  achieved  the 
intended results. Not only that, but the projects have also resulted in wider positive impacts 
that supplemented the main objectives of the projects. Some interviewees indicated benefits 
including a collective learning and a substantial upskilling process for each actor involved, in 
which  actors  gained  new  knowledge  and  new  materials  are  developed  for  the  projects. 
Moreover,  the  projects  have  enhanced  collaborations  among  actors.  The  high  level  of 
involvement from local actors is another positive facet of the programme. Additionally, the 
projects have been successful on raising awareness on climate mitigation and environmental 
protection. Policymakers have become more aware of the issue, boosting green transition, and 
the  public  are  becoming  more  informed,  especially  due  to  active  dissemination  efforts. 
Meanwhile, changes in behaviours have been observed, in which stakeholders are increasingly 
realising the significance of climate and environmental issues. More importantly, the LIFE 

113 evaluators, NEEMO monitors, MS competent authorities, NCPs and EU level bodies 

124 

 
 
projects have shown that these types of initiatives can be successful, and it paves the way for 
similar projects in the future. Some interviewees further confirmed that their projects may still 
produce impacts in the longer-term. Follow-up activities are still occurring, and some projects 
are  aiming  at  implementing  new  business  models  to  widen  the  outreach  of  the  projects, 
particularly to local communities and SMEs. The increasing awareness and the skill upgrading 
that the projects have brought about may also be beneficial for the long-run impacts of the 
projects.  Indeed,  the  benefits  of  some  projects,  especially  those  concerning  nature 
preservation,  would  only  materialise  on  the  long  run.  Moreover,  some  projects  are  in 
discussion to replicate the outcomes to other sectors. Projects that utilise datasets, websites or 
other platforms are planning to keep the platform alive for the future. The outcomes are also 
being  readied  for  commercialisation.  In  terms  of  governance,  some  of  the  interviewees 
answered that they are actively working to have an impact on the policymaking process, in 
which  some  of  the  stakeholders  participating  in  the  projects  are  directly  involved  in  the 
process. Raising awareness and disseminating the results of the projects are focus areas on 
that  regard  and  some  projects  developed  guidance  and  tools  via  extensive  R&D  activities. 
Most of the interviewees did not see any major negative impacts from the projects. If any, the 
negative  impacts  are  unintended  and  affect  more  the  project  teams,  such  as  a  challenging 
funding  process,  too  complex  approaches  for  smaller  beneficiaries  (especially  when  the 
projects require a lot of time and resources), the fact that follow-up activities post-LIFE are 
not  always  ensured,  and  the  products  may  not  be  market-ready,  and  outcomes  cannot  be 
replicated in other sectors. 

Evaluators and NEEMO Monitors 
Subjects interviewed on behalf of LIFE programme evaluators and monitors affirmed that the 
LIFE programme is  contributing to  the improvement of governance at  different  levels  and 
through different  ways (e.g., by proposing  a new structure or process  or  by improving the 
capacity of public authorities). There are certain projects focusing on governance, while other 
more technical projects enable interaction between the technology provider and policymaker 
to make the policy framework more adaptive and friendly to new technologies. In this way, it 
is  easier  for  the  public  to  see  results  and  improve  their  awareness  on  environmental  and 
climate topics.  One obstacle is  that in  the past,  the main applicants  were municipalities or 
applied  research  universities,  and  the  projects  were  oriented  more  towards  improving 
environmental  governance  and  climate  policies,  while  nowadays,  there  are  more  private-
sector projects. One improving the application process and helping stakeholders to produce 
more  relevant  proposals,  interviewees  suggested  organising  more  training  sessions  and 
opportunities to network and share experiences and good practices, as well as allocating more 
resources to the overall programme. 

MS Authorities / NCPs 
The majority of the interviewees agreed that the LIFE projects have achieved their intended 
impacts, such as improving conservation status of habitats and species, restoring Natura 2000 
sites, improving resource efficiency, developing green innovations, creating sustainable jobs, 
enhance  environmental  and  climate  governance  and  information,  enhance  stakeholders 
capacities,  raise  awareness  and  trigger  behavioural  changes  in  tackling  environmental  and 
climate  challenges  and  bridging  green  synergies  with  other  sectors,  among  others. 
Additionally, the interviewees have not witnessed any negative impacts from the projects so 
far. In the long-term, effects for nature and biodiversity projects will start to realise, while 
close-to-markets projects will have larger impact from the start. Moreover, the capacity and 

125 

 
knowledge  building  enabled  by  the  projects  and  the  increased  awareness  on  climate  and 
environmental  issues  will  also  be  beneficial  for  future  impacts.  Nonetheless,  some 
interviewees  mentioned  that the LIFE projects  have only  moderately  impacted governance 
and policymaking. 

EU-level Bodies 
Most of the interviewees from EU-level institutions confirmed that projects funded under the 
LIFE programme have achieved many direct and indirect positive impacts and reached their 
intended targets depending on the nature of priorities of a project. One of the advantages of 
the programme is the participation of bottom-up actors that translates into concrete actions on 
the  field. Although  the  funding  may  not  be  as  large  as  other  sources,  the  programme  has 
resulted in a leverage effect that acts as a catalyst for further ideas and actions. Some of the 
impacts,  especially  for  nature  and  biodiversity,  may  not  be  realised  for  several  years,  but 
examples have shown that the projects can transform a sector and result in permanent changes. 
In terms of governance, the impacts on all sectors tend to be uneven, in which the effect is 
larger for sectors where actors possess strong influences in policymaking. To reinforce the 
impacts,  some  suggestions  to  transform  public  opinion  and  enhance  capacity  building  are 
denoted.  Meanwhile,  although  the  benefits  of  the  projects  towards  job  creation  and  the 
economy are difficult to be precisely quantified, the effect is still strongly felt. Other positive 
impacts named include bridging the gap for countries where EU environmental legislation is 
not  as  well-implemented,  increasing  accessibility  to  businesses,  increasing  focus  on 
innovation, increasing synergies with other programmes, and raising public awareness, among 
others. 

5.4. Participation in events 

The first event to which representatives of the team participated was the “Workshop on EU 
Life  Integrated  Projects–- What  did  we  learn?”,  held  in  Helsinki  on  the 14th  of  September 
2022,  which  was  focused  on  integrated  projects.  The  second  event  to  which  the  team 
participated  was  held  in  Rome  on  the  12th  of  December  2022,  namely  the  Conference 
“Celebrations  in  Italy  of  the  30th  anniversary  of  the  LIFE  programme  and  the  Habitat 
Directive” (Celebrazioni in Italia del 30° anniversario del programma LIFE e della direttiva 
habitat). During these occasions, the team tried to liaise with the most relevant stakeholders, 
in order to disseminate information on the project and, thus, involve them in the consultation 
activities (e.g., interviews). 

The first workshop highlighted the success of integrated projects (IPs) as a new approach to 
implement  EU  environmental  and  climate  objectives  due  to  their  large  scale  and  longer 
duration, as well as a demonstration of good coordination and stakeholder engagement. The 
various  projects  presented  showcased  the  positive  impact  of  IPs  in  achieving  concrete 
environmental  benefits.  Despite  challenges  such  as  political  issues  and  limited  absorption 
capacity  in  some  member  states,  IPs  remain  significant  in  supporting  national  and  EU 
strategies.  Moreover,  the  workshop  emphasises  the  need  for  improved  monitoring  and 
simplifying the reporting process, while highlighting the positive aspects of collaborating with 
scientific institutions and NGOs.  

