Commission staff working paper Annexes to the Impact Assessment accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the establishment of a Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE)

1.

Kerngegevens

Document­datum 14-12-2011
Publicatie­datum 16-12-2011
Kenmerk 18627/11 ADD 3
Van Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director
Aan Mr Uwe CORSEPIUS, Secretary-General of the Council of the European Union
Externe link originele PDF
Originele document in PDF

2.

Tekst

COUNCIL OF Brussels, 14 December 2011 THE EUROPEAN UNION

18627/11

Interinstitutional File: ADD 3

2011/0428 (COD) i

ENV 976 ENER 410 CADREFIN 207 CODEC 2445

COVER NOTE

from: Secretary-General of the European Commission, signed by Mr Jordi AYET PUIGARNAU, Director

date of receipt: 12 December 2011

to: Mr Uwe CORSEPIUS, Secretary-General of the Council of the European

Union

No Cion doc.: SEC(2011) 1543 final

Subject: Commission staff working paper

Annexes to the Impact Assessment accompanying the document

Proposal for a Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the

establishment of a Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE)

Delegations will find attached Commission document SEC(2011) 1543 final.

________________________

Encl.: SEC(2011) 1543 final

EUROPEAN COMMISSION

Brussels, 12.12.2011 SEC(2011) 1543 final

Volume 2 of 2

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER

ANNEXES TO THE IMPACT ASSESSMENT

Accompanying the document

Proposal for a Regulation

on the establishment of a Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE)

{COM(2011) 874 final i}

{SEC(2011) 1541 final}

{SEC(2011) 1542 final}

Disclaimer: These annexes commit only the Commission's services involved in its

preparation and do not prejudge the final form of any decision to be taken by the

Commission.

TABLE OF CONTENT

  • 1. 
    List of Abbreviations 3
  • 2. 
    The LIFE Programme as per the Communication from the Commission on a Budget for Europe 2020, 29th June 2011 7
  • 3. 
    Summary of Stakeholders' consultations 9
  • 4. 
    Summary of conclusions and recommendations from the Ex-post evaluation of the LIFE Programme (1996-2006) and from the Mid-term evaluation of the implementation of the LIFE+ Regulation (2007-2009) 46
  • 5. 
    Scale of the environmental problem, underlying causes and benefits of action

    (externalities) 60

  • 6. 
    Examples illustrating the EU added value of the LIFE Programme 82
  • 7. 
    Assessment of the LIFE+ Regulation: data used to calculate the impacts of 86 the baseline scenario
  • 8. 
    Full assessment of the zero option and of the expanded option 117
  • 9. 
    Calculation of externals costs 141
  • 10. 
    Objectives and Monitoring framework 151
  • 11. 
    Integrated Projects 158
  • 12. 
    References 173 A NNEX 1: L IST OF ABBREVIATIONS

6EAP 6 th Environment Action Programme

AEM Agri-environment Measure

AMPs Annual Management Plans

BAT Best Available Techniques

BBOP Biodiversity Offsets Programme

BREF Best Available Techniques Reference Document

CAP Common Agricultural Policy

CBA Cost-benefit analysis

CBD Convention on Biological Diversity

CF Cohesion Fund

CFP Common Fisheries Policy

CIP Competitiveness and Innovation Programme

CITES Convention on international trade in endangered species

CoE Council of Europe

CoR Committee of the Regions

CP Cohesion Policy

DGs Directorates-General

DMC Domestic Material Consumption

DPSIR Driving Forces-Pressures-State-Impacts-Responses

DRB Danube River Basin

EACI Executive Agency for Competitiveness and Innovation

EAFRD European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development

EC /EP / EU European Commission / European Parliament / European Union

EEA European Environment Agency

EFF European Fisheries Fund

EIB European Investment Bank

ELENA European Local Energy Assistance Scheme

EMS Environmental Management System

ENP European Neighbourhood Policy

ENRTP Thematic programme for environment and sustainable management of natural resources including energy

ENVI European Parliament Committee on the Environment, Public Health & Food Safety

EP European Parliament

EPG Environment Policy Governance (LIFE+ strand)

ERDF European Regional Development Fund

ESF European Social Fund

ETAP Environmental Technologies Action Plan

ETUC European Trade Union Confederation

ETV Environmental Technologies Verification

EU European Union

EU12 Group of countries which joined the EU from 2004 onwards

FDOs Financial Desk Officers

FP7 Seventh Framework Programme

FP8 Eighth Framework Programme

GDP Gross Domestic Product

GHG Greenhouse gas

GIF Growth and Innovation Fund

GIS Geographic Information System

GVA Gross Value Added

HSAP Hydropower Sustainability Assessment Protocol

IA Impact Assessment

IPs Integrated Projects

IPA Instrument for Pre-accession Assistance

ICPRD International Commission for the Protection of the Danube River

ICUN International Union for Conservation of Nature

IMPEL European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of Environmental Law

INF Information and communication (LIFE+ strand)

IPPC The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change

ISG Inter-Service Steering Group

IUCN International Union for Conservation of Nature

JASPERS Joint Assistance to Support Projects in European Regions

JEREMIE Joint European Resources for Micro to medium Enterprises

LFA Less Favoured Areas

LRTAP Long-range Transboundary Air Pollution

MDG Millennium Development Goals

MAFF/MFF Multi Annual Financial Framework

MTE Mid-term evaluation

MS Member State

N2K Natura2000

NAT Nature & Biodiversity (LIFE+ strand)

NCP National Contact Points

NGO Non-governmental Organisation

NOx Nitrogen Oxides

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

PAFs Prioritised Action Frameworks

PAN Pesticides Action Network

PES Payments for Ecosystem Services

PM Particulate Matter

PPP Polluter pays principle

PPPs Public Private Partnerships

R&D Research and Development

REACH Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemical substances

RSFF Risk Sharing Finance Facility

SDS Sustainable Development Strategy

SICAs Specific International Cooperation Actions

SMEs Small and Medium Enterprises

SOER State of the Environment Report

SOx Sulphur Oxides

TA Technical assistance

TCY Third Countries

TDOs Technical Desk Officers

TEEB The Economics of Ecosystem Services and Biodiversity

TFEU Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union

UNECE United Nations Economic Commission for Europe

UNEP United Nations Environment Programme

VAT Value added tax

VOCs Volatile Organic Compounds

VOSL Value of a Statistical Life

VOLY Value of Life Years

WFD Water Framework Directive

WTO World Trade Organisation

WTP Willingness to pay

YVIE Your Voice in Europe

ANNEX 2: T HE LIFE P ROGRAMME AS PER THE C OMMUNICATION FROM THE

C OMMISSION ON A B UDGET FOR E UROPE 2020, 29 TH J UNE 2011

The LIFE programme will be composed of two sub-programmes: an Environment subprogramme and a Climate Action sub-programme. It will have a global envelop of €3.2 billion for the seven years with €2.4 billion (75%) for the Environment sub-programme and €800 million (25%) for the Climate Action sub-programme.

1. The Environment sub-programme

It will be organised according to the following priorities:

(a) LIFE Biodiversity, while still focusing on Natura 2000 and on the development and sharing of best practices in relation to biodiversity, will also target wider biodiversity challenges in line with the Europe 2020 biodiversity strategy target to maintain and restore ecosystems and their services.

(b) LIFE Environment will focus on supporting the implementation of EU environmental policy by the public and private sectors and in particular the implementation of environmental legislation relevant to the Europe 2020 resource efficiency objectives (such as the Water Framework Directive or the Waste Framework Directive).

(c) LIFE Governance will support the creation of platforms for the exchange of best practices for improved compliance with EU environmental policy priorities and enforcement, policy development and knowledge-based decision-making (e.g., wide dissemination of project results), with an emphasis on good governance. This strand will also support environmental NGOs and promote awareness-raising, advocacy and dissemination of environmental information, as these are inextricably linked to achieving good governance and full implementation and compliance.

The instrument will focus on two types of project: new Integrated Projects, the number and financial share of which will gradually increase over the lifetime of the programme; and "traditional" projects. Projects will continue to be selected for their EU added value and potential for transfer of know-how. LIFE Integrated Projects are designed to demonstrate the sustainable implementation of environmental action plans relating to major EU environmental directives, such as the Habitats Directive or the Water Framework Directive. A structured cooperation with other EU funds will be established through the Common Strategic Framework.

2. The Climate Action sub-programme

It will, in particular, support efforts contributing to the following objectives:

(a) Mitigation: Support for the reduction of greenhouse gas emissions. Actions for setting up pilot projects, which can be used to test innovative approaches including through support to SMEs, to improve the knowledge base and to facilitate the implementation of the climate acquis.

(b) Adaptation: Support to efforts leading to increased resilience to climate change.

Actions to support the development or implementation of national/regional/local adaptation strategies. Actions enabling decision makers to effectively use knowledge

and data about climate change impacts in particular for adaptation related planning.

(c) Governance and Awareness: support for efforts leading to increased awareness, communication, cooperation and dissemination on climate mitigation and adaptation actions. Actions for awareness-raising amongst EU citizens and stakeholders including on behaviour changes.

ANNEX 3: SUMMARY OF THE STAKEHOLDERS' CONSULTATIONS

Table of Contents

1. Introduction 11

1.1. Purpose of stakeholder consultation 13

1.2. Interviews with the Commission 13

1.3. GHK Survey of stakeholders 13

1.4. GHK Survey of project beneficiaries 14

1.5. EC Online Survey 14

1.6. EC Workshop led by GHK 14

1.7. The CoR survey 15

2. Problem definition 15

2.1 Physical environmental problems and challenges in the EU Member States 16

2.2 Institutional drivers and underlying causes 16

2.2.1 Unregulated environmental problems: Policy Development 17

2.2.2 Inadequate Policy Implementation 18

2.2.3 Insufficient synergies and inadequate integration of the environment into policy 20

2.2.4. Lack of awareness and information sharing 22

2.2.5 Inadequate support for eco-innovation 23

3 The rationale for, and EU added value of, a specific instrument for the environment and climate action 23

3.1 Justifications for an instrument for the environment 23

3.2 EU added value of the existing instrument for the environment 24

3.3 Rationale for an instrument for the environment to intervene in the five main problems identified 26

3.3.1 Policy development 26

3.3.2 Policy implementation 26

3.3.3 Integration of environmental concerns into sectoral policies 26

3.3.4 Awareness raising and information sharing 27

3.3.5 Support for eco-innovation 28 4 Objectives, Activities and Resources of a future instrument for the environment 29

4.1 Objectives 29

4.2 Activities 29

4.3 Resources 32

5 Thematic and territorial focus 33

5.1 Thematic focus 33

5.2 Territorial focus 35

6 Delivery Mechanisms and Management Options 36

6.1. Delivery Mechanisms 36

6.2 Action grants 36

6.3 Operational grants 37

6.4 Use of innovative instruments 37

6.5 Integrated Projects 38

6.6 Management approaches 39

7 The Options 40

7.1 Brief overview of the options 40

7.2 Feedback on the options 41

8 Summary of stakeholder consultations 43 1. Introduction

The European Parliament made several contributions, including the Böge report on the

Mid-Term Review of the 2007-2013 Financial Framework. 1 This report calls for providing

the Union with the means to fulfil its political ambitions in the area of fighting against climate change. It also stressed that the EP is ready to examine the possibility of creating a specific fund for that purpose. Moreover, it highlighted the need to climate proof "all major programmes, including agriculture, cohesion, transport and energy networks, and development programmes". The climate activities across the EU budget including LIFE+ are to be reinforced to reflect this new priority.

The Council 2 and the European Parliament 3 have indicated their support to the

continuation of the LIFE Programme. The Council Conclusions highlighted the importance of LIFE+ and the need to keep all its components. The European Parliament report on "Investing in the future: a new Multiannual Financial Framework for a competitive, sustainable and

inclusive Europe" 4 underlined that LIFE has been successfully implemented and has proven

its importance in safeguarding biodiversity and protecting the environment and emphasises the need for continuing the programme. The report highlighted the need to continue LIFE support especially to achieve biodiversity objectives.

The European Economic Social Committee opinion 5 and Committee of Regions opinion (CoR) 6 also show strong support for the continuation and enhancement of LIFE. The CoR also requested additional funds under LIFE for biodiversity and climate action. 7

The impact assessment has been preceeded by the following public consultations in order to gather as many comments and suggestions as possible from individuals and bodies concerned:

An initial stakeholder consultation was carried out on the Commission's behalf by

GHK 8 from October 2010 until February 2011. The consultation gathered a total of 192

stakeholder responses, including from NGOs, social partners, Member States and Commission officials. This includes:

• Commission services: 11 interviews with Commission officials, including in DG

Environment and DG Climate Action (DG CLIMA), as well as representatives from DG Agriculture and Rural Development (DG AGRI), DG Regional Policy (DG

REGIO), and DG Maritime Affairs and Fisheries (DG MARE. (GHK Interviews).

• Stakeholders: A total of 34 survey responses were received: 16 from NGOs, 6 from

social partners and 12 from LIFE National Contact Points (NCP) (GHK Survey).

1 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+COMPARL+PE-

418.451+02+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN.

2 Council Conclusions "Improving Environmental Policy Instruments", 17 January 2011.

3 ENVI Committee Opinion for the Special committee on the policy challenges and budgetary resources for a

sustainable European Union after 2013.

4 http://www.europarl.europa.eu/sides/getDoc.do?pubRef=-//EP//NONSGML+REPORT+A7-2011-

0193+0+DOC+PDF+V0//EN&language=EN.

5 EESC's Opinion LIFE+/Mid-term Review: http://www.eesc.europa.eu/?i=portal.en.nat-opinions.18989

6 CoR's Opinion on "The EU Life Programme. The way forward" .

7 CoR’s Opinion on 30 June 2011 on Climate mainstreaming and the future EU budget.

• Project beneficiaries: project beneficiaries were also surveyed separately on the

problem definition and 147 responses were received (GHK Survey).

Surveys aimed to obtain quantitative information on stakeholders' perspectives regarding environmental and climate problems facing the EU and the potential role for a financial instrument dedicated to the environment and climate action. Also, LIFE project beneficiaries (147 responses) were consulted to obtain information on the administrative burden of the programme, the quantitative estimates regarding impacts, and on their views on the problems. There was a general agreement that the most important problem is the lack of implementation of EU environmental legislation and inadequate integration of environment into other policies. Responses emphasised the need for a specific instrument to catalyse and leverage change.

An open online consultation was carried out on 'Your Voice in Europe' 9 . Around 1000

responses were received from a variety of stakeholders, of which 58% had never received LIFE funding. Some 35% of respondents were organisations, 13% were competent authorities and 53% were private individuals. The main views are:

• 84% of respondents consider that there is a need for a specific financial instrument for

the environment and climate action with only 10% supporting discontinuation.

• Stakeholders consider all LIFE interventions needed: 87.7% respondents support

action grants, 65.7% support operating grants for NGOs and 74.9% procurement. 81.6% of respondents support the role of LIFE in boosting eco-innovation and 78% in

allowing EU-wide exchange of information and awareness raising.

• As to scope, stakeholders support a more focused instrument (main priorities

mentioned were biodiversity, adaptation to climate change, resource use and waste, and climate mitigation), but priorities should be non-exclusive. 67.5% of respondents

support carrying out activities outside the EU.

• When it comes to the budget, 54.6% of respondents indicated that the current budget is

too low to achieve the Programme's objectives. As to the management, 68.1% of respondents supported current central direct management by the Commission. Only

20% of respondents showed a preference for other management modes, 10 of which

shared management (7%) was preferred to an executive agency (3%).

More targeted consultations have been carried out to complement the stakeholder survey: one organised with the LIFE Committee members and Member States' environmental attachés

on 27 January 2010, and an ad-hoc stakeholder meeting 11 with around 100 representatives

on 28 January 2010 (e.g. NGOs, farmers association, business, and public authorities).

In both cases, responses were consistent with the results of the online consultation with strong opposition from the Member States to discontinuing LIFE and eco-innovation activities funded under LIFE. Similarly, there was strong opposition to eliminating the traditional LIFE smaller bottom-up projects. Support for an increased budget was very strong with the exception of farmers associations that considered the current budget adequate. One Member State (UK) considered that a lower budget could be envisaged. Options were discussed during

9 Hereinafter referred to as "YVIE".

10 Options available were management by the European Commission, management by national authorities only,

shared management between the European Commission and national authorities, and EU Executive Agency.

both meetings, with stakeholders showing a preference for the Strategic and Integrated Programming.

A specific consultation on the territorial impacts by the CoR targeting local and regional authorities received a total of 40 responses, mostly from Spain (11) and Italy (10). The main conclusions were similar to other consultations with specific support to Integrated Projects, appreciating their high added value and considering them quite feasible.

Additional discussions with the public led to the following recommendations: 12

On Nature and Biodiversity – enlarged territorial scope, more programmatic

approach to funding Natura 2000, more structured cooperation with other EU funds.

On the “Environmental Policy and Governance" strand - increase budget, better

exploitation of project results, clearer identity for LIFE Environment, better coordination with other funds, 3 year prioritisation, removal of national allocations.

In February 2011, Member States were informed via the European Climate Policy Group of the results of the consultations which showed general support for continuing a specific environment instrument, but to revise the instrument, including an increased focus on climate action.

1.1. Purpose of stakeholder consultation

The stakeholder consultations aimed to contribute to the process of defining problems, objectives and subsequent options.

As can be seen from the below, considerable effort went into defining the problems and need for a future financial instrument for the environment as the basis for determining the rationale and agreed objectives. The results of this effort, in the form of the developed options, were only then presented at the stakeholder workshop, where the options were discussed and developed further.

1.2. Interviews with the Commission

The interviews with Commission officials focused on qualitative discussions around:

• The type and scale of the environmental policy problems in the EU (including available

evidence) and potential for EU added value

• The relative importance of particular problems and the drivers behind the problems

• What responses might best address the problems; what could/should be the priorities,

objectives and activities for an Instrument for the environment.

1.3. GHK Survey of stakeholders

Surveys of NGOs, NCPs and social partners aimed to obtain quantitative information on stakeholder perspectives regarding the environmental policy problems facing the EU and the potential role for a financial instrument dedicated to the environment.

A total of 34 surveys were received in response: 16 from NGOs 13 , 6 from social partners 14 and 12 from NCPs. 15 It is not possible to determine how many recipients the survey was sent

to, as several were passed onto networks who distributed the survey to members.

1.4. GHK Survey of project beneficiaries

This survey primarily served to gather data for the assessment of the baseline impacts, against which the options would then be assessed. Project beneficiaries were also asked questions about their opinion on the nature and scale of the problems that a European environmental instrument should seek to address.

All project beneficiaries from the 2007, 2008, 2009 calls for proposals were surveyed (totally 549 projects). The responses received totalled 147 (a 30% response rate).

1.5. EC Online Survey

In parallel to the GHK surveys described above, a separate survey was also conducted by the Commission’s LIFE Unit in “Your Voice in Europe”. The purpose of this survey was to gather views on the objectives, activities and support modalities of the instrument.

The consultation was open to all organisations registered inside or outside the EU as well as to individual citizens. Stakeholders consulted as part of this survey covered a broad spectrum of sectors and included those who were not recipients of any LIFE funding as well as direct beneficiaries. Of these responses 53% were from private individuals, 35% from organisations and the remaining 13% from Competent Authorities in Member States. Roughly 10% of the responses were campaigns answers from Eurosceptics. Most responses originated from Italy (13%), Germany (13%), France (9%), Belgium (9%) and Spain (8%). Answers were also received from outside the EU.

The survey included questions on the following areas:

• the need and the rationale for the LIFE instrument;

• the most effective design and management of the LIFE instrument;

• the most appropriate delivery mechanisms;

• relevant priorities for the LIFE instrument;

• the most effective ways to improve integration and synergy;

• the most effective ways to improve the visibility of LIFE.

1.6. EC Workshop led by GHK

Once the options had been developed on the basis of the stakeholder consultation, a Workshop was held on 28 January 2011 where stakeholders were consulted on their views of

13 Including AIFM, Bankwatch, EUCC, Euro Group for Animals, Europarc, FACE, FERN, FOE Europe, National Trust UK,

Pan-Europe, WWF EPO, IFOAM, ECO standard, CCB and WECF.

14 Including BC Europe, GNM (Romania), IGOAT (Portugal), UEAPME (European Association of Craft, Small and

Medium-sized Enterprises), SRDCP (Sustainable Development Research Centre) and Environment Agency (UK).

15 These included responses from the National Contact Points of Italy, Germany, Portugal, Sweden, Belgium, Bulgaria,

Czech Republic, Spain, Slovenia, Lithuania, Malta and Romania.

the revised problem definition, the rationale for an EU financial instrument, and the proposed options. The aim was to present and gather the views of stakeholders on the developed options for a future financial instrument for the environment and climate action. The options were presented to stakeholders in advance of the workshop in a ‘LIFE Options Consultation Paper’.

The workshop was attended by roughly 100 stakeholders, comprised of NCPs and Member State representatives, NGOs and social partners, representatives from the private and public sectors, and European Commission officials. The breakdown of the stakeholder types of participants is shown in 0 below.

Figure 1.1 Half of the workshop participants were national contact points, with the other half being composed of EC officials, NGOs and social partners

8

21 EC officials

NGOs

National Contact Points

11 Social partners

40

Source: GHK analysis, EC Workshop

1.7. The CoR survey

This was an EC-led survey which ran after the GHK stakeholder workshop. Its aim was to gather the opinions of local and regional authorities (LRAs) on the important environmental problems, the weaknesses and limitations in implementing EU environmental policy, and the potential role for a future EU financial instrument for the environment.

A total of 40 survey responses were submitted from 12 EU MS, mostly from Spain (11) and Italy (10).

2. Problem definition

The initial stage of research sought to define the problems to be addressed by a specific instrument for the environment. To initiate the stakeholder consultation, a set of five environmental problems that could potentially form the basis for a specific instrument for the environment was devised. This was subject to stakeholder consultation and discussion with Commission services.

In light of these consultations the description of the five problems was revised and sought to clarify more particularly the distinction between:

• physical environmental problems; and

• institutional drivers that lead to policy gaps and weaknesses that result in the continuation

of the physical problems.

2.1 Physical environmental problems and challenges in the EU Member States

Workshop participants were asked to rank the three most important environmental problems facing the EU. The weighted totals are shown in the graph below (where a problem ranked number 1 was given a weight of 10, number 2 was given a weight of 5, and a 3 was given a weight of 2).

 Figure 2.1 The weighted totals of the rankings given by stakeholders to the environmental problems facing the EU indicate that stakeholders believe the most important problems are nature and biodiversity, climate change adaptation and resource use

500

450

400

350

300

250

200

150

100

50

0 Air pollution Chemicals Climate Climate Freshwater Land use Nature and Resource Urban change change management Biodiversity use and environment

adaptation mitigation waste

Source: GHK analysis, EC Workshop

The results indicate that stakeholders believe the greatest environmental challenges facing the EU are that of nature and biodiversity, climate change adaptation and resources use and waste. Similar findings came out of the CoR survey, where climate change adaptation was identified as being highly significant by 69% of respondents, resource use and waste by 67% and nature and biodiversity by 42%. The two surveys differ however, in that nature and biodiversity was seen as more important than climate change adaptation and resource use by workshop participants than responses from the CoR.

Notably, most CoR respondents (54% of responses) identified a weak cause-and-effect relationship between their local environmental problems and those occurring in other countries; two thirds of the remaining respondents believe that these problems are to some extent related (31% of responses), while only one third of them (15% of responses) consider that such a link exists to a great extent.

2.2 Institutional drivers and underlying causes

The key institutional drivers identified during the options development are:

• Variable and inadequate levels of environmental protection through weaknesses in policy

development;

• Variable and inadequate levels of environmental protection through weaknesses in policy

implementation;

• Inadequate coordination, and inadequate integration of the environment into policy and

practice (including non EU countries);

• Inadequate sharing of information and awareness of EU environmental problems;

• Inadequate system of support for eco-innovation.

In the following, stakeholder views are presented on each of these barriers, considering:

• Their importance; and

• Their underlying causes and barriers.

The extent to which a financial instrument dedicated to the environment should be used to address these institutional problems is discussed in Section 0.

2.2.1 Unregulated environmental problems: Policy Development

2.2.1.1 Extent and importance of the problem

Although most stakeholders (62%) from the GHK survey (including non-project stakeholders and project-beneficiaries) agreed that there is a need for continued policy development, the scope of the current acquis was not identified as being one of the most important problems that needs addressing. In fact, the scope of the acquis was the problem that was considered second least important (with addressing international problems as the least important). Most GHK survey stakeholders (54%) also believed the problem is most likely to stay the same in terms of severity, with only 25% believing the problem will increase in severity.

This relative lack of importance attributed to the scope of the acquis across all stakeholder consultations was largely a reflection of the fact that stakeholders could only identify a few areas which the current acquis does not address.

Policy gaps were also identified by GHK survey respondents. For instance, in terms of broad policy areas, two-thirds of GHK survey respondents identified natural resources and waste policy as having the biggest need for policy development. 45% of respondents also believed that there was a gap in the development of policy in terms of climate change. There was a division of opinion in relation to biodiversity with half believing there is only a small, or no gap at all, whilst the other half believed there is either a very big or big gap to fill. Environment and health policy was thought to be the most comprehensive.

 Figure 2.2 Policy development was only considered to be a significant problem by some stakeholders across the four environmental policy areas

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Nature / biodiversity 3 13 16

Climate change 3 14 13

Environment + health 4 10 13 3

Natural resources + waste 5 16 9 1

1 - very big gap 2 - big gap 3 - small gap 4 - no gap

Source: GHK analysis, GHK Survey

2.2.1.2 Underlying causes and barriers to the problem

Results from the EC workshop further supported these findings. However, attendees noted that a potential barrier to improving the scope of the acquis is the perceived lack of appetite for new legislation and legal standards. It is therefore, likely to become more difficult to regulate future environmental challenges, especially in the current economic and political climate. The perceived decline in support for the EU and its activities is also a potential issue.

2.2.2 Inadequate Policy Implementation

2.2.2.1 Extent and importance of the problem

The implementation of the acquis was consistently considered to be the most important issue to address across all stakeholders consultations. More than 80% of the GHK stakeholder survey agreed that the inadequate implementation of policies is causing major environmental problems to persist, and 55% of stakeholders identified inadequate implementation as the most important environmental policy problem in the EU.

On the other hand, respondents to the CoR questionnaire felt that weaknesses in policy development and implementation was not the most important problem to address, however it was still rated as being very significant. Respondents most often rated the weaknesses in policy development and implementation as second most important institutional barrier to addressing environmental problems.

Policy implementation was identified by GHK survey respondents as being a significant concern across all four environmental policy areas; more than 70% of respondents rating the gap in policy implementation as either very big, or big across all four policy areas. The gap was thought to be especially big in terms of nature and biodiversity policy; almost half believed there was a very big gap in policy implementation with almost all the remainder believing there was a big gap (see Figure below).

Figure 2.3 Stakeholders believed there were significant gaps in policy implementation across all four environmental policy areas

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Nature / biodiversity 15 13 4

Climate change 11 14 3 2

Environment + health 7 14 7 1

Natural resources + waste 6 16 8

1 - very big gap 2 - big gap 3 - small gap 4 - no gap

Source: GHK analysis, GHK Survey

In the case of nature and biodiversity, the management of the Natura 2000 network remains the biggest challenge as emphasised across all stakeholder groups. The issue of enforcement was also raised in the survey responses as a key barrier to the proper implementation of the acquis. The use of derogations and exemptions by Member States was also noted as being a potential contributing factor to the inadequate implementation .

2.2.2.2 Underlying causes and barriers to the problem

When asked to consider the causes of continuing environmental problems in the EU, GHK survey respondents indicated that more than 40% of the cause is due to weaknesses in the current EU environmental policy and difficulties with its implementation. The remaining 60% was thought to be due to the broad range of demographic, economic and social pressures on the environment which indirectly implies weaknesses in the current policy.

The GHK survey highlighted that the inadequate implementation of the acquis was largely seen as a problem of insufficient resources and differing competencies and understandings at Member State level. Similarly, results from the CoR survey showed that 40% of respondents felt that regional level improvements in the implementation of EU environmental policy/legislation are most effective in addressing the identified environmental problems. A further 24% believed that national responses also play a significant role.

However, a few GHK survey respondents also noted that the implementation of the acquis was being significantly hampered at the policy level by the lack of integration of environmental concerns in the implementation other EU policies

CoR respondents were asked to consider the most significant barriers to improving the implementation of the acquis. The two most frequently cited in response were the ‘lack of financial resources to adequately implement and enforce policy’ and ‘conflicting priorities.

The ‘least significant’ issue in terms of implementing EU environmental policy/legislation for CoR respondents was the ‘lack of knowledge’: 46% of the respondents consider this issue as ‘least significant’ and 13% as ‘second least significant’. Other issues mentioned by respondents include the lack of technical and human resources, the lack of a relevant policy framework at the national and regional levels, as well as the lack of knowledge and awareness by the general public.

GHK survey respondents were split almost equally across those who thought the problem would improve or get worse to 2020, whilst most (more than 40%), believed the problem would stay the same. Moreover, the current economic climate is likely to worsen the problem as the environment drops down on the agenda, in favour of other priorities.

2.2.3 Insufficient synergies and inadequate integration of the environment into policy

There is a distinction between integration, and creating synergies (mainstreaming). Integration of environmental concerns into sectoral policies is seen as the responsibility of individual policy units. Creating synergies on the other hand, has less to do with policies than with improving complementarities between actual funding instruments. Stakeholders tended to focus their feedback and discussion on the former issue (i.e. integration of environmental concerns into sectoral policies), rather than on improving synergies between funding instruments as such (i.e. between, for instance, LIFE and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD). The latter point was, however, reflected in proposals (especially for Commission service interviews), for developing options for the future of LIFE, whereby LIFE could act as a test bed for pilot projects, which would then be mainstreamed through other funds.

It is important to note that the issue of integration of environmental concerns into sectoral policies can be broken down into two key components:

• integration in principle: the integration of the environment concerns into sectoral

objectives; and,

• integration in practice: the lack of implementation of integration objectives (i.e. the

lack of implementation of more sustainable concerns into sectoral policies).

2.2.3.1 Extent and importance of the problem

Consultation of Commission services suggest that whilst some progress has been made in improving environmental integration within sectoral objectives (and to a lesser extent in practice), it remains a key issue across the policy areas and there is still significant room for improvement.

In fact, respondents to the CoR questionnaire most often rated the weaknesses in the integration of environmental policy considerations into other policy areas as the most important institutional barrier to addressing environmental problems (selected as most important weakness by 41% of the respondents and as second most important by 16% of the respondents). Moreover, weaknesses in the use of various EU funding instruments to support the environment was also felt to be a significant problem, being selected as most important weakness by 15.5% of the respondents and as second most important by 22% of them.

The general consensus across GHK survey stakeholders, EC workshop attendees and interviews with Commission officials was that the problem of integration is one of its application, not the principle. Most stakeholders did think that the main problem lay in the implementation of the policies, rather than the definition of polices; instruments such as the Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) are ‘greened’ in principle, but this does not always translate into their application.

Figure 2.4. The clear majority of workshop participants did not think that the integration of environmental concerns into sectoral policies has been successful

10 3

Good

Bad/Insufficient

Don’t Know

63

Source: GHK analysis, EC Workshop

Overall, the impact of other EU policies and spending instruments was seen as the second most important environmental policy problem by GHK survey respondents (after the implementation of the acquis), especially in the area of nature and biodiversity policy and natural resources and waste. Some EC workshop participants for instance, noted that the lack of coherence in funding for biodiversity across major European policy instruments (as well as weak political prioritisation in Member States), are the key factors in the low uptake

of the wide range of funding opportunities for biodiversity. 16 Indeed, integration was seen as

a problem by most workshop participants, with 83% feeling that integration to date has been poor.

The CAP was mentioned most often as the funding instrument in which integration in practice was most difficult. Participants to the workshop perceived the CAP as ‘unsuccessful’ in integrating nature and biodiversity objectives into the instrument, and as counteracting other environmental policies. Areas outside Natura 2000 were felt to be particularly neglected, with CAP funding being viewed as ‘patchy’ on the ground, with low uptake by some farmers.

However, in its mid-term review of the 6 th Environment Action Programme (6EAP)

(COM(2007) 225 i) the Commission expressed a different view from above, through recognising that, "in the agricultural sector, there have been fundamental reforms over the last 15 years that have moved towards seeing farmers as stewards of nature". Specifically in the case of nature and biodiversity, integration was seen as a particularly major issue by stakeholders, especially given that currently only 20% of financing needs for the Natura 2000 network are being met. This ‘gap’ in financing needs highlights the importance of other instruments, namely rural development and regional funding, and the role they can play in contributing towards filling the gap. Currently, although instruments such as the CAP and the European Regional Development Fund (ERDF) are ‘proofed’ and ‘greened’ (e.g. explicitly mention Natura 2000) and opportunities to finance activities relating to the network exist, uptake remains poor in practice. This lack of application ‘on the ground’ is most likely associated with poor administrative and absorption capacity in the Member States, and the fact that for example in agriculture, less strategic planning is undertaken for nature and biodiversity.

16 Changing Perspectives: How the EU budget can shape a sustainable future (2010). Available from:

http://www.eeb.org/EEB/?LinkServID=7819455B-C145-9353-9D77F0192D2A9BD2&showMeta=0.

2.2.3.2 Underlying causes and barriers

Given the general viewpoint that integration is an issue of application, it is perhaps unsurprising that many stakeholders in the GHK survey, in the workshop and in the interviews with EC officials, noted that the problem of integration manifested itself at a national, Member State level (once the policies had been developed and environmental concerns integrated); there is a disconnect between what is happening at the EU policy level and what is happening in practice at the local level. This is possibly due to the degree of flexibility given to Member States to utilise the funding from the key instruments and/or because the instruments are regionally managed.

Although most GHK survey stakeholders (46%) believed the problem would largely stay the same until 2020, almost 40% thought the environmental problems caused by the impact of other EU policies was likely to increase.

2.2.4. Lack of awareness and information sharing

2.2.4.1 Extent and importance of the problem

The need to improve awareness levels and to increase knowledge sharing was most often rated as having middling importance by GHK survey respondents. Similarly, CoR respondents gave a lower level of importance to the inadequate levels of awareness of environmental problems by policy-makers, with 22% ranking this weakness as second most important and an equal percentage as third most important. However, Commission interviewees believed that awareness of the public and of politicians is a key issue which needs to be improved, especially given the links between awareness and policy implementation.

A lack of awareness and knowledge sharing was rated by GHK survey respondents as second most important in the policy area of environment and health. However Commission interviewees considered that the problem was relevant to virtually all policy areas. Interviews with Commission services suggested that knowledge sharing was also seen as important in the case of waste policy and resource use, with a lack of knowledge transfer between national and local levels, whilst in the case of the Natura 2000 network, the lack of awareness of the benefits of the network is seen as a major barrier to progress.

2.2.4.2 Underlying causes and barriers

EC workshop participants also noted that raising awareness should not be seen as a standalone activity, but rather as an activity that is associated with all other activities. Several workshop attendees noted that a lack of awareness impedes the implementation of policy. Some also thought that an adequate implementation of policy would also lead to greater awareness. Awareness is therefore considered a critical element to ensuring the adequate implementation of policy. As such, many stakeholders indicated that a lack of awareness is an underlying cause of other problems.

Nonetheless, a few GHK survey stakeholders suggested that in the case of politicians (compared to the public) the issue is one of increasing political will, and less a case of increasing knowledge.

2.2.5 Inadequate support for eco-innovation

2.2.5.1 Extent and importance of the problem

Regarding general implementation of the eco-innovation issue, all stakeholders recognised that new policy and technological responses are required to address continuing and future environmental problems, above all of the other drivers. Some workshop participants however, suggested that the lack of support for eco-innovation should not be considered as a driver (especially when interpreted strictly as supporting innovative eco-technologies).

Respondents to the CoR survey rated the inadequate support for eco-innovation as one of the least important issues to address. Views in the case of the GHK survey were very much divided about how important the need for eco-innovation is; roughly a third each thought it was most important, of middling importance, and of low importance. Almost the same was found when GHK survey respondents were asked how the problem would change in severity by 2020, with roughly a third each saying it would decrease, stay the same, or increase.

Eco-innovation was rated by survey respondents as by far the most important issue to address in the policy area of climate change.

2.2.5.2 Underlying causes and barriers

The underlying causes and barriers were not commented on by stakeholders.

3 The rationale for, and EU added value of, a specific instrument for the environment and climate action

3.1 Justifications for an instrument for the environment

Several reasons were felt to be important justifications for having a dedicated instrument for the environment. The two most important reasons according to workshop participants are the transboundary and public asset nature of environmental assets (see 0)

Figure 3.1 Weighted ratings indicate that the most important justifications for an instrument for the environment rated by workshop participants is the transboundary and public goods nature of environmental assets

300

250

200

150

100

50

0

Burden sharing Transboundary Environmental Prevent Remedy Improving Sharing of good Other (Various)

assets are Member States implementation coordination practice and

public goods gaining failures in across Member innovative ideas

competitive Member States States

advantage

Source: GHK analysis, EC Workshop

However, viewpoints between different stakeholder groups did differ somewhat. For instance, social partners believed the most important reason for a dedicated instrument for the environment was for the sharing of good practice and innovative ideas, while for government officials, the most important reason was to remedy implementation failures in Member States. For NGOs and NCPs, both felt that the most important justification was the public asset nature of environmental assets, although NGOs also felt that implementation failures in Member States was almost equally as important.

In the case of CoR respondents, who were asked a similar question, the rationale for EU level action that were considered highly valid by stakeholders (50% of respondents) was that ‘EU action is required to remedy failures in Member States in the transposition, implementation and enforcement of EU environmental policy’ was considered highly valid by 50% of the respondents. ‘Improved coordination of policy efforts across Member States (MS) in (central/regional level) in order to better integrate environmental policies in sectoral policies’, was placed in the top two validity levels by 85% of the respondents. A similar indication was given by 77.5% of the respondents about ‘burden sharing at EU level to increase the effectiveness of MS policy in meeting EU objectives’. Moreover, 40% of the respondents considered highly valid the following arguments: ‘Environmental problems are often transboundary across MS borders and require EU level responses’ and ‘environmental assets are public goods and require EU action to ensure adequate provision’.

3.2 EU added value of the existing instrument for the environment

Stakeholders believe the LIFE instrument is a valuable programme and should definitely continue into the future. Results from the YVIE survey were also clear on this point – almost 80% of respondents believed to a great extent that there is a need for a specific instrument for the environment. Moreover, 98% of workshop participants also felt that a specific instrument for the environment was necessary in order to meet environmental challenges. However, whilst virtually all participants felt that there is a clear need, some noted that it will not be sufficient to address environmental problems unless the integration of environmental considerations into other funding instruments is improved and the resources available to it are significantly increased.

The overwhelming consensus across all stakeholders consulted is that the most important focus for LIFE should be the implementation of the acquis. Its role in implementing policies for nature and biodiversity (e.g. the Natura 2000 network) was seen as being particularly important, given the absence of any other financial instrument specifically focused on nature protection. The promotion of awareness and knowledge sharing was seen as a particularly important activity. GHK survey respondents stated that other relevant areas of activity for LIFE+ were the funding of innovative means of addressing future challenges as well as addressing the impact that other EU policies and spending instruments can have on the environment.

Figure 3.2 The existing LIFE instrument was thought to be most effective (first figure) and most relevant (second figure) in the case of the acquis’ implementation, with its role in awareness raising and knowledge sharing also being especially significant

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Implementation of the acquis 25 5

Scope of the acquis 9 9 11

Future challenges & innovation 9 17 2

Impact of other EU policies & spending instruments 7 17 5

Awareness & knowledge sharing 20 10

1 - highly relevant 2- somewhat relevant 3 - not relevant

Source: GHK analysis, GHK Survey

Survey respondents were also asked to allocate resources across the different policy problems, and consequently spread the resources across all the policy problems, although most of the resources (38%) were thought to be best allocated to the implementation of the environmental acquis. This provides further indication that the focus of a future instrument for the environment should be on improving the implementation of the acquis.

