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 the 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  COM(2024) 359 final  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 the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) 2014-2020 {SWD(2024) 198 final}  
 
 
The LIFE Programme 2014-2020  

Launched in 1992, l’Instrument Financier pour l’Environnement (LIFE) is the only EU funding 
programme  specifically  dedicated  to  environment  and  climate  action,  implemented  mainly 
through direct management by the European Commission. It has built up a strong reputation 
over its more than 30 years of existence. While the LIFE Programme 2014-2020 builds on its 
predecessors, the features and objectives analysed in the ex-post evaluation are specific to this 
funding period1.  

The  2014-2020  LIFE  Programme  was  conceived  within  the  broader  framework  of  the 
Multiannual  Financial Framework  at  the  time  and  the  Europe  2020  strategy  to  foster 
smart,  sustainable,  and 
identified 
environmental protection and the fight against climate change as cross-cutting policy priorities 
to be mainstreamed into a range of European funding instruments. The LIFE intervention logic 
was additional to this approach with the Programme being conceived as “a platform for the 
exchange  of  best  practice  among  Member  States  and  as  a  catalyst  for  more  effective 
investments” and to address “all specific needs relating to environment and climate action”3.   

(2011-2020)2.  The  strategy 

inclusive  growth 

Article 3 of the Regulation on the objectives sets out that LIFE should “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”4. 
Figure  1  sets  out  the  four  objectives  of  the  LIFE  Programme  as  evaluated  in  the  ex-post 
evaluation.  

FIGURE 1: HIERARCHY OF THE OBJECTIVES 

1 In this report, “LIFE”, “LIFE Programme” or “the Programme” always refer to the evaluated funding period 2014-2020.    
2 Communication from the Commission “Europe 2020 A strategy for smart, sustainable and inclusive growth”, COM(2010) 

2020 final. 

3 Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013, Recital 3. 
4 Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013, Art. 3(1). 

1 

 
 
 
The LIFE budget of 3.46 billion EUR is marginal compared to the estimated investment needs 
for environmental and climate action and represented only 0.3% of the EU budget. Thus as the 
LIFE Regulation points out “Given its characteristics and size, the LIFE Programme cannot 
solve all environmental and climate problems”5.  

two 

Environment and Resource 
Efficiency 

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

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

FIGURE 2: LIFE PROGRAMME 2014-2020 

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

The  LIFE  Programme  was 
structured 
sub-
into 
programmes  (environment  and 
climate  action)  each  with  three 
priority  areas,  see  Figure  2. 
LIFE largely follows a bottom-
up  approach  and  implements 
LIFE  projects 
in  direct 
management across the EU. In 
this bottom-up logic, funding is 
channelled  to  a  wide  range  of 
stakeholders  through  calls  for 
proposals  which  are  not  overly 
the 
prescriptive,  but  support 
of 
implementation 
environmental 
climate 
solutions  adjusted  to  the  national,  regional,  or  local  level.  This  specifically  applies  to  the 
historic  pillar  of  the  Programme,  the  so-called  “traditional  projects”.  They  represent  the 
highest  budget  allocation  and  support  innovative  and  decentralised  environmental  projects 
across  the  EU.  These  projects  include  pilots,  demonstration,  and  best  practices  as  well  as 
dissemination and awareness raising.  

Environmental Governance 
and Information 

Climate Governance and 
Information 

Climate Change Adaptation 

Climate Change Mitigation 

Nature and Biodiversity 

and 

Newly  introduced  in  2014,  integrated  projects  fulfil  a  more  targeted  function  and  support 
implementation  of  EU  legislation,  particularly  for  nature,  water,  waste,  air,  climate  change 
mitigation and adaptation, e.g. to help develop strategies and action plans required by the EU 
acquis. They follow more a top-down approach and require Member States to use various EU 
funding sources, as well as national funds and/or private sector investments. In practice, these 
projects are often  about  the coordination of a wider range of activities,  also transnationally, 
which all contribute to the implementation of a single plan. While the LIFE contribution to 
integrated  projects  is  limited  to  60%,  the  implementation  of  the  projects  leverages  further 
funding sources. Besides traditional and integrated projects, LIFE included technical assistance 
projects, capacity building projects, preparatory projects and LIFE awarded operating grants 
for NGOs which focus on environment or climate action.   