Meanwhile,  the  second  conference  focused  on  the  discussions  surrounding  the  LIFE 
programme  and  its  significance  in  constructing  the  Natura  2000  network.  The  conference 
highlighted the milestone of the LIFE programme in Italy for the last 30 years, especially in 

126 

 
terms of Natura 2000 sites management and conservation efforts. Beneficiaries taking part in 
the conference revealed that the results of the projects are satisfying and without EU funds, 
the projects would not have existed. However, when presented with the project results, some 
beneficiaries  argued  that  LIFE  alone  is  not  enough  to  fight  loss  of  biodiversity  and  other 
environment-related problems,  which underlined that mainstreaming the  issues  and raising 
awareness would be needed. 

5.5. Validation exercise 

Given the successful conduction of the stakeholder consultation, as well as the limited 
availability of contacted stakeholders during the ending period of the project (i.e., Summer), 
the team re-designed the validation to better fit the study needs and possibility at the 
disposal of the external consultant. Instead of a validation workshop, stakeholders were 
contacted bilaterally, and the conclusions and recommendations shared with them. Each 
stakeholder was invited to comment on each of the findings shared, to let the study team 
incorporate their feedbacks in the final report. As of the submission of this deliverable, the 
team has not received inputs from the stakeholders contacted about the validation exercise. 

127 

 
Annex VI. Overview achievement of targets set in MFF evaluation framework and programme statements  

6.1. Overview of all performance indicators used and their respective achievements  

The  table  below  depicts  the  indictors  established  in  the  MFF  evaluation  framework  for  the  LIFE  Programme,  as  well  as  programme  statements. The 
respective targets for 2020 are stated and their achievement as far as possible. The table also includes the performance indicators.   
TABLE 17: MFF targets and related achievements 

Sub 
Progra
mme 
Environ
ment 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

Environ
ment and 
resource 
efficienc
y 

Water  No of ongoing or 
finalised projects 
addressing 
(inland/transitiona
l/coastal) water 
bodies with bad 
ecological status 

not possible to 
measure: no 
aggregated data 
available for the 
outcome 

No of water 
bodies with poor 
ecological status 
targeted by 
ongoing or 
finalised projects 

not possible to 
measure: no 
aggregated data 
available for the 
outcome 

80% 

100 

not possible 
to measure: 
no 
aggregated 
data available 
for the 
outcome 

not possible 
to measure: 
no 
aggregated 
data available 
for the 
outcome 

Percentage of 
ongoing or finalised 
projects 
implementing 
replicable or 
transferable actions 
and progressing 
towards good 
ecological status at 
project level 
Water bodies 
(inland/transitional/c
oastal) covered by 
ongoing or finalised 
projects 
implementing 
replicable or 
transferable actions 

128 

 
 
 
 
Sub 
Progra
mme 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

75 projects with 
WASTE as project 
topic (source: 
eProposal) 

94 NUTS 3 regions 
covered 

Waste  No of ongoing or 
finalised projects 
aiming at the 
achievement of 
EU legal waste 
targets and the 
implementation of 
the waste 
hierarchy 
(adequate waste 
management) 
No of additional 
municipalities or 
regions 
Unionwide with 
inadequate waste 
management 
targeted by 
ongoing or 
finalised projects 

set up to improve 
their ecological 
status 
Percentage of 
ongoing or finalised 
projects 
implementing 
replicable or 
transferable actions 
and progressing 
towards adequate 
waste management 

Municipalities or 
regions covered by 
ongoing or finalised 
projects 
implementing 
replicable or 
transferable actions 
set up to reach 
adequate 
management of 
waste 

129 

80% 

100% 

20 

94 NUTS 3 
regions 
covered 

Information is 
partial: it come 
from KPI data 
which do not 
include all 
projects 

 
 
Sub 
Progra
mme 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

Resou
rce 
efficie
ncy 

70 projects with 
RESOURCE 
EFFICIENCY as 
project topic 
(excluding soil and 
forests; source: 
eProposal) 

1657 private-
commercial 
organisations 

No of ongoing or 
finalised projects 
implementing the 
targets of Union 
policy and 
legislation in the 
area of resource 
efficiency (not 
including soil and 
forests) 

No of additional 
companies 
Europe-wide 
targeted by 
ongoing or 
finalised projects 

Percentage of 
ongoing or finalised 
projects 
implementing 
replicable or 
transferable actions 
and progressing 
towards 
implementing 
aspects of green 
circular economy 
Additional 
companies covered 
by ongoing or 
finalised projects 
implementing 
replicable or 
transferable actions 
set up to implement 
green or circular 
economy 

80% 

100% 

10 

Period 2014-
2017 private 
commercial 
organisations 
targeted: 968 

Additional 
assumed to be 
compared to 
previous work-
programme 

Period 2018-
2020 private 
commercial 
organisations 
targeted: 689 
100% 

No of ongoing or 
finalised projects 
implementing the 

70 projects with 
RESOURCE 
EFFICIENCY - 

Percentage of 
ongoing or finalised 
projects 

80% 

130 

 
 
 
 
Sub 
Progra
mme 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

objectives of the 
Union's policy in 
the area of soil 
protection. 

SOIL as project 
topic (source: 
eProposal) 

Ha of land Union-
wide targeted by 
ongoing or 
finalised projects 

12,200 ha in the 
conservative 
scenario and 
30,800 ha in the 
optimistic scenario 
(source: author’s 
elaboration based 
on KPI data) 

No of ongoing or 
finalised projects 
promoting the 
implementation of 
the European 
Forest Strategy 

9 projects with 
RESOURCE 
EFFICIENCY - 
FORESTS as 
project topic 
(source: eProposal) 

implementing 
replicable or 
transferable actions 
and progressing 
towards maintaining 
or improving soil 
functions 
Land covered by 
ongoing or finalised 
projects 
implementing 
replicable or 
transferable actions 
set up to maintain 
and improve soil 
functions. 
Percentage of 
ongoing or finalised 
projects 
implementing 
replicable or 
transferable actions 
and progressing 
towards 
implementation of 

131 

2,000 

880 

80% 

100% 

Information is 
partial: it comes 
from KPI data 
which do not 
include all 
projects (14 
projects 
considered here) 

 
 
 
Sub 
Progra
mme 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

80% 

100% 

80% 

100% 

the European Forest 
Strategy 
Percentage of 
ongoing or finalised 
projects 
implementing 
replicable or 
transferable actions 
set up to provide 
indicator data that 
may serve for the 
European Forest 
Data Centre 
(EFDAC) 
Percentage of 
ongoing or finalised 
projects 
implementing 
replicable or 
transferable actions 
and progressing 
towards reaching or 
surpassing the 
relevant Union 
chemical substance 

132 

43 projects with 
ENVIRONMENT 
AND HEALTH - 
CHEMICALS as 
project topic 
(source: eProposal) 

ENVI
RON
MEN
T and 
HEA
LTH 
(inclu
ding 
chemi
cals 

No of ongoing or 
finalised projects 
implementing 
Union policy on 
chemicals 
including projects 
promoting the 
substitution of 
substances and 
exposure 
minimisation 

 
 
 
Sub 
Progra
mme 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

50,000 

not possible 
to measure: 
no 
aggregated 
data available 
for the 
outcome 

80% 

100% 

and 
noise) 

not possible to 
measure: no 
aggregated data 
available for the 
outcome 

No of persons 
Union-wide 
targeted by 
ongoing or 
finalised projects 
aiming at 
reducing 
chemicals 

