Explanatory Memorandum to COM(2011)874 - Establishment of a Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | COM(2011)874 - Establishment of a Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE). |
|---|---|
| source | COM(2011)874  |
| date | 12-12-2011 |
The Commission Communication for the Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2014-2020 (hereinafter the MFF Communication) sets out the budgetary framework and main orientations for delivering the Europe 2020 Strategy.[2] In its proposal, the Commission decided to address environment and climate action as an integral part of all the main instruments and interventions. This so-called mainstreaming approach implies that environmental and climate objectives "need to be reflected in all main instruments to ensure that they contribute to building a low-carbon, resource efficient and climate resilient economy that will enhance Europe's competitiveness, create more and greener jobs, strengthen energy security, and bring health benefits."
However, the main Union funding instruments do not address all environmental and climate specific needs. Implementation of environmental and climate legislation remains uneven and inadequate across the Union, which leads to the consolidation of environmental and climate problems. This situation requires new and more efficient ways of implementing legislation, as well as development and dissemination of best practices across the Union to ensure Member States and stakeholders learn from each other.
For this reason, in addition to mainstreaming, the Commission proposes to continue the LIFE Programme currently regulated by the LIFE+ Regulation.[3] Combining the mainstreaming approach with a specific instrument will increase the coherence and the added-value of the Union intervention. A dedicated instrument allows the Commission to better shape priorities, directly monitor implementation, and ensure that resources available are effectively used for environmental and climate protection. This approach gives the Commission the opportunity to select the best projects across the Union, thereby addressing coordination failures.
Furthermore, environmental assets have a public good nature and are unevenly distributed across the Union. The obligation to preserve and enhance these assets calls for a consistent application of the principles of solidarity and responsibility sharing. In this context, Article 8 of the Habitats Directive explicitly links the delivery of conservation measures to the provision of Union co-financing. LIFE plays an essential role for better distribution of solidarity and responsibility sharing in preserving the Union environmental and climate common good.
· ensures a more effective intervention than Member State individual action by an increased pooling of resources and expertise, and by attracting partnerships that otherwise would be difficult to set up;
· provides the platform for development and exchange of best practices and knowledge sharing, improving, catalysing, and accelerating changes in the implementation of the environmental and climate acquis, and allowing Member States and stakeholders to learn from each other and address these challenges more efficiently;
· creates synergies across Union Funds and national funds by coordinating their action jointly towards environmental and climate objectives while leveraging additional public and private sector funds. This increases the coherence and effectiveness of the Union intervention and promotes a more homogenous implementation of the acquis;
· increases the visibility of environmental and climate action by bringing the Union closer to its citizens and showing the Union's commitment to environmental and climate objectives, thereby making those objectives more relevant.
Several evaluations confirm that the LIFE Programme is a successful instrument for the implementation of Union environmental policy and legislation, with a significant added value. However, these evaluations have also highlighted that the LIFE Programme's policy impact is limited by its lack of strategic focus. This was partly due to its pure bottom-up approach for project selection, which did not allow the Commission to steer demand based on Union environmental and climate policy needs. A clearer focus on activities and sectors where LIFE could make a difference is therefore needed.
The new challenges ahead and the achievement of Europe 2020 objectives and targets call for modifications to the Programme. Fighting climate change and making the Union more resilient to the associated risks are some of the greatest challenges facing the Union and there is a need for urgent action as reflected in the Europe 2020 Strategy. The Commission recognises that challenge and in its MFF Communication states that it intends to increase the proportion of the Union budget related to climate action to at least 20% with contribution from different policies. The Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) should therefore contribute to that goal.
Contents
This Regulation draws on an extensive analysis of options addressed in the Impact Assessment and broad consultation with stakeholders. In particular, the following studies and consultations have been carried out:
– the ex-post evaluation of the LIFE Programme (1996-2006)[7] and the Mid-term evaluation of the LIFE+ Programme (2007-2009);[8]
– studies commissionned from external consultants, namely: "Combined impact assessment and ex-ante evaluation of the review of the LIFE+ Regulation"[9] and 'Climate Change in the future multiannual financial framework';[10]
– an open online consultation on Your Voice in Europe;[11]
– a consultation conducted by the Committee of the Regions;[12]
– a consultation of the LIFE+ Committee members and Member States' environmental attachés, and an ad-hoc stakeholder meeting.[13]
The outcome of the consultations is that the LIFE programme is seen as generally performing well in both environmental and value-added terms. Stakeholders support the continuation of LIFE, as well as the different interventions and proposals made by the Commission, including for a new type of projects, Integrated Projects.