Evaluation approach and framework   

The performance indicators with their milestones and targets for 2020 as agreed in the 
context of the MFF at the time of the conception of the LIFE Programme are the basis 
for the evaluation. However, these performance indicators measure mainly output in terms of 

5 Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013, Recital 5. 

2 

 
 
 
number of projects implemented and therefore do not allow to provide a comprehensive view 
of the Programme’s success. This evaluation uses in addition also the Key Project Indicators 
(KPIs) newly introduced in 2014, which measure environmental net benefits created by each 
LIFE project  (e.g., reduced air pollution,  size of restored habitats)6. They can capture  some 
valuable evidence on results achieved by LIFE projects despite weaknesses in terms of scope, 
completeness, and comparability of the resulting data, which have been rectified in the KPIs 
used for the LIFE Programme 2021-27. Furthermore, the evaluation used six case studies, a 
survey  (436  respondents),  60  focused  interviews  and  a  desk  review  to  gather  additional 
information, ensure reliability of project data, to integrate the views of beneficiaries, applicants, 
and other stakeholders, and to ensure triangulation of the data sources. 

The cut-off date for the evaluation was June 2023; 58% of the 2014-2020 LIFE projects were 
still ongoing at that time. To ensure robustness, the evaluation is limited to data of completed 
projects  and  projects  in  an  advanced  phase  of  implementation.  Consequently,  the  benefits 
identified in the evaluation, cover only about half of the LIFE projects implemented under the 
programming period. It can be expected that once all projects are completed, the final benefits 
of the Programme will be considerably higher.   

State of play of implementation  

The bulk of the 3.46 billion EUR LIFE funding (around 80%) went to the financing of grants 
for the implementation of the different types of projects. Besides this, 14% of the available 
budget under the LIFE Programme 2014-2020 went to procurement (e.g. support in analysing 
Member States’ reporting, managing infringements, organising stakeholder events, information 
systems and communication channels) and 5% to specific financial instruments. 

Grants 

Over the 2014-2020 programming period, a total of 1 163 action grants were financed, with 
total  project  costs of EUR  4.8 billion,  of which EUR 2.6 billion  was provided by the LIFE 
Programme (on average EUR 2 million per project), the rest by co-financing. 

1 019 traditional projects were implemented. Demand for traditional projects remained high 
throughout  the  seven  years  with  a  high  oversubscription  for  all  six  priority  areas.  The  total 
value of traditional projects is EUR 3.5 billion out of which EUR 1.9 billion were provided by 
LIFE and EUR 1.6 billion by beneficiaries. 

70 integrated projects were financed for a total cost of EUR 1.3 billion, out of which about 
EUR 700 million have been provided by LIFE.  Integrated projects have delivered an additional 
EUR 31.6 billion from a range of complementary funding sources thanks to their coordinating 
role.  

74 action grants supported technical assistance projects. The total value of these grants amount 
to EUR 35.5 million of which 23.8 million were provided by LIFE. 

6 For a detailed list of the indicators, see Annex VII of the SWD.  

3 

 
 
 
Preparatory projects have addressed emerging political priorities and unexpected challenges. 
For example, in 2020, a specific call “NGOs for Green Deal” helped EU environmental and 
climate NGOs addressing financial difficulties due to the pandemic. 

The average duration of a project was four years. LIFE supported a broad range of beneficiaries 
relatively well spread among types of stakeholders, as depicted in Figure 3.  

Figure 3: Distribution of beneficiaries by organisation type  

1%

18%

29%

25%

27%

public administration and agencies

Private companies

Research institutes and technology
centres

Civil society organisations and
foundations

other

Financial instruments 

LIFE funded two pilot financial instruments to test innovative approaches to leverage funding: 

-  Private Finance for Energy Efficiency (PF4EE) to increase availability of debt financing 
for  investments  supporting  Member  States’  energy  efficiency  priorities  set  in  their 
National Energy Efficiency Action Plans. 

-  Natural Capital Financing facility (NCFF) 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.  

A total of EUR 215 million were allocated from the LIFE budget for investments through the 
PF4EE, of which 77% had been committed by end 2020. After a slow start, PF4EE increasingly 
supported investments and is currently on track to reach its lifetime target of EUR 700 million. 
Funding  provided  under  NCFF  is  close  to  the  initial  target  of  EUR  100-125  million  and 
provided important lessons that are steering on-going reflections on natural capital financing.  