No of ongoing or 
finalised projects 
funded targeting 
noise reduction 

6 projects with 
ENVIRONMENT 
AND HEALTH - 
NOISE 
REDUCTION as 
project topic 
(source: eProposal) 

target on project 
level 
Persons covered by 
ongoing or finalised 
projects 
implementing 
replicable or 
transferable actions 
set up to reduce 
adverse effects of 
chemicals on health 
and environment, 
including estimates 
over the long term 
effects 
Percentage of 
ongoing or finalised 
projects 
implementing 
replicable or 
transferable actions 
and progressing 
towards reaching or 
surpassing the 
relevant Union noise 

133 

 
 
 
Sub 
Progra
mme 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

80% 

67% 

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 

Information is 
partial: it comes 
from KPI data 
which do not 
include all 
projects 

Information on 
validated 
projects only 
considered to 
ensure reliability 
of information. 
Only 3 projects 
out of 6 are 
validated. 2 out 
of these 3 meet 
the 3dB target 

No of persons 
Union-wide 
targeted by 
ongoing or 

not possible to 
measure: no 
aggregated data 
available for the 
outcome 

Persons benefitting 
from ongoing or 
finalised projects 
implementing 
replicable or 

10,000 

not possible 
to measure: 
no 
aggregated 
data available 

134 

 
 
 
Sub 
Progra
mme 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

for the 
outcome 

80% 

100% 

Traditional 
projects instead 
of IP projects 
considered - IPs 
projects 
considered in 
the dedicated 
row 

air 
qualit
y and 
emissi
on 

finalised noise 
projects 

No of ongoing or 
finalised IPs 
targeting the 
implementation of 
air quality plans 
and programmes 
(AQPP) and 
national air 
pollution control 
programmes 
(NAPCP) 

22 projects with 
AIR QUALITY 
AND EMISSIONS 
as project topic 
(source: eProposal) 

transferable actions 
set up to reduce 
noise levels by at 
least 3 dB 
Percentage of IPs set 
up to implement 
compliant and 
efficient AQPP in 
regions covered, in 
conformity with 
Article 23 of 
Directive 
2008/50/EC on 
ambient air quality 
and cleaner air for 
Europe, or to set up 
compliant and 
efficient NAPCPs in 
Member States, in 
conformity with 
Article 6 of 
Directive (EU) 
2016/2284 on 
National Emission 
Ceilings. 

135 

 
Sub 
Progra
mme 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

No of persons 
targeted by 
ongoing or 
finalised air 
quality projects 

not possible to 
measure: no 
aggregated data 
available for the 
outcome 

NAT
URE 

Nature 
and 
Biodiver
sity 

No of ongoing or 
finalised projects 
targeting habitats 
or species in less 
than 
favourable/not 
secure 
conservation 
status 

No of habitats 
targeted by 
ongoing or 
finalised projects 

154 projects with 
NATURE as 
project topic 
(source: eProposal) 

152 habitats 
targeted by LIFE 
(source: LIFE 

persons covered by 
ongoing or finalised 
projects 
implementing 
replicable or 
transferable actions 
progressing towards 
reaching or 
surpassing the 
relevant Union air 
quality target. 
Percentage of 
ongoing or finalised 
projects set up to 
improve the 
conservation status 
within the meaning 
of Directives 
92/43/EEC and 
Directive 
2009/147/EC 
Percentage of 
habitats or species or 
Natura 2000 sites 
targeted by ongoing 

136 

1,000,000 

not possible 
to measure: 
no 
aggregated 
data available 
for the 
outcome 

100% 

100% 

65.2% 

10 % of the 
habitats 
targeted 

in EU there are 
in total 233 
habitats 

 
 
 
Sub 
Progra
mme 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

in less than 
favourable/secure 
conservation 
status 
No of species 
targeted by 
ongoing or 
finalised projects 
in less than 
favourable/secure 
conservation 
status 
No of the Natura 
2000 sites/ha of 
Natura 2000 sites 
targeted by 
ongoing or 
finalised projects 
No of ongoing or 
finalised projects 
targeting the 
implementation of 
targets 2, 3, 4 and 
5 of the 

Biodi
versit
y 

or finalised projects 
that are progressing 
towards an improved 
conservation status 

PUBLIC 
DATABASE) 

435 species 
targeted by LIFE 
(source: LIFE 
PUBLIC 
DATABASE) 

2315 Natura 2000 
sites targeted 
(source: LIFE 
PUBLIC Database) 

15 projects with 
GREEN 
INFRASTRUCTU
RE as project topic 
(source: eProposal) 

31 projects with 

Percentage of 
ongoing or finalised 
projects 
implementing 
replicable or 
transferable actions 
to improve or restore 

137 

21.30% 

10 % of the 
species 
targeted 

10 % of the 
Natura 2000 
sites/ha of 
Natura 2000 
sites 
targeted 
80% 

8.10% 

100% 

in EU there are 
in total 2044 
species (621 
bird species and 
1423 non-bird 
species) 

in EU there are 
in total 28,715 
Natura 2000 
sites 

 
 
 
Sub 
Progra
mme 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

Biodiversity 
Strategy to 2020 

the targeted 
ecosystems 

INVASIVE ALIEN 
SPECIES as 
project topic 
(source: eProposal) 

In total, 44 projects 
with 
BIODIVERSITY 
as theme (the sum 
of GREEN 
INFRASTRUCTU
RE and INVASIVE 
ALIEN SPECIES 
projects is actually 
46; however, 2 
project deal both 
with GREEN 
INFRASTRUCTU
RE and INVASIVE 
ALIEN SPECIES - 
double count 
prevented) 

138 

 
 
Sub 
Progra
mme 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

No of ecosystem 
types and ha of 
ecosystem 
surfaces targeted 
by ongoing or 
finalised projects 

No of all river 
basin districts 
(RBD) Union-
wide targeted by 
ongoing or 
finalised water 
IPs 
No of ongoing or 
finalised IPs 
targeting the 
implementation of 

water 

Integrate
d 
Projects 

11 ecosystem types 
targeted (source: 
KPI data) 

596,800 ha targeted 
in the conservative 
assessment and 
1,141,700 in the 
optimistic 
assessment (source: 
author’s 
elaboration based 
on KPI data) 

17 RBD addressed 
by LIFE IPs 
(source: LIFE 
Public Database) 

Information is 
partial: it comes 
from KPI data 
which do not 
include all 
projects 

10 % of the 
ecosystem 
types 
targeted 
10 % of the 
ecosystem 
surfaces 
targeted 

Percentage of 
ecosystem types or 
surfaces targeted by 
ongoing or finalised 
projects 
implementing 
replicable or 
transferable actions 
and progressing 
towards 
improvement or 
restoration 

Percentage of RBD 
covered by water IPs 

3% 

9.1% 

In total in EU 
there are 187 
RBD 

12 (source: LIFE 
Public Database) 

Percentage of IPs set 
up to implement 
compliant and 
efficient RBMP in 

100% 

100% 

139 

 
 
 
  
 
Sub 
Progra
mme 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

waste 

river basin 
management 
plans (RBMP) 

No of ongoing or 
finalised IPs 
targeting the 
implementation of 
RBMP 

No of regions 
Union-wide 
covered by 
ongoing or 
finalised waste 
IPs 
No of ongoing or 
finalised IPs 
targeting the 
implementation of 
waste 
management 
plans (WMP) 

12 (source: LIFE 
Public Database) 