Although stakeholders support LIFE to increase its focus on implementation and integration of environmental and climate objectives into other policies, they do not support a limitation in the thematic areas covered. Similarly, although stakeholders generally support the move from a pure bottom-up to a more top-down approach, they are opposed to the establishment of annual and exhaustive priorities. The main reason is that the priority areas should be relatively stable to allow potential applicants to plan, prepare and submit proposals.
The Impact Assessment therefore focused on the recommendations from the evaluations and the Court of Auditors[14] aiming to increase the effectiveness and added value of LIFE, while incorporating stakeholders' main concerns and suggestions.
The options to establish priorities analysed in the Impact Assessment try to strike a balance between the need for stability for potential applicants and the need to better focus on Union policy needs. Three scenarios were analysed. The first one is the status quo, with a pure bottom-up approach partially corrected by the concentration of earmarked resources on climate action. The second one is a flexible top-down approach for all types of projects whereby the Commission develops multiannual work programmes where it specifies thematic priorities linked to the achievement of specific targets, and drives demand to address the thematic priorities within the different components. Integrated Projects, given their characteristics, would only focus on certain sectors until targets are achieved. The third scenario combines the top-down approach for Integrated Projects and the bottom-up approach for all other types of projects. Under this option, the Commission would limit ex-ante the thematic focus of Integrated Projects on four sectors in the sub-programme for Environment until targets are achieved, while applicants can submit proposals for other types of projects in all environmental sectors. The preferred option is the flexible top-down approach.
The Impact Assessment analysed options for areas on which Integrated Projects should focus concluding that Natura 2000, water, waste and air were the sectors with the highest potential for success and where more environmental benefits could be obtained. Stakeholders, especially regional authorities, also signalled these sectors. As the sub-programme for Climate Action is newly established, Integrated Projects relevant for climate change mitigation and adaptation may be introduced gradually 2-3 years into the programming period. The Impact Assessment also analysed whether the 50% project resources traditionally earmarked for nature and biodiversity was still valid and concluded it was. In fact, biodiversity was considered by all stakeholders as the most important priority for LIFE. The Impact Assessment also assessed options for geographical distribution of projects, including the possibility for national allocations (similar to the LIFE+ Regulation). Three options were envisaged: a system of merit only with no geographical criteria attached to selection; a system of geographical balance ensured by the Commission in line with the principles of solidarity and responsibility sharing; and a system of national allocations for Integrated Projects. The preferred option is ensuring geographical balance for Integrated Projects.
Finally, a strong emphasis was put on simplification to build on the changes undertaken by LIFE+, such as the use of e-proposals. The areas identified for additional simplification were: a two-step approach to select Integrated Projects, an increasing use of lump-sums and flat rates, and the ineligibility of certain costs. To ensure that beneficiaries are not disadvantaged by this simplification, the Impact Assessment explored the option to increase the co-financing rates. As part of the simplification measures, options for externalisation of most of the management tasks to an existing Executive Agency were also analysed, including full externalisation and a hybrid option.
The Union’s environmental objectives are enshrined in Title XX of the Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union (TFEU). The most common legal basis for environmental and climate legislation is Article 192 of the TFEU which empowers the European Parliament and the Council to decide what action should be taken by the Union in order to achieve the environmental objectives which are set out in Article 191 of TFEU. The Lisbon Treaty in particular strengthened the emphasis on climate action by making combating climate change an explicit part of the environmental objectives.
Article 11 of TFEU lays down the obligation to integrate environmental protection requirements into the definition and implementation of the Union policies and activities, in particular with a view to promoting sustainable development.
Furthermore, Article 8 of the Habitats Directive explicitly links the delivery of conservation measures to the provision of Union co-financing.
This proposal for a new LIFE Regulation is designed as a LIFE Programme with two sub-programmes: one for Environment and one for Climate Action. The creation of a sub-programme for Climate Action upgrades the former thematic strand 'climate change' under the LIFE+ Environment Policy and Governance component.