There was a clear preference for the instrument to focus a significant portion of its resources on the implementation of the acquis (see figure below). GKH survey respondents thought that after the implementation of the acquis, almost equal portions of resources should be spent on awareness raising and knowledge sharing, and addressing the impact that other EU policies and spending instruments can have on the environment. Respondents thought that the least amount of resources should be spent on addressing the impacts of international pressures on the EU (see Figure below). Thus, despite the current resource limitations, none of the stakeholders believed the instrument should be restricted to addressing just one type of policy problem or activity.

Figure 3.3. GHK survey stakeholders believed, on average, that 38% of the resources of LIFE should be spent on addressing the inadequacies of the acquis’ implementation

Implementation of the acquis 7%

Scope of the acquis 19%

38% Future challenges & innovation

Impact of other EU policies &

14% spending instruments

Awareness & knowledge sharing

12% 10% International pressures

Source: GHK analysis, GHK Survey

3.3 Rationale for an instrument for the environment to intervene in the five main problems identified

3.3.1 Policy development

Although the need for further policy development was not thought to be as great relative to other environmental policy issues, almost 70% of GHK survey stakeholders believed there was substantial added value from EU level action. The transboundary nature of environmental problems was by far the most commonly cited rationale by GHK survey respondents for EU intervention in policy development.

Whether a dedicated financial instrument for the environment is the best means to address this problem however is not so clear. For instance, participants in the EC workshop expressed reservations as to whether an instrument for the environment should address weaknesses in the development of EU policy.

3.3.2 Policy implementation

Although the implementation of the acquis was largely seen as a problem at the Member State level, virtually all GHK survey stakeholders believed there was substantial added value from EU level action to improve the implementation of environmental legislation, with all respondents believing there was a need for financial intervention to address the problem. The most common rationales given for doing so was the transboundary nature of environmental problems and the regulatory failures in Member States.

90% of GHK survey respondents indicated that there was substantial EU added value for EU level action to improve policy implementation, with 97% believing that there is a rational for EU financial intervention. Enhancing the capacity of Member States to implement policy was ranked as the most important role for a specific instrument for the environment.

More than 80% of respondents to the “Your Voice in Europe” survey also noted that EU financial assistance for the implementation of the environmental acquis is relevant or very relevant as a justification for a specific instrument for the environment. 70% also believed that supporting and improving implementation was either very important or important for a future financial instrument for the environment.

3.3.3 Integration of environmental concerns into sectoral policies

Improving the integration of environmental concerns into other policies is considered imperative by all groups of stakeholders because of:

• the cross-cutting nature of the environment and biodiversity;

• the negative impacts on the environment and biodiversity of other policies; and

• the fact that direct funding for the environment is severely constrained, and so financing

for the environmental acquis is highly dependent on other policies and funding instruments.

Most (almost 75%) of GHK survey respondents thought the added value of EU level action to improve the impact of other EU policies on the environment was substantial. The most popular rationales given for doing so was the fact that environmental assets are public goods, requiring EU action to ensure their adequate provision, and the need to mitigate the possible adverse impacts on competitiveness. 75% of stakeholders thought the problem merited financial expenditure at the EU level.

With regard to synergies between different funding instruments, YVIE results showed that most respondents agreed (more than 80%) that a structured cooperation between the future EU financial instruments for the environment and other EU funding instruments should be established. This was by far the preferred option for enhancing synergies between LIFE and other EU programmes.

A further popular suggestion was to use the future instrument for the environment to develop a project pipe-line, funding exemplar initiatives to demonstrate feasibility and disseminating results as the basis of subsequent mainstream funding other EU instruments (65% of GHK stakeholder survey respondents agreed or strongly agreed that this would improve complementarity). A significant number of respondents to the YVIE also believed that this approach would be a good means to improving complementarities between different funding instruments (see figure below)

Figure 3.4 The most popular suggestion for improving complementarities between funding instruments was for structured cooperation to be established between the financial instruments

Each funding instrument should finance different

objectives and types of projects 165 364 180 114

Instrument for the environment to act as a

project pipeline, laying the groundwork for… 226 365 130 114

Structured cooperation between financial

instruments 432 301 58 80

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Strongly agree Agree Disagree Strongly disagree

Source: GHK analysis, YVIE Survey

3.3.4 Awareness raising and information sharing

Slightly more than half of the GHK survey respondents believed there was substantial added value for EU level action to improve awareness levels (with the other half believing there was at least some added value). The majority of respondents (almost 90%) also believed there was a rationale for EU level expenditure to do so, because of the need to share good practice and innovative ideas, and to support burden sharing. In the case of the YVIE survey, a considerable number of respondents felt that it was very important for a future instrument for the environment to contribute to awareness raising and information activities (being given a rating of 5 or 4 by 64% of respondents). However, some workshop participants felt that awareness had already been sufficiently mainstreamed, and that other instruments and other stakeholders are already addressing this issue.

Figure 3.5 Most YVIE respondents felt it was important for a future instrument for the environment to contribute towards awareness raising and information sharing was an important

85 5 - very important

50 4 65 326 3

2

128 1

0 - not at all important

258

Source: GHK analysis, YVIE Survey

3.3.5 Support for eco-innovation

Almost 60% of survey respondents believed there is substantial EU added value from supporting eco-innovation (with 77% agreeing that this should include financial support), with the key justification being the need for knowledge sharing.

In the case of the YVIE survey, a considerable number of respondents felt that it was very important for a future instrument for the environment to contribute to awareness raising and information activities (being given a rating of 5 or 4 by 68% of respondents).

However, although thought to be an important issue in addressing environmental problems in general, only a third of GHK survey respondents felt that a specific instrument for the environment should address the needs of eco-innovation given the presence of other instruments in this field, particularly that of the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (the CIP) and the Seventh Framework Programme. More than 60% of survey respondents felt that addressing eco-innovation is only somewhat relevant for an instrument dedicated to the environment.

Figure 3.6 Most YVIE respondents felt it was important for a future instrument for the environment to boost innovative actions for the environment

92 5 - very important 39 4

37

352 3

2 122

1

0 - not at all important

270

Source: GHK analysis, YVIE Survey

4 Objectives, Activities and Resources of a future instrument for the environment

4.1 Objectives

The stakeholder workshop considered suggested objectives. These were largely accepted. As with the GHK survey, the most important objective for a specific instrument for the environment was felt to be the implementation of the acquis (see 0).

However, there was some concern that a specific objective relating to EU international commitments might lead to an instrument that gave insufficient weight to issues of more immediate concern and which would provide clearer EU added value.

Figure 4.1 Workshop participants indicated that the most important objective for an instrument for the environment is to improve the implementation of the environmental acquis (weighted scores)

Source: GHK analysis, EC Workshop

4.2 Activities

Workshop participants were asked to rate potential activities that a future instrument for the environment could undertake. By far the most important activities rated by participants were the management of the Natura 2000 network, and the demonstration of good practice through pilot projects.

The demonstration and sharing of best practice was rated the most important objective for an instrument for the environment by respondents to the YVIE survey, although only marginally.

Some stakeholders also suggested that LIFE should fund bottom-up projects, as well as projects programmed at national level within a national framework to develop innovative approaches that provide new solutions to the key problems.

Figure 4.2 Weighted ratings by workshop participants indicate that the management of the Natura 2000 network and the demonstration of good practice are the key activities perceived by stakeholders for an instrument for the environment

600

500

400

300

200

100

0 Raise Pilot and Increase in the Promote Research and Strengthen the Management of

awareness demonstrate exchange of innovation in investigate role of the Natura 2000 good practice knowledge and techniques improvements environmental Network

experience in NGOs environmental

policy

Source: GHK analysis, EC Workshop

Figure 4.3 Demonstration and sharing of best practice was most often given the highest ratings when YVIE respondents were asked what role a future instrument for the environment should play

Source: GHK analysis, YVIE Survey

CoR respondents were also asked to consider what activities would be most effective in improving environmental policy and its implementation. In contrast to the results found in the GHK and YVIE survey, the most frequently selected activities was the “raising awareness of the environmental problems and the need for solutions amongst different actors” (selected as most effective by 28% of the respondents and as second most effective by 34.5% of the respondents) and “promoting innovation in techniques (including monitoring) that enable improved environmental management especially by competent authorities” (selected as ‘most effective’ by 25% of the respondents and second most effective by 16% of the respondents).

The demonstration of good practice (selected as ‘most effective’ by 22% of the respondents and as second most effective by 19% of the respondents) and investment in the management of the Natura 2000 network (selected as most effective by 19% of the respondents and as third most effective by an equal percentage of respondents), whilst also popular choices, were considered slightly less important than those activities mentioned above.

The least effective of the activities were considered to be ‘to research and investigate improvements in environmental policy and expanding the knowledge base for policy’, ‘to strengthen the role of environmental NGOs’ and ‘to accelerate learning through an increase in the exchange of knowledge and experience between competent authorities responsible for environmental policy implementation’.

Figure 4.4 CoR respondents most often selected the need to raise awareness of environmental problems and solutions, and the promotion of innovation as the key activities to improve the implementation of environmental policy

Source: CoR Report: ‘Assessment of Territorial Impacts of the EU LIFE+ Instrument’ – results from the

Committee of the Regions survey

YVIE respondents were also asked what activities they thought would most act to increase the visibility of the results of LIFE+ funded projects and encourage their replication at a larger scale. Most respondents thought this was best done through encouraging projects to communicate more on their results. However, more thematic events, and the creation of networks and clusters of projects within the same environmental field and/or which have similar objectives was also thought to be useful.

Figure 4.5 YVIE respondents believed that the communication of project results was most often selected as the activity which would increase the visibility and replicability of LIFE+ project results

62 Encouraging projects to communicate more on their 134 results

159 548 Organising more thematic events

Creating networks / clusters of similar projects

245 Increasing the importance of transnational projects

Favouring projects with more beneficiaries

Other 484

482 Dont know

Source: GHK analysis, YVIE Survey

4.3 Resources

Although stakeholders identified opportunities for improvement, they also noted that a key factor limiting the effectiveness of LIFE+ has been its limited resources.

Results from the YVIE survey indicate that the clear majority of respondents (68%) thought that a future instrument for the environment should have an annual budget that is higher than the current annual budget of LIFE+. Only the least number of respondents (15%) believed the budget should be decreased.

Figure 4.6 The majority of respondents to the YVIE survey believed that the budget for a future instrument for the environment should be increased

Source: GHK analysis, YVIE Survey

The result was even more unequivocal in the case of the GHK survey, where 90% of survey respondents believed that LIFE+ was under-resourced and should have access to considerably more funding. Whilst many did not think there would, realistically, be a very significant increase, most nonetheless considered that significantly more resources were required. Similarly with EC workshop participants, the sentiment was one of, “the more the better”, as long as there was a commensurate increase in capacity to manage the funds.

Most survey respondents, and 42% of EC workshop participants, believed that resources of €500 million to €1 billion a year would be more appropriate (see figure below) than the current €0.3 billion. The majority of the remaining workshop participants (33%) voted for an increase in resources to €1 – 5 billion a year.

Figure 4.7 The preference of stakeholders consulted by GHK, (an almost identical proportion of those consulted in the survey and in the workshop), was to increase the resources available to LIFE+ to levels of between €500 million and €1 billion a year (about 40%), while the second most popular option was to increase resources to €1 million and €5 billion a year (about 30%)

Source: GHK analysis, GHK Survey and EC Workshop

5 Thematic and territorial focus

5.1 Thematic focus

None of the GHK survey stakeholders believed the instrument should be restricted to addressing just one type of policy problem or activity. The clear majority of EC workshop participants (75%) were also clear that a thematic focus was not required, with a need to address the whole of the acquis. Some noted that excluding certain themes at different times might compromise the continuity in the support provided to particular themes and hence quality of work delivered. There was a resounding view that all the themes are interlinked and there is a lot of interaction between them, making it difficult to separate out ‘more important’ themes.

Similarly, respondents to the CoR survey indicated that more than three quarters of the respondents (76%) do not agree with narrowing the focus of the future instrument to a specific area/objective (Chart 20). Those who are in favour of a more focused LIFE instrument, specify climate change (42% of responses), the management of the Natura 2000 Network (33% of responses) and the Habitats and Birds directives (17% of responses) as the most pertinent objectives/areas.

The results from the YVIE survey, however, show that roughly 60% of respondents felt that the Commission should set a number of environmental thematic issues to be addressed in priority. It should be noted that the YVIE survey was asking respondents whether certain environmental fields should be prioritised; this does not necessarily mean that other environmental fields would be completely excluded. Therefore the YVIE results and the GHK survey results are not necessarily contradictory, given that the GHK survey was asking respondents to consider whether a future instrument should be completely limited to certain environmental policy areas. This latter option was clearly much less desirable.

Indeed, whilst many stakeholders noted that a focus on nature and biodiversity in a future instrument would be useful (especially given that no other instruments directly supports nature protection and biodiversity as an explicit objective), other activities which are not explicitly related to nature protection (e.g. water resources) should not be excluded from being potentially funded (see 0).

A similar result was found in the YVIE survey, where nature and biodiversity was thought to be the most relevant environmental policy area for an instrument for the environment, but other environmental fields (e.g. water, climate change, marine, etc.) were also believed to be particularly relevant.

Overall then, it seems that stakeholders are not necessarily adverse to having a focused instrument, but they are adverse to having an instrument which focuses only on one type of activity or policy area to the exclusion of all others (such as nature protection). Stakeholders felt that priorities, if set, should be non-exclusive, to avoid deterring good ideas and projects but ensuring the weight of the programme addresses the main objectives.

Figure 5.1 Weighted responses from workshop participants indicated that the clear majority felt that a focus on nature and biodiversity was most important, although other environmental policy areas remain relevant

Source: GHK analysis, EC Workshop

Figure 5.2 YVIE results indicate that the most relevant environmental policy area for an instrument for the environment is nature and biodiversity, although other environmental policy areas also remain important

Source: GHK analysis, YVIE Survey

5.2 Territorial focus

The territorial focus could better be considered in the design of the future instrument. Several Commission interviewees stated that it was regrettable that the Third Country component was removed from LIFE, as they felt these projects had been effective in the past. Stakeholders across all the consultations generally supported the potential for a specific instrument for the environment to fund activities outside the EU, as long as it provided EU benefits.

Almost 70% of respondents to the “Your Voice in Europe” survey agreed that a specific instrument should allow for the possibility of some activities to be carried out outside the EU. Of those who responded in the affirmative, most (almost 40%) thought that external action should only be carried out where there is a clear contribution to achieving an EU policy objective. Other justifications given for external action were in the case of countries which aim at becoming members of the EU in the future ('candidate countries' and 'potential candidates') and in the case of countries neighbouring the EU.

Similarly, workshop participants considered that the primary focus for activities outside the EU should be on issues with neighbouring countries, rather than international commitments. Funding activities outside the EU would help with awareness raising and knowledge sharing as there is often a significant need for joint action.

For transnational projects, the current minimum share of LIFE+ funds allocated (15%) is viewed as reasonable by the majority of stakeholders consulted. In fact, the current instrument spends 30% of the budget on transnational activities.

However, 39% of respondents to the CoR survey believe that the new LIFE instrument should address EU countries only. Nonetheless, 36% consider that it should ideally include ‘minor allowances for third countries involvement’. The few arguments raised by the respondents regarding this matter suggest that involvement of countries outside the EU should be allowed if required by the project, or more specifically, whenever there is a clear contribution towards achieving specific EU policy objectives and/or promoting solutions to shared problems.

Overall, these results are not entirely surprising, in light of the fact that most stakeholders believed that burden sharing and the transboundary nature of environmental problems is the second most important rationale for a specific instrument for the environment to exist (EC workshop participants), and the most important rationale by YVIE survey respondents. survey).

6 Delivery Mechanisms and Management Options

6.1. Delivery Mechanisms

In general, the existing suite of mechanisms used in the current LIFE+ instrument was seen by stakeholders as being adequate. Respondents to “Your Voice in Europe” noted that action grants were, by far, the most important activity, followed by public procurement of services. Procurement of services (e.g. studies, technical assistance) was only somewhat thought to be more relevant than the operational grants given to NGOs. There was considerable more uncertainty about the use of innovative instruments (e.g. provision of interest rate subsidies, subsidised loans, venture capital, micro-credit).

In the case of the CoR survey, the most effective mechanisms to be used in the future LIFE instrument are considered to be ‘action grants (transnational projects, integrated and technical assistance)’, followed by ‘operational grants’, (42% and 23% of responses, respectively). The other two mechanisms listed in the questionnaire (‘public procurement’ and innovative instruments) received less than one fifth of responses (19% and 16% respectively).

Figure 6.1 YVIE results indicate that respondents believe that the most relevant delivery mechanism for an instrument for the environment is nature action grants

Source: GHK analysis, YVIE Survey

6.2 Action grants

Despite the support given by stakeholders to the need for, and importance of, action grants (as indicated in figure 6.1), stakeholders did raise some issues with the current co-financing rate for action grants, with 65% of YVIE respondents noting that the current 50% rate is not appropriate. Some workshop participants, for instance, felt that the current co-financing rate is regressive, and discriminates against poorer Member States. It was suggested that differentiated co-financing rates, would be beneficial, with higher co-financing rates for those Member States who find it difficult to submit project applications or absorb funding. The number of quality projects being financed may also be lower, as some project beneficiaries are unable to secure sufficient match funding to be eligible for LIFE funding.

Overall, there was a general agreement among workshop participants that the EU should contribute a maximum of 75% of the total project budget to ensure that beneficiaries maintain ownership of their projects.

6.3 Operational grants

Although operational grants received less support in the YVIE survey than public procurement or action grants, workshop participants nonetheless noted that strengthening the role of environmental NGOs was a very important activity, given their importance in linking inputs from the general public to policy development, in raising awareness and sharing knowledge, as well as ensuring that the views of civil society are represented at a policy level.

When asked whether the current co-financing rate of 70% for NGO operating grants is appropriate, most stakeholders (52%) believed it was. However, several respondents also believed it was too high, although an almost similar amount was not sure (see figure below). When asked further whether this operational funding should be gradually decreased over consecutive years, there was an even split between respondents who thought it should, and respondents who thought it should not (38% each way).

A clearer response was given to the question of whether a future instrument for the environment should prioritise the funding of certain types of NGOs; in this case, 46% believed this approach should be adopted, whilst a third believed it should not.

The type of NGOs that were most often chosen as being prioritised, are the NGOs that work on the implementation of EU policy. Other preferred means of prioritisation were NGOs which are involved in shaping EU policy, and those which have large geographical coverage. Respondents were less likely to indicate that prioritisation should be given to those NGOs which work on specific topics and new NGO networks.

Figure 6.2 YVIE results indicate that most stakeholders believed the current co-financing rate for NGO operating grants (70%) to be appropriate

Too high

184 189 Appropriate

68 Too low

Dont know

470

Source: GHK analysis, YVIE Survey

6.4 Use of innovative instruments

The use of innovative instruments (e.g. loans) had the least support. For instance, many workshop participants believed that loans are not likely to be appropriate for nature and biodiversity projects, which are better served by grants. However, loans could be more feasible for EPG-type demonstration projects that are close to market (although the potential for overlaps with the CIP would need to be carefully managed).

6.5 Integrated Projects

Views were somewhat divided on the benefits of integrated projects (IPs). Some thought they have the potential to increase complementarity and policy interaction, especially respondents to the YVIE survey, where 55% thought that IPs should be encouraged. Fewer respondents felt that IPs are suited to the management of the Natura 2000 network (42%), and a significant number of respondents were not sure (41%). Slightly more respondents (50%) thought IPs were right, however, for other sectors. Again though, many were unclear about the nature and benefits of IPs (38%).

In the case of the CoR survey, 85% of the respondents liked the idea of IPs, as opposed to only 10% who disagreed with that concept; 5% of respondents did not express an opinion. Respondents have underlined the suitability of IPs when searching for local solutions to regional or national environmental problems. They also claim that IPs are appropriate to enhance coordination in environmental issues especially when involving international cooperation; can help promote coordination between sectoral policies and between different territorial areas; and allow the optimisation of resources. On the other hand, respondents have commented that the necessary staff capacity to support IPs is missing at the local level, as well as that integration in projects can be both a desirable aspect and a burden (as sometimes it is important to have the option to address only environmental issues in a project). Moreover, those who are against IPs, argue that in practice, such projects are too complex and fail to achieve high quality standards.

About three quarters of the respondents consider IPs quite feasible, while 21% finds those projects very feasible; only 5% believe that such projects are not feasible (Chart 15). As one of the respondents commented, IPs offer the advantage of a comprehensive solution to the problem at regional level, but at the same time require quality coordination of activities and increased financing. In addition, respondents raised concerns over the increased coordination requirements between the different agencies governing IPs, calling for consensus at a high governance level. The need to simplify financial reporting procedures was also mentioned, along with comments on the difficulties faced by public bodies lacking resources to cofinance IPs.

At the same time, respondents highlighted the potential of IPs to maximise synergies and value for money, as well as to create opportunities for the implementation of large-scale actions, bringing together both a large number of experts/technicians and adequate funds.

Many participants at the workshop believed IPs would be difficult to operationalise in practice. Some issues that were raised included the potential difficulties in fulfilling eligibility requirements, possible difficulties in managing projects and actually coordinating the project across the different funding instruments involved given the very different management and organisational cultures. The perceived clash between the programmatic approach in other instruments and the project approach in LIFE was a key reason for why stakeholders were sceptical of the potential for integrated projects to be successful in practice. It was noted that IPs are likely to be more feasible for nature and biodiversity projects as the future instrument would be able to ‘activate’ other funds and gather diverse sectoral policies.

However, CoR respondents suggested that IPs could most realistically and effectively be used to address a wide variety of environmental problems/challenges met within their region/municipality, notably: ‘freshwater management’ (21.5% of responses); ‘nature and biodiversity’ (18% of responses); ‘resource use and waste’ (14% of responses); as well as ‘urban environment’, ‘air pollution’ and ‘land use’ (each counting for 9% of responses). In addition, a total of 14% of the related responses concerned climate change issues (either adaptation or mitigation).

About half of the CoR respondents (47%) were not certain if their municipality/region would be interested in applying for an integrated project in the next programme period; as few respondents commented, such a decision remains subject to their capacity and availability of resources. 45% of the respondents anticipate such an action in the future, while only 8% is negative in that respect.

6.6 Management approaches

An interesting discussion was had between workshop participants regarding the most suitable management approach. The overall conclusion was the best management approach varies depending on the size of the budget. With the current budget however, the significant majority (81%) agreed that the current direct centralised management approach is best (see 0). Although there was significantly more variation in response to the YVIE survey, a clear majority (almost 70%) of respondents also wanted to see the current central management approach continue.

YVIE respondents who felt that a management system other than the current centralised approach was more appropriate, varied in what they believed was the best alternative. Slightly more than a third of those (34%) believed that shared management between the European Commission and national authorities was best. Slightly less than a third of those (29%) believed that the management of a future instrument for the environment should be entirely left to national authorities. The least popular approach for YVIE respondents was an European Executive Agency.

Figure 6.3 The clear majority of workshop participants and YVIE respondents felt that a centralised management system would continue to be the most appropriate management approach

YVIE results 614 27 62 53 38 107

GHK workshop 52 3 2

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

Centralised management

Executive Agency

Decentralised / Shared between EC and national authorities

Management by national authorities only

Other

Don’t know

Source: GHK analysis, YVIE Survey and EC Workshop

The direct centralised approach was seen as the preferred approach for a number of reasons:

• the Commission has gained a wealth of experience in managing the instrument and seems

to have delivered it competently to date;

• management by the Commission enables a good oversight of the programme, making the

creation of synergies with other instruments easier; and,

• it is the best approach for maintaining the linkage between what happens on the ground

and policy development, which participants feared would be lost through a European Executive Agency approach.

Although some workshop participants recognised the benefits (e.g. potential cost savings) of having an Executive Agency managing the future instrument, very few felt that these were significant enough given the effort and time that would be required to change the current system, especially when the current system is established and is working quite well.

Decentralising the management of a specific instrument for the environment was only seen as a feasible alternative if the budget was to significantly increase (and if the subsequent increase in resources would outstrip the capacity of the Unit to manage the increase).

7 The Options

7.1 Brief overview of the options

The options that have been developed were only discussed in depth with workshop participants, as the options were only developed after, and on the basis of, the initial stakeholder consultation (surveys).

The five options which had been identified for a future specific financial instrument for the environment for the period 2014-2020, partly reflecting the terms of reference, and partly the underlying problem and related intervention logic, are given in the Box below. These are the five options which were discussed and developed in the workshop:

Instrument option 1: Zero Option – no LIFE financial instrument (other than the continuation of the ‘common pot’ for policy development and review)

Instrument option 2: Baseline Option – continuation of the current LIFE+ Regulation and related delivery mechanisms (‘Common pot’, Action Grants, Operating Grants)

Instrument option 3: Strategic Programming Option – combining a stronger strategic planning framework with ‘bottom-up’ delivery that includes but also expands current delivery mechanisms

Instrument option 4: Restricted Activities Option – focusing on a smaller number of activities linked most closely with the development and implementation of the environmental acquis

Instrument option 5: Restricted Thematic (Biodiversity and Climate Action) Option – focusing on the two major global and EU environmental problems and the development and implementation of policy responses

It should also be noted that the options consider an instrument for the environment including climate change, recognising the creation of a separate Directorate-General (DG).

All options assume that other EU financial instruments continue to operate in the next programme period, as they operate within the current programme.

Table 7.1 below provides a brief comparison of the instrument options, highlighting key differences.

Table 7.1 Quick comparative overview of policy options (with key differences highlighted)

Features Zero Option Baseline Strategic Restricted Restricted Theme Programming Activity (Biodiversity + Climate)

Strategic planning None Limited Extensive Extensive Extensive

Catalytic value None Limited Extensive Extensive Extensive (in themes)

Thematic focus None None None None Biodiversity + Climate

Activities ‘Common Pot’ All All Restricted All

Delivery Public Only existing Expanded + As required to Expanded + Additional mechanisms procurement only mechanisms Additional reflect

activities

7.2 Feedback on the options

Overall participants reacted positively to the options proposed. It was clear however that the most popular option was Option 3 (Strategic Programming), with almost 60% of participants voting for that option over the others. This option was also consistently the most popular across all stakeholder types.

Figure 7.2. The most popular option amongst Workshop participants, across all stakeholder types, was Option 3 (Strategic Programming)

Source: GHK analysis, EC Workshop

Discussions made it clear that there were, in particular, two key aspects to be considered: the future budget and the fact that most participants saw the current LIFE instrument as being generally effective and fit for purpose (although there are some areas where improvements could be made). Consequently, the general sense was that participants did not want to stray too far from the current instrument and participants were keenly aware of budgetary constraints which might affect whether certain options are realistic or not.

Some felt that the current wide thematic scope was also a clear advantage, by providing flexibility, where projects can reflect needs as they arise. Moreover, some participants felt that setting a strict thematic focus could reduce the quality of projects, in which good ideas are not accepted as they do not “fit” the priorities. Other participants however felt that without a clear focus, an instrument for the environment risks being ‘aimless’. Several participants noted that having priorities could increase the EU added value of an instrument such as LIFE. Overall, the general consensus was that strategic priorities would be useful, so long as they are nonexclusive.

This strategic programming was the key element that stakeholders appreciated in Option 3. For instance, survey respondents were asked to rank 9 potential aspects for LIFE in order of importance; improving the strategic management of LIFE was rated the most important most often. Option 3 was also the most popular of the 5 options presented, with 58% of the participants voting for this option as their preferred choice. Nonetheless, several participants noted that the emphasis on integrated projects to improve complementarities between funding instruments may be an unrealistic expectation.

8 Summary of stakeholder consultations

The importance of the institutional barriers

• The implementation of the acquis was considered to be the most important issue to

address; stakeholders across the various consultations tended to identify inadequate implementation as the most important environmental policy problem in the EU. The majority of stakeholders agreed the inadequate

implementation of policies is causing major environmental problems to persist.

• Although most stakeholders agreed that there is a need for continued

environmental policy development, the scope of the EU acquis was not considered an important issue. The existence of, and need to fill, policy gaps in

certain areas was emphasised.

• Stakeholders recognised that the integration of environmental and climate

concerns into other EU policies was a problem. Consultation of Commission services indicated that some progress has been made in improving environmental

integration but it remains a key issue across policy areas.

• Stakeholders believe that awareness of the public and of politicians is a key

issue (although less important than that of policy implementation and integration), especially given the links between awareness and policy

implementation.

The rationale for intervention in the institutional barriers

• The value of, and need for, a future instrument for the environment and

climate action was recognised across all the various consultations that were conducted and considered; stakeholders believe the LIFE instrument is a valuable programme and should definitely continue into the future in order for environmental challenges to be met. There was also a clear view that there is also a

clear rationale for this role to be a financial one.

• The majority of respondents indicated that there was substantial EU added value

for EU level action to improve policy implementation, with stakeholders also believing that there is a rational for EU financial intervention. Enhancing the capacity of Member States to implement policy was most often ranks as the most

important role for a specific instrument for the environment.

Policy development was cited as important by the majority of stakeholders who

believed there was substantial added value from EU level action although a third believed there was no added value for financial expenditure at the EU level on

policy development.

• The majority of stakeholders thought that the added value of EU level action

to improve the impact of other EU policies on the environment was substantial, the rationale being that environmental assets are public goods,

requiring EU action to ensure their adequate provision.

• Stakeholders also recognised the added value for EU level action to improve

awareness levels.

• Although the issue of eco-innovation was recognised as important,

stakeholders generally believed there was less added value for EU level action from a specific instrument for the environment in these areas. For instance, in the case of eco-innovation, stakeholders did not feel that eco-innovation should not be the focus of the instrument as other instruments such as CIP exist to fulfil this

aspect.

Objectives and resources for a future instrument for the environment

• The consensus across all stakeholders is that the most important focus for LIFE

should be the implementation of the acquis. Its role in implementing policies for nature and biodiversity (e.g. the Natura 2000 network) was seen as particularly important, given the absence of any other financial instrument specifically focused

on nature protection.

• Another particularly important role for a future instrument for the environment, as

seen by stakeholders, was the demonstration and sharing of best practice.

• Stakeholders noted that a key factor limiting the effectiveness of LIFE+ has

been its limited resources; as such the clear majority thought these resources should be increased. The general view was that the budget should be increased to levels of between €500 million and €1 billion a year (about 40%), although a significant portion of stakeholders also thought that the budget should be further

increased to between €1 million and €5 billion a year.

Design and delivery of a future instrument for the environment

• In terms of thematic focus stakeholders are not averse to having a focused

instrument, but they are averse to having an instrument which focuses only on one type of activity or policy area to the exclusion of all others.

• In terms of territorial focus, stakeholders supported the potential for a specific

instrument for the environment to fund activities outside the EU, as long as it provided EU benefits.

• Regarding delivery of the instrument respondents noted that action grants were,

by far, the most important activity, followed by public procurement of services. Overall there was a general agreement that the EU should contribute a maximum of 75% of the total project budget to ensure that beneficiaries maintain ownership of their projects. Strengthening the role of environmental NGOs was also noted as

a very important activity.

The use of innovative instruments (e.g. loans) had little support. For instance,

many workshop participants believed that loans are not likely to be appropriate for nature and biodiversity projects, which are better served by grants.

Views were somewhat divided on the benefits of integrated projects. Some

thought they have the potential to increase complementarity and policy interaction. However, others believed they would be difficult to operationalise in practice.

• The majority of respondents agreed that the current direct centralised

management approach is most appropriate, although some other stakeholders believed that other management options, such as a shared management between

the European Commission and national authorities, should be considered.

Options for a future instrument for the environment and climate action

• The options that were developed were only discussed in depth with workshop

participants, as the options were only developed after, and on the basis of, the initial stakeholder consultation.

• Option 3, strategic programming, was the most popular option amongst

workshop participants (see figure below). This option was also consistently the most popular across all stakeholder types.

• This option was thought to include the most positive aspects of the current baseline

situation including centralised management, the broad eligibility of activities, and the support given to NGOs. At the same time participants felt that options 3 had

the most scope to allow for additional improvements to be introduced.

The most popular option amongst Workshop participants, across all stakeholder types, was Option 3 (Strategic Programming)

Source: GHK analysis, EC Workshop

The response statistics for the 'Consultation on a future EU financial instrument for the environment (continuation of LIFE+)' conducted by the Commission online on 'Your Voice in Europe' and the conclusions of the CoR 'Assessment of territorial impacts on the EU LIFE+ instrument' can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/about/beyond2013.htm ANNEX 4: Summary of conclusions and recommendations from the Ex-post

evaluation of the LIFE Programme (1996-2006) and from the Mid-term

evaluation of the implementation of the LIFE+ Regulation (2007-2009)

E X - POST EVALUATION OF THE LIFE PROGRAMME (1996-2006)

Background:

The ex-post evaluation was commissioned in July 2008 by the European Commission Directorate General Environment and carried out by COWI. It covered projects co-financed by the LIFE Programme initiated during the period 1996-2006. This period, comprising three generations of the LIFE Programme, saw the co-financing of a total of 2026 projects of which 1076 were under the Environment component, 771 under the Nature component and 179 under the Third Countries component. The total commitments made from the LIFE Programme amounted to EUR 1315 million.

The overall objective of the evaluation was to assess the relevance and impact of activities and projects financed under the LIFE Programme. The ex-post evaluation focused on assessing the effect of the LIFE Programme through evaluating results and impacts of LIFE projects implemented under the three components. The results and impacts have been assessed according to four main evaluation criteria: effectiveness (i.e. the extent to which planned objectives have been reached, and the extent to which LIFE Programme management contributed to the effectiveness of LIFE projects); efficiency (i.e. the extent to which results were achieved at a reasonable cost, and the extent to which LIFE Programme management contributed to the efficiency of LIFE projects); sustainability (i.e. the extent to which positive impacts have continued or are likely to continue; and utility (i.e. the extent to which impacts address key environmental needs and priorities in the EU and for the stakeholders concerned).

Conclusions of the evaluation:

LIFE Programme managed effectively and efficiently

The main conclusion in respect to the analysis of programme management was that the LIFE Programme was managed effectively and efficiently by the LIFE Unit in DG Environment. Through high demands to project design, rigorous procedures and a close follow-up the projects selected were typically well designed and provided with the necessary assistance to support an effective and efficient implementation process. Some areas for further improvement were identified. Selection of projects was a slow process with cumbersome application procedures which could benefit from further optimisation and outsourcing of tasks, and there was some scope to further enhance transparency and clarify award criteria in the selection process. Concerning the monitoring of the programme and projects, the set-up was less effective concerning the strategic management of the programme. Although managed in accordance with the objectives set out in the respective LIFE Regulations, little interest was shown on the part of the LIFE Unit and DG Environment as a whole to further target the programme to specific policies. While the monitoring of the individual projects was very detailed, there was no reporting on how the LIFE instrument was performing at programme level.

LIFE ature component – a successful instrument targeted at the Birds and Habitats Directives

The specific objectives guiding LIFE Nature were relatively clear focusing on implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives. Effectiveness was assessed as high as the projects clearly made a significant contribution to the implementation of these Directives in the Community. The projects were estimated to have covered 8-9% of all Natura 2000 sites and a significant share of the habitats and species listed in the Annexes to the Birds and Habitats Directives. Considering the relatively limited budget of approximately EUR 70 million per year, this is considered a significant achievement. The LIFE projects played a very important role in increasing the general level of awareness concerning biodiversity, Natura 2000 and the related policies and regulatory requirements among national, regional and local authorities. Also, through the LIFE projects, capacity to implement and manage the interventions required to implement the Birds and Habitats Directives was built up – both within relevant authorities and NGOs. This affected in a positive direction the general implementation of the Directives within the individual Member States. LIFE Nature thus made a significant contribution towards addressing the challenges related to nature conservation in the Community and reaching the objectives of the Biodiversity Action Plan. The utility of LIFE Nature was therefore assessed as high. However, the evaluation also showed room for continued development of the LIFE Nature instrument to respond to developments in biodiversity policies and the future challenges of nature conservation in the EU. The level of sustainability was assessed as high. Projects requiring less intensive follow-up and recurrent funding were by nature more sustainable. Other key factors explaining the high level of sustainability were well-designed projects, attention to building the necessary management and monitoring capacity to continue activities after project completion and ability of the projects to secure recurrent funding after project completion. Competing interests from agriculture and (to a lesser extent) forestry posed a significant threat to sustainability. The challenges to ensure project sustainability were more significant in the cases where the projects involved private land as opposed to public land already designated for conservation. In these cases, a number of projects have been successful in preparing the ground for continued management through agri-environmental measures under the Guarantee section of the European Agricultural Guidance and Guarantee Fund.

LIFE Environment component – less impact at European level but with good local results

LIFE Environment differed from LIFE Nature with a diffuse programming strategy that did not couple specific environmental priorities with selection criteria. Since it was the objective of the LIFE programme to fund environmental projects and since this evaluation documents that eligible projects were selected and subsequently effectively implemented, a satisfactory relation between results and objectives can be noted. The innovation 'content' was generally found to be highest in technology projects undertaken by private enterprises (and research institutions). A significant part of the projects, especially those of the management type, seemed not to be genuinely innovative but rather adaptations or optimisations of existing systems, approaches and methods to a particular geographic setting or other specific conditions. On the average probably more than 50 % of the LIFE Environment projects were continued, fully or partially, at the site or in the organisation where they were executed. Considering the innovative nature of many projects, this was assessed as a satisfactory level of sustainability. The direct or immediate environmental results and impacts were generally small and typically restricted to the project area/site itself, which in most cases were quite local. The bottom-up programming strategy did not ensure that the most important/urgent environmental problems from a Community perspective were addressed. The wider impact arising from the possible replication of the projects was uncertain, but probably only occurring in approximately 10-20 per cent of the projects. Many projects were found to demonstrate technical feasibility and a number even additionally to be considered economically viable. However, the demonstration potential was often not fully released or exploited because the necessary dissemination of activities and results did not take place or at least only to a limited extent.

Third countries component – positive local impacts but lack of sustainability

Overall, the LIFE TCY projects led to positive local impacts in terms of improvement of capacities and environmental performances of beneficiaries. It was a useful instrument for transfer of knowledge and experience, awareness raising and highlighting environmental issues at policy level. At national level, the impact of LIFE TCY projects was more visible in Cyprus, Malta and Candidate Countries in terms of approximation of legislation. In the other countries, the global impact of LIFE TCY was more limited due to the small proportion of LIFE projects in relation to the size of the particular country; the divergence of fields covered, and, largely, due to insufficient involvement of national authorities. The overall effectiveness and efficiency of the TCY projects clearly improved over time as a result of the significant improvement to the selection and monitoring system. In general, the TCY projects successfully achieved their objectives in a cost effective manner. However, lack of sustainability was the largest gap in TCY projects. Although there were positive developments, particularly in Candidate Countries, many projects did not generate long term effects either due to insufficient dissemination of information or lack of ownership by the national authority.

Efficiency difficult to evaluate but assessed as reasonable

Since the LIFE Programme 'produced' not easily measurable 'products' as environmental improvements, innovation and capacity-building, a precise cost-effectiveness assessment could not be given. The evaluation constructed comparisons when possible and compiled qualitative cost-benefit assessments, on the basis of which efficiency was assessed as reasonable.

Recommendations from the evaluation:

A set of 13 key recommendations has been formulated on the basis of the analysis:

Strategic management and programming:

  • 1. 
    Clarify the role and objectives of the LIFE Programme in relation to implementation of EU environmental policy and creation of European added value - Set targets and indicators for the Programme to determine the degree of success. The LIFE Unit should increase co-ordination with Policy Units e.g., through a steering committee for the LIFE programme. The LIFE Unit could also be reorganised into thematic desks. The role of the LIFE programme is unclear and having a unit dedicated to project management has improved streamlining and efficiency but it has become removed from the policy development function.
  • 2. 
    Implement regular monitoring and reporting on the performance at programme level - Systems for regular monitoring and performance should be developed on the basis of objectives and indicators. A uniform set of indicators should be applied across all projects and a regular annual status report on programme performance could be produced. Current monitoring and reporting systems were focused on the project level - monitoring of programme performance is irregular (external evaluations) and lack of knowledge existed about programme performance against objectives.
  • 3. 
    Develop support systems to improve the basis for strategic management, i.e., database on Nature projects linked to database on Natura 2000 - The systems containing the project level information should be developed to provide information on project objectives and achievements in line with the indicators for the Programme. For LIFE Nature it was recommended that a geographical database should be developed, comparable with the Natura 2000 database to see how far LIFE projects were supporting the implementation of Natura 2000. The organisation of the LIFE Unit as a functional, project management secretariat was not effective concerning the strategic management of the programme as little interest was shown on the part of the LIFE Unit and DG Environment to further target the programme to specific policies.