18 regions 
addressed by LIFE 
IPs (source: LIFE 
Public Database) 

8 IPs with WASTE 
as project topic 
(source: LIFE 
Public Database) 

the covered RBD, in 
conformity with the 
Water Framework 
Directive 
Percentage of IPs, 
where 
complementary 
funding mobilised 
through the IPs is 
greater than the total 
value of the budgets 
of these IPs 
Percentage of 
regions covered by 
waste IPs 

Percentage of IPs set 
up to provide 
compliant and 
efficient WMP 
and/or WPP in the 
covered Region, in 
conformity with 

140 

100% 

91.7% 

2% 

1.5% 

in EU in total 
there are 1166 
NUTS3 regions 

100% 

100% 

 
 
 
Sub 
Progra
mme 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

and/or waste 
prevention 
programmes 
(WPP 

No of ongoing or 
finalised IPs 
targeting the 
implementation of 
WMP and/or 
WPP 

Air 
qualit
y and 
emissi
on 

No of persons 
from regions 
Union-wide 
targeted by 
ongoing or 
finalised Air IPs 

No of ongoing or 
finalised IPs 
targeting the 
implementation of 

8 IPs with WASTE 
as project topic 
(source: LIFE 
Public Database) 

43,972,000 people 
covered by LIFE 
IPs (population of 
regions target by 
the projects as per 
LIFE Public 
Database 
indication) 
7 IPs with AIR 
QUALITY as 
project theme 

Articles 28 and 29 of 
the Waste 
Framework 
Directive 
2008/98/EC. 
Percentage of IPs, 
where 
complementary 
funding mobilised 
through the IPs is 
greater than the total 
value of the budgets 
of these IP 
Percentage of total 
Union population 
from regions 
covered by air 
quality IPs 

Percentage of IPs set 
up to implement 
compliant and 
efficient AQPP in 

141 

100% 

87.5% 

3% 

9.8% 

total EU 
population is 
448 million 

100% 

100% 

 
 
 
Sub 
Progra
mme 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

air quality plans 
and programmes 
(AQPP) 

(source: LIFE 
Public Database) 

No of ongoing or 
finalised IPs 
targeting the 
implementation of 
AQPP 

7 IPs with AIR 
QUALITY as 
project topic 
(source: LIFE 
Public Database) 

Natur
e 

No of Natura 
2000 sites 
targeted by 
ongoing or 
finalised nature 
IPs 

976 Natura 2000 
sites addressed by 
LIFE IPs (sources: 
LIFE Public 
Database; KPI 
data) 

regions covered, in 
conformity with 
Article 23 of 
Directive 
2008/50/EC. 
Percentage of IPs, 
where 
complementary 
funding mobilised 
through the IPs is 
greater than the total 
value of the budgets 
of these IPs 
Percentage of Natura 
2000 sites covered 
by nature IPs 

100% 

100% 

4% 

3.4% 

in EU there are 
in total 28,715 
Natura 2000 
sites 

For some 
projects no 
information 
(neither KPIs 
nor clear 
indications in 
LIFE Public 

142 

 
 
 
Sub 
Progra
mme 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

No of ongoing or 
finalised IPs 
targeting the 
implementation of 
prioritised action 
frameworks 
(PAFs) 
No of ongoing or 
finalised IP 
targeting the 
implementation of 
PAFs 

No of ongoing or 
finalised projects 
aimed at raising 
the awareness of 
citizens, 
enterprises, local 
authorities, 
registered non-

24 IPs with 
NATURE as 
priority area 
(source: VVA 
elaboration based 
on LIFE Public 
Database) 
24 IPs with 
NATURE as 
priority area 
(source: VVA 
elaboration based 
on LIFE Public 
Database) 

75 projects with 
INFORMATION 
AND 
AWARENESS 
RAISING as 
project theme 
(source: KPI 
database) 

Percentage of IPs set 
up to implement 
PAFs to ensure 
adequate 
management of 
Natura 2000 sites 

Percentage of IPs, 
where 
complementary 
funding mobilised 
through the IPs is 
greater than the total 
value of the budgets 
of these IP 
Percentage of 
ongoing or finalised 
projects 
implementing 
replicable or 
transferable actions 
progressing towards 
covering more than 

143 

Informat
ion and 
governa
nce 

Infor
matio
n and 
aware
ness 

100% 

100% 

Database) 
available 

100% 

83.3% 

80% 

38.9% 

NUTs region 
information 
available for 72 
out of 75 
projects; 28 out 
of 72 cover 
more than 2 

 
 
 
Sub 
Progra
mme 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

governmental 
(NGO) and other 
civil society 
organisations 
(stakeholders and 
citizens) 
No of 
stakeholders and 
citizens targeted 
by ongoing or 
finalised projects, 
unaware of the 
environmental 
objectives 
regarding which 
awareness is to be 
raised 

Out of 55,855 
citizens 
surveyed10,151 
become aware in 
the conservative 
scenario; out of 
73,563 citizens 
surveyed, 13,720 
become aware in 
the optimistic 
scenario 

two other areas 
beyond the project 
area and more than 
one language 

Percentage of 
increase of 
stakeholders and 
citizens targeted by 
awareness-raising 
projects 
implementing 
replicable or 
transferable actions 
becoming aware of 
the environmental 
policy objectives 
pursued by these 
projects as measured 
in ex ante and ex 
post surveys (carried 
out by LIFE projects 
or other entities) 

144 

25% 

27% 

areas and 1 
language 

Information is 
partial: it comes 
from KPI data 
which do not 
include all 
projects 

Information on 
validated 
projects only 
considered to 
ensure reliability 
of data. 
However, the 
reliability of the 
indicator is 
likely very low. 
Beneficiaries 
often reported 

 
 
Sub 
Progra
mme 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

just either the 
number of 
individuals 
surveyed or just 
the number of 
individuals 
surveyed who 
become aware. 
They did not 
report both 
and/or the ratio 
Information is 
partial: it comes 
from KPI data 
which do not 
include all 
projects 

Information on 
validated 
projects only 
considered to 
ensure reliability 
of data 

> 500 000 

41,123 
stakeholders 
and citizens 
targeted 

No of 
stakeholders and 
citizens targeted 
by ongoing or 
finalised projects 

Conservative 
scenario: 2,078 
NGOs, 
3,757 private 
entities, 
4,414 public 
bodies, and 5,744 
other organisations 
(unspecified) were 
involved in project 
activities 
; 55,856 citizens 
were reached 
through surveys; 

Active participation 
of stakeholders and 
citizens in 
awareness-raising 
activities offered by 
projects 
implementing 
replicable or 
transferable actions 
(e.g. participation in 
surveys, 
volunteering, 
participation in 
guided tours, 

145 

 
 
 
Sub 
Progra
mme 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

downloading of 
information, 
submission of 
questions) 

the number of 
stakeholders and 
citizens targeted 
is the sum of 
indicators 10.2, 
11.3 and 12.2 

117,658 citizens 
underwent 
professional 
training/education 
activities 

Optimistic 
scenario: 
3,944 NGOs, 
7,017 private 
entities, 
8,203 public 
bodies, and 10,804 
other organisations 
(unspecified) were 
involved in project 
activities; 73,563 
citizens were 
reached through 
surveys; 244,018 
citizens underwent 
professional 
training/education 
activities 

146 

 
 
Sub 
Progra
mme 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

Enfor
cemen
t 

No of projects 
targeting 
improved 
compliance and 
enforcement of 
EU environmental 
law 

18 projects with 
ENFORECEMEN
T/COMPLIANCE 
as project topic 
(source: eProposal) 

291 NGO projects 
(source: Butler) 

10% 

12% 

Percentage of 
ongoing or finalised 
projects 
implementing 
replicable or 
transferable actions 
progressing towards 
an improved 
compliance or 
enforcement 
Percentage of 
increase of 
interventions 
supporting EU 
policy 

not possible 
to measure: 
no 
aggregated 
data available 
for the 
outcome 

not possible 
to measure: 
no 
aggregated 
data available 
for the 
outcome 

19 TECHNICAL 
ASSISTANCE 
FOR 
ENVIRONMENT 
projects; 

Ongoing or finalised 
technical assistance 
projects preparing 
IPs. 