There is a great potential for synergies between environmental and climate objectives as projects can benefit multiple purposes. For instance, projects related to forest protection may bring co-benefits for biodiversity and climate change mitigation by enhancing the reforestation and thereby also improving carbon absorption capacity. Floodplain restoration projects may facilitate adaptation to climate change and the transition towards a more climate resilient society.
The objective of the LIFE Programme is to be a catalyst for promoting implementation and integration of environmental and climate objectives in other policies and Member State practice. Special emphasis is placed on better governance, as it is inextricably linked to improving implementation.
An important change to improve the efficiency of the LIFE Programme and to create closer links to Union policy priorities is the shift from a pure bottom-up approach to a flexible top-down approach. Work programmes valid for at least two years will be drawn up by the Commission in consultation with the Member States. These will cover e.g., priorities, allocation of resources between types of funding, and targets for the period. The priorities included therein will not be exhaustive in order to allow applicants to submit proposals in other areas as well and to incorporate new ideas and react to new challenges. The Commission will thus be assisted by the Committee for the LIFE Programme for the Environment and Climate Action, which will have a dual nature with, in particular, different chairs and different composition depending on whether the issues dealt with are related to the sub-programme for Environment or the sub-programme for Climate Action. Other particular aspects of the LIFE Programme, such as further specifying eligibility criteria for project selection, criteria for the application of geographical balance to Integrated Projects, and performance indicators applicable to specific thematic priorities, will be adopted by the Commission through delegated acts.
Another major change is the creation of a new type of projects: “Integrated Projects”. These aim to improve the implementation of environmental and climate policy and their integration into other policies, especially by ensuring a coordinated mobilisation of other Union, national and private funds towards environmental or climate objectives.
Integrated Projects will operate on a large territorial scale (in particular regional, multi-regional, or national, and in a cross-sector manner) and will be oriented towards the implementation of environmental and climate action plans or strategies required by environmental or climate legislation, pursuant to other Union acts or developed by the Member States authorities. Integrated Projects for the sub-programme for Environment will primarily focus on the implementation of plans and programmes related to the Birds[15] and Habitats Directives, the Water Framework Directive[16], and Waste and Air quality legislation. These Integrated Projects should also allow achieving results in other policy areas, in particular the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.[17] For the sub-programme for Climate Action, Integrated Projects may focus on the implementation of mitigation and adaptation strategies and action plans. Integrated Projects will also aim, when possible, at mobilising other Union funding sources by exploiting synergies and ensure consistency between different Union funding programmes. They will provide examples to the responsible authorities of how coordination of different funding instruments is possible to achieve better implementation of Union environmental and climate legislation. At Union level, this coordination between the LIFE Programme and other Union funding programmes could be established within the Common Strategic Framework.
This Regulation also provides a clearer definition of the activities funded for each priority area. The sub-programme for Environment consists of three priority areas, the focus of which will be shifted towards implementation and integration. The priority area Biodiversity extends its support to developing best practices for wider biodiversity challenges while keeping its focus on Natura2000. The priority area of Environment and Resource Efficiency shifts its focus towards implementation of Union environmental policy and legislation and excludes market replication-oriented innovation, since it will be better covered by Horizon 2020.[18] As part of the increased focus on promoting better governance, the priority area Governance and Information replaces the former LIFE+ Information and Communication component and will more actively promote the dissemination of knowledge for decision-making and the development of best practices for better and more effective compliance, in addition to awareness raising campaigns.
The Roadmap 2050[19] acknowledged that testing new approaches to climate change mitigation will remain essential for moving to a low-carbon economy. Adaptation to climate change as a cross-sector Union priority will also need to be ensured. Moreover, governance promotion and awareness-raising are essential in order to deliver constructive results and to ensure the involvement of stakeholders. Therefore, the sub-programme for Climate Action should support efforts contributing to three specific priority areas: Climate Change Mitigation, Climate Change Adaptation and Climate Governance and Information.
A main objective of the LIFE Programme is to catalyse changes in policy development and implementation by providing and disseminating solutions and best practices to achieve environmental and climate goals. It therefore offers co-funding opportunities for projects with clear environmental or climate benefits and expands on the existing knowledge base. The Commission will ensure synergies between the LIFE Programme and other Union instruments, e.g. it may exploit research and innovation results produced by Horizon2020 and by previous Framework Programmes in the fields of research and innovation.
