Annexes to SEC(2010)1120 - De la Commission au Parlement européen et au Conseil - Examen à mi-parcours du règlement LIFE+ - Main contents
Please note
This page contains a limited version of this dossier in the EU Monitor.
| dossier | SEC(2010)1120 - De la Commission au Parlement européen et au Conseil - Examen à mi-parcours du règlement LIFE+. |
|---|---|
| document | SEC(2010)1120  |
| date | September 30, 2010 |
LIFE07 NAT/AT/00012- Traisen (budget €12.8; EU co-financing 41.25%). This project coordinated by Verbund Austria Hydro Power AG aims at restoring the river dynamics and large-scale flooding areas, and creates free passage for fish and other water species by linking numerous floodplain waters to the new main river. The river was a heavily modified water body following the construction of the hydropower plant, Altenwörth, in 1976. This is one of the numerous projects financed by LIFE that have increased the ecological value of the Danube river and its neighbouring habitats and floodplains by restoring sections to their natural conditions and demonstrating how future management can proceed. LIFE projects have restored several hundred kilometres of floodplain maximising the ecosystems services provided by the river.
LIFE09 NAT/PL/00260- Biomass use for Aquatic Warbler (budget €3.7 million; EU co-financing 74.07%). The objective of the project is to link the production of biomass as a renewable energy source, with the large-scale mechanised management of aquatic warbler habitat. The aim is to demonstrate that conservation management of this habitat can also be economically viable. The project will be implemented in six project sites, all special protection areas (SPAs) according to the Birds Directive.
Biodiversity
LIFE07 NAT/IT/00450 CENT.OLI.MED (budget €1.5; EU co-financing 48.39%) High Nature Value Farmland (HNVF) plays a crucial role in the protection of biodiversity. In the Mediterranean region, HNVF includes Ancient Olive Groves (AOGs). These are extensive crops – less than 50 trees per ha - that constitute one element in a mosaic of semi-natural and cultivated areas. The AOGs are typically intersected by small-scale structural elements or landscape features such as Mediterranean scrub, dry stone walls or woodland strips. The project ultimately aims to enhance biodiversity in Ancient Olive Groves (AOGs). It seeks to gain recognition of AOGs as HNVF and to implement actions to halt the loss of biodiversity in these habitats.
LIFE08 NAT/E/00064 CUBOMED (budget €1.7 million; EU co-financing 48.33%). Spanish marine habitats have been adversely affected by increased populations of the predatory jellyfish Carybdea marsupialis. The reasons behind unusual population growth patterns in C. marsupialis remain unknown, but these seem to follow a similar pattern of behaviour to other invasive species that can take advantage of environmental stresses caused by human activity. The economic impacts in the tourism in Spain but also in other parts of the Mediterranean are obvious if this species expand. The main objective of this project is to gain sufficient understanding about C. marsupialis blooms to help develop measures capable of mitigating against negative impacts from the jellyfish on Mediterranean marine ecosystems in Europe.
LIFE09 NAT/FR/00584 BioDIVine (budget €1.8 million; EU co-financing 49.18%): Grape vines provide habitats with unlimited food supply and few natural enemies. This makes them an ideal breeding ground for pests. As restrictions on phytosanitary products increase, environmentally-sensitive biological pest control methods are growing in importance. The aim of this LIFE Biodiversity project focuses on demonstrating the benefits from strengthening landscape structures as a means to restore and conserve biodiversity in cultivated vineyards. This will be achieved by assessing biodiversity-friendly actions in different European biotopes. Complementary semi-natural spaces will be created in vineyards from seven test sites in three countries (Portugal, Spain and France) covering Atlantic, Mediterranean and Continental regions. The agronomic benefits of using arthropods and fungi biodiversity for viticulture will be tested. Results will inform the design of a landscape and ecological action plan intended to effectively combine wine production and biodiversity conservation actions.
For LIFE+ Environment and Governance, the themes waste & natural resources, climate change and water represent 71% of all funded projects under this strand. Climate change has attracted a significantly higher number of projects compared to LIFEIII. This reflects the focus given to climate change in the calls for proposals. The addition of new themes has not led to a substantially different distribution of projects per area compared to previous programmes. However, in the 2008 and 2009 calls a positive trend in number of applications and projects selected for those themes can be observed. For example, in 2007 no projects focused on chemicals were funded but in 2008, five projects were selected for funding. As in the case of biodiversity, there is a need to attract new applicants to the programme that may be unaware of LIFE funding opportunities in a particular area.