10 
preparing 
Nature IPs, 
5 preparing 
Waste, 
Water or Air 
IPs 

not possible 
to measure: 
no granular 
data available 
on the 
thematic area 
of the 

147 

NGO 

Other 
projects 

Techn
ical 
assista
nce 
projec
ts 

No of 
interventions by 
NGOs receiving 
operating grants 
in consultations 
on EU 
environmental 
policy 
No of ongoing or 
finalised technical 
assistance 
projects 

 
 
 
 
Sub 
Progra
mme 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

No of ongoing or 
finalised technical 
assistance 
projects 

Climate 
action - 
mitigati
on 

Integrate
d 
projects 

Mitig
ation 

No of projects 

12 projects 
(Source: VVA 
elaboration based 
on LIFE Public 
Database data) 

Percentage of 
ongoing or finalised 
technical assistance 
projects leading to 
EU LIFE integrated 
projects of improved 
quality 
Increased No of 
Member 
States/regions 
applying integrated 
approaches, with 
support from an IP 
or replicating the 
results from an IP. 

No and area 
coverage and 
citizens reached 

People addressed 
by LIFE CCM IPs 
are 40,755,458 (9% 

Tons of greenhouse 
gasses reduced by 
new technologies, 

148 

Technical 
Assistance 
projects 
263% 

90% 

Seven 
Member 
States 
applying 
integrated 
approaches 
with support 
from an IP 
or 
replicating 
the results 
from an IP. 
Complemen
tary finance 
mobilised 

12 Member 
States 
targeted 

not possible 
to measure: 
no 

total EU 
population is 
448 million 

 
 
 
Sub 
Progra
mme 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

under climate 
change mitigation 
strategies or 
action plans 
implemented. 

of EU population) 

LIFE IPs on CCM 
covered 388,537 
square km (9.5% of 
EU surface) 

systems, instruments 
and/or other best 
practice approaches 
developed and taken 
up following LIFE 
examples 

through IPs 
is greater 
than the 
total value 
of the 
budgets of 
these IPs 

Increased No of 
complementary 
measures in 
Integrated Projects 
financed by other 
Union Funds. 

No and volume of 
complementary 
projects funded 
by other Union or 
other funds. 

Technica
l 
assistanc

Mitig
ation 
and 

No of projects 
Percentage of 
technical 

total budget of 
LIFE IPs for CCM 
is: 216,787,692.  

6.0 billion is 
complementary 
fund coming from 
other EU funds; 2.9 
billion from other 
public 
complementary 
funding; 1.1 billion 
from other private 
complementary 
funding 
14 TECHNICAL 
ASSISTANCE 
FOR CLIMATE 

EU area is 
4,104,251 
square km 

aggregated 
data available 
for the 
outcome - IP 
projects are 
all still open 

not possible 
to measure: 
no 
aggregated 
data available 
for the 
outcome - IP 
projects are 
all still open 

Increased No and 
improved quality of 
IP linked to 

100 % of 
projects 

135.7% 

Not possible to 
separate 
technical 

149 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Sub 
Progra
mme 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

e 
projects 

Adapt
ation 

assistance 
projects leading 
to a LIFE IP 

projects (source: 
LIFE Public 
Database; Butler) 

technical assistance 
projects. 

have led to 
a LIFE IP 

assistance for 
mitigation and 
adaptation, no 
information 
available 

No of projects. 

Capacity 
building 
projects 

Mitig
ation 
and 
Adapt
ation 

16 Capacity 
Building projects 
(source: LIFE 
Public Database; 
Butler) 

Not possible to 
separate capacity 
building for 
mitigation and 
adaptation, no 
information 
available 

Increased relative 
share of successful 
applications from 
Member States 
eligible for capacity 
building. 

Seven 
Member 
States have 
at least one 
mitigation 
project 
funded 
through 
LIFE 
climate sub-
programme 

Other 
Projects 

Mitig
ation 

No of projects 

102 projects with 
CCM as project 

Increased No 
innovative 

80 % of all 
projects 

150 

7 Member 
States with at 
least one 
mitigation 
project 
funded 

in 2014: 3 
applications, 
3 out of 3 
projects 
financed 

in 2020: 31 
applications, 
4 out of 31 
projects 
financed 
68.6% 

102 CCM 
projects (source: 

 
 
 
 
 
Sub 
Progra
mme 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

eProposal); 70 
projects about 
GHG reduction 
(source: LIFE 
Public database) 

started set 
up lasting 
innovative 
technologies
, systems 
and 
instruments 
and/or best 
practice 
solutions for 
the 
reduction of 
greenhouse 
gas 
emissions 

No 
information 
available 

strand (source: 
eProposal) 

technologies, 
systems and 
instruments and/or 
other best practice 
solutions for the 
reduction of 
greenhouse gas 
emissions. 

No information 
available 

No of funded 
projects 
promoting 
innovative 
technologies, 
systems and 
instruments 
and/or other best 
practice solutions 

Increased percentage 
of updated or new 
approaches 
developed through 
LIFE that have been 
systematically used 
or improved by the 
private and public 
sectors 

151 

 
 
 
Sub 
Progra
mme 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

for greenhouse 
gas emissions 
reduction. 

Tons of greenhouse 
gasses reduced by 
new technologies, 
systems, instruments 
and/or other best 
practice approaches 
developed and taken 
up following LIFE 
examples 

152 

Information is 
partial: it comes 
from KPI data 
which do not 
include all 
projects 

Information on 
validated 
projects only 
considered to 
ensure reliability 
of data. 

70,000,000 
tonnes CO2 
prevented in 
the 
conservative 
scenario, and 
113,000,000 
tonnes in the 
optimistic 
one.  