Co-ordination, dissemination, partnerships

  • 4. 
    Promote active knowledge sharing at European level, e.g. through thematic workshops and seminars - Organise thematic conferences for knowledge sharing and to involve increased numbers of stakeholders to promote general awareness of LIFE. Co-ordinate events with policy units to create synergy. The ex-post evaluation discovered a need to focus more on dissemination and knowledge sharing to exploit the learning and replication potential of the LIFE projects.
  • 5. 
    Target dissemination efforts to reach the right audience through a strategic communicative effort in individual projects and at programme level - Ensure considerations of key messages, target groups and communication channels were high by urging beneficiaries to think along the lines of communication strategy. Projects which found appropriate communication channels to reach target group saw the most positive results in regards to dissemination and replication.
  • 6. 
    Build capacities of potential LIFE beneficiaries to increase number and quality of applications - Broaden the client-base of the LIFE Programme to ensure a sufficient number and quality of applications. Consider less experience organisations for LIFE Nature to increase number of organisations capable of managing conservation actions. The LIFE Unit should be proactive in building relations through national focal point and arrange information meetings, training seminars, etc.
  • 7. 
    Involve Member States in dissemination and capacity building activities - The Unit should be more proactive in engaging the national focal points to play a key role as access points to potential beneficiaries, marketing the LIFE Programme and providing guidance to applicants. This would contribute to a more uniform approach among the Member States to guiding potential applicants.

Procedures for selection and monitoring

  • 8. 
    Further improve application guidance and application forms, e.g., by simplifying and digitalising application forms - The guidance to applicants should be improved and application forms simplified and digitalised. This would also minimise the time required for assessing the applications. Eliminating the approval procedure of final projects by Member States (the LIFE Committee) would reduce the length of the selection period.
  • 9. 
    Outsource the receipt, eligibility check, selection and award phases of the selection procedure - Outsource the entire process from receipt of applications to the award phase. The calculation of administrative costs compared to commitments made indicated a slight annual increase in the period 2002-2006.
  • 10. 
    Further clarify criteria for selection and scoring system - The evaluation guide should be clarified with regard to the evaluation of the award criteria in order to ensure equal treatment of the applications. Ambiguities were identified in the definition of criteria, e.g. guides to applicants mentioned priorities which were not reflected in the criteria, there was a lack of clarity in how the sub-criteria/questions mentioned under each criteria are to be weighted.
  • 11. 
    Further clarify tasks of the monitoring team - A broader dialogue with the monitoring team should be initiated, e.g. focus more on common training seminars, conferences, etc. This dialogue should clarify tasks and quality criteria for the evaluation of project reports to avoid duplication of tasks. It was noted that dialogue is to a large extent decentralised to the individual TDO/FDO and monitoring expert in connection with specific countries.
  • 12. 
    Apply a prioritised approach to individual project monitoring based on risk assessment - A more strategic approach focusing on visits to high-risk projects and replacing some visits with cross-project (thematic) conferences/workshops to reach a larger number of projects and still achieve similar benefits for each project. Visits to projects and face-to-face contact with beneficiaries were found to be important parts of the effective monitoring system in place.
  • 13. 
    Optimise document flow and clarify the role of the verifier in the Unit - Prepare the signatories when receiving the evaluation from the beneficiaries. The system for verification should also be clarified so that unnecessary time used on verification can be eliminated.

M ID - TERM EVALUATION OF THE LIFE+ PROGRAMME (2007-2009)

Background:

The Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) has been commissioned to GHK, in association with Arcadis and VITO to advise on the progress to-date of the activities undertaken under the LIFE+ Regulation (the Regulation), introduced in 2007, examining the relevance, economy, effectiveness, efficiency, consistency, distributional effects and acceptability of the Regulation.

Main findings from the evaluation:

LIFE+ Regulation

Simplification

The adoption of the strategic planning and financial budgeting procedures has been implemented effectively in so far as it regularised previous activities, with little need to change operating practices.

As regards third country involvement in environment policy development and implementation, alternative instruments are available through the international assistance managed by DG RELEX and DG AIDCO. Although these instruments are designed, at least in part, to support similar objectives, they are heavily subscribed and applicants that might have secured funding under the previous LIFE programme would not necessarily be funded by these instruments.

Article 1(2) of the LIFE+ Regulation and the Financial Perspectives has been interpreted as implying that all activities financed under the instrument must be for the benefit of the EU and its Member States. This has led to several trade-offs in the functioning of the three interventions. For action grants, nature projects requiring the co-operation of third countries to protect certain species that have trans-boundary patterns have been particularly affected.

Annex II of the Regulation defines the priorities of the Regulation. This represents a high level summary of the 6EAP. However as a result, the Action Grant Programme is constrained from introducing further definition and detail of the needs and priorities, and can not reflect changes in these priorities through time. As a result, the calls for proposals are less well defined than in previous programmes and can not focus on or target specific needs. The resulting projects, whilst consistent with 6EAP in general, are not necessarily targeted at the most important issues.

Consolidation

The Regulation consolidated three previous programmes: Forest Focus (FF), Sustainable Urban Development (SUD) and NGOs. For Forest Focus, comparison of previous and current objectives and activities suggests that there may be a loss of effectiveness as a result. For Sustainable Urban Development, there has been a change in the nature of beneficiary and type of activity, with less involvement of public authorities in networking activity. The consolidation of these two programmes has led to some savings of staff time. However, it led to increased costs for those beneficiaries that would have previously used the closed programmes because of the greater effort of application.

LIFE+ Programme of Action Grants

Changes and additions to Components

The LIFE Programme first started in 1992 and has been continually assessed to be an essential intervention through successive programmes. The conclusions of the recent ex-post evaluation of the previous activity confirmed the relevance and added value of the LIFE Programme. The MTE has assessed the Programme to have a continuing relevance based on the well documented needs of environment policy and its implementation combined with the recognition in the Regulation that EU added value derives at least in part from the bottom-up approach.

Three major changes were made to the Action Grants Programme: the introduction of the biodiversity theme with the Nature component; the revision and expansion of themes under Environment Policy & Governance (EPG) and the introduction of Information and Communication Projects (INF). These changes have the potential to significantly increase the capacity of the Programme to contribute to EU policy and the generation of EU added value. However, this capacity is not being fully utilised, because the number of projects under the new components and themes (biodiversity, new EPG themes and INF) is as yet too small. Moreover; in all three cases the projects that have been funded lack a degree of programme level coherence, i.e., the ability to generate outcomes and impacts beyond the individual project level.

The Nature theme has remained the same as in previous Programmes, with the improvement in LIFE+ of a formal recognition that projects must represent 'Best Practice‘, with the objectives of supporting the Natura 2000 network and the implementation of the 'Birds‘ and 'Habitats‘ Directives. LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity is seen as a key funding mechanisms for promoting and implementing nature and biodiversity objectives across all regions in the EU.

Impact of the Operational Approach on EU Added Value

National allocations and priorities

The Regulation introduced the allocation of Programme funding by MS based on specified criteria in the Regulation, and the opportunity for MS to indicate national priorities for the programme. The project appraisal process seeks to take into account national needs and priorities as only one of the four criteria concerned with EU added value. The limited demand for the programme in some MS has allowed funding to be transferred to those MS where demand exceeds the national allocation. Where all national allocations are taken up, the risk is that the weaker projects as identified by appraisal are funded in-line with the national allocation, at the expense of stronger projects elsewhere. This risk of reduced EU added value is increased, firstly because the population based allocation criteria are a limited proxy of EU policy needs and affects EPG projects particularly; and secondly because of the general failure by MS to specify national priorities. The change has therefore the strong potential to limit the capacity of the Programme to deliver EU added value.

Project selection and programme coherence

The programme has selected and contracted with 338 projects under the first two calls; and provided co-finance of €392m. This has been matched by funding form project beneficiaries of €405m, a total investment of €797m. Details are summarised in the Table below.

Table 1: Projects selected and funded by component (2007 and 2008)

Programme Number Number EC Total of of funding investme

Project Projects (€m) nt (€m) Applicati Selected

ons Nature & 491 138 201 371 Biodiversity

Environment 613 171 172 390 Policy & Governance Information & 216 28 17 37 Communication Total 1,320 337 390 798

The overall project selection process works well. However, the change in the appraisal process compared to LIFE III has the potential to reduce programme capacity to deliver EU added value. The revised process has reduced the transparency and consistency of assessment and the assessment of EU added value because of the lack of specificity of criteria. However, of more strategic importance is the risk that even within themes, the projects lack coherence as a programme, addressing a wide range of issues and approaches and limiting the scope for effective multipliers.

Project and Programme monitoring

The general process and operation of the monitoring system works well, with developed procedures supported by fully defined and well executed technical assistance. However, the agreed adoption of the proposed LIFE+ monitoring and evaluation system for the definition and measurement of results and outcomes at project level, and as the basis for aggregation across the Programme, has not been fully implemented. Projects have complied with new requirements to define output indicators, but in the main, have yet to define result indicators.

Programme Management

There has been considerable effort over this and previous LIFE programmes to better integrate the Action Grant activity more centrally within the policy development and implementation processes with the DG. However, despite improvement, there continues to be a perceived lack of integration of the Programme within DG Environment. This results from: a lack of understanding of the role of the instrument; variable utility of the instrument across different policy units; the limited scope to translate specific policy needs and priorities into calls for project proposals; and a weaker multiplier effect in the case of EPG projects through insufficient learning and exchange and testing of transferability, reducing the lessons and advice to policy makers.

Complementarity

The risks of double-funding have pre-occupied existing guidance, despite which some National Contact Points (NCPs) and applicants still remain confused. This guidance, together with the appraisal process, focuses on safeguarding against the risk of double-funding. The importance of complementarity is also recognised as an explicit criterion in project appraisal.

However, the focus on risk management has tended to dominate over a focus on building and enhancing linkages and synergies with other programmes and financial instruments, and has led to some conservatism about developing linkages. Building these linkages with other programmes is especially difficult where, unlike LIFE, they are implemented through shared management arrangements. The most obvious area where activity has helped build and support linkages is with the CIP Programme to support eco-innovation through its market replication strand.

Overview of Findings on Action Grants

LIFE began in 1992 and to date LIFE has co-financed over 3,000 projects across the EU, contributing approximately €2.2 billion to the protection of the environment. The current phase of the programme, LIFE+, runs from 2007-2013 and has a budget of €2.1 billion. LIFE+ covers both the operational expenditure of DG Environment and the co-financing of projects. According to Article 6 of the LIFE+ Regulation, at least 78% of the LIFE+ budgetary resources must be used for project action grants (i.e. LIFE+ projects).

The MTE has highlighted that the main impact of the simplification process is the adoption of Annex II based on 6EAP as the general statement of needs and priorities and the failure of national allocations and priorities to provide any further guidance to applicants. The MTE has also emphasised that the three major changes in the components is considered to be positive and increases the capacity of the Programme to deliver EU added value. Currently, the level of funding awarded in all the new areas is insufficient to make any major difference at this time, partly because of a lack of information to potential beneficiaries not previously familiar with the Programme, and the lack of specification of needs and priorities that applicants should address. This is in turn reflected in the request for illustrations of 'exemplar‘ projects to help guide applications.

The primary issue for the Programme is therefore the scope to create the impact from the programme that is more than just the sum of the individual projects.

NGO Operating Grants

Types of GO Activities

The allocation of operational funding by the NGOs seems to be balanced over the following types of activities: policy implementation, policy development and internal and external capacity building. Policy development is clearly more important for Brussels based NGOs, while internal capacity building and enlargement is more important for EU12 based NGOs. Press releases, participation in conferences and written submissions to the Commission are the most observed activities in the field of policy development and implementation. However, the quantitative indicators on these activity levels do not provide much information on the quality of the work performed. Staff training is the major instrument applied for organisational development and capacity building.

Topics of GO Activity

The NGOs cover all topics of the Sixth Environmental Action Programme. However, amongst the topics listed in Annex II of the LIFE+ Regulation, barely any NGOs cover noise, innovation or soil. Out of 50 applications, 30 NGOs have been funded in the last two years, representing a broad range of NGOs. They represent generally an equitable distribution over the regions and the topics. Grants range from relatively small amounts (such as approximately €30,000) to very large amounts (almost €1m - or 1/10 of the overall budget). Although it is acknowledged that large NGOs that undertake a wide range of activities should receive a 'fair share‘, smaller, more sectoral organisations should also receive adequate levels of funding. Increasing the budget for NGOs would ensure that the size of the grant reflects the evolving environmental agenda, and would allow NGOs to attract and retain better qualified staff. There appears to be a logical link between the size and experience of an NGO and the probability that it receives a grant. Indeed, the larger a NGO, the more likely it is to submit a good application (good paper, clear mission, clear description of deliverables). In general, there is no apparent objection to the NGO operating grants intervention, with most suggestions relating to improvements in procedural or administrative concerns, rather than the underlying rationale for the existence of the intervention itself.

Public Procurement

Technical Assistance

The review of the performance of the technical assistance provided to the LIFE+ Programme indicated that the work was well organised and delivered to good standard.

Communications

DG E V general communication activities are funded under the LIFE Regulation. The review of these activities suggests that communication is focused on the 6th Environmental Action Plan priorities. The review of the outputs, and where available success indicators and outcomes, suggests that the non LIFE communication activities meet the objectives set out for these activities. As regard LIFE related communication, the LIFE Units have undertaken a range of new information and communication activities and have improved existing activities. Furthermore, the LIFE Units have worked to ensure a more proactive involvement of the NCPs. The review, however, also suggests that activities in the main have reached an audience already aware of LIFE and to a large extent also, audiences already involved in LIFE in some form. There is therefore a need to consider how communication activities undertaken can be better targeted at the 'non LIFE community'.

Service Contracts

The expenditure of DG ENV is linked appropriately to the objectives and priorities of the Commission and DG ENV‘s work programmes. The majority of the public procurement contracts are studies or forms of technical assistance which feed directly into implementation of different EU environmental policies, ranging from the Birds and Habitats Directives to the Emissions Trading Scheme. Contracts do appear to be consistent with the priorities of the Units within DG ENV. Furthermore, the performance of contractors appears to be either satisfactory, or at times, exceeds the expectations of the managing desk officer. However, the feedback mechanisms within the DG for commenting on the quality of contractors appear to be rather informal and weak.

Summary of Findings Against the Main Evaluation Criteria

Evaluation Overall Action Grants NGO Public

Criteria Regulation Operating Procurement

Grants

Relevance Clear rationale Clear rationale, Continuing Clear rationale,

Unique focus especially in relevance of especially in

on relation to NGO activity relation to policy

environment policy and development

policy implementatio contribution to

n EU policy

dialogue

Economy Adoption of Project Some concern The ABB process

Financial evaluation, over the under the

Perspectives selection and transparency Financial

largely monitoring and Perspectives

regularises processes are administrative allows effective

previous largely burden allocation of

activities effective in resources

allocating

resources

Effectiveness Overall impact Capacity for NGO Technical

is marginal further EU programme is assistance

given that it added value largely procured is

largely provided by unaffected by effective

regularises changes. Some the change in Service contracts

previous key issues to Regulation. effective

activities address have

been identified

Efficiency Consolidation Savings on TA Administrative Public

has generated in comparison costs are procurement

staff cost with previous largely process designed

savings of Programme unchanged to provide best

around 10%. Significant Some loss of value. Process

increase in efficiency governed by

project size from standard

ineligibility of ASP/AMP

members‘ procedure

interests

Consistency Reduced risk Strong effort to Programme Some use of

of duplication, avoid doubleand NGO project results in

but little effect funding; and to awareness service contracts

on improving increase raising Limited scope for

complementari complementari complementar increased

ty ty especially y. Some scope flexibility in

with CIP to improve choice of

linkages instrument.

between

NGOs.

Allocative / Limited effect Possible future Limited effect Reflects the

Distributional on the issue with on the planning process,

distribution of national distribution of governed by

resources allocations if resources Commission

demand is high procedure

Acceptability Broad Well accepted NGOs and Process is well

character of by stakeholders Commission understood and

Annex II (projects and stakeholders accepted

reduces focus NCPs). Issue of accept the

on key issues EC integration programme

Recommendations from the Mid-Term Evaluation:

Relevance of the Instrument and Generating EU Added Value

The MTE confirms the relevance of the three interventions funded under the LIFE+ Regulation. In the case of public procurement, this derives from the planned use of procurement to meet agreed policy needs through the standard Commission procedures. NGO Operating Grants continue to be relevant given the continuing importance of transparent and open dialogue on EU policy needs and priorities. In the case of Action Grants, the MTE has assessed the Programme to have a continuing relevance based on the well documented needs of EU environment policy and its implementation and the EU added value derived from the bottom-up project based approach.

Therefore, the major issue is not whether the Regulation is relevant and provides EU added value, but how to best maximise this through careful design and operation of the three interventions. In this context, it is clear from the MTE that the changes made in the Regulation to the Action Grants Programme has the biggest influence, not least because it accounts for 78% of the resources. In the case of Action Grants, the Regulation has not increased EU added value as expected; and does not provide any significant improvement compared to the previous LIFE III Programme.

The lack of improved added value stems in large part from the weakness of Annex II and the system of national allocations and priorities to provide the necessary framework for a focused and targeted statement of needs and priorities. Since these are defined by the Regulation, there is a difficulty of establishing the specific needs and priorities without being seen to go beyond the Regulation. This is a particular problem for EPG projects where there is a danger that, although good projects are funded, because of the lack of targeted activity, together they lack coherence and have limited multiplier effect.

The continuing importance of the underlying rationale for the Regulation and the LIFE+ Programme argues for action to remedy this weakness by changes in the methods of implementation, under the terms of the existing Regulation.

Changes to the Regulation – Possible Strategic Directions

At the time of conclusion of the MTE (Spring 2010), attention was turning to the plans to be made for the strategic priorities in DG Environment with the end of the 6EAP plan period in 2012 and the next programming period starting in 2014 to 2020. More widely, attention was turning to the new financial perspectives to frame the next programming period. There is therefore considerable uncertainty over the context for discussion over the successor to the LIFE+ Regulation.

At the same time, the decisions on the re-allocation of responsibilities for climate change and GMOs/pesticides to other DGs from DG Environment means that to the extent that the Regulation governs DG Environment activity, it increases uncertainty over the framing of the future financial instrument.

In terms of the next programme period, there seem to be three basic options: either make changes to the Regulation per se, revert back to a more formal separation of the Grant programmes under a new Regulation, governed by its own specific strategic framework, or recognise Action Grants as one of a number of funding instruments, and allow policy units to define and be responsible depending on policy needs, again under a new Regulation.

Changes to the drafting of the Regulation

The major change would be the removal of Annex II (and national allocations and priorities) to be replaced by an annual work programme specifying the particular needs and priorities to be addressed by the Programme and setting a detailed framework for the calls for proposals. The work programme would seek to focus on selected policy needs and would target particular MS, sectors, technologies, prospective beneficiaries depending on the EU significance and character of the problem. The Annual Framework would be drawn up, as part of the Annual Management Plan, between the policy units and the LIFE units.

Other changes could include provisions for:

  • 1. 
    A more explicit understanding of EU added value.
  • 2. 
    A more explicit distinction between policy development and implementation – and the particular focus of the grants programme and public procurement.
  • 3. 
    A greater emphasis on mutual learning and shared exchange, testing of transferability, and trans-national co-operation as the basis of stronger multipliers and increased EU value. The minimum indicative of 15% to be allocated to transnational activity would be increased substantially given the contribution of transboundary activity to EU added value
  • 4. 
    Partnerships with third country partners where co-operation is needed and where alternative instruments can be shown to be ineffective.
  • 5. 
    Differentiated intervention rates by type of beneficiary to encourage especially smaller authorities, institutes and NGOs.
  • 6. 
    Removing the innovative / demonstrative requirement of the biodiversity theme to aid the selection of higher quality projects.

In addition, the opportunity would be taken to combine CIP and LIFE+ Environment Policy and Governance activity on eco-innovation into a single eco-innovation funding mechanism under shared management using the market replication management as the model. This would also allow scope to introduce leveraged funding instruments.

Drafting a ew Regulation – Stand alone Programme

The rationale and policy need for the Regulation is unlikely to change and by implication a new Regulation would address the same objectives (of development and implementation of EU environment policy). However, the Programme would by design be directed to supporting policy implementation in the MS, rather than policy development. The new Regulation would stipulate the need and specific funding for a Programme, operating within its own strategic framework.

The strategic framework would need to be based on extensive consultation with EC and MS. The strategic framework would provide the detailed basis for the programme (missing at the present time) and would place the emphasis firmly on improving the MS implementation of existing or revised environmental legislation where it responds to major legal, economic or environmental problems caused by inadequate implementation. Transnational activity would be expected to be strongly supported.

The Framework could consider adopting aspects of the Open Method of Co-ordination (OMC) approaches for the operation of the Programme (for example, agreed indicators, benchmarks, reporting and structured Peer Learning Activities), making it more explicit that the programme is primarily targeted at supporting MS needs in achieving the more effective and efficient implementation of environmental legislation.

The specific responsibilities of MS for engaging with the Programme would be defined based on clearly specified environmental needs and problems with implementation. The need and approach to the animation of potential beneficiaries around key issues should be discussed explicitly and made a formal requirement. The State of the Environment report could help identify those needs. MS would be required to develop specific priority programmes as requested under Article 8 of Habitats Directive.

Drafting a ew Regulation – o Specific Programme

The rationale and policy need for the Regulation is unlikely to change and by implication a new Regulation would address the same objectives (of development and implementation of EU environment policy).

The new Regulation should allow a flexible response to the specific nature of the needs and priorities as they arise. The specific roles and responsibilities of MS in defining needs and priorities would need to be explicitly defined. The response however, would be framed by the policy units as a standard part of the Commission’s work programme and making use of whichever financial instrument is best suited. In other words there is no formal action grant programme.

The form of funding instrument would be dependent on the purpose and the types of intervention required. The new Regulation would define the appropriate suite of funding instruments but allow the relevant choice and mix of instruments dependant on specific goals. There would be no earmarked money for any one of the financial instruments - only a single reference budget; bids to use the reference budget would be made as part of the standard strategic and annual planning. This will provide flexibility to adjust to changes in priorities and require explicit justifications for the choice of instrument.

The logic would suggest that there would not be an Action Grants Programme as such but rather that Action Grants would be one of the delivery mechanisms to be used as defined by the needs of policy units. Some central co-ordination would be required but the activity would be the responsibility of the policy units.

The full version of the report 'Ex-post Evaluation of Projects and Activities Financed under the LIFE Programme', Final Report, July 2009 by COWI can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/evaluation/index.htm# expost

The full version of the report 'Mid-term Evaluation of the Implementation of the LIFE+ Regulation', Final Report, April 2010 by GHK in association with Arcadis and VITO can be found at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/evaluation/index.htm# mte2010

ANNEX 5: S CALE OF THE ENVIRONMENTAL PROBLEM , U NDERLYING CAUSES AND B ENEFITS OF A CTION (E XTERNALITIES )

1. The environment and climate problems

When analysing the need for a specific instrument for the environment and climate action, as well as its design and focus, an identification of existing and emerging environmental and climate problems is needed to clarify the drivers and the underlying causes that should be addressed by a specific instrument or thematic areas for action.

The problems that have been identified are as follows: 17

• The 2010 assessment of Europe's environment 18 as well as the 2009 Environmental

Policy Review 19 show that, although considerable progress has been made in single

thematic areas, halting the loss of biodiversity and improving resource efficiency along with climate change and environment and health related concerns remain key challenges for the EU in its path to "prosper in a low-carbon, resources constrained world while preventing environmental degradation, biodiversity loss and unsustainable

use of resources."

There are new and emerging threats and challenges in the EU posed by changes to

the economic and technological landscape, including new materials and substances placed on the market in the future that could pose a threat to the environment (e.g., some nanomaterials). Similarly, changes to economic activity and demography in the future will change the type and magnitude of pressures placed on the environment and climate. On the other hand projected climate change impacts pose a significant threat to the

economy. This in turn generates an increasing need for new approaches.

The burden from global and non-EU problems is increasing. The EU is contributing

to environmental pressures in other regions of the world and at the same time the impacts of activities elsewhere are increasingly affecting the EU. Examples of EU pressures include over-fishing, or climate change while POPs originating in other regions are affecting the EU. In some cases, for action to be effective within the EU, investment outside the EU may be required, e.g. migratory species, international river basins, marine

environment.

Difficulty in decoupling economic activity from the natural resources/environmental

impact is an extension of environmental challenges which is explicitly defined to recognise the established need for decoupling.

17 Combined Impact Assessment and Ex-Ante Evaluation of the Review of the LIFE+ Regulation (GHK).

18 EEA, The European Environment State and outlook 2010 available at http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer.

60

2. Scale of the environmental problems

2.1 Approach to the assessment

The assessment is concerned with establishing the broad orders of magnitude of the environmental costs associated with pollution and the use of natural resources. These environmental costs, expressed as far as possible in monetary terms, reflect the external costs of economic and social activity on the environment; and which fail to be reflected in the prices and therefore decisions of producers and consumers.

The intention of the assessment is only to provide a broad contextual estimate of the approximate overall scale of the environmental problem in the EU. The assessment is based on the availability of existing literature to quantify and value these external costs. There is considerable uncertainty in the valuation of at least some of these external costs, and the assessment seeks to provide the approximate order of magnitude of the problem, rather than offer a precise calculation of the scale of the problem.

There are a number of studies currently under way (for example with respect to climate change and resource efficiency) that are examining and updating existing estimates of environmental externalities. The analysis should therefore be understood as a work in progress and not a definitive statement.

Because there are significant inter-linkages between environmental problems (for example climate change affects biodiversity, air pollution can cause water pollution from acidification), there is considerable risk of double-counting these external costs from a ‘bottom-up analysis’ of individual problems. A conservative assessment was adopted, omitting impacts where there is a risk that is reflected in part at least in another impact. This is compared to available ‘top-down’ or aggregate assessments of external costs.

The methodologies employed in the literature to quantify and value environmental impacts is by now well developed. In essence, these methodologies seek to quantify the physical environmental impacts (reflected most recently in the State of the Environment assessment 20 ) and then to establish the costs of damage (damage costs) to various ‘receptors’ such as adverse human health effects, damage to agriculture, forestry, buildings and infrastructure, biodiversity loss, and adverse impacts on recreation and tourism. These impacts can be monetised by reference to the loss in market value (e.g. of crops, timber or tourism) and, in the absence of markets, estimates of the willingness of society to pay to avoid these impacts using revealed or stated preference techniques. In some cases, where environmental objectives and standards have been set, the expenditure to comply (compliance costs or environmental expenditure) provides a proxy of the minimum estimate of the value of the environmental impact. For example, the cost of improving water quality by removing the subset of pollutants from wastewater can be a reasonable proxy for the economic cost of the pollution to water. The presence of pollution creates an economic cost.

A major determinant of the economic value of environmental impacts is the scale and impact on human health. In some cases where the literature reports health impacts but has not

20 State of the Environment (SOER) Assessment, European Environment Agency (2010):

http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer .

provided a monetary value, the assessment has followed IA Guidelines to estimate the 21 economic cost. These advise that the Value of a Statistical Life (VOSL) should be taken as between €1-2 million and the Value of Life Years (VOLY) as between €50-100,000, Midrange estimates of €1.5 million and €75,000 respectively have been used to convert health related impacts to monetary estimates.

It is important to note that both VOSL and VOLY estimates include several important uncertainties. For example, VOSL is calculated based on two general approaches, the human capital approach and the willingness to pay (WTP) approach. The human capital approach measures the economic productivity of the individual whose life is at risk; it takes an individual’s discounted lifetime earnings as its measure of value, assigning valuations in direct proportion to income. The WTP approach is based on the assumption that changes in individuals’ economic welfare can be valued according to what they are wiling (and able) to pay to achieve that change 22 . Thus the monetary estimate of the value of a statistical life will be influenced by an individual’s ability and propensity to pay, which itself depends on their individual financial circumstances. In addition, an individual’s perception of risk-changes will influence their WTP, and thus the final VOSL value.

The themes particularly analysed:

▪ Climate change and energy

▪ Air pollution

▪ Water pollution and resources

▪ Biodiversity and nature

▪ Material resource use and Waste management

The review presents an overview of the environmental problem and a discussion of the related available estimates of the external environmental costs.

2.2 The scale of environmental problems in the EU

The most recent State of the Environment Report (2010), published by the European Environment Agency (EEA), concluded that mounting demands on natural capital are exerting increased pressure to ecosystems, economies and social cohesion in Europe and

elsewhere. 23 Despite some progress and improvements to the environment, major

environmental challenges remain, which will have significant consequences for Europe if left unaddressed.

2.2.1 Thematic approach

The analysis adopts a thematic approach based on the range of physical environmental problems and examining the available estimates of external costs.

The different thematic impacts and their environmental costs can be aggregated, as long as care is taken to avoid double-counting particular impacts. In the summary table below are

21 Section 9 of Annex to Part III: Annexes to impact assessment guidelines (European Commission 15 January

2009).

22 European Commission (2005) ExternE – Externalities of Energy: Methodology 2005 update

http://www.externe.info/brussels/methup05a.pdf .

62

indicated those impacts that have not been included in the overall order of magnitude estimate to avoid the double counting risk.

The table is a summary of the costs of the environmental issues described above. This value is an approximation, and should not be considered as a comprehensive valuation of all environmental issues in Europe.

Table 1.1 Aggregation of Thematic External Costs in the EU (€ per year)

Environmental Type of Environmental Cost Annual Aggregated Annual theme Value (€ Value

billion) (€ billion) (%)

Climate Change External cost of European GHG emissions €162

billion €162 24%

Biodiversity Loss of Ecosystem Services (Cost of Policy Inaction) €218 billion

Invasive Alien Species €13 billion €269 40%

Soil Degradation €38 billion

Air and Industrial Ozone (premature deaths) €1 billion

Pollution

Ozone (crop damage) €7 billion €95 14%

Particulate matter < €1 billion

SOx, NOx. PM, VOCs, mercury €87 billion

Water Resources Drought €12 billion

Abstraction €102 €114 17%

billion

Freshwater Pollution Pesticides (benefit of implementing policy) €1.billion €16 2.5%

Urban waste water (compliance cost) €15 billion

Marine Environment Fishing < €1 billion

Urbanisation and development < €1 €8 1%

billion

Eutrophication (Baltic Sea) €8 billion

Waste Benefit of Landfill Directive €2 billion €2 0.5%

Total €666

Source: Individual thematic assessments

The aggregated assessment indicates that the total environmental cost in the EU each year is in the order of €666 billion. This is a conservative assessment, given the risks of double counting, and might be considered a minimum estimate. To put the figure of €666 billion in

context, the GDP of the EU-27 was €11,783 billion in 2009 24 . External environmental costs

therefore represent, conservatively, 5.7% of EU GDP.

Finally, it is worth noting the analysis by UNEP et al summarised in the Table 1.2. This suggests that global external costs are in the order of €5,000 billion. This figure does not include the cost of ecosystem services associated with biodiversity loss. Based on the EU share of global GDP (as a crude proxy of the share of external cost) of 20%, this would

63

suggest that the aggregated annual external cost in the EU is in the order of €1,000 billion, which comparable with the aggregate thematic figure above.

The UNEP report also suggests that the external cost will continue to increase. At a global level, the increase to 2050 is in the order of four times. For the EU, assuming the EU share of global GDP falls to say 10% by 2050, as a result of the relatively higher rates of growth in the rest of the world, the UNEP report suggests annual external cost would still double in real terms to over €2,000 billion without further policy action.

Table 1.2 Global Environmental Costs in 2008 and Projected to 2050

Environmental Impact External costs in External cost Projected external Projected external 2008 relative to global costs in 2050 cost relative to

(€ billions) GDP in 2008 (€ billions) global GDP in 2050

Greenhouse gas (GHG)

emissions 3,398 7.5% 15,607 12.9%

Water abstraction 920 2.0% 3,527 2.9%

Pollution (SOx, NOx, PM,

VOCs, mercury) 410 0.9% 1,445 1.2%

General Waste 148 0.3% 476 0.4%

Natural resources Fish 41 0.1% 215 0.2% Timber 32 0.1% 192 0.2%

Other ecosystem services,

pollutants and waste Not available (NA) NA NA NA

Total 4,946 11.0% 21,461 17.8%

Source: U EP/FI Trucost, 2010. Adjusted to Euro at $1=€0.75

The recently published impact assessment of the new EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 25

provides information on economic reasons for action to reach the 2020 objective of halting

biodiversity loss 26 . The assessment of the economic impact of the different targets showed

that increased benefits from ecosystem services are to be expected if new initiatives are implemented. Though no aggregate information is yet available, project-based evidence showed the cost-benefits ratio of restoration projects can range from 3 to 75. In addition, payments for water-related ecosystem services are expected to amount to USD 30 billion by 2050. The implementation of green infrastructure, amongst others, could reduce the social costs of traffic accidents. In Switzerland for example, these amount to €42 million per year. No detailed assessment of the impact of different initiatives to be taken in the context of the strategy is available yet.

2.2.2 Resource Use and Decoupling

A different approach to considering the scale of environmental external costs is to consider the cost savings from improving the efficiency with which resources are used and hence

25 European Commission (2011). Communication on our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity

strategy to 2020, COM(2011) 244 final i, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/pdf/2020/1_EN_ACT_part1_v7%5B1%5D.pdf .

26 European Commission (2010). Communication on options for an EU vision and target for biodiversity beyond

2010, COM(2010)4 final i, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/policy/pdf/communication_2010_0004.pdf ; Environment Council Conclusions of 15 March 2010, http://register.consilium.europa.eu/pdf/en/10/st07/st07536.en10.pdf.

reducing the associated external cost. It should be clearly noted that this approach is an alternative method of examining external costs, and should not be included in the thematic aggregation of external costs, above. It more specifically relates to those costs resulting from the inability to decouple economy from use of natural resources/environmental impact.

Potential resource savings, achieved by improving resource efficiency in the EU to levels already achieved by the most efficient Member States, have been estimated. This provides an indication of the scale of benefits available using existing technologies.

The analysis is based on Eurostat data for EU27 on total domestic material consumption (DMC) and domestic inland energy consumption. This data refers to raw materials only and does not address natural resources and the associated challenges such as underestimation. The resource savings are based on Member States (MS) achieving the level of resource efficiency set by the average achieved by the five most efficient MS, calculated as the resources used per unit of GDP by MS.

The analysis (Table 1.3.) indicates that the scope for resource savings is greater for materials (46%) than for energy (20%), due in part to the higher unit costs of energy. The resource savings are estimated using the market price of materials and for energy, plus an estimate of the associated external cost savings from reduced pollution, based on available externality estimates. The saving at market prices is €550 billion a year. A further €60 billion a year in reduced externality costs might also be secured. The total economic value achieved is equivalent to over 5% of EU GDP.

Table 1.3 Estimated savings in market and external costs from improved resource efficiency in the EU (€ billion)

In d ica to r U n it Ma te ria ls En e rg y To ta l

To ta l re s o u rce s (EU 2 7 ) m il to n n e s ; m il to e 8 ,2 0 0 1 ,8 0 0 R e s o u rce s a vin g (a vg o f to p 5 ) m il to n n e s ; m il to e 3 ,8 0 0 3 7 0 S a vin g s a s a s h a re o f to ta l % 4 6 % 2 0 % U n it va lu e o f e xte rn a l co s t € /to n n e ; € /to e 2 .4 0 1 5 1 U n it va lu e o f m a rke t p rice € /to n n e ; € /to e 9 .8 0 1 ,5 0 8

E xte rn a l co s t € b illio n p e r a n n u m 1 0 6 0 6 0

Ma rke t va lu e € b illio n p e r a n n u m 4 0 5 5 0 5 9 0

To ta l e co n o m ic va lu e € b illio n p e r a n n u m 5 0 6 1 0 6 6 0

Sources: GHK own estimates using data from Eurostat. External cost estimates sourced from COWI (using a UK study of the externalities of primary aggregate production and likely to be a minimum estimate; and taken as 10% of market price for energy, at current price of $100 a barrel, which approximates to €0.01 per kWh)

Notes:

  • 1. 
    Materials: The total amount of materials directly used, defined as the annual quantity of raw materials extracted from the domestic territory, plus all physical imports minus all physical exports. Data for 2007.
  • 2. 
    Energy: The total energy necessary to satisfy inland consumption of the EU based on consumption by the energy sector itself; distribution and transformation losses; and final energy consumption by end users. Data for 2008.

2.2.3. ew and emerging problems in the EU

In addition to the problems of well defined environmental impacts, there is also the risk that new and emerging problems will add to the current stock of problems. One case that illustrates this is the environmental risks from nanotechnology. It is likely that other risks will emerge in coming years. However, stakeholders considered this risk to be of less significance than the problem of implementing current policies.

2.3 The scale of environmental problems outside the EU

Table 1.3 provides an indicative estimate of the global external cost per year from a range of environmental impacts. The recent European Environment State and Outlook Report 2010 (SOER2010) highlights close link between Europe’s environmental challenges and those in the rest of the world. Europe is contributing to environmental pressures in other regions of the world, and at the same time, the impacts of activities elsewhere are increasingly affecting Europe.

This analysis provides a brief overview of key environmental issues that link the EU and other parts of the world: these are presented in the table below, which describes both EU influence on the rest of the world as well as those of other regions on Europe.

For the sake of analysis, these issues have been divided into three levels:

• Global issues • Regional issues (in this case, the Pan-European region of countries that are

members of the UN Economic Commission in Western, Central and Eastern

European, the Caucasus and Central Asia)

• Europe’s neighbourhood (bordering countries and others under the European

Neighbourhood Policy, ENP).

The EU has subscribed to number of multilateral environmental agreements to address these common issues. These agreements are found at global level, in the Pan-European region and also with neighbouring countries. A selected set of key conventions are also shown in the Table 1.4., together with key agreements the EU has undertaken, such as the Cancun Agreement on climate change agreed at the December 2010 COP. In a few cases, EU legislation calls for cooperation with neighbouring countries on shared ecosystems: an example is the Water Framework Directive (listed in the table).

SOER provides a description of environmental issues, including projections for some issues. It also provides an analysis of the long-term global megatrends that will influence Europe’s environment. Key megatrends are presented in the last column of the table along with brief information on projections, where available.