Table 5: Overview of Environment Projects Funded under LIFE II- LIFE III Extension (1996-2006) and Environment & Governance Funded under LIFE+ (2007-2008)
Source: GHK analysis for previous periods based on COWI (2009) and on LIFE Unit data for the current programme. The ex-post evaluation classified projects funded by previous LIFE programmes (1996-2006) under 9 themes as defined in the LIFE+ Regulation. These themes were air, water, natural resources and waste, strategic approaches, urban environment, climate change, soil, forests and chemicals.
Note: The innovation theme should be distinguished from the innovative criterion used in project appraisal (note: all ENV projects in LIFE III were innovative and all Environment and Governance projects in LIFE+ have to be either innovative or demonstrative). The innovation theme aims to assist implementation of the Environmental Technologies Action Plan (ETAP) (Regulation (EC) No 614/2007)
Figure 12: Average number of Environment projects funded under LIFE II- LIFE III extension (1996-2006) and Environment & Governance projects funded under LIFE+ (2007-2008)
Source: Mid-Term Evaluation of the Implementation of the LIFE+ Regulation (Final Report)
GHK in association with Arcadis and VITO
Environment projects represent a significant support for eco-innovation. Projects financed under LIFE+ are expected to develop new technologies, methodologies, approaches, tools, processes and products that will improve the effective implementation of EU policies. However, the multi-thematic composition implies that relatively few projects are financed under each theme making it difficult to validly assess results at thematic level.
In this context it should be also noted that the protocol agreed between LIFE+ Environment and Governance and CIP eco-innovation to manage submissions and steer the applicants to the most suitable instrument envisages that LIFE+ will tend to fund projects orientated to the public sector while CIP eco-innovation will concentrate more on market replication projects, presented by private undertakings and notably SMEs.
Some information is available for the main three themes mentioned above. 27 new technologies, 85 methodologies and approaches and 10 process and products will be developed in the next years. Waste concentrates on developing new technologies whereas climate change and water focus on new methodologies, approaches and tools. Waste is the most innovative theme in terms of creating and developing new products and process. The wider impact due to possible replication is difficult to assess at this stage although when evaluating EU added value during the selection process it was assessed medium or high.
Table 5: Expected outputs for 2007-2008 funded projects in terms of eco-innovation
Output | 2007 call | Total | 2008 call | Total | ||||
| Climate change | Waste | Water | Climate change | Waste | Water | |||
| Technologies | 4 | 8 | 0 | 12 | 5 | 8 | 2 | 15 |
| Methodologies/approaches/tools | 17 | 13 | 7 | 37 | 20 | 16 | 12 | 48 |
| Processes/products | 0 | 6 | 0 | 6 | 1 | 3 | 0 | 4 |
| TOTAL | 21 | 27 | 7 | 55 | 26 | 27 | 14 | 67 |
LIFE+ supporting Environmental policy implementation and development
LIFE+ Environment & Governance provides a positive stimulus for supporting the transition to more sustainable production bridging the gap between research and the development of large-scale commercial application. It is an effective tool to support key sectors to obtain a competitive advantage by adopting more resource efficient and greener production processes.
LIFE07 ENV/E/000787 Recyship (budget €3.4 million; EU co-financing 50%): a ship reaches the end of it working life after 20-30 years and is sold as scrap and dismantled to recover the steel. Almost 90% can be reused as high quality steel. The remaining 10% contains high quantities of dangerous waste. In the 1970s, ships were dismantled in European ports. Greater environmental regulation and higher security and health standards, increased the costs and the industry moved its operations to cheaper countries (e.g. Bangladesh, India, China, Turkey). The main objective of the project is to develop a technically and economically feasible, safe and environmentally sound methodology for the dismantling and decontamination of end-of-life vessels and develop a pilot test in a shipyard in the southwest of Europe, where the prototype will be validated. The project will assess EU and national legislation and will propose a regulation for end-of-life ships management.
LIFE07 ENV/FIN/07 VACCIA (budget 3.1; EU co-financing 48.98%): Climate change provides a major challenge for the sustainable management of key ecosystem goods and services, including biodiversity, forests, water and agricultural production. Despite increasing efforts to reduce the emission of greenhouse gases, results from global circulation models show that major changes in the current climate cannot be avoided. The VACCIA project aims to derive realistic climate change scenarios for specific sites to enable impact and vulnerability assessments and suggest the most appropriate adaptation measures.