5,400 tonnes 
of CH4 
prevented in 
the 
conservative 
scenario, and 
11,600 tonnes 
in the 
optimistic 
one 

247 tonnes of 
N20emission
s prevented 

 
 
 
 
 
Sub 
Progra
mme 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

in the 
conservative 
scenario and 
531 tonnes in 
the optimistic 
one 
7 Member 
States 
targeted 

for 7 out of 7 
IPs 
complementa
ry finance is 
greater than 

total EU 
population is 
448 million 

EU area is 
4,104,251 
square km 

Seven 
Member 
States 
applying 
integrated 
approaches 
with support 
from an IP 
or 
replicating 
the results 
from an IP. 
Complemen
tary finance 
mobilised 
through IPs 
is greater 
than the 
total value 

Climate 
action - 
adaptati
on 

Integrate
d 
Projects 

Adapt
ation 

No of projects 

7 projects (Source: 
VVA elaboration 
based on LIFE 
Public Database 
data) 

Positive impact on 
climate resilience in 
a region and 
economic sectors 
through actions 
funded under LIFE 
and other 
complementary 
projects 

No and area 
coverage and 
citizens reached 
under adaptation 
strategies or 
action plans, or 
other adaptation 

103,368,973 
citizens reached by 
CCA projects (23% 
of EU population) 

858,075 square 
kilometres of EU 

Increased No of 
MS/regions applying 
integrated 
approaches with 
support from an 
Integrated Project or 

153 

 
 
 
 
Sub 
Progra
mme 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

replicating the 
results from an IP. 

of the 
budgets of 
these IPs 

total value of 
their budget 

No 
information 
available 

No 
information 
available 

Increased No of 
complementary 
measures financed 
by other Union 
Funds 
Positive impact of 
LIFE projects on 
climate resilience of 
particularly 
vulnerable areas 
identified in the EU 
Adaptation Strategy 

plans with large 
territorial scope 
implemented 
through LIFE. 
No of trans-
regional or cross-
border adaptation 
project 

Number and 
volume of 
complementary 
projects funded 
by other Union or 
other funds. 

territory reached 
(21% of total EU 
territory) 

3 trans-regional 
projects 

total budget of 
LIFE IPs for CCA 
is: 16,233,670.  

1.1 billion is 
complementary 
funding coming 
from other EU 
funds; 5.2 billion 
from other public 
complementary 
funding; 0.01 
billion from other 
private 
complementary 
funding 

154 

 
 
 
 
 
 
Sub 
Progra
mme 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

No of projects 
Percentage of 
technical 
assistance 
projects leading 
to a LIFE IP 

No of projects. 

Technica
l 
assistanc
e 
projects 

Mitig
ation 
and 
Adapt
ation 

Capacity 
building 
projects 

Mitig
ation 
and 
Adapt
ation 

14 TECHNICAL 
ASSISTANCE 
FOR 
ENVIRONMENT 
projects (source: 
LIFE Public 
Database; Butler) 

Increased No and 
improved quality of 
IP linked to 
technical assistance 
projects. 

100 % of 
projects 
have led to 
a LIFE IP 

135.7% 

Not possible to 
separate 
technical 
assistance for 
mitigation and 
adaptation, no 
information 
available 

16 Capacity 
Building projects 
(source: LIFE 
Public Database; 
Butler) 

Increased relative 
share of successful 
applications from 
MS eligible for 
capacity building. 

Not possible to 
separate capacity 
building for 
mitigation and 
adaptation, no 
information 
available 

Seven 
Member 
States have 
at least one 
adaptation 
project 
funded 
through 
LIFE. 

7 Member 
States with at 
least one 
mitigation 
project 
funded 

in 2014: 3 
applications, 
3 out of 3 
projects 
financed 

in 2020: 35 
applications, 
5 out of 31 

155 

 
 
 
 
 
Sub 
Progra
mme 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

other 
projects 

Adapt
ation 

No of projects. 

101 projects with 
CCA as project 
strand (source: 
eProposal) 

No information 
available 

No of funded 
projects 
promoting 
innovative 
technologies, 
systems and 
instruments 
and/or other best 

projects 
financed 
No 
information 
available 

507 square 
kilometres 
targeted by 
CCA projects 
in the 
conservative 
scenario, and 
1,114 in the 

Information is 
partial: it comes 
from KPI data 
which do not 
include all 
projects 

Information on 

80 % of the 
projects 
started set 
up 
innovative 
technologies
, systems 
and 
instruments 
and/or best 
practice 
solutions 
increasing 
climate 
resilience 

Attributable increase 
in climate resilience, 
broken down by 
sector, due to the 
demonstrated new 
technologies, 
systems, instruments 
and/or other best 
practice approaches 
developed and taken 
up following LIFE 
examples 

Positive impact of 
LIFE projects on 
climate resilience of 
particularly 
vulnerable areas 
identified for LIFE 
funding in the EU 
Adaptation Strategy. 

156 

 
 
 
 
Sub 
Progra
mme 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

practice solutions 
for climate 
resilience. 

No of 
vulnerability 
assessments, 
climate change 
adaptation 
strategies or 
action plan 
developed 
through LIFE. 
No of trans-
regional or cross-
border adaptation 
projects. 

Govern
ance 
climate 

Informat
ion, 
awarene

Infor
matio
n, 

No of projects 

No information 
available 

Information is not 
available at 
aggregated level - 
it would be needed 
to check 101 
project one by one 
to retrieve the piece 
of information 
39 projects with 
Climate Change 
Adaptation as 

optimistic 
scenario 

validated 
projects only 
considered to 
ensure reliability 
of data. 

Increased awareness 
regarding human-
caused climate 

A 25 % 
increase in 
participation 

No 
information 
available 

157 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sub 
Progra
mme 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

ss and 
dissemin
ation 
projects 

aware
ness 
and 
disse
minati
on 
projec
ts 

project strand 
(source: eProposal) 

13,528 
stakeholders and 
citizens reached 

change and 
solutions, as 
measured by 
Eurobarometer 
surveys 

Increased 
participation in 
stakeholder 
consultations or 
policy discussions 
related to climate 
policy and 
legislative acts 

No of citizens, 
enterprises, local 
authorities, 
registered non-
governmental 
(NGO) and other 
civil society 
organisations 
reached. 

of 
stakeholders 
and citizens 
in 
awareness 
raising 
activities 
10 % 
increase of 
citizens 
targeted by 
LIFE 
projects 
considering 
human 
caused 
climate 
change a 
very serious 
problem 

No 
information 
available 

Information is 
partial: it comes 
from KPI data 
which do not 
include all 
projects 

Information on 
validated 
projects only 
considered to 
ensure reliability 
of data 

the number of 
stakeholders and 
citizens targeted 
is the sum of 

158 

 
 
 
Sub 
Progra
mme 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

indicators 10.2, 
11.3 and 12.2 

Geographic 
spread and area 
covered. 

No of projects 

in terms of 
geographical area, 
all EU has been 
targeted by the 
projects (source: 
KPI database) 
No information 
available 

Best 
practice 
projects 
and 
other 
projects 

Best 
practi
ce 
projec
ts and 
other 
projec
ts 

Increased No of best 
practices taken up by 
households, 
enterprises, 
authorities or 
incorporated into 
national/regional 
programmes or 
action plans. 

No information 
available 

No of attributable 
consolidated 
practices which 
use indicators or 
tools developed 

Reduced number of 
infringement cases 
of EU legislation 
attributable to LIFE 
interventions. 

159 

No 
information 
available 

No 
information 
available 

25 % of 
project 
practices or 
approaches 
are 
incorporated 
into 
national/regi
onal 
programmes 
or action 
plans. 
80 % of 
LIFE 
projects 
targeting 
climate 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Sub 
Progra
mme 

Priority 
area 

Them
e 

Performance 
indicators 

Outcome 
achievement 

Qualitative outcomes 
(MAWP 18-20) 

Targets 2020 

Outcome 
achievement 

Comment 

and tested 
following LIFE 
examples 

No of policy 
approaches or 
legislation 
proposals based 
on project results. 