Table 1.4 Key environmental issues linking the EU and the rest of the world

Issue Global influence on EU EU influence on environment in Selected EU Global megatrends and their potential influence in coming environment other regions of the world Commitments years (from EEA, SOER 2010)

Shared global environmental issues

Climate change: mitigation • GHG emissions in • EU commitment to reduce GHG • UNFCCC and the Increasing severity of the consequences of climate change the rest of the world emissions Kyoto Protocol • Growth of emerging economies will increase their share of affecting climate • EU commitment to address • The Cancun global GHG emissions in coming decades

change impacts in climate change and assist Agreement

Europe developing countries in so doing • Climate and Energy

Package

Climate change: adaptation • GHG emissions in • EU commitment to assist • UNFCCC Increasing severity of the consequences of climate change

the rest of the world countries with adaptation • The Cancun • Without new policies, global climate change impacts will

affecting climate Agreement become more severe

change impacts in Europe

Biodiversity protection • Alien species from • Biodiversity loss in the EU • CBD Decreasing stocks of natural resources other parts of the affects global trends • Nagoya Declaration Increasing severity of the consequences of climate change

world disrupt EU • EU imports of endangered • CITES • Resource consumption and climate change are growing

ecosystems species • MDG 7b pressures on global biodiversity

• Habitat loss outside • EU commitment to support • EU Council

EU affects global biodiversity goals (3/2010)

migratory species

Transboundary movements of • Illegal EU exports of hazardous • Basel Convention Increasing unsustainable environmental pollution load hazardous waste waste • Waste exports from emerging economies may grow;

possible backlash in receiving countries

Other transboundary waste • Legal and illegal EU exports • Waste Framework Increasing unsustainable environmental pollution load movements (e.g. electronic waste, cars Directive, other • Waste exports from emerging economies may grow;

exported as second-hand goods) legislation possible backlash in receiving countries Issue Global influence on EU EU influence on environment in Selected EU Global megatrends and their potential influence in coming

environment other regions of the world Commitments years (from EEA, SOER 2010)

Transboundary movement of • Chemicals imported • EU exports of chemicals • Rotterdam • Thousands of chemicals are in commerce and for most,

chemicals to the EU as well as (including pesticides) could Convention (Prior their effects on human health and the environment are

chemicals found in harm human health and the informed consent) poorly understood

agricultural and environment in other parts of the • Stockholm • Chemical production outside the EU and OECD countries

manufactured world, especially if their storage, Convention is growing rapidly

imports may harm use and disposal are not properly (persistent organic • EU legislation – in particular REACH – provides a

human health and managed pollutants) comprehensive approach to assessing risks and applies to

the environment in • Support for sound imports; moreover, many governments are looking at EU

Europe management legislation.

through SAICM

EU share of consumption of • Competition for • EU imports of renewable/ non• MDG 7a Intensified global competition for resources

global renewable/nonnatural resources renewable imports and Decreasing stocks of natural resources

renewable resources (from oil and gas to “embedded” GHG emissions, • With rise of emerging economies, global resource demand

rare metals and water consumption, etc. will grow along with issues of price and scarcity: a concern

timber) affecting • EU goods imports and for EU in terms of environmental security

resource extraction “embedded” GHG emissions, in EU (from oil from water consumption, etc. regional seas to timber)

Insufficient access of the share • EU support for a shared global • MDG 7c Increasing unsustainable environmental pollution load of global population to safe commitment to halve the share • UN reports progress to drinking water goal, but sanitation

drinking water supply and of global population without goal remains more distant basic sanitation access to safe drinking water and

basic sanitation

The adverse living conditions • EU support for a shared global • MDG 7d Living in an urban world: spreading cities and spiralling

of slum dwellers commitment to improve the consumption

lives of at least 100 million slum • Improvements not keeping pace with growing numbers of

dwellers urban poor

Ozone layer protection • High share of ODS • Decreasing with accelerated • Montreal Protocol • Global ODS consumption expected to decline in coming

emissions from nonphase-out of ODS in EU years EU sources

Regional environmental issues (i.e. Pan-European)

Issue Global influence on EU EU influence on environment in Selected EU Global megatrends and their potential influence in coming environment other regions of the world Commitments years (from EEA, SOER 2010)

Transboundary air pollution • Air pollution from • Air pollution from EU to • LRTAP Increasing unsustainable environmental pollution load neighbouring neighbouring countries • EU emissions of SO 2 and NO x expected to decline (PM countries to EU • EU commitments under LRTAP and others to remain stable)

• Air pollution from • Inter-continental pollutants expected to raise background

other continents levels of pollution in EU

Transboundary water pollution • Water pollution • Water pollution from EU to • Helsinki Convention Increasing unsustainable environmental pollution load

from neighbouring neighbouring countries • Water Framework • Water pollution from urban areas in EU should decrease;

countries to EU Directive agricultural trends unclear

Issues in Europe’s direct neighbourhood

Shared ecosystems: regional • Exploitation of • EU fishing, aquaculture and • Conventions for Decreasing stocks of natural resources seas fisheries by other agricultural runoff, as well as Baltic, Black and • Concerns over oil and gas exploration in Arctic • Arctic countries chemical pollution from ships Med. seas and NE Increasing severity of the consequences of climate change • Baltic and industry, are having major Atlantic • Climate change will increase ecosystem vulnerability • Black impacts on coastal waters and • Marine Strategy • Mediterranean seas Framework

• NE Atlantic • EU exploitation of shared Directive

fisheries (varies by sea)

Shared cross-border • Shared migratory • Shared migratory species and • Carpathian Increasing severity of the consequences of climate change ecosystems (e.g. Carpathians, species and habitats habitats Convention and • Climate change will increase ecosystem vulnerability – and Dinaric Alps, Bialowieza • Links with neighbouring areas others need for ecological corridors Forest) can support habitats and species • COE Conventions

in the EU

Shared watercourses (e.g. • Water pollution • EU water pollution affecting • Water Framework Increasing severity of the consequences of climate change Danube, Dniestr, Daugava) from neighbouring neighbouring countries Directive • Climate change will increase ecosystem vulnerability countries affecting • Shared water resources and • Danube Convention • The intensity and frequency of water scarcity, droughts and

EU ecosystems and others flooding are expected to increase

• Shared water

resources and ecosystems

The impacts of the activities of non-EU countries on the effectiveness of EU environmental policy and intervention

Depolluting the Danube

The Danube River Basin (DRB) is Europe's second largest river basin, and the world's most ‘international’ river basin as it includes the territories of nineteen countries, nine of which are non-EU countries. The DRB contains 130 identified industrial pollution hot spots and suffers from toxic chemical pollution as well as eutrophication caused by nutrient runoff from agriculture and industrial pollutants discharged into the river. The DRB also faces water quantity issues as a function of dams

and flood control measures and vulnerability to climate change and extreme weather events 27 .

The Joint Action Programme 28 of the ICPDR demonstrated that the Danube Countries were willing to invest over €4.4 billion

over the period 2001-2005 in order to respond to priority needs in the sectors of municipal waste water collection and treatment, industrial waste water treatment, and agricultural pollution and land use.

Countries within the DRB are socially and economically diverse and face a variety of challenges that are bound up with the environment. Serbia and Romania contain significant mineral deposits that could serve as an economic foundation for rural development. However, the risks to the environment from poorly planned and technologically inadequate mining operations are great. While the EU’s environmental legal framework provides a protection to the environment, there are concerns that since this does not apply to non-EU countries, such as Serbia, it could undermine EU efforts to address pollution in the

Danube.

Threats to the conservation of the Egyptian vulture

The Egyptian Vulture was listed as Endangered in the IUCN Red List following a very recent and extremely rapid population

decline in India, Europe and West Africa, owing to a variety of threats 29 . The species is included in Annex I of the EU Wild

Birds Directive and in Appendix II of the Bern, Bonn and CITES Conventions. As a result of the important decline in Europe, the species was classified as Endangered at European and EU level.

The species is migratory and spends a considerable part of its life cycle in Africa, where it may be facing significant threats. The threats stem from a range of activities including the use of poison baits (prohibited in Europe by the Bern Convention and in the EU by both the Birds and the Habitats Directives); and the electrocution of migratory and wintering, Egyptian Vultures that prefer to roost on electrical poles and pylons. In the latter case, halting these deaths requires the insulation of the power lines, especially near Port Sudan and coordination with the Sudanese Electricity Company to ensure the use of a safe model of pylons.

It is not possible to quantify the costs relating to the losses of these vultures, EU based vultures,. based in the Balkans and also Southern Europe, particularly Spain. However this example demonstrates how activities taking place outside the EU are undermining the EU’s conservation efforts relating to these species, most notably through projects funded by the LIFE

programme to conserve a number of raptors 30 .

3. Underlying causes of environment and climate problems

The problems described above are a consequence of wide range of economic and social activity and behaviour, such as institutional drivers, market failures and regulatory failures.

The role of LIFE is not to solve the environmental problems but rather to act as catalyst for change in areas where a small instrument would be effective and achieve the highest EU added value. This has been achieved by funding start-up's actions and innovative, demonstrative, and best practice projects that could be replicated elsewhere, as well as by acting as a platform for knowledge-sharing. LIFE also acted as a gap filler. Given these characteristics, the instrument typically deals with institutional drivers (and in some cases also market failures). For this reason, only these drivers are described in this section.

27 Antypas, A (2010) Environment and the Purposes of a Danube Area Macro regional Strategy.

28 The Joint Action Programme (JAP) of the ICPDR outlines the specific steps that were agreed to be taken over

the period 2001-2005 to achieve the environmental objectives outlined in the Danube River Protection Convention.

29 BirdLife International, 2008.

70

• Uneven and inadequate level of environmental protection due to the insufficient

implementation 31 or scope of environmental and climate policy

Despite the well documented health and socio-economic benefits of implementing

environmental and climate legislation, a high rate of implementation failures remains. 32 New

strategies for implementation and compliance are being analysed in an effort to reduce implementation failures. The underlying causes for implementation failures identified are diverse and vary from Member State to Member State. One of the drivers to be highlighted is insufficient administrative capacity. The capacity of institutions include individual compentence, organisational capacities, the enabling environment and partnerships/network organisations (that describes the quality of the intereaction and cooperation among the relevant public, and private actors as well as with development of partners in the sector or among authorities). This situation occurs in a moment where the most demanding EU environmental acts (such as the Habitats Directive, the Water Framework Directive, the

Marine Strategy Framework Directive, Waste Framework Directive, the EU Climate and Energy Package or REACH to name a few) enter their crucial period of implementation.

• Uneven integration of environment and climate concerns into other policies

The principle of environmental integration recognises that environmental policy alone cannot

achieve the environmental improvements needed. 33 However, evidence (e.g., see the latest

Cohesion report) suggests that this approach has shown some limits. As a consequence, in practice, there are substantial divergences in the way environmental and climate objectives are incorporated into national/regional programmes and dealt with by the various authorities and the private sector. Underlying causes identified include different competing priorities, lack of absorption capacity and knowledge sharing, or lack of coordination between authorities

(including the fact that environmental authorities often do not have direct access to funding sources) and poor strategic planning. Overcoming barriers such as the lack of knowledge of the benefits that can be gained from improved integration will be key to addressing this area.

• Inadequate levels of awarenness and sharing of information

The problem of implementation and integration described above arise in part because of an inadequate sharing of information. The problem is twofold: insufficient understanding of environmental problems and challenges and insufficient knowledge sharing (e.g., potential solutions to the problems). Insufficient understading requires raising awareness among EU citizens and stakeholders to drive behavioural changes and promoting environmental responsiveness. Inadequate sharing of information and EU environmental/climate policy lessons requires more attention to networks, means for information flows, and cooperation between different actors that remain insufficient and inadequate, limiting the capacity for experience sharing and mutual learning.

31 It was discussed whether to consider implementation as a problem as such. However, given that legislation and

thus implementation of the acquis aims at solving the environmental and climate physical problems, it was decided to limit environmental problems to physical problems and consider uneven implementation as a driver to those problems. Nevertheless it should be acknowledged that most of the drivers and underlying causes mentioned can also be considered drivers and underlying causes for inadequate implementation in addition to independent drivers to environmental and climate physical problems.

32 One third of all open cases for non-compliance are environment related cases, which indicates that the

implementation of environmental legislation remains far from satisfactory.

33 COM(2004)394 i "Integrating environmental considerations into other policy areas – a stocktaking of the

Cardiff process".

• Inadequate support to eco-innovation

The pursuit of eco-innovation is not just developing new consumer products, services and technologies that are intrinsically cleaner and greener than their predecessors. It is also about engendering better practices and approaches across the economy. While market failures are addressed by other EU funds, institutional weaknesses in the area of eco-innovation are more insufficiently dealt with. This is particularly relevant for activities related to developing policy-driven and public sector oriented solutions to environmental problems that have no market replication potential and that simply promote new and more cost effective ways to implement environmental policy. Simirlaly, testing of new approaches remain inadequate.

Low carbon technology development is hampered by uncertainty and knowledge spill-over in general, which may lead to lower investment in R&D than optimal. In addition, there is a commercialisation problem for capital intensive technologies where investments are marked by long lead times. After technologies have been developed they need to be tested at a small scale, hence it will be critical to foster the take up of low carbon approaches, strategies and tools and to accelerate the learning curves as cost-effectively as possible.

4. Benefits of action

The scope for improvements in EU policy implementation and development can be demonstrated by the achievements of recent EU policy development and improvements. This can be evidenced to experience in MS and by reference to particular EU polices to demonstrate the costs and benefits of better, and better implemented, environmental policies.

Evidence 1: Benefits of improved environmental policy implementation and development

The development and implementation of improved environmental policies and legislation will lead to a wide range of benefits, including health benefits, eco-system benefits, and broader benefits such as benefits to natural resources (e.g. fisheries or agriculture), social benefits and also general economic benefits (e.g. attracting tourism or eco-efficiency gains). It is, however, important to clarify up front what is meant by benefits and how they are calculated. Many of the benefits are in fact avoided damage. This is the case notably for health benefits and other environmental benefits such as eco-system benefits. In other words, the benefit is calculated on the basis of understanding what the impact or level of damage is and how this will be reduced with improved environmental regulation. This leads to estimates for reductions in the incidence of respiratory diseases for example, the reduction in the number of poor quality rivers, or the reduction in agricultural losses from pollution deposition. Other benefits are more ‘common sense’ benefits, i.e. where improved regulation leads to actual improvements rather than just a reduction of damage. For example, the social benefits of increased learning and awareness of environmental impacts and increased involvement in solving environmental problems is this type of benefit. Another example is the issue of improved access to clean drinking water. Also, improved environmental policy may lead to enhanced competitiveness and new job opportunities, e.g. by promoting environmental technologies and innovation

Source: Ten Brink and Bassi, 2008 34

A number of recent case studies illustrate the economic and social benefits of improvements in the development and implementation of environmental policies at the MS level, which demonstrate the capacity to secure environmental objectives and to do so cost-effectively.

Evidence 2: Benefits of policy action for the environment – evidence from case studies

Implementation of Birds and Habitats Directive – Belgium (Flanders)

The Birds and Habitats Directives are the cornerstone of the EU’s nature and biodiversity policy. Although most of the

Natura 2000 network (central to implementation of the Directives) has now been established, effective protection, management and restoration of sites is now of utmost importance. In Flanders, one of the most densely populated regions

72

of the European Union, widespread pressures on environmental quality and natural areas particularly due to pollution and habitat fragmentation are affecting the ability of the region to reach its biodiversity targets, for example in terms of reducing the barriers to migratory fish species and improving the connectivity of its rivers. In response, the Flemish region has increasingly focused on a number of ecological restoration measures as part of its activities to meet the objectives of the Directives. This includes a trend towards larger restoration projects (supported by increased funding provided by the LIFE instrument); the acquisition of land for creation of nature reserves and the use of large public works such as port development/design of flood control areas, to carry out restoration activities.

In Belgium, the cost of implementing the network per year was recently estimated to be €195/ha/year, compared with an EU-25 average of €63/ha/year (Gantioler et al. 2010). The high per hectare costs are likely influenced by cost drivers such as population density (increased costs due to increased pressure on the site), highly scattered and small sites, and high levels of income (e.g. GDP, reflecting wages and land costs). No overall monetary valuation of the benefits of the Natura

2000 network compared to costs has yet been undertaken in Belgium (although site-level cost-benefit studies do exist). However, it has been shown through a range of studies that ecosystem restoration provides a number of ecosystem services which are of extremely high value, such as improving the resilience of the region against flooding (Decleer, K.

(2008). Additional studies (De Nocker et al. not dated, Liekens et al 2009, LNE 2010) have been undertaken attempting to estimate the value of these ecosystem services, which would otherwise have been lost without restoration of sites.

Some of those studies have shown that a combination of measures such as dykes and floodplains can be cost-effective, offering higher benefits at lower costs compared to more intensive man-made measures, such as the development of huge flood barriers near Antwerp.

Bio-waste prevention – Hungary

In 2005, 4,646 ktonnes of municipal waste was generated in Hungary, 27.6% of which is considered bio-waste. Hungary has not asked for a derogation under the Landfill Directive, and so has to reduce the amount of its biodegradable municipal waste going to landfills by 75% in 2004, 50% in 2009 and 35% in 2016. The majority of municipal waste

(82%) is currently landfilled, with less than 5% of bio-waste being composted. By 2020, it is estimated that Hungary’s generation of bio-waste will have increased by more than 30% compared to 2008 levels (2.1 ktonnes). There is thus a strong rationale for implementing waste prevention and recycling measures to divert waste from landfill. Waste prevention measures and changing the current disposal and treatment methods, (increasing the amount of bio-waste

(59%) disposed of through in-vessel composting) is expected to provide significant economic savings as well as reducing the environmental impacts of municipal waste

The PV of avoided environmental damage is estimated to be almost €90 million from 2013-2020 (roughly €10 per capita). The PV of the financial cost for composting is about €45 million (2013-2020), however the financial benefit from avoided landfilling, incineration, MBT and home composting reduces the overall cost. This case study did not investigate any potential benefits from job creation resulting from these measures.

Landfill diversion of biodegradable waste – Bulgaria

Bulgaria is confronted with widespread dumping in non managed dumpsites, although it is currently developing a network of well managed landfills combined with sanitation and land restoration of closed dumpsites. Despite this, complementary measures are needed, in particular the development of a bio-waste treatment capacity. One of the main measures relating to this is the development of a windrow composting plant, as an affordable solution to divert bio-waste from landfills. Bio-waste treatment, as one of the main composing elements of biodegradable waste, will help in reaching the EU acquis, and beyond.

The investment costs for developing such a plant are estimated to be almost €900,000 and operational costs are approximately €15/ton. The benefits of such a measure are multi-faceted and are mainly in terms of cost savings through home composting (avoided transport costs) and avoided landfill costs, as well as avoided CO 2 emissions, which totalled for the project period, amount to €240,000. Other benefits include positive impacts on human health, reduced water and soil contamination, aesthetic and landscape impacts and economic impacts, all of which impact on social welfare and thus need to be taken into consideration. The case study demonstrates that by increasing the recycling capacity and the quantity of biodegradable waste to be handled by composting, stimulated by funding programs, a significant benefit can be realised.

Air emission reduction measures – Croatia

The Croatian Air Protection Act is harmonised with Directive 96/62/EC i on Ambient Air Quality Assessment and Management and takes into account other EU Directives relating to air quality and emissions into air (97/101/EC).

Potential technical and policy measures have been proposed that can be implemented in the short term to guarantee that present and future air quality standards can be respected in Rijeka Port, thus complying with the European acquis.

35 Nera & Accent (2007): Report on the benefits of Water Framework Directive programmes of measures in

England and Wales, by Nera and Accent for the UK Department for environment, food and rural affairs (Defra), November 2007.

Potential measures include the use of fuel with a lower sulphur; flue gas desulphurization; advanced internal engine modification such as dry water injection (DWI), humid air motors (HAM) and exhaust gas recirculation.

The mandatory use of 0.1% content sulphur fuel by shipping when in the harbour would cost €4.6 million a year, and €2.4 when at berth. The annual cost of installing sustainable shore side electricity (above 5 visits) driven by the use of a differentiated harbour tax would amount to €2.4 million. Other benefits for agricultural production, cultural heritage or ecosystems from reduced pollutant emissions are excluded and the potential benefits under-estimated The annual cost of implementing a secondary catalytic reduction process would amount to €1.6 million. By using figures in the Clean Air for

Europe (CAFE) Programme on the average damages on human health, the resulting reduction in pollutant emissions by implementing these select measures would lead to net benefits of €7.3 million a year. Other measures (e.g. flue gas desulphurization and more significant motor adaptations) lead to significant net costs due to the high investment costs of the measures.

Water Framework Directive – UK

Improving water quality is the leading objective of water policy within the EU. As a resource, the quality and availability of water is important for economic sustainability, social well being, human health and the preservation of the environment. The Water Framework Directive (WFD) is the overarching legislative tool aimed at achieving this objective. To achieve compliance with the Directive, each environmental standard must be accomplished (or a derogation issued) and a series of reporting deadlines must be met to ensure that national plans and systems are in place to effectively implement and enforce the Directive.

It is difficult to provide an EU-level cost in this case study for methodological reasons. However, the results of the UK assessments are indicative of the order of magnitude of the expected costs and benefits. They suggest that the cost of full compliance with the WFD is approximately €63 billion in the UK by 2015 (although this does not take into account the

fact that less stringent targets apply and phased improvements are permitted). A UK benefits study 35 estimated the

aggregate willingness to pay (WTP) benefits of the WFD by households ranged from €21-€33 billion per annum.

However, other benefits must also be considered - in terms of cost savings for industries which rely on both large volumes of water and good quality water resources (such as cost savings in drinking water treatment). The EU wide benefit of this was estimated to be around €362.5 million per year due to reduced pesticide contamination and €70 million in the Netherlands alone from reduced metal removal costs. Taking these other benefits into account demonstrates that the benefits of effective implementation of WFD are sizeable and justify the costs of implementation.

The value of this process can be identified from a review of recent improvements in EU policy development, two examples of which include:

  • 1. 
    Air quality improvements 36 - Additional measures to deliver better air quality would

    cost between 0.04% and 0.12% of EU-25 GDP in 2020, but would achieve health benefits

    alone that would exceed the costs by a factor of two or more;

  • 2. 
    Improved pesticides management 37 - Introducing further measures on the sustainable

    use of pesticides would generate net benefits to the EU especially farmers even with

    additional costs to some industries.

These examples are further discussed in the Box below. The exploitation and demonstration of such opportunities to improve the scope and stringency of the acquis, where marginal changes can be made, and where the cost-effectiveness of action can be shown, will continue to be needed.

Evidence 3: Environmental and economic benefits of improvements in EU environmental policy - exemplars

Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution and the Directive on Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe 38

36 The Communication on Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution and The Directive on “Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe” Impact Assessment. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/cafe/general/keydocs.htm.

37 European Commission (2006)Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides. Impact Assessment. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ppps/pdf/sec_2006_0894.pdf.

Cleaner Air for Europe” Impact Assessment. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/cafe/general/keydocs.htm.

74

Emissions of pollutants to air, not only damage the environment through changes to the climate and air quality (i.e. greenhouse gases and particulate emissions), but can also have repercussions for water and soil environments, as suspended pollutants in the atmosphere can be deposited in each environment through precipitation. Recognising the success of previous strategies and the legislative action taken to reduce air pollution and protect the environment, the Commission has investigated what additional measures could be employed to deliver greater benefits by revising the strategy and its constituent legislative tools. To achieve significant improvements by 2020, three options for abatement of emissions are assessed, based on incremental degrees of pollution abatement. Net of the baseline, the direct abatement costs for the EU were estimated to be in the region of €5.9 billion for Scenario 1, and €14.9 billion for Scenario 3 per year in 2020. Additionally, the indirect costs were also assessed using the GEM-E3 general equilibrium model of the EU economy which accounts for the direct and wider economic impacts, such as those relating to price changes, labour market adjustments and feedback effects caused by implementing the abatement measures. The estimated costs of the scenarios in

this model were estimated to be between 0.04% and 0.12% of EU-25 GDP in 2020 respectively.

Assessing the benefits of these measures, the following estimates were calculated:

• Human health benefits of €37-€120 billion in scenario 1 and €49-€160 billion in Scenario 3, based on the value of

statistical lives saved in 2020 (equivalent to 0.1%-0.35% of GDP);

• Damage reduction to agricultural crops in 2020 of €0.3 billion per year; and

• Environmental benefits equivalent to 74% less forest area and 39% less freshwater area where acidification critical

loads are exceeded, plus 43% less area where critical loads for eutrophication are exceeded in 2020.

Based on the health benefits alone, the analysis indicates that the benefits should at least exceed the costs by a factor of two or more, if the environmental and agriculture benefits are to be accounted for. A clear justification for improving the

implementation and development of environmental policy therefore exists.

Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides 39

A review of the thematic strategy on the use of pesticides to include plant protection and biocidal products has revealed that substantial benefits can still be achieved through the introduction of further measures to protect human health and the environment. The Strategy sits between two other leading pieces of environmental legislation, the REACH regulation to regulate what chemicals can be placed on the market and the Water Framework Directive (WFD) which monitors residues of chemicals entering the water environment. The Thematic strategy is therefore responsible for regulating the use of

pesticides.

The proposed measures target a reduction of the risks for the environment and human health linked to the use of plant protection products. The overall costs and benefits of the strategy are summarised in Table 1 below, reproduced from the

impact assessment.

Table 1: Costs and Benefits of the Thematic Strategy on Pesticides

Benefits Costs Balance Farmers €1,110 - €1440 million /yr (Reduced health impacts) €725 million /yr €380 - €710 million Industries + 3,000 jobs €300 - €670 million /yr (could be contained through more advisory services and development of more innovative products) -€670 to - €300 million/yr + 3000 jobs Member State Authorities

€200 million /yr (savings for health and environment costs) + 180 jobs Positive impacts on humans and the environment

The analysis clearly indicates a positive net benefit from the revision of existing legislation protecting human health and the environment.

39 European Commission (2006) Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides. Impact Assessment.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ppps/pdf/sec_2006_0894.pdf .

It is not possible to specify the exact contribution of implementation failures to the overall scale of the problem. Moreover, the full implementation of existing policies would not be expected to internalise all external costs, where the costs of doing so would be greater than the environmental benefits achieved. However, the costs of continued environmental damage would be lower if the acquis were properly implemented; difficulties of transposition and inadequate capacities to implement and enforce polices at MS level are resulting in higher external costs. Effective implementation of environmental policy can lead to cost savings as well as environmental benefits.

Benefits from implementing the IPPC – To date, there has been insufficient implementation of best available techniques (BAT). Estimates indicate that implementing BAT is likely to incur additional costs of €2– €7 billion for industry and yield €9 – €30 billion in cost savings, a benefit-cost ratio of over €5 for every €1 spent. This increases to over €7 for every €1 spent if health benefits are included.

This example is further detailed in the Box below.

Evidence 4: Environmental and economic benefits of the implementation of EU environmental policy - exemplars

Industrial Emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (recast) Directive 40

The review process evaluating the performance of the first IPPC Directive 96/61/EC i highlighted a number of problems which were adversely affecting the cost effective implementation of the Directive by the Member State authorities and industrial operators. Foremost amongst these problems is the insufficient implementation of best available techniques (BAT) leading to limited progress in the prevention and reduction of industrial emissions and to distortion of competition due to large differences in environmental standards between operators in the different Member States. While the initial compliance costs associated with introducing BAT may be higher, the BREF supporting document prepared for each industry sector prove that sufficient cost savings can occur through greater energy, water and material efficiency, in addition to reductions in waste generation to exceed the initial investment cost. Estimates of the impacts indicate the implementing BAT is likely to incur additional costs of €2.1- €6.5 billion for industry and yield €9 – €30 billion in cost savings. This result suggests a cost benefit ratio of over €5 for every €1 spent.

If health benefits of €7-€28 billion per year due to the reduction of premature deaths/ years of lives lost by 13,000 and 125,000 respectively are included then this ratio increases to over €7 per €1 spent.

40 Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on Industrial Emissions (integrated pollution

prevention and control) (recast) Impact Assessment http://eurlex.europa.eu/Notice.do?val=462132:cs&lang=en&list=511975:cs,516991:cs,508612:cs,505133:cs,499125:cs,48 5132:cs,461932:cs,462133:cs,462132:cs,261603:cs,&pos=9&page=1&nbl=16&pgs=10&hwords=&checktexte= checkbox&visu=#texte .

Environmental externalities values: Data sources used to calculate the economic value of environmental impacts

Theme Indicator Economic value per Source unit €

Environment, Policy and Governance (EPG)

Climate Reduction in CO2 emissions – tonnes 120 Watkiss, P.(2006): The social cost of carbon, by Paul Watkiss Associates, UK, for Defra, available at:

Change/Air/ Urban http://www.oecd.org/dataoecd/19/21/37321411.pdf.

Environment This reference provides EU price as 70-170 Euros, hence average of 120 Euros per tonne carbon.

Natural resources Reduction in energy consumption – 0.0015 The value of energy savings was calculated by converting MJ into kwh, and then using a standard figure and waste tons/CO2 for kg / CO2 of electricity generated in the UK. This value was identified at:

http://www.defra.gov.uk/environment/business/reporting/pdf/20090928-guidelines-ghg-conversionfactors.pdf ). The total tonnage of CO2 emissions was subsequently multiplied by the social cost of carbon of €120 / tonne.

Likely reduction in use of limited or 10 COWI (July 2010) Economic Analysis of Resource Efficiency Policies, DG environment non-renewable natural resources: Tons per year

Likely reduction in non-hazardous 11 DG Env (2000) A Study on the Economic Valuation of Environmental Externalities from Landfill solid waste generation tonnes/year Disposal and Incineration of Waste http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/pdf/econ_eva_landfill_report.pdf Assumes that the landfill is a modern containment landfill that fulfils the demands of the newest directive (EC/31/1999). The landfill has a leachate collection and treatment system. Further, the landfill gas is collected to generate electricity and heat (CHP). Includes global warming, air pollution, leachate, disamenity and pollution displacement externalities.

Environmental externalities values: Data sources used to calculate the economic value of environmental impacts

Theme Indicator Economic value per Source unit €

Likely increase in recycling of waste - 11 DG Env (2000) A Study on the Economic Valuation of Environmental Externalities from Landfill Tons/year Disposal and Incineration of Waste http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/studies/pdf/econ_eva_landfill_report.pdf Assumes that the landfill is a modern containment landfill that fulfils the demands of the newest directive (EC/31/1999). The landfill has a leachate collection and treatment system. Further, the landfill gas is collected to generate electricity and heat (CHP). Includes global warming, air pollution, leachate, disamenity and pollution displacement externalities.

Soil Reduced of soil erosion - ha 51 From Commission staff working document - Document accompanying the Communication from the

Commission to the Council, The European Parliament, the European Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions - Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection - Impact assessment of the thematic strategy on soil protection {COM(2006)231 final} {SEC(2006)1165} http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=CELEX:52006SC0620:EN:NOT .

Based on intermediate figure for cost of soil erosion in Europe of €7,624 million (2003 €), for approximately 150 million ha. This is only based on data for 13 European countries. Therefore €7624 million/150 ha = €51/ha.

Forests Protection of forest area - ha 1836 Ten Brink, P., Braat, L., Rayment, M., Bräuer, I., Chiabai, A., Bassi, S., Markandya, A., Nunes, P., ten Brink, B., van Oorschot, M., Gerdes H., Stupak, N., Foo, V., Kettunen, M., & Gantioler, S. 2009. Further Developing. Figure based on COPI values for bioregions in Europe.

Water Area of rivers/lakes that will have 36 Benefits from improved environmental quality from eutrophication in marine ecosystem. Valuation of air improved quality (chemical, pollutation ecosystem damage acid ozone nitrogene and biodiversity; DG Environment, October 2007.

microbiological or ecological) -ha A study calculated the potential benefits of improved water in Swedish archipelago as 506-842 SEK. The evaluation team estimated the potential benefits in the EU given the characteristics of the geographical area in question (e.g. the size and the population).

Likely improvement in areas meeting 36 Benefits from improved environmental quality from eutrophication in marine ecosystem. Valuation of air

national quality standards/ targets - ha pollutation ecosystem damage acid ozone nitrogene and biodiversity; DG Environment, October 2007.

Area of likely improved groundwater 120 EU Water saving potential (Part 2 – Case Studies) ENV.D.2/ETU/2007/0001r, 19. July 2007: Ecologic - quality - ha Institute for International and European Environmental Policy

Environmental externalities values: Data sources used to calculate the economic value of environmental impacts

Theme Indicator Economic value per Source unit €

Air Likely improvement of air quality - 0.038 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Annex to : The Communication on Thematic Strategy on km2 Air Pollution and The Directive on “Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe” Impact

Assessment, SEC (2005) 1133

Likely improvement of air quality - 91 COMMISSION STAFF WORKING PAPER Annex to : The Communication on Thematic Strategy on Number of people that will be affected Air Pollution and The Directive on “Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe” Impact Assessment, SEC (2005) 1133

Health benefits under the chosen level of ambition. The evaluation team selected what the EC calls “the mid-range scenario”: the middle value improvement in each category. The figure includes fewer premature deaths, less sickness, fewer hospital admission, improved labour productivity.

Likely increase in area with ambient 0.038 The Communication on Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution and The Directive on Ambient Air Quality air quality meeting EU air quality and Cleaner Air for Europe standards - km2

Likely reduction in emissions of 1,308 The Communication on Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution and The Directive on Ambient Air Quality noxious gasses (e.g. SO2, NOx, and Cleaner Air for Europe NMVOC an NH3) - tonnes/year

People that will be better protected 37,348 Reference: de Leeuw, F. and Horálek, J. (2009). Assessment of the health impacts of the exposure to from air pollution by particles? PM2.5 at a European level. ETC/ACC Technical paper 2009/1.

Environment and Number of people

Health The benefit per person is €37,300. This is based on an approximate reduction in mortality associated with reducing particulate matter concentrations. If we assume that the LIFE interventions decrease

mortality by 5% (low scenario in reference used), then every person lives ~0.5 years longer. Value of a Year of Life Lost is €75,000, so 0.5 years is worth €37,300 per person.

Nature and Biodiversity

Ecosystem services of habitats that 7083 All values across habitats are taken from the following source:

Coastal and will be created or re-created – ha ten Brink, P., Braat, L., Rayment, M., Bräuer, I., Chiabai, A., Bassi, S., Markandya, A., Nunes, P., ten

Halophytic Habitat Habitats that will be restored – ha Brink, B., van Oorschot, M., Gerdes H., Stupak, N., Foo, V., Kettunen, M., & Gantioler, S. 2009. Further Habitats that will be bought under Developing

sympathetic management – ha Figure based on COPI values for bioregions in Europe. There is likely to be considerable variation Environmental externalities values: Data sources used to calculate the economic value of environmental impacts

Theme Indicator Economic value per Source unit €

Ecosystem services of habitats that 60970 between habitats in specific bioregions due to biotic / abiotic factors. Coastal Sand will be created or re-created – ha

Dunes and Inland Habitats that will be restored – ha

Dunes Habitats that will be bought under sympathetic management – ha

Ecosystem services of habitats that 3675

Freshwater will be created or re-created – ha

Habitats Habitats that will be restored – ha Habitats that will be bought under

sympathetic management – ha

Ecosystem services of habitats that 317

Temperate Heath will be created or re-created – ha

and Scrub Habitats that will be restored – ha Habitats that will be bought under

sympathetic management – ha

Ecosystem services of habitats that 89

Sclerophyllous will be created or re-created – ha

scrub Habitats that will be restored – ha Habitats that will be bought under

sympathetic management – ha

Ecosystem services of habitats that 202 Natural and Semiwill be created or re-created – ha

Natural Grassland Habitats that will be restored – ha

Formations Habitats that will be bought under sympathetic management – ha

Ecosystem services of habitats that 1845

Raised Bogs, will be created or re-created – ha

Mires and Fens Habitats that will be restored – ha Habitats that will be bought under

sympathetic management – ha

Ecosystem services of habitats that 1836

Forests will be created or re-created – ha

Habitats that will be restored – ha Environmental externalities values: Data sources used to calculate the economic value of environmental impacts

Theme Indicator Economic value per Source unit €

Habitats that will be bought under sympathetic management – ha

Controlling invasive species / ha / year 21 Reference: Kettunen, M., Genovesi, P., Gollasch, S., Pagad, S., Starfinger, U. ten Brink, P. & Shine, C. Invasive Alien (2008) Technical support to EU strategy on invasive species (IAS) - Assessment of the impacts of IAS in Species Europe and the EU (final module report for the European Commission). Institute for European

Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussels, Belgium. 44 pp. + Annexes

ANNEX 6: E XAMPLES ILLUSTRATING THE EU ADDED VALUE OF THE LIFE PROGRAMME

1. The concept of EU added value in LIFE

Most environmental problems have a transboundary or transnational nature and cannot be adequately solved by Member States alone without international cooperation. Member States need to join forces and create partnerships with stakeholders to tackle these problems which, if not solved, may later come at a great cost for the EU as whole. LIFE attracts partnerships that otherwise would be difficult to set-up, ensuring a more effective intervention than

Member States' individual action by an increased pooling of resources and expertise.

At the same time, some EU environmental problems are better addressed at regional or local level, also because some EU environmental assets are very localised. Local solutions can be replicated in other areas or transfered to sectors facing similar problems. LIFE provides the platform for development and exchange of best practices and knowldedge-sharing allowing

Member States and stakeholders to learn from each other and address the environmental problem more efficiently.

Finally, environmental assets are unevenly distributed across the EU and the obligation to preserve them calls for a consistent application of the principle of responsability sharing and solidarity.

2. Examples of EU added value in the LIFE programme

2.1. Solidarity: Pooling efforts to protect EU natural capital and environmental assets

By assisting Member States that host most valuable EU natural capital or are confronted with transboundary or transational environmental problems, LIFE allows for a better distribution of responsibility and solidarity in preserving the EU environmental common good. This is typically the case of Natura 2000 with high concentration of species and sites of EU importance in certain countries frequently associated with a reduced capacity to address the needs of protecting the network.

Ilustration: LIFE and the Iberian lynx (Spain and Portugal)

The Iberian lynx is the world’s most endangered feline species and the most endangered carnivorous mammal in Europe.

Numbers of the animal declined significantly from around 1000 in 1990 in Spain and Protugal to 102 by 2002 localised in two areas in Andalucía: Sierra Morena and Doñana. The lynx is one of the most emblematic EU specie and an umbrella species that helps in the conservation of a whole ecosystem.

Building partnerships for species protection. To build on and move beyond the findings of regional projects, the Andalusian government applied for LIFE funding to develop a partnership project to consolidate and guarantee the future of the lynx populations, principally by restoring rabbit populations. The partnership included all those crucial to protecting the lynx such as hunters and landowners organisations, environmental NGOs and international experts on carnivores conservation.

When the project started only 102 specimenes remained in the entire word. After two LIFE projects population has increased up to 270 specimens, it is being reintroduced in new areas, and further reintroduction in Portugal and other Spanish regions is expected. Furthermore, the project works in close collaboration with the captive breeding programme financed by Spain and

Portugal creating synergies between EU funding and national funds. Hopes are high to upgrade the conservation status of this EU essential species.

2.2. Catalytic role of LIFE

LIFE acts as a catalyst to start-up action, providing one-off investment needed in a specific area, eliminating initial barriers to the implementation of EU environmental policy and testing new approaches for future scaling up. LIFE addresses gaps and externalities, raises awareness and demonstrates the benefits of environmental protection.

Illustration: LIFE eliminating barriers to facilitate the implementation and acceptance of the Habitats Directive

LIFE started in 1992 just after the Habitats Directive was adopted. Since its beginnings LIFE was a crucial instrument for its implementation: firstly by financing the inventories required for the designation of the Natura2000 sites both in old and new

Member States; secondly by restoring and improving the conservation status of habitats and species; thirdly by building the capacity required to manage the network in the long term; and fourthly by eliminating the initial resistance in many sectors, including public administration, to implement the Directive.

Farming for Conservation in the Burren: The Burren region in Ireland (c.720km2) was always in demand by farmers whose unique pastoral activities – including the reverse transhumance tradition of winter grazing – have been proven to be central to the presence of such a rich biodiversity. However, a distortion of the ‘balance’ between farming and the Burren in recent decades has resulted in serious conservation concerns: agricultural intensification has impacted on water quality, while a reduction in farming on rough limestone grasslands has resulted in extensive scrub encroachment. Livelihoods in the farming and the tourism sector were also threatened as a result.

An EU LIFE Nature project brought together farmers, scientists, conservationists and agriculturalists to work proactively together to help resolve these problems and formulate a blueprint for sustainable farming in the Burren. Innovative ideas such as the development of new grazing and feeding systems were launched to improve habitat health without further compromising the financial viability of the farming system. The success of this project led to a pioneering ‘Burren Farming for Conservation Programme (BFCP)’ funded through the Irish Rural Development Programme. Massively oversubscribed, the BFCP now works with 120 Burren farmers managing 12,887ha within Natura 2000.

2.3. Creating synergies, multipliers and leverage

LIFE helps Member States and stakeholders to accelarate and improve the implementaton of EU legislation by finding more cost-effective ways to address environmental problems and by creating synergies across EU funds and national funds while levering in additional national and private sector funds to ensure the continuation of activities financed under LIFE or expanding their results.

Illustration: LIFE ensuring synergies across EU funds and national funds

Protection and usage of aapa mires with a rich avifauna in Finland: The aim of this LIFE project was to prepare conservation and management plans for five areas within the central Lapland aapa mire zone, so that ecotourism and recreational use can be organised on a sustainable basis. The project succeeded in combining resources from different EU sources (LIFE for planning and ERDF for construction of the tourism infrastructure) and national funds (for construction of barns on the hay meadows). The use of various funding sources provided the opportunity to make environmental objectives more ambitious. Implementation of the service structure in Lapland has increased interest in the Natura 2000 network as a whole and brought positive publicity to the project. The success in combining funds led to setting up of a group at regional level responsible for planning the yearly allocation of domestic and EU resources for Natura 2000 allowing greater integration of environment in the wider development objectives, engaging more stakeholders and building capacity.