Achievements and success of the LIFE Programme 

The evaluation has demonstrated that the LIFE Programme was successful in achieving most 
of its targets for each of the four objectives supported by evidence from the case studies, survey 
and  interviews,  while  delivering  good  results  for  the  invested  funding.  The  different 
instruments of the Programme were coherent and complementary to other funding instruments 
and LIFE’s intervention logic remained relevant along the full implementation period.  

The  Programme's  administrative  procedures  are  generally  viewed  as  efficient,  still 
beneficiaries  would appreciate a  simplification  of the application forms,  a reduction of KPI 

4 

 
 
 
 
complexity, and a shortening of the evaluation timeline. The two-stage application procedure 
introduced for simplification reasons did not seem to achieve its objective.  

Effectiveness of the Programme 

The  Programme’s  effectiveness  was  measured  against  the  2020  targets  established  for  the 
performance  indicators  in  the  MFF  evaluation  framework.  These  targets  were  largely 
achieved7. Even in case of a missed target, the results were mostly close to the target. For each 
of  the  four  objectives,  the  expected  number  of  projects  as  defined  in  the  corresponding 
performance  indicators  was  achieved  (e.g.,  650  of  ongoing  projects  /  or  finalised  projects 
implement replicable/ transferable actions). In addition, the analysis of aggregated data of the 
KPIs  demonstrates  that  LIFE  projects  have  considerably  contributed  to  create 
environmental net benefits. According to the aggregated estimates based on the data reported 
by advanced and completed projects, the LIFE Programme: 

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

GHG emissions; 
reduced improper waste management by 4.3 million tonnes/year; 

▪ 
▪  decreased  the  primary  energy  consumption  by  2.4  million  MW/h,  equivalent  to  the 

average yearly electricity consumption of over 970 000 European households.  

▪ 

reduced  nitrogen  oxides  emissions  to  about  152,000  tonnes  per  year,  surpassing 
Portugal’s 2019 NOx emissions.  

▪ 

improved the conservation status of 435 species.  

▪  co-financed though projects the land purchase of 3,127 km2 of protected areas for an 
overall amount of EUR 83 million and thus helped to expand the Natura 2000 network.  

Stakeholder consultations, case studies and the literature review have largely  confirmed the 
positive contributions of the Programme to its four objectives, even though the contribution to 
the catalytic effect (objective 4) is the most difficult one to quantify.  

Objective 1 

Through its projects and procurement activities, LIFE contributed to the overall objective 
of  moving  towards  an  environmentally  friendly  economy  that  uses  resources  wisely, 
lowers carbon emissions, and can withstand climate changes, as well as protecting and 
improving the environment. All LIFE projects address specific issues in these areas, they test 
solutions,  disseminate  information,  restore  habitats,  or  support  the  implementation  and 
enforcement of  environmental  and climate law  and policies. Both  integrated and traditional 
projects  unite  a  variety  of  stakeholders  and  people  coming  together  to  work  on  a  common 
project. This helped to raise awareness of environmental and climate challenges among those 
actors and helped to build long lasting collaboration and communities also after projects ended. 
More specific project examples are outlined under the other objectives, which all also support 
objective 1.  

7 For a detailed overview of targets and achievements, please see Annex VI of the SWD.  

5 

 
 
 
Objective 2 

LIFE supported the development, implementation and enforcement of EU environmental 
and climate policy and legislation through its projects, but also through studies and technical 
assistance financed by the procurement envelope.  

Some  of  the  traditional  projects  targeted  enhanced  cooperation  on  compliance  and 
enforcement. For example, LIFE-ENPE established a European Network of Prosecutors for the 
Environment  and  improved  the  efficiency  and  effectiveness  of  prosecutors  and  judges  in 
tackling environmental crime throughout Europe. LIFE PROWhIBIT enhanced collaboration 
among judicial, enforcement, and inspection officers, and improved their tools to prevent and 
combat  environmental  waste  crime.  LIFE  Re-Vultures  bolstered  enforcement  of  the  Birds 
Directive  in  Bulgaria  through  a  national  anti-poisoning  plan,  including  a  dedicated  unit 
supporting criminal investigations for environmental crime.  

Integrated projects supported implementation of plans or strategies mandated by EU policies 
and legislation. For example, LIFE-IP AdaptInGR focused on the implementation of Greece’s 
national adaptation strategy and 13 Regional Adaptation Action Plans in alignment with the 
EU Strategy on climate change adaptation. In other cases, LIFE projects led the way for the 
development  of  environmental  and  climate  legislation  and  policies.  The  projects  LIFE 
MOTTLES and the LIFE MixForChange worked on the definition of new legislative standards 
for the adaptation of farming and forestry to climate change. The LIFE SIDE project, supported 
the design and implementation of the forth phase of the EU Emission Trade System8.  