No information 
available 

governance 
have 
resulted in 
improved 
climate 
governance 

160 

 
 
 
 
 
 
6.2. Performance indicators organised by objective 2,3 and 4:  

Objective 2: enhancing the development, implementation, and enforcement of EU environmental and 
climate policy and legislation:  

TABLE 18: CONTRIBUTIONS TO THE DEVELOPMENT, IMPLEMENTATION AND ENFORCEMENT OF ENVIRONMENT/CLIMATE 
LEGISLATION AND POLICIES (OBJECTIVE 2) 

Source: European Commission, Programme statements Draft Budget 2021 and DB 2022 

 
 
 
Objective 3: Support better environmental and climate governance at all levels 

TABLE 19: CONTRIBUTIONS TO IMPROVING ENVIRONMENT/CLIMATE GOVERNANCE (OBJECTIVE 3) 

Source: European Commission, Programme statements Draft Budget 2021 and DB 2022 

162 

Indicators of the MFF Communication/programme statements2020 TargetResultsCommentsNumber of interventions to ensure better governance, dissemination of information and awareness of environmental and climate aspects800792No of interventions to improve the knowledge base for Union environmental policy and legislation, and for assessing and monitoring factors, pressures and responses having an impact on the environment680777Number of interventions to improve the knowledge base for Union nature and biodiversity policy and legislation and for assessing and monitoring factors, pressures and responses having an impact on nature and biodiversity700695No of interventions to improve the knowledge base for Union climate policy and legislation, and for assessing and monitoring factors, pressures and responses having an impact on climate mitigation (cf. Article 14(b) Regulation 1293/2013)25%37%No 131 traditional projects on climate mitigation out of 242 financed under Climate sub-programmeNo  of interventions to improve the knowledge base for Union climate policy and legislation, and for assessing and monitoring factors, pressures and responses having an impact on climate resilience (cf. Article 15(b) Regulation 1293/2013)25%46%No 111 traditional projects on climate adaptation out of 242 financed under the Climate sub-programmeNo and area coverage and citizens reached under climate change mitigation strategies or action plans implemented.No and area coverage and citizens reached under adaptation strategies or action plans, or other adaptation plans with large territorial scope implemented through LIFE.Number of stakeholders and citizens participating in awareness raising activities in the framework of LIFE interventions on environment1,000,000N.A.The data collected are not available in the format required by this indicatorNumber of interventions to support communication, management and dissemination of information in the field of environment and to facilitate knowledge sharing800890Percentage of increase in the participation of NGOs in consultations on EU environmental policy>12%N.A.The consultations on EU environmental policy not always include data on the type of respondents/organisationsNumber of stakeholders and citizens participating in awareness raising activities in the framework of LIFE interventions on climate140N.A.The data collected are not available in the format required by this indicatorPercentage of projects targeted to climate governanceAll LIFE20.8%Percentage of climate projects targeting specific climate change governance issues. Percentage of climate projects achieving knowledge sharing on climate actionAll LIFE projectsAll LIFE projectsShare of projects promoting and contributing to a more effective compliance with and enforcement of Union climate lawMore than 5%10%Number of interventions on climate emanating from NGOs funded by LIFE with an impact on EU policy69Number of NGOs per year presenting a climate related work programme receiving  an operating grant out of a total of around 34 NGOs financedPeople addressed: 103,368,973 citizens (23% of EU population); Area: 858,075 square kilometres  (21% of total EU territory)People addressed: 40,755,458 (9% of EU population). Area: 388,537 square km (9.5% of EU surface) 
 
Objective 4: Acting as a catalyst and promoting integration and mainstreaming into other policies 
and practices, as defined in the MFF evaluation framework and programme statements. 

 TABLE 20: CONTRIBUTION TO MAINSTREAMING ENVIRONMENT/CLIMATE OBJECTIVES INTO OTHER EU POLICIES AND 
PRACTICES (OBJECTIVE 4) 

Source: European Commission, Programme statements DB 2021 and SB2022 

163 

Indicators of the MFF Communication/programme statements2020 TargetResultsCommentsProjects implementing replicable or transferable actions progressing towards an improved compliance or enforcement10%30%Number of LIFE interventions (projects, measures, approaches) suitable for being replicated or transferred900940No of ongoing or finalised Integrated Projects (IPs) targeting the implementation of Waste Management and/or Waste Prevention Programmes100%87.5%Percentage of IPs, where complementary funding mobilised through the IPs is greater than the total value of the budgets of these IP - 7 out of 8 IPs with WASTE as project topicNo of ongoing or finalised Integrated Projects (IPs) targeting the implementation of Air Quality Plans100%100%Percentage of IPs, where complementary funding mobilised through the IPs is greater than the total value of the budgets of these IP - 6 out of 6 IPs with AIR as project topicNo of ongoing or finalised IP targeting the implementation of Prioritised Action Frameworks100%80%Percentage of IPs, where complementary funding mobilised through the IPs is greater than the total value of the budgets of these IP - 2 out of 25 IPs with NATURE as project topicNo of ongoing or finalised IPs targeting the implementation of River Basin Management Plans100%91.7%Percentage of IPs, where complementary funding mobilised through the IPs is greater than the total value of the budgets of this IPsNo of ongoing or finalised IPs targeting the implementation of Climate mitigation strategies or action plansNo9 billion EURComplementary funding mobilised through the IPs is greater than the total value of the budgets of these IP - 10 out of 10 IPs with Climate mitigation as project topic (source: LIFE Public DatabaseNo and coverage of climate change mitigation strategies or action plans developed or implemented through LIFE7.0012.00Increased No of Member States/regions applying integrated approaches, with support from an IP or replicating the results from an IP.No of integrated  projects on Climate adaptation7.007.00No and coverage of climate change adaptation strategies or action plans developed or implemented2828No of interventions to improve the knowledge base for Union environmental policy and legislation, and for assessing and monitoring factors, pressures and responses having an impact on the environment680777Number of interventions to improve the knowledge base for Union nature and biodiversity policy and legislation and for assessing and monitoring factors, pressures and responses having an impact on nature and biodiversity700695No of interventions to improve the knowledge base for Union climate policy and legislation, and for assessing and monitoring factors, pressures and responses having an impact on climate mitigation (cf. Article 14(b) Regulation 1293/2013)25%37%No 131 traditional projects on climate mitigation out of 242 financed under Climate sub-programmeNo  of interventions to improve the knowledge base for Union climate policy and legislation, and for assessing and monitoring factors, pressures and responses having an impact on climate resilience (cf. Article 15(b) Regulation 1293/2013)25%46%No 111 traditional projects on climate adaptation out of 242 financed under the Climate sub-programmePercentage of projects achieving knowledge sharing on climate actionAll LIFE projectsAll LIFE projects 
 
Annex VII: Overview of Main KPIs used to evaluate the programme 

TABLE 21:  Main KPIs used for the evaluation 

Key project indicator 

Emission of CO2 prevented 

Other greenhouse gasses prevented 

Area in which climate adaptation were implemented  

Water abstraction/diversion 

Measurement unit 

Tonne/year 

tonne CH4/year 

tonne N20/year 

km2 

million m3/year 

Waste – mass reduction of non-appropriately managed waste 

tonne/year 

Reduction in primary energy consumption 

Increase in the production of renewable energy 

Soil’s surface remediated 

Jobs (implementation) 

Jobs (impact - 5 years beyond) 

Jobs - temporary, not kept after the end of the project 

Noise level/frequency - terrestrial 

Air Emissions 

Chemicals substitution 

MWh 

MWh 

km2 

No of Full Time 
Equivalents 
(FTE) 

db Lden 
(Humans) 

tonne CO/year 

tonne 
NO2/NOX/year 

tonne VOC/year 

tonne 
substituted/year 

Water surface and length affected by hydrodynamic pressure addressed 
by LIFE projects 

km2 

Natura 2000 sites 

Species 

Habitats 

Ecosystem  

Habitats 

N° of Natura 
2000 sites 

N° of species 
types 

N° of habitat 
types 

km2 

km2 

164 

 
 