Protecting coastal meadows in Estonia: LIFE projects have financed the restoration and conservation of Estonian's coastal meadows part of Natura 2000 network. In 2003 the administration of the Silma Nature Reserve applied for a LIFE-Nature project on these habitats. Using the experience of the previous LIFE projects, the Reserve administration set up and started implementing management plans for the Natura 2000 sites concerned. These have been used as a basis for a National

Environment Action Plan 2007-2013, the Development Plan of the Environment Ministry and the Rural Development Plan 2007-2013. Moreover thanks to the LIFE project the nature administration in Estonia was reorganised and the management tools developed through the LIFE project are being used in other protected areas of the same region and the experience gained by LIFE project is now available to the whole region. The sustainability of the habitat management has been guaranteed by using the national subsidies for semi-natural grasslands under the RDR scheme. A similar cooperation is currently being developed concerning the use of Regional Development funds, through the State Forest Management Centre, which is responsible for the construction and maintenance of all visitor infrastructures in the area.

Illustration: LIFE as a platform for dissemination best practices and knowledge-sharing (creating multipliers and

leverage)

The Open MI project developed an innovative tool which allows the integration of predictive models in watershed management and so helps implementing the Water Framework Directive (which requires an integrated approach and thus integrated modelling for the watershed). The project secured continued funding in the form of venture capital to allow development of the standard operational software to a next level. As a result, applications for the software are being considered not just in Europe but internationally, with a high level of interest in USA.

The MAD but Better project: One of the objectives of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) is the long-term progressive reduction of contaminant discharges to the aquatic environment in urban wastewater. One of the products of wastewater treatment processes is sludge, the use of which is encouraged by the Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive whenever appropriate. However it continues to remain an environmentally senstive issue with a significant need to build confidence through regulatory compliance. The LIFE project developed and demonstrated a full-scale treatment process which made it highly adaptable to a range of companies in this related waste industries and therefore gave the plant high replication transferability potential. It became a catalyst for improved wastewater managenment and the project’s technology has now become the new sludge treatment standard for the entire UK water industry. By August 2007, four Enzymic Hydrolysis

Plants had been built by the beneficiary and five ordered by other UK. 12 EU Member States and 26 countries around the world have already shown interest in replicating the treatment plant. In addition, the cost of sludge disposal is further reduced to just €210 per tonne of dry solid - this compares very favourably with average landfill costs of €415 per tonne. It also saves farmers around €175 per ha in fertiliser replacement.

PERBIOF: Wastewater treatment plants face recurrent problems such as sludge production and toxicity of treated effluents in the tannery sector. The PERBIOF project developed at demonstration scale an innovative technology for treating municipal and/or industrial wastewater. The high compactness of the plant in comparison with traditional plants meant the footprint is some 25% of that of a standard plant and sludge production is about one thirtieth of the amount produced by a traditional plant. Although investment costs are 10% higher than for a standard plant, operating costs are one-third of those of a standard plant. With €625,000 EU investment over 3 years, the LIFE project estimated that by using its technology, €72 million per year in cost savings could be achieved by the tannery industry. The project yields a Net Present Value (NPV) over

10 years, discounted at 4%, of €655 million. This is equivalent to over €1,000 in benefits generated for every €1 spent in LIFE.

The “SuperC” project aimed to demonstrate the economical and ecological advantages of using geothermal energy to heat and cool large buildings. Taking the Students' Service Centre of the RWTH Institute of Technology at the University of

Aachen as its demonstration site, it planned to develop an installation which would provide the energy required for the heating and cooling of this large building with a 95 percent reduction in CO 2 emissions.

2.4. Bringing solutions to upcoming environmental challenges of EU interest

Stakeholders are often confronted with environmental problems for which no solutions have been found yet, and which, if not addressed at an early stage, will lead to higher costs. LIFE offers the possiblity for stakeholders (public and private) to find solutions to these problems and a direct channel for influencing EU decision making, such as modification of BREF and

BATs or even proposing the development of new legislation and demonstrating the economic feasibility of these solutions.

Illustration: finding cost-effective solutions for emerging environmental policy

PAMELA: Based on the results of the PAMELA project (Process for Advanced Management of End of Life Aircraft), Airbus set up sustainable proccess for aircraft dismantling and recovery applicable across the sector and recommended the development of EU legislation for this waste stream. TARMAC (Tarbes Advanced Recycling and Maintenance Aircraft

Company) was established in 2007 to provide parking and dismantling services for some of the 6,000 aircrafts that will retire during the next 20 years. TARMAC has already started work on dismantling aircraft and Airbus sees the TARMAC site at

Tarbes as the first of a network, all of which will apply the lessons learned from PAMELA.

RECYSHIP: The main expected results of this ongoing project are optimised processes for decontamination and dismantling of end-of-life ships, the definition of suitable areas for possible installation (based on capacity and ecological criteria) and the development of a good environmental management system for European ships. The project also intends to provide support to future EU legislation for ship dismantling.

BIOAGRO project: Support for methods to reduce Greenhouse gas output in the agricultural sector leading to the setting up of a complete facility for producing a carbon neutral biomass pellet fuel. This project was targeted towards developing and implementing an innovative method to reduce greenhouse gas output from the agricultural sector. The project involved the seed industry, combustion technology industry and academia.

2.5. Increased effectiveness and efficiency of EU level intervention: creating critical mass

Changing behaviours is one of the most challenging aspects of EU environmental policy.

LIFE has created partnerships between different Member States' authorities and specialists in communication to develop campaigns that raise awareness among authorities, citizens and the private sector on the need to adopt more sustainable practices. Without LIFE, the geographical impact of such campaigns would have been much more limited.

Illustration: Changing behaviours by EU joined action

European day 'In town, without my car?' (subsequently becoming the European Mobility Week): In 2002, the campaign succeeded in establishing a truly European initiative with 320 cities from 21 countries taking part in European Mobility

Week. A second event held in September 2003 consisted of a week-long series of awareness-raising events focusing on various aspects of sustainable mobility. Mobility Week succesfully continues taking place in Europe and is now spreading to the rest of the world via grassroots networks.

The European Week of Waste Reduction. The LIFE project EWWR aims to reduce the amount of waste generated in the EU by mobilising all relevant actors in a EU-wide awareness-raising campaign and changing behaviours of different stakeholders in their waste generation. 4 Member States have joined to develop a common strategy as well as tools to carry out awareness-raising activities on recycling around the EU over one week every year. In 2009, 2,672 initiatives were carried out, in 2010 there were 4,346 in 24 countries reflecting the success of the event. In 2011 expectations are even higher.

ANNEX 7: A SSESSMENT OF THE LIFE+ R EGULATION : DATA USED TO CALCULATE THE

IMPACTS OF THE BASELINE SCENARIO

1 The LIFE+ Regulation (2007-2013)

For the assessment of the LIFE+ Regulation, assumptions have been the following:

• the basic objectives and structure of the instrument remain the same (and that the

completion of the 6EAP in 2012 is followed by a replacement statement that continues to define the strategic policy objectives for the next programme period);

• the current allocation of €2.2 billion over 7 years (€300m per year) remains the same

in real terms;

• the emerging policy needs, in so far as they differ from the current period, are

reflected in the strategic policy statement and hence in the different delivery mechanisms;

• the priority recommendations adopted from the mid-term evaluation (MTE) of the

regulation are implemented. They aim to improve the policy focus and multiplier value of the instrument and also to allow funding of activities in third countries where

it delivers EU added value.

The impact assessment has focused on the use of action grants given their significance in the overall instrument, but also includes consideration of the impacts of the operating grants to

NGOs. The scale and type of public procurement expenditure is the same for all options and is therefore not included in the impact assessment. The assessment of action grants is based on a survey of project beneficiaries contracted under the first three years of the programme.

The table below provides a summary of the responses received. These response rates provide the basis of grossing-up survey responses. Based on the first three years, the annual investment cost of the programme (including Member State investment) is: Nature and

Biodiversity (NAT): €199m; Environmental Policy & Governance (EPG): €223m; nformation & Communications (INF): €17m; Total: €438m.

Table 1.1 Summary of the LIFE+ Action Grant projects contracted (2007-2009) and survey responses

PROJECTS FUNDING – Total Investment (Number) (€ million)

Total Sample Response Total Sample Response Rate Rate

NAT* 215 37 17% 563 63 11%

EPG 288 90 31% 668 238 36%

INF 39 13 33% 50 14 29%

Total 549 147 27% 1,318 348 26%

Source: EC LIFE+ monitoring records and GHK survey returns

*Excludes 7 projects and €33m of funding for marine projects

In the context of a proposal for a specific instrument for environment and climate action, activities that address climate change are included. In the case of nature projects, these contribute directly to climate adaptation through contributing to eco-system resilience and explicit climate adaptation functions, such as flood management. In the case of EPG, climate change is an explicit policy theme and has been recognised as a priority theme in calls for proposals. In the first three years of the current programme 28% of contracted EPG funding was provided to projects classified under the climate change theme. The assessment of action grants has covered the three sub-components of Nature and Biodiversity (NAT);

Environmental Policy & Governance (EPG); and Information & Communications (INF). Given the early stages of projects and the emphasis in some projects on results that only indirectly influence environmental impacts, the assessment focuses on projects funded under

NAT and EPG.

1.1. Impact assessment of action grants for Nature & Biodiversity (NAT) and Environmental Policy & Governance (EPG)

The impact of the NAT and EPG projects has been assessed in terms of the physical environmental impacts, the economic value of these benefits in so far as relevant external costs have been identified, and any related economic and social impacts identified by the projects. It is important to recognise that the projects, especially those only recently contracted, have yet to be completed. The assessment is therefore based on the best

assessments of project managers as to the likely future impact of the projects. 41 Projects were

asked to anticipate the impact three years after the end of the project, recognising a period of elapsed time would be required before the full impacts of the projects could be realised.

1.1.1. Environmental Impacts

The environmental impact has been examined by reference to a series of indicators selected to reflect the nature of the projects, and withthe aim to maintain some consistency with the indicators previously used in the ex-post assessment of the LIFE III programme (see in section 2 the list of indicators used in the assessment). The relevant estimates of the value of the environmental impacts have been sourced from the literature.

(a) ature & Biodiversity

In the case of NAT projects, the assessment has examined the impacts by broad habitat type. The reported impacts for selected indicators are shown in the Table 1.2. below.

Table 1.2 Reported impacts on habitats: Expected impacts of LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity projects on

selected indicators 42

Survey Response Applied to All Projects*

No of No of

Selected Indicators Habitats/A reas/ Area (Ha) Habitats/Areas Area (Ha)

Species / Species

Habitats that will be created or re-created 25 684 200 6,100

Habitats that will be restored 1,221 242,518 10,800 2,154,100

Habitats that will be brought under

sympathetic management 2,172 114,733 19,300 1,019,100

Priority areas protected from invasive species 20 9,666 200 85,900

Species and area of habitats that will benefit

from local biodiversity action 108 163,060 1,000 1,448,300

*Grossed up results based on the share of total project investment reported.

41 See also the Ex Post Evaluation of Projects and Activities Financed under the LIFE Programme. Available

from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/evaluation/.

42 These figures relate to impacts that are expected to be seen after three years of the project ending. The figures

therefore relate to expected not achieved results – no projects under the current programme have finished.

The total area benefitting from projects is of around 4.7m hectares of land. This represents some 6% of the total area of the designated Natura 2000 terrestrial sites. Although a number of responses were received from marine based projects, these are not included in the above results, which are based only on terrestrial projects, including coastal projects.

The reported environmental impacts have been converted into an estimated economic value using published externality values for eco-system services associated with different types of habitat. These are applied to estimates of the environmental impacts by habitat type as reported by projects. Given the lack of detailed knowledge of the individual projects (e.g. the level of quality of the ecosystems within these projects) and the related eco-system benefits, the following estimate (Table 1.3) should be taken as providing only a very approximate estimate of the economic value of the environmental benefits. The externality values are based on case studies of the economic value of eco-system services. These cases include the impacts of substantial changes in eco-system services.

Table 1.3 Indicative annual economic value of the environmental benefits provided by Nature projects (€m)

Indicator Total value Low estimate Medium estimate Higher estimate

(@ 5%) (@10%) (@15%)

Habitats that will be created or recreated 53 3 5 8

Habitats that will be restored 6,280 314 628 942

Habitats that will be brought under sympathetic management 1,943 97 194 291

Total 8,276 414 828 1,241

*Grossed up results based on the share of total projects reporting.

Three habitat types are responsible for most of the benefits calculated above as they are often the main focus of valuation studies: freshwater habitats (accounting for half of the benefits), and coastal habitats and forests each accounting for around 20% of benefits.

The estimated value of benefits takes a conservative approach, assuming the benefits are between 5% and 15% of the published externality values to provide an indicative estimate only. This indicates an annual benefit of between €400m and €1,200m. It is extremely unlikely that the benefits are less than this, but likely that benefits in fact exceed this range.

On an annual basis, taking the low estimate, the benefits represent twice the total investment cost of the projects (of €199m). Using the higher estimate, benefits are six times the investment cost. This excludes any economic or social impacts, described below. The benefits are also expected to last for many years (although management costs will be required). Taking the low estimate and assuming the benefits last for 10 years, the discounted (at 4%) present value would be €3.2 billion, almost six times the total investment cost (€562m).

See section 4 for a detailed analysis of habitat improvement.

(b) Environmental Policy & Governance (EPG)

The analysis of Environment Policy & Governance (EPG) projects has focused on those projects anticipating physical environmental outcomes. 33 of the 68 projects that responded provided estimates. These are summarised in Table 1.4. Significant impacts are reported in terms of expected reductions in CO 2 emissions, the area and people likely to benefit from improved air quality, the area of soil erosion prevented, and the reductions in non-hazardous solid waste generation.

Table 1.4 Reported environmental impacts (selected indicators)

Theme Indicator Unit Survey Grossed Response Response*

Climate Change Expected reduction in emissions of CO2 or other greenhouse gases Tons/year 152,467 933,000**

Water Area of rivers/lakes that will have improved quality Ha 507,850 1,604,000

Water Likely improvement in areas meeting national quality standards/ targets Ha 495,800 1,566,000

Water Area with likely improved groundwater quality Ha 5,931 19,000

Air Likely improvement of air quality Km2 10,410 30,000

Air Likely improvement of air quality No of people (m) 4 12

Air Likely increase in area with ambient air quality meeting EU air quality standards Km2 5,400 16,000

Air Likely reduction in emissions of noxious gasses (e.g. SO2, NOx, NMVOC an NH3) Tons/year 1,700 5,000**

Air Expected decrease in CO2 emissions through use of private cars Tons/year 50,400 147,000**

Soil Expected reduction of soil erosion Ha (000) 2,000 7,000**

Urban environment Expected reduction in CO2 emissions through increase in bicycle traffic Tons/year 4,803 20,000**

Urban environment Expected reduction in CO2 emissions through reduction in car traffic Tons/year 6,301 27,000**

Env& Health People that will be better protected from air No of people pollution by particles (m) 1 1

Natural resources &

waste Likely reduction in energy consumption KwH/Year 3 35

Natural resources Likely reduction in use of limited or nonand

waste renewable natural resource Tons/year 10,105 119,000

Natural resources Likely reduction in non-hazardous solid waste

and waste generation Tons/year 27,080 318,000**

Natural resources

and waste Likely increase in recycling of waste Tons/year 82,435 968,000**

Forests Forest Area that will be better protected Ha (000) 2,000 33,000

*Grossed up results based on the share of total project investment reported by theme.

** Used to estimate the economic value of environmental impacts.

Indicators were chosen based on indicators used in the ex-post assessment of LIFE. Project beneficiaries (2007-2009) were then asked to attribute an expected impact to each indicator.

The economic value of these environmental benefits has been calculated based on the application of published externality estimates. It is difficult without knowing the specific details and context of the project to be confident that the application of externality values is justified. However, in the case of estimates of reductions in emissions or wastes (rather than changes in environmental quality), externalities can be applied with more confidence to provide a conservative assessment. This means that indicators of changes in air and water quality are not included.

The externality values relevant to each indicator are taken from the literature (see Annex 5). It should however be emphasised that, the transfer of externality estimates does lead to some uncertainty, which has been minimised by excluding indicators of environmental quality, and has not therefore been reflected in the calculation of a range – whilst the benefit estimates should only be taken as being indicative, because of the exclusions they can be taken as the minimum or a ‘low’ estimate. On this basis, the economic value of the environmental benefits provided by Environment projects could be in the order of €200 million per year (Table 1.5).

This represents the minimum level of benefit. Substantial economic benefits are also potentially associated with health benefits (improved air quality and reduced particulates and improved forest protection).

Table 1.5 Indicative annual economic value of the environmental benefits provided by Environment projects (€m)

Indicator Unit Estimated Externality Economic % of Impact Value (€)* Value (€m) Total

Expected reduction in emissions of CO2 or

other greenhouse gases Tons/year 933,000 120 112 58%

Likely reduction in emissions of noxious

gasses (e.g. SO2, NOx, NMVOC an NH3) Tons/year 5,000 1,308 6 3%

Expected decrease in CO2 emissions

through reduction in use of private cars Tons/year 147,000 120 18 9%

Expected reduction of soil erosion Ha (000) 7,000 5 38 20%

Expected reduction in CO2 emissions

through increase in bicycle traffic Tons/year 20,000 120 2 1%

Expected reduction in CO2 emissions

through reduction in car traffic Tons/year 27,000 120 3 2%

Likely reduction in non-hazardous solid

waste generation Tons/year 318,000 11 3 2%

Likely increase in recycling of waste Tons/year 968,000 11 11 5%

Total annual economic value 194 100%

*Externality value relates to the selected indicator unit, e.g. tons of CO2 per year. ote that the different indicators relating to CO2 emissions reflect activities under different themes and does not

reflect any double-counting.

On an annual basis, taking the minimum benefit estimate of the 2007-09 projects, the benefits are around the same as the total investment cost of the projects (of €223m). This excludes significant environmental benefits that cannot be monetised as well as economic and social benefits, described below, which are substantial. Environmental benefits are also expected to last for many years. Assuming the benefits last for 10 years, the discounted (at 4%) present value would be €1.6 billion, two and a half times the total investment cost (€668m).

To summarise, the environmental impacts of the LIFE+ Regulation are substantial. In addition to the quantified benefits of some €600m a year, which are based on conservative estimates, the instrument leads to the improved conservation and restoration of some 4.7m hectares of land, representing some 6% of the total area of the designated Natura 2000 terrestrial sites. It also supports a wide range of environmental improvements including improvements in water quality over an area of approximately 3 million hectares; improvements in air quality affecting some 12 million people; and reductions in waste of some 300,000 tonnes and the recycling of a further 1 million tonnes.

1.1.2. Economic and Social Impacts of ature and EPG Projects

The economic and social impacts of the Action Grants, as reported by Nature and EPG projects, are summarised in Table 1.6, for the indicators selected for the Impact Assessment.

Key impacts include:

• a total investment of some €600m is being made in technology outcomes by EPG projects.

In addition Nature projects are investing €380m in new approaches and techniques for nature conservation;

• the additional sales generated by the development of new products from EPG projects of

€2.7billion, generating around €1.1 billion of GVA 43 ;

• substantial health impacts both from the investment in improved natural environments and

from improvements in environmental quality affecting over 12 million people;

• modest but positive employment impacts of some 2,000 jobs 44 associated with the

continuation of project activity post LIFE funding and indirect economic benefits of a

further 18,000 jobs based on additional sales of new products 45 .

43 GVA accounts for 40% of environmental technology sales, based on DG Environment, 2007, Table 4.4. Total

sales of eco-industries was estimated to be €319 billion in 2008 (2008 prices), (Ecorys, 2009).

44 In terms of social impacts, a recent analysis on the economic benefits of environmental policy concluded that

the Natura 2000 network could be supportive of 122,000 full-time equivalent (FTE) jobs in the regions where the sites are located, if adequately resourced and managed. If indirect and induced effects are taken into account, this could amount to 207,000 FTE jobs at the EU level. However, these job estimates must also be treated with some caution as it is not possible to control for negative or positive impacts in other sectors (Rayment et al (2009) within Kettunen et al (2011).

45 €147k of environmental technology sales supports one job (including multiplier effets), based on DG

Environment, 2007, Table 4.4.

Table 1.6 Estimated economic and social impacts of LIFE Projects (for selected indicators)

Impact Indicators NATURE & Biodiversity Projects EPG Projects

64% of the investment in projects will lead to the demonstration 88% of the investment in projects will result in new methods, new techniques or development of new methods, techniques or approaches for and/or new approaches.

Additional species or habitat creation. The total investment in technology outcomes is therefore €590m for EPG technology The total investment in technical outcomes is therefore €380m projects.

outcomes for NAT projects. e.g. new innovative tools and methods for interactive and co-creative citizens, a e.g. new methods for marine monitoring such as remote new approach for creating a corridor crossing a city and connecting different

sensing, new approach to wetland restoration, pilot techniques elements of its environmental and cultural heritage and establishing a set of

Economic for conservation of amphibians certifying criteria

Impacts 11% of projects will include new commercially viable products 44% of projects will lead to new commercially viable products, collectively Additional sales / (eg timber). amounting to annual sales of €2.3bn and €1.1bn in GVA (assuming GVA GVA (Project beneficiaries were unable to estimate the expected constitutes 40% of sales)

annual sales from these products) e.g. a new water box technology as a more cost effective solution to irrigation

27% of project investment (€160m) will lead to cost savings for 57% of project investment (€380m) will lead to cost savings for Competent Net cost savings the Competent Authorities. Authorities as a result of new methods, techniques or approaches

(Projects were unable to estimate the annual cost savings) (Projects were unable to estimate the level of annual cost savings)

NGO contributions 33% of total budget granted for 2007 and 2008 is allocated 22% of total budget granted for 2007 and 2008 is allocated towards

to policy towards environmental policy development and environmental environmental policy development and environmental policy implementation, policy implementation, some €5m some €3.5m

Improvement in 4.7m hectares of land (6% of total Natura 2000 designated area) At least 1 million people will be better protected from particulate pollution and Social human health will be protected, restored and improved, helping to improve some 12 million people will be receive health benefits due to improvements in air

Impacts human health. quality

A total of 750 jobs are estimated to be safeguarded as a result of A total of 1,000 jobs are estimated to be safeguarded as a result of the planned Additional the planned continuation of NAT projects post LIFE funding continuation of EPG projects post LIFE funding employment A total of 175 jobs will be created as a result of the LIFE+ Projects were expected to continue for varying lengths of time, between 2 years

project (mainly from increased tourism) and 5 years An estimated 18,000 jobs from additional sales of €2.7 bn of new products

Source: Based on the survey response of project beneficiaries

1.2. Impact assessment of Information and Communication

The main driver behind the introduction of the new Information and Communication component to the LIFE Programme was the political perception that there was a need for greater communication of the LIFE+ Regulation to take place, and to “bring environmental policy closer to the citizens.” The main aim of the component has been to actively promote

EU environmental policies through information, communication, awareness-raising and dialogue, helping to ‘empower’ individuals and groups in European civil society, as well as other stakeholders such as industry and local authorities to participate in an informed and active manner in the protection of the environment and the sustainable use of resources. The aim is that, by enhancing their ownership of environmental policy, more effective implementation can be achieved.

In the first three calls of LIFE+ (2007,2008 and 2009), 38 projects were selected for funding under the Information and Communications component, accounting for just over €24 million in EC contributions (total sum of investment was €49 million). 12 of these projects related to nature and biodiversity (with forest fires and climate change accounting for a further 11).

Many of these projects aim to raise awareness amongst the general public (some with a particular focus on sub-groups such as schoolchildren and consumers), visitors to Natura 2000 sites, landowners/farmers and other stakeholders, of the importance of nature and biodiversity conservation, and to educate their targeted audience on the effect that human activities can have on the local environment. Other projects aim to raise awareness of a number of target groups of either broader topics (e.g. climate change and its impacts on the local community) or more specific issues that are aimed at a narrower target audience, such as improving the understanding of the olive oil industry of the need to introduce more sustainable production and consumption practices.

However, as a result of the indirect influence the projects have on realising environmental benefits, it is not possible to quantify a specific impact.

1.3. Impact assessment of operating grants

A summary of the impacts of NGOs is presented below, based on evidence collected during the MTE. In summary, the assessment indicates that the funding represents value for money.

Progress of NGOs using outcome indicator data

An analysis of the operational funding of NGOs for 2007 and 2008 undertaken in the mid-term evaluation showed that a substantial proportion of the budget is used for policy development (27%), policy implementation (28%), with external capacity building, awareness raising and enlargement and third countries being smaller fields of activity.

An analysis of reported outcome indicators (based on the indicators reported by the NGOs on the actual application of funds retrieved in the 2008 programme and data on estimated values for the 2009 programme) showed that the most common activities undertaken by the NGOs were press releases, participation in conferences and written submissions to the

Commission. In contrast, attention to non compliance and infringement procedures appeared to be less of a priority for the EU-wide operating funded NGOs.

Conclusions

• A large number of NGOs have undertaken a broad range of activities to contribute towards improved EU policy

implementation and development. For example, they have:

o Served as hubs for a growing number of national and international environmental organisations. o Provided information about existing and upcoming policies o Informed EU decision makers about the views and demands of their members and sought their support, as well as working in coalitions with other organisations (including those outside the environmental movement) to have their views accepted

• Much of the success of NGOs is related to their ability to:

o Defend or increase the ambitions of EU legislation, and campaign for real implementation of legislation or policy priorities.

o Assist in increasing transparency and public participation. o Contribute to integration of environmental concerns into other policies through the provision of specific expertise. o Help members better understand EU environmental policies, to better mobilise the public and decision makers to support a progressive role for the EU on environment and sustainable development.

However, it is relatively difficult to assess the progress NGOs have made with respect to such objectives using quantitative outcome indicators such as those above. Data suggests that NGOs use a wide variety of activities and undertake different tasks to achieve their aims. The nature and level of activity varies significantly between NGOs, reflecting in part the level of specialisation of the particular NGO.

1.4. Effects of the revisions made following the mid-term evaluation

The programme has been revised in two main ways following the mid-term evaluation. The first change was to address the recommendation that calls for proposals reflect a stronger link to EC policy needs. The second change, supported by legal opinion, was to allow funding of activity in third countries where it provided EU added value.

The impact assessment has briefly considered the potential effects of these changes. In the former case, a review of the responses to the first call to have a stronger priority focus

(climate change) did not produce any major or obvious difference in the balance of themes reflected in the applications to that in previous calls. In the case of the second, there has been limited time for any cases to be identified.

The MTE also emphasised the importance of increasing the multiplier effects from projects. However, this will need to be reflected in the assessment of bids and management of projects; and only demonstrated some time after. The proposed use of Integrated Projects to assist in this process will not be available until the next period. It is therefore not possible to include any specific allowance for this in this assessment.

Finally, the MTE also raised a concern over the use of the National Allocations and MS specified priorities, potentially leading to a reduced level of EU added value. A response to this conclusion cannot be implemented in the context of the baseline scenario.

Whilst there is recognition of the value of key changes, they are unlikely to have an immediate short-term impact.

1.5. EU added value and subsidiarity

In accordance with the provisions of the Treaty, the priorities of the Budget Review and the current LIFE Regulation, the findings of the MTE, as well as views from stakeholders during the Impact Assessment, confirm the strong rationale and relevance of the instrument, operating at the EU level in support of the shared responsibilities between the EU and

Member States for environmental protection. The findings also confirm the actual and potential scope to achieve EU added value. This added value is based on activity largely at the local level which supports burden sharing and the engagement of civil society in EU policy making and contributes directly to meeting EU environmental policy needs and priorities.

The impacts presented above, would have been unlikely to have been generated without the programme and the associated EU spending; the analysis in the zero option confirmed the small level of deadweight associated with the programme. As noted the programme has facilitated local action in support of EU policy needs, particularly where the collective lessons of groups of projects around particular policy themes provide a critical mass of evidence and lessons for wider replication; which would otherwise not have been undertaken, or if it had then at higher taxpayer expense.

However, the inability to generate strong multiplier value, either through projects with the scale to create spillovers and knock-on effects, or by leveraging other financial instruments in pursuit of environmental objectives was also raised in the MTE. Subsequent instruments should therefore recognise a requirement for stronger, but non-exclusive priorities, clearly reflecting EU needs, expressed through multi-annual work programmes; the use of integrated projects to leverage wider funding; and greater use of national as well local projects to address institutional weaknesses.

The MTE, and subsequently the report of the European Economic and Social Committee on

the MTE, 46 also raised concerns over the current use of national allocations to provide an

affective basis for enabling the required levels of responsibility sharing. As noted above, the MTE raised the concern of a potential conflict over the quality of projects, where national allocations dictated the selection of projects, that although judged to be eligible, provided less

EU added value than projects that would otherwise have been selected.

46 Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee on the Communication from the Commission to the

European Parliament and the Council: Mid-term review of the LIFE+ Regulation, COM(2010) 516 final i, 15/03/11.

2 Indicators used for the assessment

2.1 Environment, Policy and Governance - Environmental Impact indicators by theme

(Impacts expected to be seen 3 years after the project has ended)

Theme Indicator Unit

Climate Change Expected reduction in emissions of CO 2 or other Tons/year

greenhouse gases (expressed in CO equivalent)

Expected reduction in emissions of Ozone Depleting Tons/year Substances (ODS)

Air Likely improvement of air quality Number of people that will be affected

Area km 2

Likely increase in area with ambient air quality Increase in area - km 2

meeting EU air quality standards Expected population living in the area

Likely reduction in emissions of noxious gasses (e.g. Tons/year

SO 2 , NOx, NMVOC an NH3)

Likely reduction in use of private cars Expected decrease in km travelled per year

Expected Reduction in CO2 emissions Tons/day

Likely improvement of ecosystem negatively affected Number of ecosystems that will by acidification be improved

Water Area that will be protected against adverse effects of Area km 2

flooding

People that will be protected against adverse effects Number of people that will be of flooding protected

Area of rivers/lakes that will have improved quality Area - ha (chemical, microbiological or ecological)

Likely improvement in areas meeting national quality Area – ha standards/ targets

Area with likely improved groundwater quality Area – ha

Area that will be protected against adverse effects of Area – ha flooding

People that will be protected against adverse effects Number of people that will be of flooding protected

Volume of urban wastewater that will meet EC Volume - m 3 /year

Directive 91/271 i requirements

Volume of urban waste water discharges that will be Volume - m 3 /year

shifted from untreated to treated

Volume of industrial waste water discharges that will Volume - m 3

have enhanced quality regarding hazardous chemical substances

Natural Resources Likely reduction in energy consumption MJ/year

and Waste Likely reduction in water consumption Volume - m 3 /year

/year natural resources

96

Likely reduction in non-hazardous solid waste Tons/year generation

Likely reduction in hazardous waste generation Tons/year

Likely increase in recycling of waste Tons/year

Chemicals Expected reduction in use of hazardous chemical Tons/year substances (e.g. CMR or PBT11)

Expected substitution of hazardous substances Number of substances

Sustainable Urban Expected increase in size of urban recreational/ green Area - ha

Development areas

Expected increase in pedestrian/ bicycle paths in Area - km cities

Expected increase in bicycle traffic Km/year

Expected reduction in CO2

emissions Tons/day

Expected reduction in car traffic Km/year

Expected reduction in CO2

emissions Tons/day

Expected success of recreational/green area Number of users/year

Strategic Will eco-friendly products be introduced State Yes/No

Approaches Number of products

Goods that will be purchased under green Number of companies that will procurement system be involved

Tourists expected to be on sustainable travel Number of tourists arrangements

House units that will be constructed in accordance Number of house units that will

with sustainable building principles be constructed

Please state any other expected impacts

Soil Expected area of improved soil quality Area – km 2

Expected extent of reduced soil erosion Area – km 2

Please state any other expected impacts

Noise Expected reduction in environmental noise caused by Decibels traffic

Reduction in environmental noise caused by Decibels industrial activities

Reduction in environmental noise caused by Decibels recreational activities

Please state any other expected impacts

Environment and People that will be better protected from air pollution Number of people

Health by particles

People that will be better protected from air pollution Number of people by ozone

Please state any other expected impacts

2.2 Nature & Biodiversity Environmental Impacts

(Impacts expected to be seen 3 years after the project has ended)

Indicator Unit

Land Purchase Area (ha)

Habitats that will be created or re-created Area - ha Number of habitats created/re-created

Habitats that will be restored Area - ha Number of habitats restored

Habitats that will be brought under favourable Area - ha management. Number of habitats brought under sympathetic management

Favourable conservation status that will be achieved Number of species listed on directive for species /habitats annexes Number of habitats achieving favourable status Number of priority habitats achieving favourable status Overall % change in conservation status from before the project to after

Species that will be reintroduced Number of individual species reintroduced

Original population

Invasive species that will be controlled Area - ha Number of invasive species that will be controlled Number of priority habitats protected

Demonstration of the wider applicability of the State Yes/No technique(s) applied Type of audience

Species and area of habitats that will benefit from Area ha local biodiversity action Number and type of species

Please state any other impacts expected

3 Activities, outputs and results of the LIFE+ Action Grants

3.1 Analysis of the Nature and Biodiversity survey

3.1.1 Administration costs

(a) Costs of Bidding

The cost to applicants of bidding for LIFE Nature funding was €12,000 per project, taking into account the administration and technical staff time involved. The main cost was the time required to write and submit the bid. Given an average project size of €2.2m, the bid cost represented 0.6% of project value.

The table below provides a breakdown of the average number of hours spent on each task during the bidding stage per project, divided between administrative and professional staff. This indicates that the cost of profession staff accounts for 69% of the total cost.

Table 3.1. LIFE+ Nature Projects – Average time and cost spent on the application process per project bid

Bid tasks Administrati Technical/ Administrative Technical/ Total - cost € % ve staff - Professional - staff - cost € Professional -

hours hours cost €

Researching Funding options 19 21 447 554 1,002 8%

Negotiating, conceiving and writing the proposal 80 162 1,896 4,245 6,141 51%

Submitting the proposal to the competent authority 22 88 513 2,313 2,826 23%

Answering Commission requests 24 24 564 635 1,199 10%

Negotiating/ signing the contracts 12 26 294 677 971 8%

Total 156 321 3,715 8,424 12,139 100%

Source: GHK project survey (n= 44).

Notes: Average cost per hour based on:

▪ Administrative staff time - €24/hour.

▪ Technical & Professional staff time €26/hour.

(b) Costs of Project Management

The cost to beneficiaries of the administration and management of the project including reporting, taking into account the administrative and technical staff time involved, was €25,500, 1.2% of project value. The largest item of cost is the planned expenditure on the preparation of the Final Report, account for a third of costs.

Figure 3.2. Stakeholder involvement

Public Authorities 82%

NGOs 59%

Universities and research organisations 43%

Policy Makers 41%

Farm ers 41%

Private com panies 39%

Other 23%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Source: GHK LIFE at Survey, Base = 44 respondents. More than one stakeholder could be involved in a project.

The table below provides a breakdown of the average number of hours spent on each task during the project management stage per project, divided between administrative and technical staff time, and the subsequent average cost per project. This indicates that the cost of profession staff accounts for 66% of the total cost.

Table 3.3 LIFE+ Nature Projects – Time and cost spent on the project management reporting and information obligations per project

Project management Administrative Technical/ Administrative Technical/ Total - % tasks staff - hours Professional - staff - cost € Professional - cost €

hours cost €

Preparation of the inception report 39 85 925 2,232 3,158 12%

Preparation of midterm

report 89 91 2,106 2,387 4,493 18%

Preparation of final

report 97 195 2,310 5,113 7,423 29%

Preparation of layman's report 12 55 284 1,449 1,732 7%

Notification activities linked to changes to the grant agreement other than amendments 9 42 220 1,104 1,324 5%

Amendments to the grant agreement 32 53 761 1,398 2,159 8%

Visits of the monitoring team 33 61 779 1,590 2,369 9%

Visits of the Commission 21 52 500 1,364 1,864 7%

Other 36 4 855 112 967 4%

Total 368 638 8,741 16,749 25,490 100%

Source: GHK project survey (n= 44).

Notes: Average cost per hour based on:

▪ Administrative staff time - €24/hour.

▪ Technical & Professional staff time €26/hour.

3.1.2 Activities and Outputs

The majority of projects included activities related to Natura 2000 site restoration or improvement (59%). Natura 2000 management planning and site survey or research was common conservation actions (undertaken by 48% and 39% respectively). As shown in Figure 3.4, a further 50% included an element of visitor management and education which is in line with the objective of creating awareness and knowledge sharing. Natura 2000 site creation or land purchase was generally not an important element of the project cohort who responded to the survey, whilst ex-situ conservation was not part of any project activity for those who replied. The most frequently undertaken preparatory actions were inventories and studies, which were conducted by 64% of projects. Whilst 62% of respondents stated that preparatory actions had not changed objectives and planned results, the remainder stated that preparatory actions had made objectives clearer and more focused.

Figure 3.4. The conservation actions that projects are designed to undertake

Natura 2000 site restoration/im provem ent 59%

Visitor m anagem ent/ education 50%

Natura 2000 m anagem ent planning 48%

Natura 2000 site survey or research 39%

Biodiversity dem onstration/innovation projects 32%

Rem oval of alien species 25%

Species conservation m easures outside Natura 2000 sites 23%

Habitat conservation m easures outside Natura 2000 sites 18%

Natura 2000 land purchase 16%

Other 14%

Species Reintroduction 14%

Natura 2000 site creation 10%

Ex situ conservation 0%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Source: GHK LIFE at Survey, Base = 44 respondents. Respondents could choose all options that applied

3.1.3 Management Results

Over half of project beneficiaries (59%) felt that their activities had helped to improve the capacity of the area’s stakeholders, through the involvement of the local community via schools and public seminars. In addition, seminars and information days engaged local people and demonstration days allowed a larger number of stakeholders, including at the city level, to be engaged. Looking forward, the majority of respondents stated that partnerships would be established. For example, one project aimed to establish a private foundation who would manage restored sites and communication actions aligned through the Park Authority. Others stated more generic activity where local authorities, NGOs and public services would continue to co-operate, including through working groups. Transnational co-operation is likely to be established in over half of projects (54%), with all stating that this would improve project results or help projects to achieve results at least to some extent.

The table below summarises the range of management results planned to be produced by the projects.

Figure 3.5. Management results by indicator

Indicator of management results Number of projects Share of projects (%)

Legislative/ policy/ planning documents to be politically approved as a

result of your project 23 52%

Management systems or plans to be introduced 29 66%

Implementation of new monitoring or assessment systems 23 52%

Land use agreements to be established or land purchase and land

compensation measures conducted 24 55%

Compensation to be provided to landowners/land users affected by

projects loss 8 18%

Recreational facilities to be established in project area improving

visitors' numbers/ awareness of area characteristics 34 77%

Enlargement of the national Natura 2000 network as a result of the

project 8 18%

101

Indicator of management results Number of projects Share of projects (%)

network

Measurable change evident in the extent or condition of particular

priority habitats 25 57%

Source: GHK LIFE at Survey, Base = 44 respondents. Respondents could choose all results that applied.

47% of projects expected up to three legislative, policy or planning documents to be politically approved as a result of their activity, with 26% expecting one document to be approved and 11% stating that five documents would be approved. The URBANBEES project states that it will develop and implement an action plan to conserve and enhance wild bee diversity in urban habitats. The plan will include guidance on changing conventional practices and the testing will lead to a validated action plan, which will be reproducible in other European cities. The project expects more than 5 legislative, policy or planning documents to be produced. In addition, for the 66% of projects that anticipated, new management systems or plans would be introduced, the systems or plans were expected to be realised at varying scales with 72% of projects introducing management systems at the local level, 55% at the regional level and 41% at the national level. Over half of the projects (52%) will include implementation of new monitoring or assessment systems at all levels, but particularly at the local scale (65%) and regional scale (57%).