Studies  and  activities  financed  by  LIFE  through  procurement  have  equally  played  an 
important  role  in  implementing,  developing,  evaluating,  and  enforcing  environmental  and 
climate legislation and policies. LIFE supported the analysis of Member States reports required 
under  EU  environmental  acquis  (e.g  plans  submitted  in  line  with  the  Water  Framework 
Directive,  the  ambient  air  quality  directive,  or  Nitrates  Directive).  LIFE  financed  a  Union 
registry for carbon allowances, crucial for the functioning of the Emission Trading Scheme as 
well as a classification system of chemical substances for the protection of human health and 
the environment. LIFE also financed preparatory activities for the design and development of 
the  European  ‘Climate  Law’;  the  EU  Biodiversity  Strategy  for  2030;  the  EU  Strategy  on 
Adaptation to Climate Change and the proposals of the Fit for 55 package. 

Beneficiaries, applicants, Member States confirmed the Programme’s role in the environment 
and climate policies and legislation. 50% of Member States reported a positive contribution of 
the LIFE Programme to their national objectives in the 2017 Environmental Implementation 
Reviews (EIR). In 2019, the share increased even to 90%.  

Objective 3 

The  evaluation  shows  that  LIFE  contributed  to  better  environmental  and  climate 
governance at all levels, including better involvement of civil society, NGOs and local actors 
through project implementation, operating grants for NGOs and the procurement part.  

8 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. 

6 

 
 
 
Traditional as well as integrated projects supported specific activities contributing to this 
objective. Between 2014-2020, 383 projects specifically addressed environmental governance 
and information priorities. 

LIFE projects empowered key actors through training, the development of tools and raised 
awareness on environmental matters. More than 260 000 people benefited from professional 
training and education thanks to LIFE projects over the 2014-2020 period. Aspects of improved 
governance, capacity building and awareness raising were recurring in among the 30 projects 
analysed in depth for the case studies.  Specific project examples include LIFE DoppelPlus, 
which organised a “coaching programme” for low-income households on apartment heating, 
cooling, and ventilation issues, as well as water and electricity management. 806 households 
benefitted from free advice and energy and climate checks. The project Canemure: Towards 
Carbon  Neutral  Municipalities  and  Regions  in  Finland  developed  a  method  to  calculate 
to  different 
municipalities’  emissions  and  provided 
municipalities. The method is now used throughout Finland.  

training  and  capacity  building 

LIFE  projects  brought  several  stakeholders  together  and  supported  collaboration 
between  them.  The  KPIs  confirmed  the  variety  of  stakeholders  involved  in  LIFE  projects, 
namely more than 4 000 NGOs, over 6 000 private entities and about 11 500 public bodies. 
Project  examples  include  the  Clean  Sea  LIFE  project  that  engaged  around  170  000  people 
including fisherman, divers, students, teachers, associations, businesses and citizens in “fishing 
for litter” activities. The project LIFE Olivares Vivos brough together all actors of the olive 
production chain to work towards the conservation and sustainable management of olive groves 
and their associated ecosystems.  

LIFE helped to raise awareness and supported the dissemination of project results. Every 
LIFE project has to prepare a ‘after LIFE communication plan’ so that it can inspire similar 
action elsewhere. Besides this, some traditional projects have awareness rising and information 
activities as the main objective.  

LIFE  also  financed  operating  grants  for  NGOs  with  a  primary  focus  on  environment  or 
climate action. In order to receive funding, they must demonstrate that they actively contribute 
to the development, implementation, and enforcement of EU policy and legislation.  

Under  the  procurement  part,  LIFE  also  financed  initiatives  to  raise  awareness,  to  promote 
good results and to bring stakeholders together. Examples are the single-use plastics campaign, 
the EU biodiversity campaign, stakeholders groups and prizes like the European Green Capital 
and the European Green Leaf Award.  

Objective 4 

Even though difficult to quantify, the evaluation shows that LIFE has structures in place to 
act as a catalyst for mainstreaming environmental and climate objectives into other Union 
policies  and  public  and  private  sector  practice.  LIFE  helped  to  promote  the  integration  of 
environmental and climate objectives into private sector practices. 