 
Annex VIII: Additional data supporting the evaluation of LIFE 2014-2020 

FIGURE 22: Project types 

FIGURE 23: Distribution of beneficiaries by Organisation Type   

1%

18%

public admisnitration and agencies

29%

Private companies

25%

27%

Research institutes and technology
centres

Civil society organisations and
foundations

other

LIFE projects already existing before 2014New projecttypes introduced in LIFE 2014-2020 
 
 
   
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 24: ADDITIONAL FUNDS MOBILISED FOR PROJECTS BY PRIORITY AREA 

Source: External evaluation report based on Butler database, April 2023 

 TABLE 25: ALLOCATION OF LIFE FUNDS PER SUB-PROGRAMME AND TYPES OF FUNDING 

Source: European Commission (2023), ABAC figures for the years 2014-2020 

FIGURE 26: PROJECTS SUPPORTED UNDER ACTION GRANTS AND OTHER FUNDS  

166 

No priorityareasassociatedClimateChangeAdaptationClimateChangeMitigationClimateGovernanceandInformationEnvironmentEnvironmentalGovernanceandInformationNatureEU CONTRIBUTION71,799,360253,505,759244,178,89640,297,057775,337,54695,549,5271,175,714,979CO-FINANCING96,583,244233,288,081251,656,70632,622,631794,442,05771,515,258789,719,3590%10%20%30%40%50%60%70%80%90%100%CO-FINANCINGEU CONTRIBUTIONTypes of fundingAmount in million% out ofAmount in% out ofTotal amountTotal %Action grants2.097.686.976,31     83%551.198.254,36         65%2.648.885.230,67     78%Financial instruments29.998.422,00           1%135.000.000,00         16%164.998.422,00         5%Operating grants60.570.960,10           2%19.520.000,00           2%80.090.960,10           2%Procurement and support activities346.414.398,99         14%139.655.054,40         17%486.069.453,39         14%Total2.534.670.757,40     100%845.373.308,76         100%3.380.044.066,16     100%LIFE TotalSub-programme for climate actionSub-programme for environmentEuropeanSolidarityCorps*NGOoperatinggrantsCapacityBuildingProjectPreparatoryTechnicalAssistanceIntegratedProjectTraditionalTotal Budget7,779,760125,080,18313,258,25717,098,3355,166,0691,277,866,0903,499,843,785EU contribution4,913,49543,086,70111,159,4789,985,8202,653,866700,545,8261,895,967,149N. of Projects6123162137701,01902004006008001,0001,2000500,000,0001,000,000,0001,500,000,0002,000,000,0002,500,000,0003,000,000,0003,500,000,000 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
TABLE 27: Contribution of LIFE projects to the Green Deal 

TABLE 28: LIFE PROJECTS CONTRIBUTION TO MULTIPLE PRIORITY AREAS 

167 

Environment and Resource EfficiencyEnvironmental Governance and InformationNature and biodiversityClimate Change adaptationClimate Change mitigationClimate Governance and InformationEnvironmentClimate actionNo.No.No.No.No.No.No.No.No%Environment and Ressource Efficiency- Water7711614209112056%- Waste17714642104222829%- Resource Efficiency168612346145529576%Environment and Health5223441006627%Air744232026311454%Nature and biodiversity1610262236118233829%Climate change mitigation19991026901357359299%Climate change adaptation1011785351512749%Governance337792628590343610933726%Information and awareness raising1474722393719226339414%TotalIndicator categoryTraditional projectsIntegrated projectsNon primary objective 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
FIGURE 29: SHARE OF THE PROJECTS INCORPORATING THE RESULTS OF 
PREVIOUSLY FUNDED RESEARCH.                                               

Source: European Commission, CINEA data on 2014-2020 projects 

TABLE 30:  GLOBAL ENVIRONNEMENTAL TRENDS AND LIFE CONTRIBUTIONS  

Source: SOER 2015 and SOER 2020 and Eurostat Statistics for the European Green Deal for the global EU trends and 
LIFE KPI database and external study for LIFE Programme contributions 

168 

Unit20142020% changeUnitTotalCommentsLand / terrestrial protected areakm2807,0011,115,43538%km2 of land purchased 3,127.42 Protected habitat types% in an unfavourable conservation status77%81%-3%No. of habitat types with an improved conservation status152.00total area:  19,030 Km2Protected Species% in an unfavourable conservation status60%63%-3%No. of species targeted by LIFE projects435.00Greenhouse gas emissionsTonnes per capita87-13%Tn of CO2 equivalent prevented13,296,362.6Production of renewables % of gross final energy consumption17.4%22%26%MWh2,374,400.73Primary energy consumptionIndex 2005=10088.8%82.5%6%MWh-4,215,259.35Reduction in primary energy consumptionClimate adaptationPopulation benefiting from a reduction of their vulnerability to the adverse effects of climate change 3,000,000 Generation of wasteKg per capita5,062.004,815.00-5%Tonnes of non appropriately managed waste with improved management -5,368,220.94 Including preparation for recycling, compostiong and digestingConsumption of  hazardous chemicalsMillion tonnes223.1217.1-3%Tonnes of hazardous chemicals substituted 334.35 Substitution with non chemical substances or safer chemicalsAir qualityPremature deaths due to fine particulate matter (PM2.5) 290,920  237,810 -18%Population benefitting from increased air quality6,000,000- 52.06 tonnes CO-178,894.70 tonnes of NO2/NOX-38.12 tonnes VOCGLOBAL EU TRENDSLIFE PROGRAMME CONTRIBUTION 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Examples of solutions identified by LIFE Projects  

▪  The GrassLIFE project developed the first grassland connectivity model for Latvia that 
improved  the  capacity  to  plan  the  Natura  2000  expansion  by  providing  connectivity 
information useful to set up new sites; 

▪  The LIFE  AGANFOILS  project  demonstrated the implementation of an integrated, full-
scale,  innovative  recycling  process  for  low-density  polyethylene  plastic  waste  foils  in 
Wijster leading to the recycling of around 9 000 tonnes of plastic foil waste in about 5 
900 tonnes of high-quality plastic re-granulate (75% of plant capacity) and the reduction 
of CO2 emissions by up to 555 tonnes, over a one-year period. 

▪  The LIFE ‘N GRAB HY! project showcased hydrogen-electric hybrid trucks for quiet and 
clean garbage collection, offering a zero-emission, low-noise waste collection solution. It 
refined the approval and maintenance procedures for hydrogen-electric vehicles by the 
Dutch  road  authority,  RDW,  marking  a  milestone  as  the  first  homologated  hydrogen 
garbage trucks in Europe to receive licence plates. 

▪  The LIFE Kedros project developed the ‘Action Plan for the sustainable management and 
conservation  of  habitat  type  *9590’  and  the  “Fire  Protection  Plan  of  the  habitat  type 
9590*”,  that  have  been  officially  adopted  and  are  tools  currently  used  by  the  Cyprus 
Department of Forests. 

▪  The LIFE-DIADEME project created a cost-efficient street lighting dimming system that 

reduced energy consumption compared to state-of-the-art control systems. 

▪  The  Epta  Full  Transcritical  Efficiency  system  showcased  in  the  LIFE  C4R  project, 

replaced HCFC and HFC with CO2 in commercial refrigerating plants, resulting in a 
10% reduction in energy usage compared to conventional refrigeration systems. 

169