A number of recreational facilities are to be established to improve visitor numbers and/or the awareness of the project area’s characteristics. As a result of this activity, several respondents were able to estimate an increase in visitor numbers. The average increase in visitor numbers was 64% (although these figures varied from 5% to 500%).

3.1.4 Employment data

Only 14 projects were able to estimate the increase in employment they expected to occur as a result of the LIFE+ project (e.g. from increased tourism to the site). In total these 14 projects estimated that they would result in an impact of 35 FTE.

All projects have to draft an "After-LIFE conservation plan". If projects can not demonstrate how results/activities will be continued afterwards, projects will not secure funding. Respondents were asked whether their projects would continue after the LIFE funding period as the means by which continuation could be secured and 39% of respondents stated that they would. In the other cases, different arrangements are planned to continue the activities. When asked how many years the impacts of the project would last,7% stated up to 5 years, 29% stated 5-10 years and 64% stated 10 years or more.

When asked how many additional people the project would employ answers ranged from no additional Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions to 10 additional FTE positions (where 1 fulltime post is equal to 2 part time posts). Some 30 additional positions are being created by the respondent projects – a total of 150 FTE jobs across all Nature and Biodiversity projects if the sample is fully representative.

3.1.5 Demonstration and Innovation Results

64% of projects include the demonstration or development of new methods, techniques or approaches for species or habitat creation. When asked to elaborate on the kind of demonstration and development, answers included the development of new grazing techniques, the development of early warning systems, measures to control invasive or alien species not undertaken within the country and restoration of certain habitats.

The results of demonstration or development activity may lead to cost savings for the Competent Authorities in some case (27%). However these beneficiaries were unable to estimate the savings that could potentially be made. 70% of projects promote the sharing or upscaling of best practice through a variety of methods including the diffusion of demonstrative actions, media, best practice guidance, and the production of recommendations or communication activity within local communities (including schools etc).

3.1.6 Awareness and Replication

To generate awareness project beneficiaries are required to develop a website. Other methods are also being used (organisation of meetings, workshops and conferences, production of publications, training sessions for local stakeholders etc.).

Through awareness raising activities, most beneficiaries anticipate that their projects will reach some 500 or more people (59%). When questioned further, projects suggested that the target audience could be up to 1 million people. For 20% of the projects it is expected that between 200 and 500 people will be reached. The majority of project results are designed to be replicated (64%) by, for instance, partners, local and regional authorities, NGOs, fisherman and farmers and over periods ranging from three years to ten years.

The results of project activity are likely to benefit a variety of user groups. For example, on average, 62 local authorities, 5 national public authorities, 19 businesses and 6150 community members will benefit from the results of each project. Other groups who will benefit include whole cities, farmers, landowners, NGOs, students and schools. The primary benefits to target users include increased awareness, improvement to environmental quality and habitats, enhanced technical knowledge, income from tourism and increased visitor numbers. 59% of projects will include staff training at the project site.

3.1.7 Summary of EU Added Value

Respondents were asked to consider the extent to which the project would provide added value ranging from a very significant level to not at all. The most important strategic role of the projects was their demonstration of best practice. 89% of respondents agreed their project provided significantly or very significantly. One in four projects (26%) expected to demonstrate or pilot new methods, techniques or approaches to a very significant level. The least important strategic or catalytic role played by projects was leveraging additional investment (either public or private), only 16% expected to achieved any significant or very significant impact. This is in addition to the co-financing already provided and that required to continue with activities after project closure.

When asked to rate the co-ordinating and implementation role of the project, the most significant action was building the capacity of stakeholders which will take place in 65% of projects to a significant or very significant degree. Facilitating the implementation of European policy and legislation to a significant or very significant degree will take place in 59% of projects that responded and improving the co-ordination, networking and working relationships between stakeholders will take place to a significant level in 54% of projects.

All projects will contribute to the dissemination of information and good practice at least to some degree and 41% will disseminate good practice to a significant level. 57% of projects will significantly or very significantly contribute to increased knowledge base.

3.2 Analysis of EPG Survey

3.2.1. Administration costs

(a) Costs of Bidding

The cost to applicants of bidding for LIFE EPG funding was €23,000 per project, taking into account the administration and technical staff time involved, almost double to cost for Nature projects. The main cost was the time required to write and submit the bid. Given an average

project size of €2.6m, the bid cost represented 0.9% of project value.

The table below provides a breakdown of the average number of hours spent on each task during the bidding stage per project, divided between administrative and professional staff.

This indicates that the cost of profession staff accounts for 83% of the total cost.

Table 3.6: LIFE+ EPG Projects – Time and cost spent on the application process per project

Bid tasks Administrative Technical/ Administrative Technical/ Total - % staff - hours Professional - staff - cost € Professional - cost €

hours cost €

Researching Funding options 16 25 438 831 1,270 5%

Negotiating, conceiving

and writing the proposal 76 322 2,059 10,591 12,649 55%

Submitting the proposal to the competent authority 19 134 526 4,417 4,943 21%

Answering Commission requests 22 65 592 2,147 2,739 12%

Negotiating/ signing the

contracts 13 36 360 1,171 1,531 7%

Total 147 583 3,974 19,158 23,133 100%

Source: GHK project survey (n= 90).

Notes: Average cost per hour based on:

▪ Administrative staff time - €27/hour. ▪ Technical & Professional staff time €33/hour.

(b) Costs of Project Management

The cost to beneficiaries of the administration and management of the project including reporting, taking into account the administrative and technical staff time involved, was almost €28,000, 1.1% of project value. The largest items of cost are the expenditure on the

preparation of the Inception Report, account for 29% of costs and the Final Report (27%).

The table below provides a breakdown of the average number of hours spent on each task during the project management stage per project, divided between administrative and technical staff time, and the subsequent average cost per project. This indicates that the cost of

profession staff accounts for 65% of the total cost.

Table 3.7 LIFE+ EPG Projects – Time and cost spent on the project management reporting and information obligations per project

Project management Administrativ Technical/ Administrativ Technical/ Total - % tasks e staff - hours Professional e staff - cost € Professional cost € - hours - cost €

Preparation of the inception report 104 157 2,816 5,164 7,980 29%

Preparation of mid-term

report 58 114 1,559 3,752 5,311 19%

Preparation of final report 105 139 2,837 4,586 7,422 27%

Preparation of layman's report 37 32 1,002 1,053 2,056 7%

Notification activities linked to changes to the grant agreement other than amendments 9 21 239 706 945 3%

Amendments to the grant agreement 13 22 363 723 1,086 4%

Visits of the monitoring team 12 29 329 961 1,291 5%

Visits of the Commission 9 17 254 557 812 3%

Other 14 13 385 442 828 3%

Total 362 546 9,786 17,944 27,730 100%

Source: GHK project survey (n= 90).

Notes: Average cost per hour based on:

▪ Administrative staff time - €27/hour.

▪ Technical & Professional staff time €33/hour.

3.2.2. Activities and Output

Respondents were asked what core activities the project would undertake (Figure 3.8). Developing (62%) and/or demonstrating (51%) new technology and processes were the most frequent responses. Of different preparatory actions, preparatory studies were most frequently undertaken by respondents (78%), closely followed by technical planning (63%).

Figure 3.8. The core actions that projects are designed to undertake

Developing and or demonstrating new technology 62%

and processes

Developing action plans to facilitate environm entally 51%

friendly behaviour / technologies Enhancing cooperation with m unicipalities/ Local

authorities/ Industry/ Unions etc to facilitate 48% knowledge transfer

Producing guidance on practices to reduce

environm ental impact of activities 38%

Testing technology for environm ental effectiveness 32%

and running costs

Establishing m onitoring system s 30%

Carrying out an inventory of the environment e.g. 24%

noise assessm ent Installing environm ental infrastructure (e.g. wastewater treatment plans; sustainable urban 19%

drainage system s (SUDS))

Other 6%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70%

Source: GHK LIFE EPG Survey, Base = 90 respondents.

3.2.3. Management Results

When asked how many legislative, policy or planning documents were to be politically approved as a result of their activity, answers ranged from 0 to 7 with an average response of one per project. In addition, for 61% of projects it was anticipated that new management systems or plans would be introduced. Projects expected these management systems to be realised at the local (49%), regional (41%), national (12%) and EU (18%) scales. Over half of projects (59%) will include implementation of new monitoring or assessment systems. This will occur across all levels, particularly the local and regional scale (45% and 37% respectively). 72% of project beneficiaries felt that their project activity would help to improve the capacity of the area’s stakeholders, through training, awareness raising, knowledge sharing and the development of new processes and systems. Approximately twothirds of respondents stated that partnerships would be established. For example, one project was to establish a collaborative network among technical staff to control performance in terms of reducing the environmental impact of the use of chemicals. Transnational co-operation is likely to be established through just over half of projects (54%), with all stating that this would improve project results or help projects to achieve results at least to some extent.

The table below summarises the intended management results of the projects. Key results include developing early warning systems and monitoring systems for climate change management and introducing life-cycle analysis, waste management strategies and introduction of systems for sustainable management of limited resources.

Figure 3.9. Management results by indicator

Theme Management results Indicator Number of projects Share of projects (%) by theme

Climate Change Early warning climate strategy model that will 17 43% Management be implemented

Emissions Trading Schemes that will be 2 5% established

Monitoring systems 20 50%

Air Quality Monitoring systems 5 50%

Management Early warning systems 2 20%

Water Management River basin management plans/programme 9 38%

Measures that will be developed for protection 1 4% of the marine environment

Administrative staff to be trained in River 6 25% Basin Management Planning

Natural Resources Introduction of system for sustainable 12 36% and Waste management of limited or sensitive resources

Management Introduction of life-cycle analysis 14 42%

(sustainability-oriented method) as a basis of development of industrial and/or consumer products

Waste management strategy 12 36%

Chemicals People to receive training in safe management, 3 30% Management handling and use of chemicals including pesticides

in implementation of EC legislation on chemicals

106

Theme Management results Indicator Number of projects Share of projects (%) by theme

Strengthening of science-policy integration on 5 50% chemicals issues

Guidelines for evaluation or classification of 3 30% chemical hazard/ risks to be introduced

Chemical management guidelines to be 2 20% introduced

Measures that will reduce risks related to 3 30% handling or use of pesticides introduced?

Urban Environment Development of urban environmental 4 25% management plan (or sustainability plan)

Development of a cooperation between citizens 0 0% and city council regarding urban environment issues

Strategic Environmental management system (EMAS or 1 6% Approaches other)

Management Environmental assessment system or 4 24%

procedures

Eco-labelling or other broad environmental 1 6% labelling system

Green procurement system 1 6%

Guideline for sustainable tourism 3 18%

Guideline for sustainable building 1 6%

Forest Management Monitoring systems 5 71%

A system that will provide comprehensive 4 57% information on forests to increase understanding in relation to climate change, biodiversity, forest fires, forest conditions and the protective functions of forests

Development of a risk assessment framework 2 29% concerning multiple stresses on forests over time and space.

Soil Management Soil management plans or monitoring systems 6 67%

Noise Management Environmental noise management plans or 2 50% monitoring systems

Environment and Health management strategy 4 24%

Health Management Monitoring system 3 18%

3.2.4. Employment Data

Respondents were asked whether their projects were likely to continue after the LIFE funding period and 59% of respondents stated that they would. When asked how many additional people the project would employ, answers ranged from no additional Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions to 150 additional FTE positions (where 1 full-time post is equal to 2 part time posts). The total of all FTE positions created of those who responded to the survey was 300 FTE positions and the projects were expected to continue for varying lengths of time, between a year and a half and indefinitely.

3.2.5. Demonstration and Innovation Results

When asked whether the project could be classified as 'demonstrative' and/ or ‘innovative’ (as per the Commission agreed definition) half of the respondents stated demonstrative, 17% stated innovative and 28% considered that their project was both demonstrative and innovative.

When asked about the innovation activities of projects it was revealed that on average a projects would result in 2 new methods, 2 new techniques and 2 new approaches. For example, the GREECIT, Green citizens of Europe project, aims to develop innovative tools and methods for interactive and co-creative citizens. This project states that it will results in 20 new methods, 10 new approaches and 10 new techniques.

65% of the respondents stated that as a result of the new methods, techniques or approaches, cost savings would be achieved by the Competent Authority. When asked to estimate these annual cost savings responses varied from €35,000 to €10,000,000 per project. Other responses indicated cost savings in terms of savings per ton/waste., and as a share of current costs. Just under half of respondents (48%) stated that their projects would lead to new commercially viable products and when further probed for expected annual sales, responses ranged from €100,000 to €335million.

3.2.6. Awareness and Replication

Through awareness raising activities, a significant number of projects anticipate that they will reach over 500 people (49%), with a target audience up to 100,000 people. A further 25% of projects aim to reach between 200 and 500 people and 20% between 50 – 200 people. These results are fairly evenly split in the geographic focus between local regional and national levels.

The majority of project results are designed to be replicated (76%) by, for instance, partners, local and regional authorities, farmers, NGOs, private businesses and other project organisations, over periods ranging from two years to ten years. The results of project activity are likely to benefit a variety of user groups. For example respondents will collectively provide a benefit to 1,068 local authorities, 331 national public authorities, 3,098 businesses and 1,386,952 community members. In addition 71% of projects will include staff training at the project site.

3.2.7. Summary of EU Added Value

Respondents were asked to rate how well the project would achieve a range of strategic roles. The most important strategic role of projects was the demonstration or piloting of new methods, techniques or approaches, for which 95% of respondents considered their project would have either a significant or very significant impact. 85% also considered they would significantly contribute to the development of new methods, approaches or innovative solutions.

When asked to rate the co-ordinating and implementation role of the project, the most significant role was building the capacity of stakeholders (69%). Beneficiaries also rated highly the degree to which their project would facilitate the implementation of European policy and legislation and improve the co-ordination, networking and working relationships between stakeholders.

All projects will contribute to the dissemination of information and good practice at least to some degree and 55% will disseminate good practice to a significant level. 76% of projects will help to increase the profile of environmental issues and raise awareness. In addition 65% of respondents will contribute to the knowledge base for development and monitoring of environment policy and legislation to a very significant or significant level.

3.3. Analysis of LIFE- Information and Communication Survey

3.3.1. Administration costs

(a) Costs of Bidding

The cost to applicants of bidding for LIFE funding was €10,600 per project, taking into account the administration and technical staff time involved, similar to the cost for Nature projects. The main cost was the time required to write and submit the bid. Given an average project size of €1.1m, the bid cost represented 1% of project value.

The table below provides a breakdown of the average number of hours spent on each task during the bidding stage per project, divided between administrative and professional staff. This indicates that the cost of profession staff accounts for 59% of the total cost.

Table 3.10: LIFE+ INF Projects – Time and cost spent on the application process per project

Bid tasks Administrative Technical/ Administrative Technical/ Total - cost € % staff - hours Professional - staff - cost € Professional -

hours cost €

Researching Funding options 20 24 379 583 962 9%

Negotiating, conceiving and writing the proposal 144 166 2,769 4,116 6,885 65%

Submitting the proposal to the competent authority 7 13 142 327 470 4%

Answering Commission requests 28 37 548 920 1,467 14%

Negotiating/ signing the contracts 29 12 566 293 859 8%

Total 229 252 4,404 6,239 10,643 100%

Source: GHK project survey (n= 13).

Notes: Average cost per hour based on:

▪ Administrative staff time - €19/hour.

▪ Technical & Professional staff time €25/hour.

(b) Costs of Project Management

The cost to beneficiaries of the administration and management of the project including reporting, taking into account the administrative and technical staff time involved, was almost €14,000, 1.3% of project value. The largest item of cost is the expenditure on the preparation of the Mid-term Report, 31% of costs.

The table below provides a breakdown of the average number of hours spent on each task during the project management stage per project, divided between administrative and technical staff time, and the subsequent average cost per project. This indicates that the cost of profession staff accounts for 48% of the total cost.

Table 3.11: LIFE+ INF Projects – Time and cost spent on the project management reporting and information obligations per project

Project management Administrative Technical/ Administrative Technical/ Total - % tasks staff - hours Professional staff - cost € Professional cost € - hours - cost €

Preparation of the inception report 91 73 1,750 1,801 3,551 25%

Preparation of mid-term report 156 54 3,003 1,333 4,336 31%

Preparation of final report 45 62 874 1,535 2,408 17%

Preparation of layman's report 20 27 376 678 1,054 8%

Notification activities linked to changes to the grant agreement other than amendments 8 11 158 265 423 3%

Amendments to the grant agreement 27 15 524 379 903 6%

Visits of the monitoring team 22 25 428 621 1,049 8%

Visits of the Commission 6 4 124 110 235 2%

Other 0 0 - - - 0%

Total 376 272 7,238 6,721 13,959 100%

Source: GHK project survey (n= 13)

Notes: Average cost per hour based on:

▪ Administrative staff time - €19/hour.

▪ Technical & Professional staff time €25/hour.

3.3.2. Activities and Outputs

Respondents were asked which core actions the project was designed to undertake. Eleven out of the thirteen projects’ core activity was awareness raising campaigns related to the implementation, updating and development of European environmental policy and legislation. Seven out of thirteen projects’ focus was information and communication actions related to the implementation, updating and development of European environmental policy and legislation.

Projects often undertake a number of public events and excursions for those living in the area (on average 24 over the lifetime of the project). Stakeholder events and meetings take place numerous times (an average of 41 times during the project lifetime, however this result is distorted by one project which states 210 stakeholders and events would take place). In addition, educational activities, media activities and participatory activities take place often (on average 41, 21 and 17 times respectively during the project lifetime). Activities comprising of site visits, publications, individual meetings with public authorities and activities aiming to facilitate user access and awareness take place less often but still on average between 9 and 16 times over the course of the project. On average each project includes 7 presentations at technical conferences, 4 meetings between LIFE projects, 2 films or DVDs, and 1 final conference.

Stakeholder consultation is part of the project’s activities for seven of the projects with the number of consultations varying between 1 and 700. Preparatory studies were or will be included in six of projects – for the majority, one study has been undertaken. Three projects included technical planning; for those who provided detail on the number of technical planning actions, responses varied between 2 and 10.

3.3.3. Employment Data

Respondents were also asked whether their projects were likely to continue after the LIFE funding period. Five of the 7 respondents stated that the project was likely to continue and when asked how many additional people the project would employ, one respondent said 2 additional Full Time Equivalent (FTE) positions and the others did not know. One respondent was able to state that the project would continue for three years or more, the others were unable to say.

3.3.4. Awareness and Replication of Results

The primary topics of awareness raising campaigns related to climate change and water sustainability with two further projects focusing on natural resources and waste. More specifically this included local impact and mitigation measures such as energy saving, the restoration of rivers and rational use of water resources and the promotion of green products and reducing carbon emissions and the prevention of waste. Such activity was to be achieved through specific actions with numbers ranging from 2 actions to 4000 actions. The primary targets of awareness raising activity were the local population (7 projects), public authorities (6 projects) and private companies (6 projects) as illustrated in the figure below. In addition 5 projects stated their activity focused on local enterprises and a further four focused on policy makers.

Figure 3.12 Target Audiences of Awareness raising activity

Forest managers 1

Landowners 1

Universities/research organisations 2

Institutions 2

Farmers 3

Policy makers 4

Other 5

Local enterprises 5

Private companies 6

Public authorities 6

Local population 7

0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Source: GHK LIFE-Inf Survey, Base = 13 respondents.

Eleven of thirteen projects indicated that they would expect to reach over 500 from their awareness raising activity. Four projects provided further detail on the number of people who would be reached and answers ranged from 10,000 to 25 million. Eleven projects also stated that new knowledge and skills would be imparted to the target audiences following awareness raising activities. Between 200 and 100,000 people would gain an increased awareness or knowledge of environmental issues, between 30 and 50,000 would receive specific training and between 300 and 50,000 would gain improved skills or competencies to deal with environmental management issues.

Eight projects stated that awareness would be raised regionally by their actions. Six projects stated the awareness would be raised at the national level and a further six projects stated that the impact would be local. Four projects felt that awareness would be improved at an EU level. Seven of the respondents stated that project results were designed to be replicated through the distribution of web tools, the promotion by authorities and associations and the creation of a national campaign. The target audience that respondents anticipated would benefit on average from the projects included local public authorities (810), an average of 8 national public authorities, 20 business and 114 community members.

Four projects said that they had evidence to show the environmental impact of their activity – more specifically this included one project with a 10% decrease in carbon emissions for all those engaged in the project and another which stated that a decrease in per capita water consumption would illustrate the project’s environmental impact.

3.3.5. Summary of EU Added Value

To ascertain the added value of the projects, respondents were asked to the rate the extent to which their projects would lead to certain results. The most significant impacts are related to best practice with seven respondents stating that their projects would demonstrate best practice either to a significant or very significant level and nine respondents stating the project will promote the sharing and up-scaling of best practice through the planned dissemination activity. It is also expected that projects will lead to wider adoption of methods, approaches or innovative solutions, with 76% of respondents believing this would take place to some degree or to a significant or very significant level.

There were mixed views as to whether projects would lead to additional private or public sector investment or interest. There was little agreement that projects would contribute to the development of new methods, approaches or innovative solutions, although one-third felt this would take place to some degree.

As to views on the project’s coordination and implementation role, the most significant impact is expected to be the improvement of co-ordination, networking and working relationships between stakeholders, with ten projects stating it would occur to a significant or very significant level. Two-thirds of projects were expected to significantly or very significantly build up the capacity of stakeholders. The facilitation of European policy and legislation implementation is likely to be a significant or very significant result for seven respondents.

It was expected that the project would play a significant or very significant part in the dissemination of information and good practice, as would be expected from communications activity. A significant number of projects also anticipated that the profile of environmental projects would be raised as a result of their project activity. Projects held mixed views as to whether they would shape more strategic environmental thinking or whether they would contribute to the knowledge base for the development and monitoring of environmental policy or legislation.

4 Detailed analysis of habitat improvement

The estimated terrestrial area of expected habitat improvement by habitat type for the current programme was based on the response of LIFE projects to the project survey. In some cases projects cover more than one habitat type, in which case the dominant habitat type was identified.

The survey did not attempt to assess the scale of improvement in environmental quality, based on e-survey responses; and would require site by site appraisal. The survey responses have been grossed up for all terrestrial projects based on the levels of project investment. Marine impacts have not been included.

a. Habitats that will be created or re-created

Habitat Type Number of habitats Area (ha) created or re-created

Coastal and Halophytic Habitat 30 650

Coastal Sand Dunes and Inland Dunes 40 590

Freshwater Habitats 60 2,800

Temperate Heath and Scrub 10 360

Sclerophyllous Scrub (Matorral) 1 6

Natural and Semi-Natural Grassland Formations 20 470

Raised Bogs, Mires and Fens 40 840

Rocky Habitats and Caves 1 6

Forests 20 360

Total 220 6,100

b. Habitats that will be restored

Habitat Type Number of habitats Area (ha) created or re-created

Coastal and Halophytic Habitat 3,500 105,500

Coastal Sand Dunes and Inland Dunes 3,500 2,700

Freshwater Habitats 3,500 1,238,000

Temperate Heath and Scrub 10 360

Sclerophyllous Scrub (Matorral) 2 60

Natural and Semi-Natural Grassland Formations 60 380,400

Raised Bogs, Mires and Fens 160 15,400

Rocky Habitats and Caves 2 60

Forests 60 411,900

Total 10,800 2,154,000

c. Habitats that will be brought under sympathetic management

Habitat Type Number of habitats Area (ha)

created or re-created

Coastal and Halophytic Habitat 6,300 103,200

Coastal Sand Dunes and Inland Dunes 6,400 6,100

Freshwater Habitats 6,300 5,000

Temperate Heath and Scrub 10 360

Sclerophyllous Scrub (Matorral) 3 3,300

Natural and Semi-Natural Grassland Formations 90 473,400

Raised Bogs, Mires and Fens 80 3,800

Rocky Habitats and Caves 3 3,300

Forests 60 420,500

Total 19,300 1,019,000

d. Favourable conservation status that will be achieved for species and habitats

Habitat Type Number of Number of Number of Overall %

species listed in habitats priority change in

the Annexes of achieving habitats conservation

the Birds and favourable achieving status from

Habitats status favourable before the project

Directives status to after

Coastal and Halophytic 310 140 Habitat 50 1,700

Coastal Sand Dunes and 50 40 Inland Dunes 30 170

Freshwater Habitats 120 50 20 2,000

Temperate Heath and Scrub - 9 2 -

Sclerophyllous Scrub 20 1 (Matorral) - 20

Natural and Semi-Natural Grassland Formations 120 40 30 1,600

Raised Bogs, Mires and Fens 240 90 70 380

Rocky Habitats and Caves 20 1 - 20

Forests 160 60 40 200

Total: 1,040 430 240 6,100

e. Number of individual species reintroduced

Habitat Type Number of individual Number of species in the species reintroduced population before the project began

Coastal and Halophytic Habitat 160 -

Coastal Sand Dunes and Inland Dunes 150 - Freshwater Habitats 5,500 1,800

Temperate Heath and Scrub - -

Sclerophyllous Scrub (Matorral) - -

Natural and Semi-Natural Grassland Formations 20 -

Raised Bogs, Mires and Fens - -

Rocky Habitats and Caves - -

Forests 40 80

Total: 5,900 1,900

f. Invasive species that will be controlled

Habitat Type Habitat Type Area (ha) Number of Number of

priority invasive species

habitats that will be

protected controlled

Coastal and Halophytic Habitat 1,700 20 119,200 3,000

Coastal Sand Dunes and Inland Dunes 1,900 20 119,200 3,000

Freshwater Habitats 1,100 60 40 109,500

Temperate Heath and Scrub 120 2 5 -

Sclerophyllous Scrub (Matorral) 110 1 1 -

Natural and Semi-Natural Grassland Formations 21,300 30 119,200 1,599,000

Raised Bogs, Mires and Fens 580 10 20 -

Rocky Habitats and Caves 110 1 1 -

Forests 59,000 40 70 302,000

Total: 85,900 180 357,700 2,017,000

g. Species and area of habitats that will benefit from local biodiversity action

Habitat Type Area (ha) Number and Area (ha) Number and type type of species of species

Coastal and Halophytic Habitat 3,600 - 31,700 -

Coastal Sand Dunes and Inland Dunes 3,100 - 27,200 -

Freshwater Habitats 142,400 90 1,265,000 780

Temperate Heath and Scrub - - - -

Sclerophyllous Scrub (Matorral) 2,800 20 24,500 180

Natural and Semi-Natural Grassland Formations - - - -

Raised Bogs, Mires and Fens 280 - 2,400 - Habitat Type Area (ha) Number and Area (ha) Number and type

type of species of species

Rocky Habitats and Caves 2,800 - 24,500 -

Forests 8,200 - 73,100 -

116

ANNEX 8: F ULL ASSESSMENT OF THE Z ERO O PTION AND OF THE E XPANDED O PTION

1. Full assessment of the Zero option

In this option, all Action Grant funding is undertaken through the main EU financial instruments (especially Common Agricultural Policy (CAP) related funds and the Structural Funds). Public procurement continues. Operating Grants for environmental NGOs is discontinued. The main EU financial instruments are Cohesion Policy, CAP Pillar II and Common Fisheries Policy funds and Horizon 2020. These are assumed to operate as they do now.

To the extent that LIFE+ activities can be funded under other instruments, then the impacts can be assumed to continue under this option, subject to the level of funding. In the case of operating grants for environmental NGOs, it is assumed that no other instrument would be available to fund this activity.

The MTE 47 examined the level of project funding that would have been used in the absence of

funding from the LIFE instrument. Projects were asked whether they would otherwise have used other EU and MS programmes.

The results (table below) indicate that some projects consider they could have secured funding from other EU instruments. In total, 12% of EC LIFE funding could have been derived from other EU funds; in the case of EPG projects, 13% of investment could have been funded from other instruments. The main EU instruments considered to provide a source of alternative funding to LIFE were, FP7 and Interreg. Interestingly, the use of the Competitiveness and Innovation Programme (CIP) as an alternative instrument was barely mentioned, reflecting the attempts to distinguish and target the instruments on different activities.

The results also suggest that the possibility of securing alternative funding from Member States' (MS) programmes was very limited (3% for the programme overall, 5% for EPG but zero for the other strands).

Table 1.1 Share of EC project contribution by LIFE Strand that could have been funded from other EU and MS financial instruments

LIFE Programme by Strand Share of investment from Share of investment other EU funds (%) from MS funds (%)

Nature & Biodiversity 6 0

Environmental Policy & Governance 20 6

Information & Communications 6 0

Total Programme 13 3

Source: Mid-Term Evaluation (GHK project survey), n = 165 projects; total investment of €374m

Examination of projects that suggested they would have used alternative instruments does not however indicate that other EU instruments would clearly be capable of funding them; projects would of course need to be reconfigured to suit the relevant eligibility criteria of the other instruments whilst essentially undertaking the same activity – and be successful, to generate similar results and impacts.

The possibility of other instruments funding activities funded by Action Grants is being reviewed by strand, and delivering similar types and quality of results and impacts.

1.1. Nature and Biodiversity

Under LIFE III, funding for nature and biodiversity was limited to the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives, which established the legal basis for the Natura 2000 network. In 2007, LIFEIII was widened under LIFE+ to include additional funding for a wider biodiversity component (under the “Biodiversity” strand), which focused on the implementation of the broader objectives laid out in the Communication on “Halting the loss

of biodiversity by 2010 – and beyond”. 48

Given that much of LIFE’s nature-related funding to date has been directed towards funding activities to support the implementation of the Natura 2000 network, this is the area where the implications of having to rely only on other EC funds might be expected to be greatest.

1.1.1. Support for the atura 2000 network

In this option, Natura 2000 related activity is included within several EU funding instruments aside from LIFE+, including the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development (EAFRD), European Fisheries Fund (EFF), Structural Funds (i.e. the European Fund for Regional Development – ERDF and the European Social Fund – ESF and the Cohesion Fund) and the 7th European Framework Programme for Research and Development (FP7). Because of their scale, these other financial instruments might well be (and even arguably be better) suited to the needs of the network (e.g. Structural and Cohesion Funds – €336 billion and EAFRD €151 billion over the period 2007 to 2013). EAFRD in particular is suited to providing annual payments to farmers and landowners; these make up a significant proportion of the overall ongoing costs of managing the network. This is set against the significantly smaller budget of LIFE (€2.2 billion over the 2007 to 2013 period of which 39% is to be allocated to grants for Nature and Biodiversity).

Examining the possible use of other instruments to provide the same results and impacts as LIFE Nature, the alternative funding is most likely to come from EARFD, and the Structural Funds. These funds, combined with LIFE, have made available around €3.8 billion for financing Natura 2000 through 2007 to 2013 (see 0). Note that (from 0 above) beneficiaries considered their scope to access alternative funds was very limited – only 6% of beneficiaries thought they could have used other EU funding sources and none considered they could have used MS funding sources.

Estimating the financial allocations for Natura 2000 from the current EU budget is difficult because the budgetary allocations under most of the funds do not allow a distinction between Natura 2000 related expenditure and support to conservation of biodiversity and environment in a wider context. Due to these difficulties, the exercise can easily lead to underestimates or overestimates of the contribution to the implementation and management of Natura 2000 of

certain EU funding instruments. According to a BirdLife report (Boccaccio et al. 2009) 49 , if

spending on agri-environment is considered in relation to its value purely for biodiversity, in 2007 in Austria less than 8 per cent of total budget was spent on sub-measures with ‘strong’ effects.

In the case of the Structural Funds, payments allocated to Natura 2000 and biodiversity that might directly benefit conservation or restoration are difficult to define since they are covered by the broadly defined heading of category 51 and the wide range of measures possible to be

48 COM (2006) 216 i.

supported within it. 50 The following table attempts to provide a very rough first order estimate

of the potential contributions to Natura 2000 under the three most important EU financial instruments assuming a proportion of the key measures is applied for this purpose.

Table 1.2 Approximate allocation under some EU financial instruments which are dedicated to, or

are most likely to benefit, Natura 2000 (€million, 2007-2013) 51

Funding instrument Estimated allocation (€million, 2007-2013)

LIFE+ Nature & Biodiversity allocation 700

EAFRD direct Natura 2000 payments + agri-environment payments expected

to likely contribute to Natura 2000 management (25 per cent of category 214 600 - 5,400

on agri-environment)

Structural funds

(25 - 50 per cent of ERDF cat.51 for biodiversity and Natura 2000) 600 - 1,300

Total 1,900 – 7,400

300 – 1,100 per year

ote: Other rural development measures are also used by Member States to finance atura 2000, e.g. forestenvironment payments, non-productive investments in agriculture and forests

The estimated spending is approximately between 300 – 1,100 million EUR / year, which represents only 5-20 per cent of the estimated financing needs of 5.8 billion EUR / year.

It also needs to be noted that the figures refer to allocated funding and not to actual expenditure. Mid-term information available on financing under EAFRD indicates a disparity between planned allocations and resources used, particularly in the context of the direct Natura 2000 payments (Kettunen et al. 2011). This suggests a slow uptake of the measure at the beginning of the financing period.

Moreover, although there are a range of funds available to support the network, a recent

report 52 found that there is a significant range of activities that are not funded by the other

instruments (Table 1.3). Key gaps identified include:

• Pilot projects;

• Consultation & networking;

• Conservation management, especially where projects are unable to demonstrate

significant socio-economic benefits (as required by other funds;

• Gaps for particular habitats – particularly those that are not managed for agriculture or

forestry – especially marine, coastal, water and unfarmed terrestrial habitats. The allocation and uptake of payments for forest measures under EAFRD is low compared

to those for agricultural habitats;

• Management planning;

• Monitoring and risk management.

50 Kettunen, M., Baldock D., Gantioler, S., Carter, O., Torkler, P., Arroyo Schnell, A.,Baumueller, A., Gerritsen,

E., Rayment, M., Daly, E. & Pieterse, M. (2011). Assessment of the Natura 2000 co-financing arrangements of the EU financing instrument.A project for the European Commission – final report. Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussels, Belgium. 138 pp + Annexes.

51 Note figures must be treated with caution. See forthcoming Kettunen report (2011) for caveats linked to

EAFRD figures.

52 IEEP et al (2011, forthcoming): Assessment of the Natura 2000 co-financing arrangements of the EU

financing instrument. Final Report.

The scale of the gap is also significant; current EU funding is estimated at €0.5 to €1.1 billion

annually compared to estimated annual costs of €5.8 billion 53 . To establish the approximate

scale of funding relative to where the gaps are, Kettunen et al (2011) analysed the main costs of implementing the network provided by 11 Member States in the context of the Gantioler et al (2010) study. The results indicated that around 15% of costs are in activities for which there are significant gaps in financing opportunities, and 52% in activities for which there are moderate gaps in financing opportunities. To the extent that LIFE is the only instrument capable of meeting some of these gaps (as indicated below) and is already doing so then there is little or no scope to use alternative instruments.

Table 1.3 Overview of the major and moderate gaps in financing key management measures within the current EU co-financing framework for Natura 2000

Establishment of Natura 2000 Sites

In principle, possible in all budget lines. However, restricted under EAFRD.

PILOT PROJECTS Moderate The pilots must usually be in line with the funds general requirements (i.e. gaps have links with rural / regional development). Information if funds have been

used for pilot projects is not available.

Management planning

ESTABLISHMENT OF Significant Some possibilities under ERDF but most probable only used indirectly in some

MANAGEMENT BODIES gaps transboundary projects.

CONSULTATION AND NETWORKING – PUBLIC LIFE communication can provide direct project funding. ERDF provides

MEETINGS, Moderate NETWORKING, LIASON gaps

several indirect options but the real uptake is only realised through transnational cooperation projects.

WITH LANDOWNERS

RUNNING COSTS OF Significant None of the funding lines provides funding for running costs. Some use might

MANAGEMENT BODIES gaps be possible under LIFE if beneficiaries "sell" their projects as innovative and new to cover ongoing costs.

ONGOING STAFF COSTS Significant gaps LIFE provides staff costs only during the project lifetime.

Ongoing habitat management and monitoring

LIFE has a clear track record of projects in this field. Under EAFRD AEM and

Natura payments can be linked to specific conservation (e.g. agricultural land

and forests), although often not targeted enough. EFF provides several

opportunities but most legal opportunities remain unclear with low or no

CONSERVATION Moderate uptake in the national programmes. FP7 provides indirect research possibilities

MANAGEMENT – gaps (e.g. with wider biodiversity context. ERDF provides good opportunities for

HABITATS, SPECIES marine) transboundary activities and in sectoral programmes, although in

competiveness objective regions possibilities are limited as nature projects

must be investment related and show economic effects. Species conservation is

more difficult under ERDF as funding has a clear territorial dimension and

species projects need to be linked to concrete land based measures.

53 Gantioler, S., Rayment, M., Bassi, S., Kettunen, M., McConville, A., Landgrebe, R., Gerdes, H. and ten Brink,

P. (2010) Costs and Socio-Economic Benefits associated with the Natura 2000 Network. Final report prepare by the Institute for European Environmental Policy / GHK / Ecologic on Contract ENV.B.2/SER/2008/0038 for the European Commission, DG Environment: Brussels.et al (2010). Costs and socio-economic benefits associated with the Natura 2000 network. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/natura2000_costs_benefits.pdf.

Establishment of Natura 2000 Sites

LIFE can provide project financing. Significant potential under AEM where a

IMPLEMENTATION OF Moderate MANAGEMENT SCHEMES gaps (e.g.

huge diversity of measures exists, can be difficult to target measures on sites as

AND AGREEMENTS non-rual

the measures are voluntary. Some positive impacts might come from LFA and

areas) Natura 2000 payments but these payments are not targeted at specific outcomes.

PROVISION OF SERVICES, Moderate AEM and Natura payments allow for wide coverage of payments but can lack COMPENSATION FOR gaps (e.g. clear targeting. Also, these payments only cover loss of income and additional RIGHTS FOREGONE AND non-rual cost for agriculture-related activities, not for urban development etc.. LIFE can LOSS OF INCOME areas) also finance compensation payments.

LIFE projects can realise all kind of measures in this field. In principle

MONITORING AND Moderate measures could be included under LEADER activities but no information is

SURVEYING, AND RISK gaps (e.g. available on the uptake. Under ERDF, monitoring and surveillance could be

MANAGEMENT marine) realised under the risk prevention schemes but no information about uptake is available as most risk prevention plans are linked to industrial risks and

hazardous materials.

(ONGOING) Significant

SURVEILLANCE OF SITES gaps None of the funds provides possibilities for ongoing surveillance.

Source: Edited from Kettunen et al (2011)

There are some activities (e.g. monitoring, surveying, management of risks), which are not generally eligible for funding through other instruments. Only LIFE provides opportunities for funding these important activities. These activities relate more to management activities of the network rather than one-off investments. Activities linked to the latter seem relatively well covered by the various financial instruments. Some two thirds of the estimated costs of running the network relate to management activities (see 0), which are largely ineligible for

funding through other means. 54 Without LIFE therefore, entire aspects of the network would

receive no funding from EC sources.

Table 1.4 Summary of the main costs of implementing the Natura 2000 network

Cost category Costs for 25 Member States (€m) %

One off costs (annualised)

Management 255 5%

Land purchase 398 8%

Infrastructure 835 16%

Sub-total 1,671 33%

Recurrent costs (annual)

Management planning 55 703 14%

Habitat management & monitoring 2,707 53%

Subtotal 3,428 67%

Total (25 MS)

5,099 100%

54 Kettunen et al (2011) , initial source Gantioler et al. 2010 .

55 Some management planning falls under one-off costs, some under recurrent costs. Recurrent costs mainly

include the running of management bodies, and to a less extent public communication, and review of management plans.

Source: Edited from Kettunen et al (2011) op cit

These funding gaps result from the different objectives, eligibility criteria and payment structures of these other instruments and arise from the fact that none of them (with the exception of LIFE) were specifically designed to fund nature projects. Even where it is possible to use other instruments as an alternative source to LIFE funding other funds have a specific socio-economic aim other than biodiversity conservation. Therefore, while they can fund conservation actions, it is only when these actions are linked to relevant sectors through

socio-economic objectives, that these actions can be funded. 56 LIFE therefore is the only fund

which can fund conservation actions where the purpose is conservation alone. Without LIFE therefore, a subset of these activities would receive no funding.