The  LIFE  traditional  projects  aim  at  catalysing  environmental  and  climate  objectives  into 
private and public action, by financing innovation and best practices and ensuring replicability 
of project results. In selecting projects, their potential to bring innovation and/or implement 

7 

 
 
best  practices  as  well  as  the  potential  for  replication  are  assessed. Among  the  30  projects 
analysed  for  case  studies,  21  projects  developed  or  tested  solutions.  The  Innovation  Radar 
Platform, which showcases cutting-edge EU-funded innovations, featured 204 LIFE projects. 
Examples  of  replication  results  include  the  LIFE YEAST  project,  which  developed  a  new 
extraction methodology to convert brewers’ spent yeast into raw materials for various industrial 
applications, which is now replicated in AB InBev breweries globally. 

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 though integrated projects. 

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 and the financial instruments (PF4EE and NCFF). Even though the start-up of these 
two financial instruments was slow and several proposed operations were deemed insufficient 
for  biodiversity  protection  and  climate  adaptation,  the  NCFF  instrument  allowed  to  draw 
lessons for ongoing reflections on natural capital financing. 

Through  studies  for  biodiversity  financing  and  tracking,  as  well  as  studies  for  climate 
mainstreaming,  LIFE  prepared  the  ground  for  mainstreaming  environmental  and  climate 
objectives across EU policies.  

Efficiency of the Programme 

Comparing the costs necessary for running the Programme to its overall budget and looking at 
the  monetised  benefits  created  by  LIFE  projects,  the  Programme  provides  good  value  for 
money. Only 3.3% of the overall LIFE budget was necessary for the programme management. 
This is a lower share than for other programmes managed by the same executive agency (3.6-
8.2%). Based on a cost benefit analysis on completed and advanced traditional projects, which 
compared  monetised  benefits  created  with  the  invested  funding,  benefits  surpassed  costs 
more than 10-fold9.  The analysis monetised only those environmental benefits for which a 
peer  reviewed  methodology  exists  (e.g.  restored  habitats,  CO2  reduction),  and  estimated 
monetised  benefits  of  EUR  6.8  billion,  while  costs  of  EUR  612.4  million  for  the  selected 
projects were considered.  

Although LIFE does not have the vocation to ensure a proportional distribution of funds among 
Member  States,  the  unbalanced  geographical  distribution  in  traditional  projects  is  a 
limitation to the Programme’s efficiency. 47% of projects was awarded to two Member States, 
which can be attributed also to their high share of proposals (52% of all proposals). Several 
measures have been tested to support less successful countries but with limited success so far, 
e.g. indicative national allocations introduced in 2007 proved ineffective.  

9 Integrated projects have been excluded from the analysis, as they receive co-financing from other funding instruments. It is 
impossible to attribute benefits created by a project specifically to LIFE as it is the project as a whole, which brings about 
the benefits.  

8 

 
 
 
Coherence of the Programme 

The  Programme  is  internally  coherent  as  the  different  activities  financed  clearly 
complemented  each  other.  Traditional  projects  focused  on  innovation,  best  practices  and 
awareness  raising  activities  while  integrated  projects  focused  on  implementation  and 
application of EU environmental and climate acquis and the financial instruments supported 
the  take-up  of  results  of  successful  projects  by  mobilising  private  investments.  Many  LIFE 
projects contribute to several thematic priorities simultaneously.  

FIGURE 4: 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 

Among the EU funds, LIFE fills a gap not really covered by other funding programmes. The 
evaluation  identified  synergies  and  complementarities  with  European  and  national  funding. 
LIFE facilitated the uptake of research results thanks to a bonus mechanism in the evaluation 
process of proposals. At the same time, the Programme creates a pipeline of projects for larger-
scale  implementation  through  other  EU  funding  programmes.  Member  States  reported  that 
LIFE projects supported the objectives of interventions financed under ERDF and the EAFRD. 
Figure 4 illustrates how LIFE targets a specific niche among EU funding programmes.  

EU added value of the Programme 

The EU added value of the LIFE Programme lies in the fact that it is a Programme with an 
exclusive focus on environment and climate supporting the most ambitious and innovative 
projects  across  Europe  with  promising  solutions  that  have  potential  for  replication  and 
knowledge  sharing  among  different  actors  in  different  Member  States.  The  financed 
transnational  integrated projects also  demonstrated the EU added value with  cooperation 
across countries on problems like biodiversity loss and climate change that by definition go 
beyond national borders. LIFE offers possibilities for transnational support and complements 
other  European  and  national  funding  sources.  The  survey  results  demonstrate  that  similar 
funding opportunities with  an exclusive focus on the needs  of the environment and climate 
sector  do  not  exist  in  all  Member  States.  79%  of  interviewed  beneficiaries  would  not  have 
found other funding without LIFE.  