LIFE08 ENV/IT/000435 ANTARES (budget €1.1; EU co-financing 50%): REACH has introduced stricter European legislation on the handling, use and disposal of new chemicals. This aims to address the problem of chemical compounds ending up in the environment, but it also increases the cost to producers, who must demonstrate that a chemical is safe for the environment and human health. It has been estimated that at least 30 000 new chemicals will be introduced in the coming years in Europe. This project aims to show which non-testing methods (NTM) can be used to demonstrate compliance with REACH legislation and under what conditions. It seeks to bridge the gap of knowledge on which methods can be used in practice to avoid animal testing. The project will carry out a preparatory survey of all current methods for assessing compliance with the REACH legislation. This will help identify the exact criteria that the NTMs must meet. It will also evaluate the available experimental data for the eco-toxicological, toxicological and environmental endpoints for REACH.
LIFE09 ENV/BE/00410 DEMOCOPHESII (budget 3.4; EU co-financing 49.87%): Human Biological Monitoring (HBM) has long been used in the medical surveillance of workers. Currently it is increasingly used as a tool in environmental research and in health policy development. The European Environment and Health Strategy, launched in June 2003 by the European Commission as the SCALE initiative, paid particular attention to the potential of HBM. The main objective of this project is to demonstrate the feasibility of a harmonised approach to HBM in the EU by implementing a pilot study in 16 Member States and sharing the expertise with five additional countries, which will be adhoc members of this project. The work will be guided by the external team, COPHES (COnsortium to Perform Human biomonitoring on a European Scale), which will prepare guidelines and protocols for all tasks, train beneficiaries, deliver preparatory materials and evaluate the process within the framework of an FP7 Concerted Action that started in December 2009.
LIFE09 ENV/E/000441 AGROCLIMATICA (budget €1.6; EU co-financing 50%): The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change has estimated that agriculture is directly responsible for 20% of global greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. In Europe, this figure is around 9% of total GHG emissions. Key sources of GHG emissions in agriculture are fertiliser production and machinery. The ACCIÓN AGROCLIMÁTICA project aims to develop a tool for carrying out energy and GHG audits on farms, and for identifying the most suitable crops and best practices for mitigation and adaptation to climate change. It seeks to provide a methodology that will be widely accepted by the EU-27 farming sector and applicable to most of the different agricultural systems.
The growing significance of eco-innovation is evident with an increasing percentage of projects dealing with innovative management or business methods introduced both by public entities and the private sector. Around two thirds of projects funded under LIFE+ Environment and Governance are eco-innovation projects.
Figure 13: Total project funding under LIFE III and LIFE+ for Environment & Governance and Eco-innovation (‘broad’ and ‘strict)
Source: GHK analysis. Mid-Term Evaluation (Final Report)
In these two calls, some projects will also significantly contribute to develop environmental legislation in the area of waste by testing methods to manage new waste streams such as ship dismantling, fiber glass or biowaste.
38 projects have been financed under LIFE+ Information in the reporting period. A significant number of projects were rejected in the 2007 call for not being sufficiently ambitious or without clear environmental goals.
Figure 14: INF projects submitted and selected 2007 and 2008
The Guide for applicants was modified to provide more examples of types of projects to be financed under this component. As a consequence overall quality of projects improved but results remain low as compared to the other LIFE+ components. The evaluation shows that the co-financing rate may not provide enough incentives to submit applications under the strand. It seems that finding matching funds is difficult for communication campaigns and projects had to downscale project objectives to meet co-funding requirements thus focusing more on local or regional campaigns with some exceptions.
Figure 15: INF Themes 2007 and 2008
Source: monitoring files LIFE ENV projects – GHK calculations
The projects financed cover a wide range of themes, from climate change or sustainable olive oil production. They also target very diverse audiences, from the general public to professional stakeholders or public authorities. Most projects focus on local or regional problems. However, some projects e.g. French project on the European Waste Week will have more significant impacts at EU level. More efforts are needed to better define this component. The evaluation also recommends increasing the co-financing rate.