Moreover, while other funds provide valuable finance for Natura 2000, it can be argued that the specialist expertise within DG Environment can be crucial in maximising the added value that its funding delivers for the network. Replacing this funding from other sources would therefore reduce the added value delivered to the overall detriment of the network. At the same time, the LIFE programme combines Commission expertise in helping with the design of the programmes and the use of funds with technical expertise regarding the practical implementation at a national and regional level.

The presence of these gaps in funding argues that the baseline impacts cannot in general be provided by alternative instruments. This is supported by the projects themselves; which considered that only 6% of LIFE funding for Nature could have been replaced by other instruments.

Another consideration is whether the use of alternative instruments provides the same level of EU added value through contributions to burden sharing in the protection of EU natural assets. Figure 1.5 below indicates the funds received by MS under the EAFRD and Structural Funds that are most likely to benefit the Natura 2000 network, relative to the MS allocation under the National Allocation for the LIFE programme, using this as a suitable proxy for the distribution of nature protection priorities.

The variance from the national allocation indicates where Member States receive too much, or too little relative to their needs. The greater the variance, the less the use of these funds contributes to burden sharing. In the case of EAFRD for 7 MS the funding is greater than 5% different to that implied by the national allocation. In the case of the Structural Funds for 5 MS, the funding is greater than 5% different to that implied by the national allocation and

suggests that neither fund provides the same level of EU added value as LIFE. 57

56 For instance, funding of conservation action under EAFRD is only possible for farmland and forestry, and

does not include other types of Natura 2000 sites.

57 Under proposals for the next MFF, cohesion policy in non-convergence regions will not fund environmental

measures: “Transition regions and competitiveness regions would be required to focus the entire allocation of cohesion funding (except for the ESF) primarily on energy efficiency and renewable energy; SME competitiveness and innovation. In these regions, investments in energy efficiency and renewable energy will be at least 20%.” - COM(2011) 500 final i, page 25.

Figure 1.5. Burden sharing in the protection of natural assets: The variance in the national distribution of EAFRD and Structural Funds relative to the national allocations under the LIFE programme

Source: GHK analysis, adapted from the information in IEEP et al (2011, forthcoming)

Finally, it needs to be questioned to what extent national financing for nature conservation could replace resources from LIFE+. The budget of the instrument is small compared to other EU financing instruments, and if it is only considered by its size, it could be argued that this could be easily replaced at the national level. However, as became evident from the stakeholder consultation and its mid-term evaluation, LIFE+ plays an important catalytic role in leveraging MS funds, and without which less MS funds would be allocated. An analysis of

national funding available for Natura 2000 in six case study countries 58 showed that though

the level of financing and the application of EU financing instruments strongly vary across Member States, national level funding is generally inadequate and there is a lack of resources to compensate for the heavy reliance on EU financing instruments.

1.1.2. Support for wider biodiversity goals

Aside from the funding of the actual Natura 2000 network, the impact on broader biodiversity goals needs to be considered. Current baseline funding is modest (some €20m in the first two calls). However, the Mid-Term Evaluation (MTE) of the LIFE programme found that this is not an expression of the lack of a need for such activities. Instead, the broadening of the Nature component to include wider biodiversity issues is seen by Member States and stakeholders as both useful and necessary, with the previously restricted focus being seen as too limiting given the need to protect species and ecosystems outside of the network as well as within.

Rather, the limited activity under the Biodiversity strand was seen as an indication of “teething problems” in light of the theme’s infancy compared to the Nature theme, which has been operating since the beginning of the LIFE Programmes. The MTE analysis noted that it is likely that the Biodiversity theme would develop in the same way as the Nature theme, and would attract a high number of good quality applications as the biodiversity ‘market’ matures.

The current impacts of the LIFE programme are therefore likely to under-represent the impacts of the baseline option over the programme period.

Biodiversity and ecosystem services are worth hundreds of billions of Euros per year and underpin EU growth, jobs and wellbeing. Once these services are lost or degraded, it can be very difficult or impossible to restore them or to find substitutes. There is therefore a definite need for funding to maintain and restore biodiversity and the functioning of ecosystem

services. 59

This need for funding is recognised in the development of the new EU biodiversity strategy

towards 2020, released in May 2011 60 .

1.2. Environmental Policy & Governance (EPG)

As indicated above, projects advise that the possibility of other EU instruments funding project activity is greatest for the EPG strand. The MTE identified the principal risk of overlap and potential for the use of other instruments to fund LIFE activity was in relation to eco-innovation projects.

To assess the implications of this the segment of projects that might be classified as ecoinnovation projects has been identified, using the typology described in Table 1.6 below, itself based on a detailed review of project descriptions to understand the major focus of projects. The typology provides the basis of an indicative analysis only, since projects are often multifaceted and tend to have elements of each of the types of activity described; the typology and related analysis therefore seeks only to reflect the major focus of projects.

Table 1.6. An indicative typology of EPG projects

Main purpose of activity Type of activity

A - Problem definition – measuring Environmental investigation / collecting data on the extent of a problem / environmental impacts barriers to implementation / better ways of addressing environmental challenges

Developing a new approach / technique /process for monitoring of environmental impacts within a municipality or sector

B - Improvements in implementing Develop / demonstrate and introduce methods and action plans for reducing environmental policy environmental impacts (approach / management system/ process / plans) to reduce environmental impact, informing policy. Mainly at the level of municipality. Sometimes with other national / international partners

Stimulate behaviour change through new market based instruments

Assistance in purchasing infrastructure / capital costs that reduces environmental impacts

Set up public private partnerships (PPPs) to show more effective ways of reducing environmental impacts

C - Improvements in the environmental Demonstrate good practice / produce instructions / tools / kits/ guidelines to management of economic activities, industry on how to reduce environmental impacts

integrating environmental objectives Pro-actively engaging with stakeholders (industry involved) to change

behaviour

59 Communication COM(2006)216 i “Halting the Loss of Biodiversity by 2010 – and beyond”. Available from:

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2006:0216:FIN i:EN:PDF.

60 European Commission (2011). Communication on our life insurance, our natural capital: an EU biodiversity

strategy to 2020 , COM(2011) 244 final i.

D - Developing eco-innovative solutions Testing and demonstrating / developing a technology / technique / process / to environmental problems that product that reduces environmental impacts favouring implementation of and improve implementation & compliance compliance with environmental legislation within a municipality or sector

Source: Adapted from GHK analysis of EPG activities.

Table 1.7 indicates that the eco-innovation focused activity accounts for 42% of projects, but because they tend to be slightly larger projects, to account for 48% of the EC contribution to EPG projects.

The likelihood of using other instruments for each of the different activities has been reviewed:

Environmental problems: Overall assessment of replacing LIFE: Unlikely. Projects relate to measuring and monitoring environmental problems. Some projects might get funding from FP7 for research and monitoring activity. Future Cohesion Policy may have a stronger focus on monitoring, although this is still not likely to be an adequate replacement for LIFE. To the extent that these relate to municipality plans there may some very limited scope to combine with urban planning;

Environmental policy improvements: Overall assessment of replacing LIFE: Unlikely Projects relate to improving environmental policies and plans, mainly at municipality level. Might conceivably be seen as an element in broader urban planning and cohesion policy, although projects tend to be well focused. Interreg funding was referenced by a small number of projects as a possible alternative;

Environmental integration: Overall assessment of replacing LIFE: Unlikely. Projects demonstrate initiatives to integrate environmental objectives in sectoral activities could in principle be funded by others (e.g. CIP, ERDF), but any such opportunities are not always clear given the different objectives of other instruments. Since such projects are expected to demonstrate the possibility of socio-economic benefits, the demonstration projects might form the basis for ERDF funding;

Eco-innovation activity: Overall assessment of replacing LIFE: Unlikely. Projects demonstrate innovative solutions to environmental problems, largely by private companies (two thirds of beneficiaries) to assist in meeting compliance requirements directly or as a process to assist other companies (in around a third of cases). In some cases could possibly be funded by FP7 even though they are not always commercially orientated. There is some possible use of CIP where commercial interest are being pursued. The possibility of socio-economic benefits might suggest some use of ERDF / EAFRD.

Table 1.7. An indicative breakdown of EPG projects

EPG Projects by Share of EPG Share of EPG EC Possible use of other instruments to

Activity Projects by Activity Contribution by provide the EC contribution (as % of Activity EPG EC contribution)

A. Environmental

problems 14% 15% 15-25%

B. Environmental

policy improvement 26% 26% 0-5%

C. Environmental

integration 19% 11% 5-10%

D. Eco-innovation

activity 42% 48% 15-25%

Total EPG 100% 100% 10-18% (weighted total)

Source: GHK Project survey, n=86 projects, with total investment of €190m

GHK own estimates of the use of other instruments based on review

Translating this review into an estimate of the possible share of the EC contribution that might have been funded from other instruments suggests that overall 10% to 18% of the EC contribution to EPG projects might have been financed from other instruments. This compares with the 20% identified by projects from the MTE.

The EPG activity least capable of being funded by alternative instruments is the preparation of new or revised management plans and capacity building for the improvement of environmental policies and also the development of new environmental policies. An example of an EPG project contributing to policy development is a project managed by Airbus which sought to develop an extended product and site-oriented environmental management system (EMS). Large-scale pilot experiments were used to demonstrate a broadening of the scope of the EMS to integrate product-related activities and a life-cycle dimension. Guidelines were produced and used to further disseminate this approach both within the aerospace sector and to other industries. It is considered unlikely that this project would have been eligible under alternative funding instruments.

This has been identified as the biggest ‘gap’ left by the other instruments, and sets LIFE apart as being an ‘initiator of change’ and a key mechanism for enhancing the capacity of competent authorities to develop sound planning and policy action. The importance of such plans is often underestimated – without them there is effectively no guidance for how to manage responses to environmental problems or to guide environmental investment.

The other notable gap addressed by the specific instrument is facilitating the development of ‘science for policy’ as opposed to funding for more commercially-driven ‘science for market.’ Some solutions are often developed with the sole purpose of addressing a particular problem which a local authority might have, for example, although it may have no commercial value. Given the potential likelihood that the future Framework Programme for Research and Innovation (‘FP8’) may shift to being a more commercially-oriented instrument, this gap in funding ‘science for policy’ may, as noted above, become more prominent, suggesting that LIFE would have a more important role to play in financing such solutions.

The first approximation of the impact of the zero option on EPG activities based on the possible use of alternative EU instruments is that between 10% and 18% of baseline results and impacts would be retained through use of other funds. This assumes that the different types of project funded by alternative instruments make the same contributions to results and impacts. The analysis of types of projects indicates that over 56% of results are reported by policy improvement and integration projects and 32% by eco-innovation projects. 59% of reported impacts are from eco-innovation projects. The analysis is broadly in line with expectations, with policy improvement and integration projects focused more on testing and developing new policy approaches and proposals (which only have environmental impacts when implemented); whereas eco-innovation projects are focused on demonstrating environmental benefits as a result of innovative solutions.

Table 1.8. An indicative breakdown of EPG projects by type of activity reporting results and impacts

Share of EPG EC Share of EPG EC Share of EPG EC EPG Projects by Activity Contribution by Contribution by Contribution by

Activity - Spend Activity – Results Activity – Impacts

Environmental problems 15% 13% 10% Environmental policy improvement 26% 38% 23%

Environmental integration 11% 18% 8%

Eco-innovation activity 48% 32% 59%

Total EPG 100% 100% 100%

Source: GHK Project survey,

Projects reporting results, n=31, with EC investment of €25m

Projects reporting impacts, n=42 with total investment of €45m

Based on the possible use of other funds by type of project activity, (low and high estimate, Table 1.7) the share of results and impacts in the baseline that might be produced by other instruments can be calculated by multiplying the estimates in Table 1.8 by the shares in Table 1.8. This suggests that between 8% and 15% of results and between 11% and 19% of impacts produced in the baseline could be generated by other funding instruments.

Based on the conservative impact of some €200m of environmental benefits each year under the current LIFE+ Regulation, then perhaps in the order of €20m to €40m of benefits might be secured under the zero option from other funding instruments. If compared with the baseline, where overlaps have been eliminated and there is a significant increase of climate actionrelated projects, the zero option would imply a loss of €333 million of environmental benefits each year.

1.3. Information & Communication (INFO)

In reviewing the objectives of other EU financial instruments which could be accessed to meet environmental goals, it is apparent that there is no other alternative EU instrument that has a specific component dedicated to raising awareness amongst a wide range of stakeholders of the importance of various aspects of environmental policy, and the ways in which other policy areas can contribute to better implementation of EU environmental policy.

Recent Eurobarometer surveys suggest that more could be done to provide European citizens with more information about the environment, as there is still a general lack of awareness of environmental problems amongst the general public. Roughly 38% of citizens feel that more information about the environment would be useful. For instance, 47% of citizens feel that the

labelling of environmentally-friendly products is inadequate. 61

Furthermore, unlike EC-wide communication activities that are run by DG ENV itself such as Green Week and the European Business Awards for the environment, projects funded under the Information and Communication component are distinctive because they often have a greater focus on a local area or municipality, a spatial level at which coordinating action can often be more effective.

Given the bottom-up nature of LIFE, it would therefore appear to be the case that no alternative EU instrument would fund projects which aim to raise awareness amongst a broad set of stakeholders specifically about environmental issues at a local and regional level, and to bridge the ‘communication gap’ between policymakers at the European level and citizens. The MTE also found that communications activities were often ranked low as a priority by most Member States, suggesting that the likelihood of LIFE INF-type activities being funded by alternative MS instruments remains low. The actual contribution of the strand to the results and impacts of the programme is difficult to judge given the indirect nature of its influence, and its relatively modest budget (5% of the Action Grants).

1.4. Operating Grants for Environmental NGOs

There are a number of ways in which NGOs contribute towards improvements in EU environmental policy development, implementation and enforcement. An analysis on data collected from the NGOs in the MTE revealed that the activities of NGOs that have been granted an operational fund are split up as follows:

Table 1.9. An indicative breakdown of the type of activities undertaken by NGO Operating Grant recipients

Kind of activity % of total budget granted for 2007 and 2008

A Environmental policy development 27%

B Environmental policy implementation 28%

C External capacity building of members and partners 17%

D Environmental education and awareness raising 10%

E Activities on enlargement and third countries 8%

F Internal functioning and capacity building 10%

Source: DG Environment and analysis from the Mid-Term Evaluation

These six activities can be grouped into four elements:

Covered by activity A and partly E and F:

Problem identification and definition of policy options. NGOs are systematically

invited to participate in various working groups, scientific expert groups, advisory groups and preparatory and implementation committees by the Commission to support policy work. NGOs regularly provide input into various policy areas and act as important counterweights to other stakeholders with financial interests. There are numerous examples of environmental investigation and studies carried out by NGOs in relation to environmental policy, many of which have contributed directly to the policy process. For instance, an investigation by the Pesticides Action Network (PAN) Europe in 2008 of bottles of wine purchased inside the EU found evidence that

some wines contain residues of “a large number of pesticides”. 62

Policy definition and political debate. Involving NGOs in consultations and policy

debate contributes to a balanced and broader stakeholder representation. The White

Paper on European Governance 63 stressed the importance of involving civil society in

the consultation processes, and the European Commission encourages civil society representation at the European level. Moreover, the EU is party to the Aarhus Convention, which establishes the right for public participation in environmental decision-making and requires that public authorities enable the affected public and NGOs to comment on environmental decisions, and for these comments to be taken into account. In this, funded NGOs play an important role in coordinating the positions of their members, providing the Commission with a single interlocutor and giving a voice to a large number of local organisations which would otherwise have difficulties reaching EU decision-makers. Examples of activities include preparation of coordinated press releases, position papers and memoranda to EU presidencies. NGOs also reply regularly to public consultations, providing useful input and

62 PAN Europe (2008) European wines systematically contaminated with pesticide residues. Available from:

http://www.pan-europe.info/Media/PR/080326.html.

perspective to the policy process. Operation grants are considered a tool to protect the level playing field in the public debate and the policy development between environmental NGOs and sector-federations or other organisations funded by industry. However only 31% of the NGOs in the MTE thought a level playing field is effectively being reached with the actual operational funding. Of the 34 NGOs funded in 2007 and 2008, 13 specialised mainly in policy development, another 12 focused on multiple activities including policy development.

Covered by activity B, E and F:

Policy implementation. With their networks and specific expertise, NGOs are

effective in promoting implementation of EU policy on the ground. They can for example draw attention to cases of non-compliance and publishing black lists, scoreboards and reports. They also act as centres of expertise helping local authorities and economic actors to comply with legal or policy requests, or setting up implementation initiatives themselves.

Covered by activity C and D:

Raising awareness of environmental problems and policy issues. In support of the

above functions, NGOs carry out activities to raise awareness of civil society and decision makers, reducing information failure and improving the quality of policy debate and policy decisions. Activities include campaigns, events and awards, and environmental education (targeting various groups such as children, officials and professionals). Genuine grass-root NGOs have a particular advantage of being ‘close to the ground’ and having high credibility with the public, and therefore being effective in achieving outreach and increasing awareness and knowledge. Specialised NGOs are often recognised as centres of expertise on specific issues and gain credibility from it. NGOs also actively raise awareness and promote EU environmental policy beyond EU borders.

Without funding from the programme through Operating Grants, the beneficiary NGOs would need to substantially reduce their activities, which include their contributions to the EU policy process, either because they lack the direct means for continuing their activities (A to E) or because they lose their internal supporting capacity (F).

Some NGOs, for principal reasons or to avoid any risk or allegation of non-independence, refuse all subvention from governmental sources and all private sponsoring. Only very large and international renowned NGOs can afford to limit their resources to membership contributions and its own merchandising. Most NGOs active in the field of EU policy do not possess these possibilities or cannot compete on a free market of membership and merchandising, because they cover more technical or for the large public less visible topics.

Demands on NGOs, their European structures and their offices in Brussels have grown considerably in recent times, including meeting demands from citizens and requests from the EU institutions for input and expertise. In this context, financial resources for the operation of environmental NGOs remain hugely important and the removal of operating grants for NGO beneficiaries would severely hamper their ability to meet multiple responsibilities for contributing to policy development and implementation, awareness raising and helping to identify problems and potential solutions with regards to environmental policy.

NGOs are not dependent on one single source of income, but tend to apply for different grants, both operation based and project based. However, in the MTE about 81% declared that the operational funding cannot be replaced by either the ERDF, ESF, Cohesion Fund,

EAFRD, CIP, EFF, 7 th framework programme or LIFE+ public procurement contracts. 34%

thought that LIFE+ action grants could partially replace operational funding. The balance between continuous, operation funded activities and discontinuous project based (and individually granted) activities is an issue, in that in the case of the former, an NGO is able to rely on continuous funding in their role as a stakeholder, whereas in the case of discreet projects, the contribution of an NGO is confined to an individual project where they cannot play a full role as a stakeholder.

Regarding their dependency on LIFE+ operational funding NGOs receiving LIFE+ funding declared that they are:

• Very dependent: survival is not possible without the actual LIFE+ funding: 16%;

• Dependent: shifts in the actual LIFE+ funding would lead to considerable shifts in the

working programme: 65%;

• Rather dependent: the NGO would lose efficiency but could find other sources to

continue realising its programme: 16%;

• Rather independent: the NGO is strong enough to realise its primary mission, the

funds only help to realise useful extra projects: 3%;

• Independent: the NGO can easily swap between possible sources of working means:

0%.

The degree of dependency from LIFE+ operational funding can be expressed by the amount of operational funding received or by the % of co-funding for operational expenditures. NGOs with a LIFE+ co-funding percentage of > 50% or with an amount of > €500,000 can be considered as at risk if LIFE+ operational funding were to be discontinued. This would affect 19 different NGOs out of the 32 NGOs funded for 2010.

The absence of NGO activity leads to major costs. These costs can be linked to the drivers of environmental problems for which a supporting LIFE-like financial instrument could help remediation. Examples of such costs are the risk of unbalanced influence by interested parties, reduced effectiveness of policy through lack of NGO participation in the process and increased costs of consultation as further described below.

The following drivers are identified:

Variable and inadequate levels of environmental protection through weaknesses in policy implementation and development;

  • 1. 
    Without the NGO intervention on policy development there would be an increased risk of regulatory capture and reduced effectiveness of policy: The removal of NGO funding would significantly reduce the contributions made by NGOs to the development and implementation of priority policy areas, and, in particular, since these areas are likely to be the subject of particular lobbying and negotiation from affected parties, increasing the risk of unbalanced negotiation and regulatory capture. Inadequate coordination, and inadequate integration of the environment into policy

    (including in 3 rd countries);

  • 2. 
    The role of NGOs in the field of coordination and integration is expressed in their policy development, implementation and awareness raising activities, especially when they integrate environmental issues in the larger frame of sustainability. NGOs that work across both environmental concerns and other sectoral areas play important roles in addressing the inadequate integration of the environment into policy. Without the NGO activities increased costs for coordination and integration will occur.

Inadequate sharing of information and awareness of EU environmental problems 3. Increased costs of awareness raising and reduced effectiveness of policy: NGOs can be effective communicators with both civil society and policy makers, disseminating information and improving the quality of policy debate; with subsequent benefits in terms of the quality of policy decisions and hence its cost-effectiveness and acceptability.

  • 4. 
    Increased costs of consultation: NGOs provide a more cost-effective way of dealing with civil society, since in effect, a European environmental NGO represents the coordinated views of all national member organisations, consolidating a large number of veiwpoints.(3) Decreased NGO independency: LIFE+ operational funding allows NGOs to keep a higher level of independency compared to national funding, and other funding or resources. A lower degree of independency would affect the quality of the policy input given by the NGOs.(4) Increased costs for facilitating exchange of information between stakeholders or target groups: NGOs possess of a large network of members, sympathisers, contacts and interlocutors, often at grassroots level. NGOs use this network not only for disseminating downhill information or to collect information for uphill public consultation, but also for mutual exchange between contacts in a target group.

1.5. The assessment of the option

The assessment of the option is summarised in the following assessment grids

Table 1.10.Assessment of Zero option (relative to baseline)

Anticipated Specific objective to be impact:

achieved/ problem Element effectiveness Explanation of rating and aspects of the policy option addressed (rated from –5 necessary to achieve impact

to +5)

NAT -3 Adverse impact, especially biodiversity but main impact is on implementation

To improve the scope of EPG -1 Adverse impact but main impact is on implementation

EU environmental -2

policy and legislation. INF -1 No significant effect on policy scope but lack of awareness can

effect policy development

NGO -4 Very significant impact by not addressing regulatory capture

To improve the NAT -5 Very significant impact – little replacement in other funds implementation of EU

environmental policy EPG -4 Very significant impact – some replacement in other funds

and legislation, INF -3 -4 Adverse impact through loss of awareness

(including EU commitments to

international NGO -4 Very significant impact through loss of implementation activities led by NGOs.

agreements)

To improve the effective NAT -2 -2 Adverse impact through loss of working with policy makers

contribution of other EU across policy areas policies to

environmental EPG -2 Adverse impact from loss of ‘C’ Projects – but only small share objectives of EPG

INF -2 Adverse impact through loss of dissemination with policy makers Anticipated

Specific objective to be impact:

achieved/ problem Element effectiveness Explanation of rating and aspects of the policy option addressed (rated from –5 necessary to achieve impact

to +5)

and economic actors in other sectors

NGO -2 Adverse impact through loss of engagement with policy makers and the cross-policy networking capacity of NGOs.

To develop solutions for NAT -2 Adverse impact from lack of demonstration subsequent

mainstreaming in other EPG -2 Significant impact from loss of ‘D’ projects - some replacement -2

EU financial INF -1 Adverse impact from lack of dissemination to potential applicants

instruments and MS

practices NGO -2 Adverse impact from lack of NGO dissemination

NAT -4 Very significant impact due to loss of investment

To contribute to EPG -3 Significant adverse impact from lack of demonstration

responsibility sharing in

the protection of EU -3

natural assets INF -2

Adverse impact from lack of awareness of issues – e.g. forest management and forest fire protection

NGO -3 Significant adverse impact from lack of expertise

NAT -3 Significant adverse impact from loss of transboundary working To contribute to responsibility sharing in

addressing EPG -4

Very significant adverse impact from loss of transboundary working

transboundary problems -3 affecting EU internal INF -2 Adverse impact from lack of targeting of transboundary problems and external borders and related awareness of issues

NGO -3 Significant adverse impact from lack of expertise

Table 1.11. Assessment of Zero option – Against impact indicators

Specific objective to be achieved/ Anticipated impact: problem addressed effectiveness (rated

Explanation of rating and aspects of the policy

from –5 to +5) option necessary to achieve impact

Changes in

policies/management -3 No replacement of activity in other funds

Environmental Changes in

impacts habitats/eco-systems -5 No replacement of activity in other funds

Changes in pollution /

resource use -4

Limited replacement of activities most directly related to these impacts

Technology outcomes -4 Limited replacement of activities most directly related to these impacts

Economic

impacts Additional sales / GVA -4

Limited replacement of activities most directly related to these impacts

Net cost savings -4 Limited replacement of activities most directly related to these impacts

NGO contributions to

policy -4 Only limited replacement of activity in other funds

Social impacts Improvements in Limited replacement of activities most directly

human health -5 related to these impacts

Additional employment -4 Limited replacement of activities most directly related to these impacts

Table 1.12 Assessment of Zero option – Other criteria

Specific objective to be achieved/ problem Anticipated impact: effectiveness Explanation of rating and aspects of

addressed (rated from –5 to +5) the policy option necessary to achieve impact

Impacts on different social and economic Loss of environmental and social

groups -3 benefits will tend to have adverse effects on lower income groups

Fundamental rights 0 No impact

Risks

Financial costs to the EU budget (direct staff Public procurement costs per year –

costs, funding instruments) €57m sometimes called the common pot – this is the same for all options

Financial costs to Member States (e.g. To the extent that MS can find No member state activity, except for administrative costs for applicants and replacement resources for LIFE there 20% of EPG projects assumed to be management costs for beneficiaries) will be additional costs funded under other instruments

EC savings of €15m MS savings of €5m per year relative

to baseline EC savings of €5m staff cost and

Summary of benefits and advantages of Some €30m-€40m of environmental €10m TA

option benefits might be secured from other instruments for the LIFE+ MS savings of €3.4m in bid costs pa

Regulation. Nothing can be secured and €1.7m in admin costs pa

from alternative sources of funding for the Baseline.

Loss of environmental benefits conservatively estimated to be €600m per year for LIFE+ regulation and between €750-1,000m per year

Summary of disadvantages and risks of for the Baseline policy option (including negative economic Loss of economic and social benefits,

and social costs in EU and third countries) worth at least €1 billion GVA Loss of burden sharing

Loss of engagement of civil society in EU policy Long-term risks from failure to address growing problems

Essential accompanying measures None

Feasibility: Issues raised in stakeholder

consultations General concern of lack of action

Feasibility: Issues raised by Member States General concern of lack of action

1.6. Summary of the impact of the option

The analysis has indicated that despite the operation of the main financial instruments, there are significant gaps in their coverage, with the result that in the absence of the instrument only a small level of activity would be otherwise be funded from EU or MS resources. The main area that might otherwise be funded relates to some eco-innovation activity under EPG that could potentially be funded, mainly under FP7 or sometimes CIP. However, in the case of FP7, it was acknowledged that LIFE projects allowed beneficiaries to go beyond research to identify and catalyse policy solutions that might otherwise be ineligible under FP7.

The choice of this option would save the baseline programme cost of some €234m a year. It would however lead to the loss of programme benefits conservatively estimated, under the baseline scenario, of some €600m per year as assessed against the baseline option. When applied to the Baseline, given that potential overlaps have been eliminated and the budget increase and without taking into account the potential impact of Integrated Projects, the savings would be of around €361 million (€348 million action grants and €13 million for operating grants) a year and €5 million on management costs and €10 million of TA. However, there would be a loss of environmental benefits of some €750-1,000 million each year.

The environmental impacts of the option would be significant. There would very likely be considerable deterioration in the condition of habitats and ecosystems given the fact that there is no replacement of the activities funded under LIFE by other EU funds. There is also likely to be some negative impacts with regard to pollution and resource use, although there are some limited possibilities for these activities to be funded by other means. In the absence of LIFE, there is also likely to be fewer opportunities or means by which policies or management systems can be changed, which would have potentially negative consequences for the environment.

2. Full assessment of the expanded option

2.1. Description of the option

In the context of the Impact Assessment, an additional option was developed to reflect upon a more ambitious instrument. The main difference as compared with the Baseline is:

  • the possibility for Integrated Projects in the main environmental sectors where programme-based approach will be more efficient (see section 2.2.2);
  • the possibility for allowing technical assistance projects to help Member States to prepare Integrated Projects during the first years of the process as well as to providing enough margin of manoeuvre to fund enough traditional projects as to ensure critical mass in the main environmental sectors (see section 2.2.1).

This has been assessed by GHK as the strongest option against the range of assessment criteria. This option scores highest on all criteria, and the scope to improve EU added value compared to the current LIFE+ Regulation. It has been shown that the same activities and results cannot be obtained through other financial instruments (the Zero option).

The expanded option is detailed in Table 2.1. This option includes provision for adjustments depending on the outcomes of policy developments (e.g. future Horizon 2020) especially with regard to eco-innovative projects. Since discussions about innovative financial instruments and support to eco-innovation have not been finalised this expanded option is flexible enough to adjust to these future decisions.

Table 2.1.Description of the Expanded Option

Dimensions of

Instrument Options Comment

Stage 1: Objective Definition: Definition of policy needs and objectives taking account of alternative instruments

Scope: Thematic and The thematic focus of the option would reflect the general objective of developing, updating and territorial focus of the implementing EU environmental policy. Thus it would seek to address emerging problems of EU option including scale and the whole of the environmental acquis. reference to the need for action outside the The option would continue to focus, given the limited funds compared to the scale of the

EU environmental problem, on institutional weaknesses by awareness raising, support for innovation Dimensions of

Instrument Options Comment

and demonstration, learning and knowledge exchange, linked to the identification of opportunities and solutions for the improvement and the use of good practice in the development of EU environmental policy and its implementation at MS level. As in the case of the Baseline, EPG projects are refocused towards implementation and integration of the environment into other policies (type B and C projects).

Given the Treaty requirements for international action, as well as the importance of global environmental and European neighbourhood problems an explicit role in co-operation with DG RELEX and DG DEV would be included, together with direct interventions with third countries where it provided EU added value (i.e., third countries can participate as associated beneficiaries in EU funded LIFE projects)

Budget: considerable scaling up would be possible and would deliver improved costeffectiveness

The intended programme of results of the option is not capable of being funded by other financial instruments. The option takes a pro-active approach to co-operation and the development of synergy with other funding instruments, by introducing integrated projects and looking to support project pipelines.

Processes:

consideration of role of A clear focus on piloting and demonstration of activities to support future project pipelines, and the option given subsequent roll-out through the other funding instruments, especially through CP and CAP. alternative instruments The majority of EC funding in response to environmental problems and especially the

investment needs of the existing acquis will continue to be met by Cohesion Policy.

The importance of ensuring environmental policy integration results in actual environmental improvements on the ground is also recognised, as endorsed by the Cardiff process.

Stage 2: Design of the intervention taking account of target actors, and desired outcomes

The requirements for activities is defined in the EU strategic statement of objectives for the programme period, and more fully reflected in the multi- annual work plans. The work plans will reflect in part the Directive by Directive decisions made with MS through comitology. The work plans will also specify the desired use of the alternative delivery mechanisms and the expected outcomes

Approaches: Top Public procurement – activities are defined and planned through DG Annual

down programming vs. Management Plans (AMPs) • bottom-up project Operating Grants – EU level activity by NGOs •

funding Action Grants comprising: o Top-down projects, especially designed for information and dissemination

campaigns or to distribute results of a series of projects for a particular sector

as well as specific needs (e.g., for developing or update legislation)

o Local and regional project activity in MS

o Integrated Projects

o Technical Assistance – (based on the JASPERS instrument)

The target beneficiaries are the Commission (through funding for public procurement), EU environmental NGOs (through use of Operating Grants), MS through ‘top-down’ projects, and MS actors (competent authorities, universities/research institutes, businesses, NGOs), through ‘bottom-up’ project activity

Levels of intervention: target beneficiaries, Public procurement (100%) of goods & services includes information and communication, and intervention rates, the preparation, implementation, monitoring, checking and evaluation of projects, policies, funding levels programmes and legislation

Operating Grants with a maximum intervention rate of 70%, to strengthen the participation of EU environmental NGOs in the dialogue process in environmental policy-making and in its implementation; and in the European standardisation process

Action grant projects as the basis of the full range of outputs, comprising

  • Top-down projects with an intervention rate of 70%
  • Bottom-up projects with an intervention rate of 50%

Dimensions of

Instrument Options Comment

  • Integrated projects with an intervention rate of 75% - Technical Assistance (with an intervention rate of 100%) to support the design and submission of integrated projects.

Stage 3: Operation: Detailed specification of the operation of the instrument

• Public procurement – activities are defined and planned through DG Annual

Management Plans (AMPs), combining those of DG ENV and DG CLIMA and subject to standard public procurement rules

• Operating Grants – allocated via calls launched and appraised by DG ENV, supported

by appointed National Contact Points (NCPs) in MS to disseminate details of the call Interventions: use of and to assist applicants

different types of • Action Grants:

Grants / funding o Traditional projects to range between €1 to €1.5 million of EU co-financing

(at 2011 prices) o Integrated projects of about €10 EU co-financing o Technical Assistance for Integrated Multi-funded Projects (minimum size of

say €5m) – allocated via annual pre-application call for proposals, launched and appraised by DG ENV, supported by NCPs

Implementing methods: centralised within the EC, Agency, Similar to the Baseline. decentralised within

MS

2.2. Project activity and programme budget

2.2.1. Project activity

A. Project type and scale for Action Grants

Four types of projects are proposed:

• Integrated projects (EU contribution €10m) – large scale activity designed to

address a major challenge and involving the need to integrate a range of economic, social and environmental objectives, supported by other funding

instruments;

• Top-down projects (EU contribution €1m) – designed to formally recognise the

need for cross MS participation in mutual or peer to peer learning in compliance

and enforcement and specific dissemination and information sharing projects;

• Bottom-up projects (EU contribution €1.5m) – representing the ‘classic’ project

as contracted under the baseline scenario, although slightly larger;

• Technical assistance (TA) projects (EU contribution €0.25m) – designed to

support the costs of preparing the Integrated projects.

B. New features as compared to the Baseline

Technical Assistance as a tool for Capacity Building

LIFE is being extensively used as a capacity building tool for nature protection and environmental policy and governance. However, further support for capacity building is a key requirement for the future, in light of the fact that a lack of capacity is a significant part of the reason for Natura 2000 sites being ineffectively managed and/or protected and for the continuing infringements of EU legislation by Member States.

A recent report 64 identified the lack of stakeholder capacity as one of the major constraints for

a more successful uptake of EU funding for Natura 2000. Improving stakeholders’ capacity to access and effectively utilise different EU funding opportunities would also enhance stakeholders’ ability to seek new, more innovative sources for funding, thus increasing the overall resources available and securing the financing of Natura 2000 in the long term. Capacity building at the level of relevant government officials in various ministries would also help to improve integration of nature protection and other policy needs into relevant EU funds at the national level, and, potentially, improve coordination and cooperation between relevant administrative bodies.

Integrated Projects as well as projects funded under the Governance strand will be essential tools for achieving this objective.

This option also includes provision for the use of more targeted technical assistance in support of integrated projects, but also perhaps in support of specific capacity building through the funding of networks of projects. Such examples include ELENA – European Local Energy Assistance scheme and JASPERS – Joint Assistance to Support projects in European Regions (see Box below).

Possible Examples of Support for Technical Assistance

ELENA - European Local Energy Assistance Scheme

ELENA was set up by the European Commission and European Investment Bank (EIB) and managed by the EIB via the Intelligent Energy Europe programme. ELENA helps to prepare cities and regions’ sustainable energy projects to be ‘ready for EIB funding’ by covering a share of the cost of technical support needed to prepare, implement, finance investment programmes e.g. feasibility, market studies; business plans; energy audits; preparing tender documents. This enhances the capacity of cities and regions in EU to implement projects and investment programmes e.g. retrofitting of public/private buildings, sustainable building, energy-efficient district heating and cooling networks, environmentally-friendly transport, and LIFE could consider a similar type of assistance to local and regional authorities.

Source: http://www.eib.org/products/technical_assistance/elena/index.htm

JASPERS - Joint Assistance to Support projects in European Regions

JASPERS is a technical support facility for the twelve EU Member States which joined the EU in 2004 and 2007. It is designed to help them to better prepare projects which will be supported by EU funds. Through this joint initiative, the European Commission (DG Regional Policy), the European Investment Bank, in cooperation with the European Bank for Reconstruction and Development (EBRD) andKreditanstaltfürWiederaufbau (KfW), ) share their professional experience with the beneficiary Member States in order to help them to use EU Structural Funds more effectively.

Source: http://www.eib.org/attachments/thematic/jaspers_brochure_2006_en.pdf

2.2.2 Achieving critical mass

The introduction of the large Integrated Projects has the potential, by reducing the number, to undermine the critical mass and the related multiplier effects of the smaller projects, especially for EPG, given the breadth of the acquis.

Given their potential, 15 Integrated Projects per year would only cover three priority sectors (nature, water and waste); however, one could question whether this is enough to adequately address the range in the scale and number of challenges, which goes beyond the three priority sectors of the Baseline.

As a result the preferred option has the risk, of ‘falling between two stools’ – neither introducing enough Integrated Projects to make a difference nor funding enough of the more ‘traditional’ projects to maintain current levels of activity. This suggests that the option will not be effective without a larger budget and that the programme does not achieve critical mass.

Instead of starting with the budget, the funding requirement can be considered from the perspective of ‘what will it take’ to produce a step change in the impact of the programme.

Integrated Projects

The number of projects required relates to the relevant territorial ‘units’ for each environmental theme as the basis of establishing an adequate number of projects. Statistical relevance of between 15-25% has been used as criterion to determine critical mass.

Nature – The relevant unit is the NUTS 2 region, in which to ensure adequate nature protection and biodiversity measures. This also has the merit of linking directly to possible regional funding. There are 271 NUTS regions. Assuming that the minimum level of action is required, in the form of one Integrated Project for nature conservation, in 25% of regions over

a 7 year programme period, the required number of projects would be 10. 65

EPG – The relevant unit depends on the environmental theme. Priority areas for activity would include:

• Waste management – the appropriate unit is also probably the NUTS 2 region, given

the nature of regional waste management plans. Perhaps 15% Integrated Projects activity over the programme would provide a minimum level of catalytic effect – say a

minimum of 6-10 projects a year;

• Water management – the appropriate unit is the river basin district of which there are

  • 110. 
    Given the important issues associated with transposition and implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) then a greater share of ‘units’ should be

covered – say 25%. This would require a minimum of say 3-4 projects a year;

• Air quality management – activity in large cities to combat urban air pollution (e.g.

particulates, low level ozone and nitrogen dioxide) would also benefit from the use of Integrated Projects. Building on the 2013 European ‘Year of Air’, 3 Integrated

Projects a year would allow action in 20 of the most polluted EU cities.

• Marine environment: probably 1-2 Integrated project per sea basin (3-5 projects per

year).

EPG would require a minimum of 13-15 projects a year if the use of Integrated Projects was to really tackle the institutional weaknesses that underpin the lack of adequate policy implementation and effective policy integration.

Top-down projects- under Governance strand

The purpose of the top-down projects is to enable greater national and cross-MS working on common policy issues, especially of compliance promotion and enforcement at the national level, together with some specific awareness raising activity and dissemination actions (e.g., specific projects disseminating best practices developed by LIFE projects in a given sectors). The indicative range of 18 projects a year (6 Nature and 12 focusing on other environmental sectors) in the constant budget programme is probably of an appropriate scale. Over the programme each MS may on average have been involved in between 4 and 5 projects.

Traditional projects

The traditional LIFE projects require a substantial scale of activity across projects in order to generate scope for synthesis and replication and the generation of multiplier effects.

Nature – The current programme has about 90 projects a year, mainly relating to the Natura 2000 network. Whilst the introduction of the Integrated Projects reduces the need for the same number of projects; the minimum requirement would be to maintain half of the current traditional activity, 45 projects per year.