The LIFE Programme should cover all types of funding required to address its objectives and priorities. In particular, action grants to finance projects represent the main financial intervention. Operating grants for NGOs and other entities of Union interest which are primarily active in the area of environment or climate are also possible. The LIFE Programme allows the use of financial instruments.[20] The Commission should also encourage the use of green public procurement when implementing action grants.
The LIFE Programme enlarges its territorial scope with a more flexible approach regarding funding for environment and climate outside the Union: firstly, by formally allowing activities outside the Union in exceptional cases and under specific conditions as well as in countries participating in the programme from outside the Union; and secondly, by providing a legal base for cooperation with international organisations of interest to environmental and climate policy that do not necessarily fall within the scope of Union external action (e.g., international studies).
As part of the simplification process, the LIFE Programme adopts lighter procedures. It is important that Member States are involved in setting priorities for the LIFE Programme in particular to ensure that these priorities adequately reflect the differences among Member States and effectively help in improving and accelerating implementation of environmental and climate policy.
In addition, the LIFE Programme will continue improving IT systems to accelerate and facilitate the electronic submission of applications. In order to further facilitate the participation of small stakeholders, such as SMEs or NGOs, special attention will be paid to clear, easily readable and unified application forms, deadlines to allow enough time for submission of applications, assistance with the preparation of applications, and publicly available deadlines to reject or award the project proposal accompanied with clear reasons for rejection. The socio-economic impacts of a project will be analysed when assessing the application.
It will also increase the use of flat rates and lump-sums to ease the application and reporting processes, and will lighten reporting requirements for Integrated Projects. In particular, a two-step approach for the selection of Integrated Projects could be introduced. Reporting and re-programming could be based on a two years' cycle and the payment schedule adapted to ensure a more gradual cash flow to the project.
Similarly, certain costs which have proved burdensome in terms of monitoring and reporting will no longer be considered eligible (e.g., VAT), and the eligibility of other costs, such as personnel costs related to permanent staff not specifically recruited for the project, might be limited or excluded, while maintaining a mechanism to enable their continued contribution to project activity. In order to ensure beneficiaries are not disadvantaged and to maintain similar levels of support for projects financed by way of action grants as in the LIFE+ Regulation, the co-financing rates should be increased from presently 50% to 70% and in specific cases to 80%, while still ensuring the same leverage effect as today. The higher rate of 80% would apply to Integrated Projects to compensate the fact that, while those projects would require significant inputs from permanent staff, permanent staff costs may not be considered an eligible cost. It would also apply to specific projects in support of particular needs for the development and implementation of Union policy or legislation, in consideration of the strategic value of those projects and to ensure an attractive co-financing rate.
Finally, the LIFE Programme should remain centrally managed to maximise policy links, quality of interventions, sound financial management and stable resources, and to ensure that findings of LIFE projects are taken up in Union policy shaping. This is considered as an essential asset by the European Parliament, the Member States and stakeholders. However, current management could be improved by delegating many of the tasks to an existing Executive Agency. Given the characteristics of the LIFE Programme and to increase synergies with other Union funding programmes, the Commission will explore the possibility of delegating to a large extent the selection and monitoring tasks to the European Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation, while keeping the governance of the LIFE Programme within the Commission.
Since the objectives of the proposed actions, as set out in Article 3, by their very nature, cannot be sufficiently achieved by the Member States and can therefore by reason of scale and effects of the action be better achieved at Union level, the Union may adopt measures, in accordance with the principle of subsidiarity as set out in Article 5 of the Treaty on European Union. In accordance with the principle of proportionality, as also set out in that Article, this Regulation does not go beyond what is necessary in order to achieve those objectives.
The total financial envelope for the LIFE Programme in the MFF Communication for the period 2014-2020 expressed in current prices is €3,618 million.[21] Of this amount €2,713.5 million is allocated to the sub-programme for Environment, of which half of the resources dedicated to projects financed by way of action grants shall be allocated to support the conservation of nature and biodiversity. €904.5 million is allocated to the sub-programme for Climate Action.