LIFE+ supporting awareness and communication campaigns
LIFE+ Information & Communication the strand offers a unique opportunity to overcome this barrier and widely promote environmental themes. The introduction of the strand is perceived both at EU and national level as one of the elements that added the greatest contribution to EU added value in the new Regulation. The strand has the potential of financing EU-wide communication campaigns that will contribute to reducing environmental problems in the EU.
LIFE07 INF/FR/000185 European Week for Waste Reduction (budget €2.1 million; co-financing 50%): On 21 December 2005, the European Commission, in applying the Sixth Community Environment Action Programme (2002 – 2012), presented the following:
- A communication to the European Council, the European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of Regions entitled “Taking sustainable use of resources forward: a thematic strategy on the prevention and recycling of waste”;
- A proposal for a European Parliament and EU Council Directive on waste, which became Directive 2006/12/EC of the European Parliament and the Council on waste.
The main objective of the European Week of Waste Reduction (EWWR) project is to reduce the amount of municipal waste generated in Europe by involving all the players concerned in awareness programmes. The project will be an awareness campaign to mobilize European society on the problems of waste. It will build on the experience of French waste reduction campaigns (which were launched in 2004 within the framework of a national plan for prevention of waste production) and aims to sensitise and mobilise Europeans on the need to reduce the amount of waste that everyone produces daily. The project, managed by ADEME, Agence de l'Environnement et de la Maîtrise de l'Energie, includes as partners main waste management authorities in partners in Belgium, Spain and Portugal.
Table 6: INF project target audiences
| INF project target audiences | ||||||||||||||||||
| Broader public | Professional stakeholders | Policy makers /authorities/other | ||||||||||||||||
| General public | children/schools | Youth | Parents and families | teachers | Visitors of natural park | rural residents | ornamental horticulture professionals | trappers | Land/forest owners | Farmers | local producers | businesses | Professional org. | Natura 2000 site managers | Law enforcement authorities | local/regional authorities /decision makers | national authorities | NGOs |
| 15 | 6 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 1 | 2 | 2 | 3 | 3 | 2 | 1 | 1 | 7 | 3 | 1 |
| 54% | 21% | 7% | 7% | 11% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 4% | 7% | 7% | 11% | 11% | 7% | 4% | 4% | 25% | 11% | 4% |
Source: monitoring files LIFE ENV projects – GHK calculations
Complementarity
LIFE+ should not finance activities that could be financed by other EU funds (Art.9 of the Regulation). This strict obligation would require a clear separation line between LIFE+ and other funds. The evaluation recognises the efforts to ensure complementarity. The application forms require information on actions included in the proposal that could be financed by other support programmes. Applicants must explain why they consider that those actions do not fall within the main scope of alternative EU instruments and must declare that actions listed in the proposal do not and will not receive aid from any other EU instruments.
The Commission coordinates to identify projects that may be financed by other EU funds. A protocol to manage submissions under the Competitiveness & Innovation Framework Programme (CIP) and LIFE+ Environment & Governance was developed to identify the most suitable instrument for a given activity. Other measures include an agreement that Member States will provide additional guidance to potential applicants.
The evaluation shows that complementarity is improved where:
1. LIFE+ projects build on FP7 activity.
2. A broad base of activity in LIFE+ is retained from which to support further policy value.
3. The policy benefits to environment (and 6EAP) are fed into other Programmes. For example, in many cases agri-environmental measures are tested in LIFE projects and afterwards they are incorporated into the rural development programmes.
4. Ensure that the policy needs of CIP, SF, EAFRD, etc are reflected where possible in calls and appraisal criteria.
5. Ensure beneficiaries are aware of joint funding in larger projects, where different elements might be funded as discrete projects with different funding sources.
6. There is a step change in levels of communication between actors in the various policy fields at EC, MS, regional / local and beneficiary levels.
The Commission focuses on avoiding double-funding but has tried a more positive attitude towards complementarity by granting additional points to projects demonstrating synergies with other funds or showing an integrated approach in the use of different funds. However, building and enhancing synergies with other programmes is a more challenging task when those are decentralised or in shared management with national, regional or local authorities. Also, applicants tend to select the fund they are more familiar with.
More efforts are needed to improve synergies between 7th Research Framework Programme, LIFE+ Environment, CIP, EAFRD, Structural and Cohesion Funds to accompany innovative ideas from creation, testing & demonstration to commercialisation and wide diffusion.