9 

 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
Continued relevance of the Programme 

The role of the LIFE Programme as defined under the MFF 2014-2020 and in the context of 
the Europe 2020 strategy remained relevant over the entire period. The Programme flexibly 
adjusted  to  unexpected  challenges,  such  as  supporting  NGOs  during  the  COVID-19 
pandemic with a specific call. With the introduction of the European Green Deal in 2019 under 
the mandate of the then new Commission, the political attention to environment and climate 
legislation  increased.  The  Green  Deal  boosted  the  urgency  of  addressing  sustainability 
challenges and LIFE subsequently registered a significant rise in project applications. 

The results achieved by LIFE and its capacity to act as  catalyst for innovation and to bring 
together  people  was  complementary  to  the  mainstreaming  of  environmental  and  climate 
objectives  across  funds.  Science  and  data  are  clear  on  the  environmental  and  climate  crisis 
intensifying, hence requiring a continued dual track funding approach of both mainstreaming 
and dedicated environment and climate spending. The Commission’s strategic foresight report 
2023  underlines  the  need  for  “unprecedented  action  to  achieve  climate  neutrality  and 
sustainability”10. The transformation of our society and economy towards a model that respects 
planetary boundaries is considered “key to reinforcing Europe’s long-term competitiveness and 
social model, and thus its global leadership in the new, net-zero economy, also by supporting 
other regions in building a sustainable future”.  

The LIFE intervention logic, which is largely implemented by a bottom-up approach with 
calls  for  proposals  that  are  not  over-prescriptive,  has  clearly  proven  its  merit,  also  when 
evaluated  against  the  evolving  policy  context.  Nevertheless,  for  the  future  and  in  times  of 
increased budgetary constraints, more strategic steer on policy priorities could be combined 
with the bottom-up approach.  

Conclusion and paths for further improvement 

The ex-post evaluation of LIFE 2014-2020 demonstrated that the Programme achieved most 
of  its  2020  targets  as  set  in  the  performance  framework.  Additional  evidence  collected 
confirmed  these  findings.  The  evaluation  quantified  and  illustrated  some  of  the  net 
environmental and climate benefits achieved by LIFE projects. Stakeholder consultations, case 
studies and desk research, provided evidence that LIFE financed innovative projects, which 
can be replicated. LIFE projects made use of research results and applied best practices. The 
Programme  was  complementary  to  national  funding  programmes  and  filled  a  gap  among 
European  funds. According  to  stakeholders,  many  projects  would  not  have  been  financed 
nationally  without  LIFE.  The  cost  for  the  programme  and  the  used  budget  were  minimal 
compared to the benefits created. The conservative cost benefit analysis demonstrated benefits 
exceeding  more  than  10-fold  the  invested  budget.  LIFE  leveraged  additional  investments 
through the financial instruments PF4EE and the NCFF, even if take-up here has been slow at 
the start. Considering that LIFE represents only 0.3% of the EU budget, it achieved valuable 
results.  

10 COM(2023) 376 final. 

10 

 
 
 
The evaluation of the LIFE Programme 2014-2020 allows to draw some conclusions on lessons 
learned and possible further improvements. Inconsistencies and weaknesses observed in the 
performance framework and KPIs are clear and have therefore already been addressed in the 
LIFE Programme 2021-2027. The newly introduced integrated projects proved to be useful to 
support Member States in implementing the European environmental and climate acquis. They 
are therefore further pursued in the LIFE Programme 2021-2027. The administrative burden 
for applicants and beneficiaries is an issue to further examine on how it can be further reduced.  

All in all, the more than 30 years of experience with the LIFE Programme has demonstrated 
the  Programme’s  capacity  to  bring  people  and  different  stakeholders  together,  to  address 
environmental or climate problems at local, regional or national level, to foster innovation and 
to support the shift towards a more sustainable society and economy. With its strong bottom-
up approach often involving people at local level and projects close to their daily life, the LIFE 
Programme  has  also  contributed  to  a  positive  image  of  Europe  demonstrating  concrete  EU 
added value to EU citizens.  

11