The evaluation recommends combining the Eco-innovation component of CIP and LIFE+ Environment & Governance for the next programming period to create a single eco-innovation funding mechanism. Protocols and guidelines to better link the different funds are also recommended.
3. NGOs operating grants
30 NGOs were selected in 2007, 33 in 2008 and 32 in 2009.
Output indicators were introduced during the evaluation period. However, the results of NGO activities are difficult to measure in a quantitative way since they relate mainly to policy contribution, by nature qualitative. Quantitative output indicators can only provide limited information for monitoring the outcome. Nevertheless, across all beneficiaries activities in policy development and implementation, including awareness raising and organisational development were reported. Commonly reported activities include for instance publication of press releases, organisation of and participation in conferences, and written submissions to EU institutions. NGOs also reported on awareness raising activities, including education on EU policy implementation and development.
During the evaluation, beneficiaries were also asked to estimate the distribution of activities and funds across main activity areas. The results show that most resources are devoted to policy development and implementation followed by capacity building of members.
Table 7: NGOs expenditure per area of intervention
| Environment policy development | 4.519.729 euro | 27,1% |
| Implementation | 4.704.192 euro | 28,2% |
| Capacity building of members and partners | 2.810.383 euro | 16,8% |
| Environmental Education | 1.639.228 euro | 9,8% |
| Enlargement and Third Countries | 1.319.172 euro | 7,9% |
| Internal Capacity Building | 1.703.103 euro | 10,2% |
Figure 16: NGOs expenditure per area of intervention
Source: Arcadis calculations (Mid-term evaluation- Final Report)
All topics of the 6EAP are covered with a good balance between policy development, policy implementation and internal and external capacity building.
| Topic | operational fund 2007-2008 (€) | % |
| Agriculture | 1.011.094,68 | 6,06 |
| wood, forestry | 651.167,93 | 3,90 |
| Fishery | 290.285,15 | 1,74 |
| Tourism | 961.389,46 | 5,76 |
| nature and biodiversity | 3.107.961,24 | 18,62 |
| energy and climate | 2.295.281,04 | 13,75 |
| Water | 1.335.164,69 | 8,00 |
| industrial pollution | 475.643,17 | 2,85 |
| Waste | 726.178,57 | 4,35 |
| Transport | 491.624,00 | 2,94 |
| Chemicals | 1.090.290,72 | 6,53 |
| sustainable economy sustainable development | 2.331.413,01 | 13,96 |
| Soil | 174.372,70 | 1,04 |
| GMO | 174.204,22 | 1,04 |
| Air | 599.236,26 | 3,59 |
| Health | 450.156,17 | 2,70 |
| Standardisation | 180.000,00 | 1,08 |
| legal issues | 350.344,00 | 2,10 |
Source: Arcadis calculations (Mid-term evaluation- Final Report)
Figure 17: NGOs expenditure per policy area
Figure 18: NGOs expenditure per policy area
4. Support for policy development and implementation
In 2007-2009, DG Environment concluded around 200 contracts/year to help implementing the priorities laid down in the 6EAP. The budget allocation per policy area in this reporting period was very similar for each year (Figure 19).
Figure 19: Public procurement expenditure per policy area/per year
NB:
Compliance & communication includes contracts to support the Commission in ensuring compliance and enforcement of environmental policy as well as communication activities contracted by the specialised communication units and by thematic units (e.g., EMAS brochures, climate change);
Nature & soil includes contracts to support policy implementation and development in the area of soil, forests, nature and biodiversity. It also includes specific contracts on international affairs focused on nature conservation issues (e.g., wild trade).
Chemicals and Env& health includes contracts to support implementation and development of REACH, biocides, pesticides, GMOs, environment and health, and noise;
Air & emissions includes contracts to support policy implementation and development in the areas of transport, air quality and industrial emissions (e.g., IPPC);
Technical assistance for LIFE+ units (around 8-10 million) has not been included.
NB: LIFE+ budget includes both budget lines.
33% of resources were dedicated to compliance and communication activities. The specific policy area with the largest share of public procurement expenditure (average 18%) is climate change. The remainder of public procurement is fairly spread across the other policy fields.
1At the time of preparing this report, final information on projects total budget was not available.
2Beneficiaries submit outputs indicators at the time of the inception reports. The Commission is still validating those and thus data could not be aggregated for the purposes of this Communication
EN EN