EPG - The current programme has about 90 projects over 10 environmental sectors, an average 9 per sector per year. This would appear to be, based on the MTE, the minimum number required in order to facilitate the creation of lessons and replication. Under the

baseline, the number of sectors has been reduced to 6 to generate a stronger focus. 66 At the

same time the intention is to increase the average size of projects and to secure stronger networking of project activity. Taking the number per sector required as the basis of a strong multiplier effect as no less than 10 projects per sector, with 6 sectors, a minimum of 60 projects would be required.

Taking the minimum requirements above, this translates into a budget requirement for action

grants of €456m per year (Table 2.2). 67 The final envelop for the Programme would be €3,957

million (a 23% increase compared to the baseline).

Table 2.2. Indicative outline of the minimum annual number, size and types of projects funded by Action Grants with the preferred option to achieve a ‘step change’ (2011 prices)

Type of project

Integrated Top-down Traditional TA Totals

Nature (No of projects) 10 6 45 10 71

EPG (No of projects) 13 12 50 13 88

CLIMA (No of projects) 40 40

Total Projects 23 18 135 23 199

Average EU contribution

(€m) 10 1 1.5 0.25

Total EU Spend (€m/y) 230 18 202.5 5.75 456.25

Source: Adapted from GHK's proposals

66 Environmental sectors (excluding nature, biodiversity & soil) could be grouped into Air & Emissions, Climate

Action (which is a sub-programme with earmarked resources), Green economy & Resource efficiency, Chemicals, Environment & Health (including noise), Water, Waste. Innovation and Strategic focus have been eliminated as independent themes.

67 NGOs operating grants, Technical assistance and public procurement remain constant at €765 million for the

whole programming period (€57 million a year for TA and public procurement for DG ENV, €39 million a year for TA and public procurement for DG CLIMA, and €13 million a year for operating grants for NGOs).

However, if 50% of the resources of the Environment sub-programme should go to address nature and biodiversity needs, as in the baseline, an increase in the Nature budget as presented in Table 2.2 above would be required. The final budget required each year would be €500m a year (see Table 2.3 below). The final envelop for the Programme would be €4,265 million (a 33% increase compared to the baseline).

Table 2.3. Indicative outline of the minimum annual number, size and types of projects funded by Action Grants with the preferred option to achieve a ‘step change’ (2011 prices)

Type of project

Integrated Top-down Traditional TA Totals

Nature (No of projects) 11 12 63 10 97

EPG (No of projects) 13 12 50 13 88

CLIMA (No of projects) 40 40

Total Projects 24 24 153 24 225

Average EU contribution

(€m) 10 1 1.5 0.25 4

Total EU Spend (€m/y 240 24 229.5 6 499.5

Source: Adapted from GHK's proposals

2.2.4. Summary of the impact of the option

The impact of the option is supposed to increase proportionally to the increase in the budget. If climate action budget was to remain constant, the increase will mostly affect the nature and environment part. The impacts on climate action would remain constant. Under the option of an annual budget of €456 million, environmental benefits between €898 and €1,369 million a year are expected. Under the option of annual budget of €500 million, environmental benefits of €1,030 and €1,500 million a year are expected.

However, these estimates do not take into account the benefits derived from increased focus (about 20% increase in benefits) or the benefits of using Integrated Projects in two additional sectors, in particular air and marine environment. The use of Integrated Projects for air could have large health benefits.

ANNEX 9 - CALCULATION OF EXTERNALISATION COSTS

This annex analyses the different management options for the LIFE Programme taking into account the conditions laid down in the MFF Communication. In the Communication of 29 June 2011 (MFF Communication), the Commission announced that the LIFE Programme should remain centrally managed, but that management tasks could be largely delegated to an Executive Agency. Whilst some aspects of this delegation were fixed in the MFF Communication – in particular, that it should be an existing Executive Agency - other details on the extent, conditions and terms of the delegation were left open and are dealt with in this Impact Assessment.

It should be noted that at the time of any delegation the Commission will publish a fuller cost benefit analysis going into further detail, and informed by negotiations with the Executive Agency. Therefore, the estimation of resources for both the Agency and the Commission, the cumulative impacts across the entire programme period as well as the impacts of the transitional arrangements will need to be a carefully developed, reviewed and validated at the time of preparing the detailed cost/benefit analysis.

1. Initial considerations

It is difficult to compare the costs of direct centralised management by the Commission with the costs of management by an Executive Agency (hereafter, called 'Agency'). Doing so requires assumptions to be made, in particular, on the performance by any Agency and on 'efficiency gains'. Many of these assumptions will be tested when negotiating a contract with an Executive Agency, but even the benefits of any improved performance will not be seen until later.

The Court of Auditors has already highlighted some of the problems with past analyses of an Agency option:

• Emphasis is placed mainly on savings from the use of cheaper contract staff rather than

permanent staff but aspects of improved performance and efficiency gains are rarely considered;

• Costs of additional staff needed in the Commission to supervise agencies and at the

agencies for horizontal functions, are not accurately included or not included at all;

• Comparison is often made using the single average unit cost for the various categories of

contract staff but in practice they vary in grade and therefore cost. Analysis shows the composition of the Commission consists largely of lower grades compared to specialised personnel so this would lead to an overestimation of Commission costs in cost

comparisons.

In this analysis the cost of additional staff to supervise agencies has been estimated, but potential performance and efficiency gains have only been partially considered, which may leave the Agency option in a less favourable light.

2. Assessment of the baseline management option (direct centralised management)

The current LIFE+ programme is entirely managed by the Commission, with the support of contracted technical assistance.

For the analysis, the following baseline data is used:

Average programme spend per year (EC contribution): €234m

Approximate number of projects commissioned per year: 200-230

Average length of time of a project: 4 years

Approximate number of projects operating per year: 600 (with a peak of over 700)

Average total project size: €2.4m

Average intervention rate: 50% with a possibility of up to 70% for NGOs operating grants and 75% for Nature projects focusing on priority habitats and species.

The staff requirements are 44 full-time equivalent (fte) posts, which represents the two LIFE Units of DG Environment. The posts cover the following specific functions: Management group (4 fte), LIFE Units’ Technical Desk Officers (TDOs) (19 fte), LIFE Unit's Financial Desk Officers (FDO) (11 fte), LIFE Unit Administration (8 fte) and LIFE Unit Financial Administration (2 fte).

  • Each TDO is responsible for approximately 40 projects. 68 This includes following

project progress (evaluation of mid-term and final reports, correspondence, answering queries), project visits, handling amendments and extensions and

communication/dissemination activities.

  • Each FDO typically manages approximately 70 projects.
  • The TDOs and FDOs are organised in country desks. Each TDO and FDO is responsible for the project portfolio within one or more countries.

The 44 posts consist currently of 36 permanent and 8 contract staff. Based on DG BUDG figures for staff costs (average cost of DG staff in 2010 is €127,000 and €64,000 for permanent and contract staff respectively), this equates to €5.1m in staff costs (excluding overheads) per annum.

In addition, the LIFE Units are assisted by external contractors providing technical assistance with an average cost over the programme period of approximately €10m per annum (including wages, mission, training materials, communication activities etc.). This covers around 80 fte posts, doing the following work under the supervision of the LIFE Units:

• Project Selection: a total of 55, mainly part-time, experts working on all stages of the

evaluation and selection procedure, except eligibility;

• Project Monitoring: approximately 60 people monitoring the projects funded:

• Communication: 15 environment and communications experts responsible, for example,

for the production and circulation of thematic and best practice publications, the development and maintenance of the LIFE website, maintaining the LIFE project

database, and organising seminars and events.

• Information workshops: implementing information workshops on preparing and managing

LIFE+ project proposals in collaboration with the Member States.

Table 1: Annual management costs for the current LIFE+ programme

Staff 69 No cost per fte total cost

Officials 36 127.000 4.572.000 Contract staff 8 64.000 512.000 Total Staff 44 5.084.000 TA 80 125.000 10.000.000 TOTAL COST 15.084.000

The number of full-time equivalent posts to manage all aspects of the programme is therefore approximately 125 full-time equivalent posts. The total administrative cost is the sum of staff costs (excluding office overheads) and the cost of outsourcing (technical assistance). The current management costs (excluding overheads) amount to just over €15 million

(€15,084,000) per annum, representing 6.2% of the total annual programme budget. 70

3. Assessment of the option of full externalisation to an existing agency

Two possibilities are envisaged: either contracted technical assistance will be maintained, to support the Agency in its work, or technical assistance will be discontinued as Agency staff take over the corresponding tasks.

3.1. Without replacing technical assistance

The following assumptions are made:

  • Based on the experience gained with the externalisation of the eco-innovation part of the CIP programme, the same number of staff currently managing the LIFE+ Programme within the Commission (44 posts) could be needed in the Agency (of

    whom 9 would be officials seconded from the parent DG to the Agency). 71

  • Around 8 posts would be needed for coordination and control tasks in the parent DGs (for governance, supervision and monitoring of the programme, including establishing links between the parent DGs and the Agency).
  • There would be an additional staff requirement related to supplying additional administrative services (human resources etc.) to the Agency new staff of 44 posts. Applying a ratio of 1 administration job for every 5 new posts adds a further 9 posts.

This makes for a total staff requirement of 61 (44+8+9) fulltime equivalent posts, at an annual cost of €5.0m. Additional overhead costs (e.g., office costs) would be associated with the 17 (8+9) additional posts. Assuming an overhead cost of €25,000 per post, this would add a further €0.4m, making a total staff related cost of €5.4m.

69 Overview of average cost updated on 4/10/2010. Official= €127.000 (including administrative support);

Temporary Agent= €127.000; Seconded National Expert= €73.000; Contract Agent= €64.000. Source DG BUDG http://www.cec/budg/pre/legalbasis/pre-040-020_preparation_en.html.

70 Estimated to be €244 million (annual EC contribution to action grants and expenditure on technical assistance) 71 Based on experience and conversations with EACI, a minimum of 6 staff need to be seconded to the Agency

when transfer occurs. According to figures for existing agencies like EACI, the percentage used for seconded staff is 24% of the staff used in the parent DG. A 20% level is used here since it is expected that the number of projects financed will decrease as well as overall Commission staff (5% target).

Staff related costs under the Agency management option (without replacing technical assistance) would be €5.4m per year. Together with a technical assistance cost of €10m per year, Agency management costs would represents €15.4m per annum, or 6.3% of the

programme budget. 72 . This is slightly more than the centralised management option.

Table 2: Annual management costs for full externalisation to an Agency

cost per Staff No job total cost

Officials (min 9 seconded) 9 127.000 1.143.000 Contract staff - wages 35 64.000 2.240.000 DG ENV – programme governance 8 127.000 1.016.000 Admin staff @20% 9 64.000 563.200 Total Staff cost 61 4.962.200 Additional staff o'head - TA 17 25.000 420.000 Total Cost 5.382.200

TA 10.000.000 TOTAL COST 15.382.200 6,3%

3.2. Replacing technical assistance

If the existing technical assistance provided by external contractors under the centralised option is replaced, it would require a broad range of geographical and thematic expertise, as well as full coverage of the EU languages. Although hiring new Agency employees to undertake this work entails some costs, it is likely that these employees could be found.

Assuming that such candidates could do the work of the technical assistance external contractors at the same level of effectiveness and efficiency, then at an annual staff cost of €64,000, the additional 80 fulltime equivalent contract posts would cost €5.1m. There is also a requirement for additional administrative posts. Assuming the same ratio of one administrative post to five new posts would add a further 16 posts. The total staff cost would be €6.1m. In addition, there would be overhead costs of €25,000 for the additional 96 posts, adding a further €2.4m. Since the staff would be based in Brussels, there would be the additional mission costs currently avoided by using contractor staff based in the Member States. These costs are estimated to be in the order of €0.7m based on 700 trips per year at a rate of €1,000 a trip. The costs of replacing the technical assistance activity by Agency activity would on this basis cost be €9.2m, a saving of €0.8m per year.

The estimated costs do not take account of the high mobility of staff in the Agency (2.5 year length of service on average)73 and the consequent need to re-invest in recruiting/training of new staff as well as the efficiency loss due to the non-productive months resulting from the turn-over of new staff. Based on a contract staff requirement of 115 (35+80) posts, the staff turnover over a 7 year programme, would require the recruitment and training of the workforce twice over (230 posts). Based on a cost of recruitment and training of say €10,000 a post, the staff turnover would cost €330,000 a year or some €2.3m over the programme period.

72 Applied to current programme budget assuming that for some years the transitional costs will be standing still.

On the other hand, there would also be cost savings if the work is brought in-house rather than the parent DG (or Agency) having to manage and supervise the contracting and undertaking of this technical assistance externally.

With staff related costs of €5.4m per year, costs of replacing technical assistance of €9.2m and a staff turn over costs of €2.3m, the total management cost by the Agency, with the replacement of external assistance, would amount to €15m per year, representing 6.1% of the programme budget.

The cost saving estimated above excludes other costs that are difficult to quantify:

• kick off costs necessary to transfer the activities and start the new business in the

agency;

• costs associated with establishing a team of experts with the expertise that has been

developed for the current programme;

• costs associated with developing any associated programme support (e.g. database and

related reporting systems, such as a potential replacement for BUTLER, training and

recruitment costs within the Commission for comparison;

• Potential productivity and efficiency gains within the Agency from managing a large

programme over 7 years.

3.3. Summary of the cost comparison

The various cost estimates for the three options are summarised in the Table 3 below.

Table 3: Summary of the annual cost estimates (€m) of the different management options

Management options

Agency (with Agency (without Centralised Technical Technical

Category of cost Management Assistance) Assistance)

Staff costs (€m) 5.1 5.0 11.1

Additional overhead costs (€m) 0.4 3.1

Technical assistance (€m) 10.0 10.0

Mission costs (€m) 0.7

Total cost (€m) 15.1 15.4 15.0

Total cost as % of programme 6.2% 6.3% 6.1%

Total saving (€m) compared with

Centralised Management option -0.3 0.1

Saving as % of Centralised

Management option -2.0% 0.9%

It should be repeated that there are a number of uncertainties that could affect the final costs of the different Agency options.

4. Analysis on a per project basis

As a form of sensitivity analysis, the calculations set out in section 3 can be tested to see if they change with the change in number of projects that is likely to occur with the introduction of Integrated Projects. This is done comparing central management with the Agency option of Agency where technical assistance is not replaced.

4.1 Number of projects started in the average year

The average number of projects being managed in any one year under the baseline option is 600 projects (between 200-230 projects are selected every year). However, this number will decline (under the preferred option of the Impact Assessment), as a consequence of the phasing-in of Integrated Projects, which are larger in size. Table 4 summarises the number of projects to be financed annually under the future programme (Governance and Communication projects are embedded into the two strands, especially in the category "Topdown").

74

Table 4: Summary of number of projects per year

Projects Top Strand Integrated down Traditional Total

Nature 6 5 40 51

EPG 9 5 35 49

Climate action 0 0 40 40

Total Projects 15 10 115 140

Applying a complexity factor of "2" to Integrated Projects, it would mean that on average the equivalent of 155 traditional projects would start each year, and over time the equivalent of around 400 projects would be running at any one time.

4.2 Costs under different options

The programme runs until 2024 as projects finish, but for simplicity the costs are only examined during the 7 years of the programme (this does not affect the result). To calculate the cost per project, the data for the baseline are used.

On average, the staff cost per project under direct central management are around €8,500 and for Agency is €9,000.

Table 5: Estimation of staff cost per project

EC Agency

Avg no projects pa 600 600

Current staff cost (€m) 5,1 5,4

Current staff 44 61

Current days pa 9680 13420 75

Cost per day (€) 527 402

74 These are traditional projects funded under the Governance strand. Because these are expected to be smaller in

size and clearly spelled out in the Call for proposals they are referred to as "Top Down".

EC Agency

Days per project 16 76 22

Staff cost per project 8500 9000

A multiplier factor represents the length of the projects and therefore the total number of projects being looked after on average each year (when the programme has matured). A multiplier factor of 3 is applied to standard projects (since these last between 2-4 years) and 5 to Integrated Projects assuming their average life is longer.

Table 6: Comparative calculation of cost (per project calculation base)

EC Integrated Top-down Traditional Staff 8500 cost per project Complexity factor 2 1 1 Number started in a year 15 10 115 Total 255.000 85.000 977.500 1.317.500 Average length of projects (multiplier) 5 3 3 Total Staff cost 1.275.000 255.000 2.932.500 4.462.500 TA 16.667 cost per project 3 Total TA cost 2.500.000 500.000 5.750.000 8.750.000

TOTAL COST 13.212.500

AGENCY Integrated Top-down Standard Staff 9000 cost per project Complexity factor 2 1 1 Number started in a year 15 10 115 Total 270.000 90.000 1.035.000 1.395.000 Average no of projects pa (multiplier) 5 3 3 Total Staff cost 1.350.000 270.000 3.105.000 4.725.000 TA (cost per project) 15.333 cost per project 3 Total TA cost 2.300.000 460.000 5.290.000 8.050.000

TOTAL COST 12.775.000

Using the above basis of calculation, the Agency will provide some cost savings of about €0.4 million.

5. Advantages and disadvantages of the Agency option:

(a) The advantages of the Agency option

• The majority of the staff in the Agency (up to 75%) can be contract posts that are

significantly cheaper.

• The recruitment of such contract staff of a high quality and technical capability is not

likely to be difficult given past evidence. 77 The Agency employees could therefore

undertake the bulk of work that is currently undertaken by the LIFE Unit staff and

external contractors (under the option that includes technical assistance):

76 Days divided by no. of projects.

77 See Technopolis (2006), ‘Cost Benefit Analysis of the externalisation of the certain tasks regarding the

implementation of the Competitiveness and Innovation Framework Programme (2007-2013) through an executive Agency’.

o Management tasks – specific tasks relating to programme management such as

financial and administrative management e.g. payment processing (and finding

ways to improve the processing) 78 ;

o Programme implementation e.g., ensuring reports processed within deadlines and selection of projects takes place on time;

o Communication and dissemination activities;

• The recruitment of staff with a specific technical profile could also increase the

effectiveness of technical monitoring and improve the communication of lessons learned to the parent DGs (provided the organisational arrangements are based on

thematic expertise rather than geographical or a mixture of both).

• The use of contract posts in the Agency also ‘frees up’ the Commission’s human

resources in terms of ‘saving’ permanent posts and allowing for the re-allocation of them to core policy tasks, which in itself reduces the need for contract posts. In fact,

the Agency option could free up 19 posts; 79 of which two thirds would be AST posts

and one third AD posts. However, this would materialise only after a number of years

and only if all ongoing projects would be transferred.

(b) The disadvantages of the Agency option

• Integrated Projects are to act as a catalyst for effective mainstreaming into the other

EU financial instruments. This will require careful design and cooperation with the

policy units in the parent DGs and other DGs to ensure their success.

• Integrated projects are also to provide examples of how integration is possible in

practice. Therefore it is important to know whether this approach works and to identify at an early stage problems and to react rapidly. Close monitoring by the Commission and contact with the beneficiaries is needed to ensure this early detection

and quick solution finding.

• If the level of the programme remains similar to current levels, or if the budget

increase is associated with a similar or fewer numbers of projects but with a larger average size, and especially if technical assistance is used because of the importance of maintaining the current networks, the Agency option becomes less attractive on cost

saving grounds.

• The preferred option for the programme is one which is based on a strategic

programming approach, requiring enhanced cooperation and management to effectively contribute to policy design and implementation and high quality technical support to ensure replication of results is achieved. As a result, there is a risk that the Agency option would decrease the ability of this option to deliver the expected added value. For example, Integrated Projects for Nature will test the development and implementation of the Prioritised Action framework (PAFs) required by the Habitats Directive. It is essential that the Commission closely follows how these new frameworks are developed in different Member States and is able to quickly react to

78 According to the European Court of Auditors Special Report No. 13, ‘Delegating implementing tasks to

Executive Agencies: a successful option?’ (2009), the contracting time for the ‘Public health’ programme dropped from 345 days to 219 when managed by an Agency; payment period shortened from 503 to 91 days and approval time for technical/financial reports dropped from 90 to 42 days.

demands for advice. This is more effectively done if the monitoring and management

of the project remain within the Commission.

• There is also a clear link between Integrated Projects and implementation and

compliance of some of the most demanding legislation (Water Framework Directive or the Waste Framework Directive). In the case of the Water Framework Directive, the projects will be implementing plans that are directly assessed by the Commission to determine whether a Member States is meeting its obligations under the Directive. In addition, based on the experience with Nature projects, this type of project provides technical information that can be used for infringement cases or pilot cases. Therefore, strong policy link with technical units during design and implementation of

these projects is necessary, and could not be done efficiently by an Agency.

• There will be around 600 open projects at the end of the LIFE+ programme period,

which will not be completed until 2017-2018. These will also need to be managed and provided with technical assistance [by the parent DGs or by the Agency?]. Transitional arrangements could be complicated for them (although they could also

allow for a more constant workflow for the Agency if transferred.

6. Hybrid solution

Given the need to ensure that Integrated Projects feed back into policy design, provide more effective information for policy implementation and maximise their demonstration value, one option which would address these objectives would be to keep Integrated Projects under direct central management.

Table 7 shows the number of projects 'live' at any one time. Note that the assumption is that Integrated Projects are evenly spread over the programme, whereas they may be more weighted towards the second half as Member States will need time to develop proposals for this new concept.

Table 7: Cumulative number of projects over time and related costs

Cumulative Integrated Top-down Traditional Cost 2014 15 10 115 3.805.000 4% 2015 30 20 230 7.610.000 8% 2016 45 30 345 11.415.000 13% 2017 60 30 345 12.170.000 13% 2018 75 30 345 12.925.000 14% 2019 75 30 345 12.925.000 14% 2020 75 30 345 12.925.000 14% 2021 60 20 230 9.120.000 10% 2022 45 10 115 5.315.000 6% 2023 30 0 0 1.510.000 2% 2024 15 0 0 755.000 1%

Average annual open

projects 80 75 30 345 90.475.000 100%

Total number over

programme 81 105 70 805

80 Total number of each project type over 7 years.

Cumulative Integrated Top-down Traditional Cost

Average Project Cost 50.333 25.167 24.333

Total annual cost 3.775.000 755.000 8.395.000 12.925.000

Total programme cost 90.475.000 7

Table 8: Calculation of management cost for the hybrid option

EC Integrated Top-down Traditional Staff 8500 cost per project Complexity factor 2 1 Total 255.000 85.000 Average no of projects pa (multiplier) 5 3 Total Staff cost 1.275.000 255.000 TA 16.667 cost per project 3 Total TA cost 2.500.000 500.000

TOTAL 3.775.00 750.000 4.525.000

AGENCY Top-down Traditional

Staff 9000 cost per project Complexity factor 1 Total 1.035.000 Average no of projects pa (multiplier) 3 Total Staff cost 3.105.000 TA (cost per project) cost per project 3 Total TA cost 5.290.000

TOTAL 8.395.000 8.395.000

12.920.000

The average annual cost of €12.9m is reached in 2018 (see Table 8 above).

7. Conclusion

Considering the arguments against a full externalisation option, and the above calculations demonstrating a low cost decision factor, the preferred option is a hybrid between full externalisation and full integration.

The estimation of these resources for both the Agency and the Commission, the cumulative impacts across the entire programme period as well as the impacts of the transitional arrangements will need to be a carefully developed, reviewed and validated at the time of preparing the detailed cost/benefit analysis for any transfer to an Agency. Similarly, the mid term evaluation of the new programme will need to revisit the analysis to assess whether Integrated Projects should be managed directly or by an Agency.

ANNEX 10: OBJECTIVES AND MONITORING FRAMEWORK

General Objective: Provide solutions in order to achieve environmental objectives by developing, updating and implementing EU environmental policy.-

Specific and Operational Types of activities Expected outputs Output indicators Expected results Result indicators Impacts indicators Objectives

1. To improve the scope of EU environmental and climate policy and legislation Attributable environmental

− To identify, test and Public procurement Challenges to the operation of No. of reports providing Improved environmental Expanded sets of improvements from develop policy and technical studies existing approaches analysis/solutions, by monitoring and problem environmental and improved targeting proposals to current defining and scaling theme, Directive, MS definition climate indicators, and/or design of policy

and emerging problems and periodicity & quality instruments

environmental and identifying possible Expanded knowledge base, including Policy proposals that of data by theme, climate problems policy options for forests No. of policy options/ improve the scope of EU Directive, MS

instruments developed and policy to deal with

Public procurement / Demonstration of new/updated policy tested, by theme, environmental and Increase in knowledge

grant funding of the approaches Directive, MS climate problems base of environmental

demonstration of the problems e.g. number

feasibility of policy Testing of new financial instruments of new tools or users of tools or studies

options available.

New policy proposals by theme, Directive, MS

− To facilitate and Funding of Increased participation of NGOs and No., size, type of NGOs (+ Improved participation Uptake of NGOs and

improve the environmental and civil society in policy making and subset of indicators of citizens and NGOs in civil society proposals contributions of climate NGOs review required for NGO the decision-making for amendments in the environmental and outputs82) – n. of process. legislative acts.

climate NGOs and contributions, civil society in policy amendments to policy

making and review making; participation in

public consultations; n. position papers.

2. To improve the implementation of EU environmental and climate policy and legislation, (including EU commitments to international agreements

− To identify, test and Public procurement Challenges to the operation of No of reports providing Take-up of new or Expanded and Attributable develop policy and technical studies existing approaches analysis of existing updated approaches and improved capacity for environmental and

151

Specific and Operational Types of activities Expected outputs Output indicators Expected results Result indicators Impacts indicators Objectives

approaches to on transposition, institutional weaknesses in good practices that implementing EU climate improvements

improve MS and implementation, Expanded institutional capacity to relation to policy improve monitoring, environmental and from private sector monitoring and implement policy (new skills, implementation, and implementation and climate policies at MS increased effectiveness

capacity to transpose, enforcement problems expanded knowledge base, new and related solutions by theme, enforcement of EU and regional/local of policy instruments,

implement monitor environmental and levels (changes in No. especially through

and enforce (including in the extended networks of competent Directive, MS climate policy in MS & quality of relevant improved levels of

environment and context of authorities) responsible authority implementation

climate legislation. international Participation in peer commitments) Expanded knowledge base, including learning networks and Improved capacity to staff) (attributable

manage environmental reductions in env. and

− for forests replication activities (by To facilitate and climate policies Reported changes and cliamte problems due

knowledge sharing Grant funding of the MS, themes, number and improvements in to capacity on successful demonstration of Demonstration of updated policy type of actors) Sub-target transposition and improvements) environmental and updated and improved approaches and of good practice 10% of RBD adequately implementation climate policy and policy approaches policy implementation/enforcement Participation in training managed (or 15% of procedures practice. activities (by MS, themes - Increased Grant funding of good Dissemination of good practice and actors) national branches). Reduced no. of resilience to

− climate change; To improve support practice demonstration (multiplier effects) 15% of Regions have reported infringements

for international for subsequent Dissemination activity of adequate implementation of EU legislation

commitments and dissemination updated and good practice - Improved of waste legislation

management of third policy approaches, by type Improved quality of resource country problems. Grant funding of of activity (workshops, European Commission efficiency;

mutual and peer publications, etc,) and by At least 15% of N2000 inputs to international

− brought into adequate To increase learning activities and theme and type and working - Improved management environmental

effectiveness of MS networks number of actors

and third countries quality; 25% projects/measures

activities to reduce Grant funding of N. of projects/ measures or approaches replicated

environmental targeted training or approaches replicated - Enhanced EU and/or transferred

externalities initiatives and transfer environmental

adversely affecting assets Increased EU

the EU Third country involvement contribution to securing

in research, demonstration international - Improved

and dissemination commitments conservation status

activities

To improve Grant funding of Increased awareness on No., size, type of NGOs (+ Increased participation Attributable and

the contributions of environmental and environmental and climate problems subset of indicators of citizens and NGOs in specified climate

environmental NGOs climate NGOs required for NGO outputs) the decision-making improvements due to

and civil society to Increased participation of NGOs and – n. of projects where process. the improved quality

implementation, Grant funding of civil society on policy NGOs participate of policy approach /

Specific and Operational Types of activities Expected outputs Output indicators Expected results Result indicators Impacts indicators Objectives

policy making and dissemination of implementation. Increased awareness and management and use

review. project results and N. of projects where civil communication on of new approaches awareness raising Increased dissemination of society and private sector environmental and

campaigns knowledge among different organisations participate climate problems Attributable reductions

To support stakeholders (compared to in international env.

and raise awareness, Public procurement of N. dissemination activities eurobarometre results) and climate problems

communication, and dissemination and carried out, per sector,

dissemination among

civil society on awareness raising MS, n. of persons

Increased empowerment

environmental and campaigns reached,, n. publications,

of civil society

climate aspects media appearances etc Enhanced

dissemination N. of complaints at obligations in grant national and EU level per funded projects sector and per MS from civil society and NGOs

3. To improve the effective contribution of other EU policies to environmental and climate objectives at implementation level

− To identify and Grant funding of Increased awareness of the need and No. of reported policy Take up of new or No. of updated Attributable reductions

undertake demonstration and scope for integration proposals for improved updated approaches that approaches that have in environmental and

demonstration dissemination of new integration of env. & improve sectoral been used by climate problems as a

activities capable of or updated approaches Expanded institutional capacity (new climate objectives in environmental and economic actors to result of take-up of informing to improve skills, expanded knowledge base, sectoral activities, by climate performance. improve demonstrated opportunities for environmental and new and extended networks of sector and sub-sector environmental and successful approaches. improved sectoral climate performance responsible authorities, better Sub-target: climate performance

performance of of key sectors coordination among authorities in a No. of new and updated At least 25% of new or by actor, sector, MS environment and MS or region dealing with different approaches demonstrated updated approaches and type and number

climate in achieving Enhanced sectors to increase integration) that improve integration taken up by the market of actors environmental and dissemination and enable economic and economic sectors

climate objectives obligations in grant Demonstration of new or updated actors to improve env. & and responsible and upholding the funded projects approaches to improve environmental climate performance, by authorities

potential of the and climate performance of key Grant type of actor, sector and climate and Dissemination of funding of demonstration and MS.

environmental

policies. project results, dissemination of key sectors. No. of dissemination including funding of activities of updated and

specific projects, Dissemination within sectors of good practice approaches publications and new/updated approaches to improve to integration, by type of

− conferences or environmental or climate integration activity (workshops, To raise awareness of

Specific and Operational Types of activities Expected outputs Output indicators Expected results Result indicators Impacts indicators Objectives

policy makers and workshops targeting a –multiplier effects publications, etc.) by economic and social specific sector sector and type and actors of the number of actors.

opportunities for better integration

4. To develop solutions for subsequent mainstreaming in other EU financial instruments and MS practices to support the multiplier effect

− To identify, test and Grant funding of Demonstration of new or updated No. of reported technical Increased mainstream No. of projects Attributable reductions

develop technical and innovative and approaches/ techniques to improve and policy solutions funding for environment receiving mainstream in environmental and policy solutions to demonstrative environmental and climate capable of being and climate solutions funding (under climate problems as a environmental and solutions to performance capable of being mainstreamed, by theme, EARDF, ERDF, CF, result of subsequent climate problems environment and mainstreamed sector and MS Sub-targets: EFF) to roll-out and application of suitable for climate problems At least 25% approaches diffuse the take-up of solutions from mainstreaming capable of being Applications for EU funding based on Dissemination activity of incorporated into demonstrated solutions mainstream funding through other EU / mainstreamed demonstration projects (multiplier project results potentially national/regional under LIFER, by MS financial effect) capable of being programmes. value, theme, sector

instruments Activities for mainstreamed (workshops,

dissemination as publications, etc.) by Increased uptake of No. of measures and

above. theme, sector and type and other EU funds for projects receiving

number of actors. environment and climate mainstream funding

related by 50% complementing

Application submitted for integrated projects. mainstream funding based on demonstration results, No. of MS/Regions by value, by theme and that replicate sector. integrated project approaches. No. tested approaches incorporated in national and regional programmes linked to other EU instruments.

5. To contribute to responsibility sharing in the protection of natural assets and to stop biodiversity loss Attributable and

Specific and Operational Types of activities Expected outputs Output indicators Expected results Result indicators Impacts indicators Objectives

− To recognise the Challenges to the operation of No of sites, by area and Improved conservation Improved quality of specified

effort sharing of MS Funding of best existing approaches type of habitat subject to status of and reduced management of N2K environmental on the basis of the practice and restoration and/or degradation of EU sites and networks (by improvements due to geographic demonstration New and expanded networks of improved management significant area, habitat, and MS) the improved quality distribution of activities in stakeholders enabling conservation environmental natural of management and environmental Natura2000 (N2K); measures No of approaches assets level of protection Quality of approaches use of new approaches resources demonstrated of EU significant to biodiversity and

Funding of best Expanded knowledge base of good environmental assets conservation

− To increase practice and practice conservation measures No species subject to demonstrated to be

effectiveness of demonstration conservation activities Contribute to reaching effective and efficient protection and protection of Expanded use of nature conservation Biodiversity Strategy management biodiversity and measures within N2K sites and wider targets No. of species and

activities in MSs with ecosystem services eco-system management habitats that reach unequal amounts of outside N2K, Sub-targets: favourable natural assets [EPV including species and New and demonstrative approaches conservation status says I think this is habitats IUCN/EU Red to nature and biodiversity At least 15% of N2000 feasible because of Lists conservation brought into adequate No. of water bodies IP] management that reach good

ecological status 25% of habitats targeted reached favourable conservation status

25% of species targeted achieved favourable conservation status

6. To contribute to responsibility sharing in addressing transboundary problems affecting EU internal and external borders

− To recognise the risk Funding of Challenges to the operation of No of reports providing Reduced significance of No. and quality of Attributable and

sharing principle for transboundary existing approaches analysis of existing transboundary problems updated approaches for specified MS on the basis of projects, including institutional weaknesses in dealing with environmental transboundary third country Expanded knowledge base of crossrelation to transboundary Increased cooperation transboundary improvements due to problems participation when border problems pollution, and related across internal and problems the improved quality experienced required solutions, by theme and external EU borders demonstrated to be of policy approach/

Expanded institutional capacity to MS effective and efficient management and use

− To increase Dissemination implement policy across internal and of new approaches to

effectiveness of MS activities as above external EU borders No. policy/ technical No. of approaches for transboundary

proposals and approaches dealing with problems.

Specific and Operational Types of activities Expected outputs Output indicators Expected results Result indicators Impacts indicators Objectives

and third countries Demonstration and dissemination of for addressing transboundary activities to reduce new or updated approaches to address transboundary problems problems replicated in environmental transboundary problems. tested and demonstrated other EU and non-EU externalities by theme and MS countries

adversely affecting

the EU. Third country involvement No. of networks and

in research, demonstration cooperation and dissemination mechanisms improved activities by theme or consolidated

No. of networks or cooperation mechanism created

7. To contribute to the efforts to mitigate climate change

− To improve the Funding of projects Expanded knowledge base of good No of projects addressing Reduced levels of Tones of GHG

Attributable and

knowledge base and concerning mitigation practices for mitigation activities mitigation activities greenhouse gas reduced

specified climate

building it into activities. emissions.

improvements due to

effective mitigation Demonstration of new approaches to No of pilot projects on Renewable energy

the improved quality

actions. climate mitigation mitigation activities Improved levels of energy efficiency. production by

of policy approach /

demonstrated management and use

− Take-up of technologies To mainstream that facilitate mitigation technologies

of new approaches

mitigation efforts

into local and Energy saved

regional structures.

− To develop pilot

mitigation projects

8. To support efforts leading to adaptation to climate change Attributable and

− To build the Funding of projects Expanded knowledge base of good No of projects addressing Improved resilience to Increased adapted

specified climate

knowledge base on concerning adaptation practices for mitigation activities adaptation activities climate change. capacity

improvements due to the improved quality

adaptation to climate activities.

change. Demonstration of new approaches to No. of local and regional Improved climate

of management and

climate adaptation adaptation strategies proofing of investments use of new approaches

− To develop strategies

Increased capacity in evaluating No. of new approaches Innovative adaptation

Specific and Operational Types of activities Expected outputs Output indicators Expected results Result indicators Impacts indicators Objectives

for mainstreaming impacts and planning adaptation developed to facilitate measures adaptation into local adaptation in specific and regional fields

governance

structures. Reduced vulnerability

− To strengthen climate

"proofing" of investments.

− To develop

innovative adaptation pilot projects.

ANNEX 11: I NTEGRATED P ROJECTS

1. Main lessons learned from current and previous Programming period

The recent mid-term evaluation for the period 2007-2009 83 concludes that LIFE is an efficient

successful financial instrument crucial to the needs of environmental policy. It is a catalyst for the implementation of some of the most demanding Directives, preparing the ground for continued management through other funds. LIFE is therefore considered as the reference EU instrument for environmental financing.

However, one of the aspects highlighted by the mid-term evaluation is that building synergies between LIFE and other EU funds has been a challenge. There are many examples of mainstreaming EU and domestic resources towards strategic environmental goals at territorial level. However, the widely implementation of this approach based on positive complementarity remains a challenge in practice. This partially derives from the way prioritisation is made at national or regional level. Competing priorities for limited funding result in many cases in a lower prioritisation given to environmental funding, especially for nature conservation and biodiversity. Also, there seems to be underdeveloped capacity to manage funds available.

LIFE brought positive exceptions to the above. For example, many agri-environmental measures were tested in LIFE and afterwards incorporated into Rural Development

Programmes. Other LIFE projects allowed development of water resources management policies, paving the way for investments in water infrastructure co-financed by the ERDF or the CF. Such constructive synergies allowed additional mobilisation of funds for environmental purposes. A more constructive approach to complementarity between different

EU instruments based on these positive experiences should therefore be promoted for the next programming period.

LIFE is a small instrument and cannot be used to solve all environmental problems. Domestic funds and other EU funds remain the core funding instruments for environmental protection.

However, LIFE has an enormous catalyst effect and its individual projects traditionally have a disproportionately large impact. For that reason, a new tool is proposed in the MFF

Communication, i.e., Integrated Projects which are meant to mobilise both national and EU funds to implement environmental action plans as part of wider development programmes.

They also have the potential to mobilise funds from financial institutions and the private sector. Therefore, Integrated Projects should be used to demonstrate to regional and national authorities the benefits of investing in the environmental sector and push them to develop strategic frameworks and methods to use different funds in an integrated way. This would help to make complementarity of EU funding a reality.

2. Concept and characteristics of Integrated Projects

Integrated Projects are demonstration projects for the sustainable implementation of environmental action plans. An Integrated Project is similar to a traditional LIFE project but it covers a larger portion of the territory or a region (it could also be national), where the applicant, namely the authority responsible for the environmental sector concerned, aims at implementing a sectoral environmental action plan by carrying out the necessary

158

environmental measures required to achieve the environmental objective (as specified in the environmental action plan), generating the necessary capacity to manage the specific environmental sector at the most appropriate territorial/administrative level in a durable way.

The characteristics (and pre-conditions) of a LIFE Integrated Project are:

− A multi-annual environmental action plan for a specific sector should already be in place,

such as Prioritised action framework under the Habitats Directive or a river basin

management plan under the Water Framework Directive;

− The above plans identify the overall financial needs and sources of finance, including

LIFE, required to implement the plan and thus to achieve the environmental objective;

− The LIFE project supports a series of specific activities and measures included in the

environmental action plan (these constitute the Integrated Project and are specified in the project proposal). These specific activities are individually clearly defined with a

financing plan, timelines and expected outcomes, as traditional LIFE projects;

− When submitting the Integrated Project proposal, the applicant includes a financial plan,

indicating how the measures included in the overall environmental action plan should be resourced, including LIFE Integrated Project funds but also other regional, national and/or

EU funds;

− The applicant must demonstrate that the Integrated Project itself delivers environmental

outcomes also as a self-standing part of the overall environmental action plan and that it

contributes to the outcomes of the overall plan.

− Priority will be given to Integrated Projects having a cross-border dimension related to

environmental impacts and protection, or internal market aspects e.g., in the area of waste

and resources or ecosystem services, to economic and employment impact.

These projects will be inclusive: involvement of all relevant stakeholders (public, private and civil society) in the particular sector and their funds will be required.

It is foreseen that Integrated Projects will require an indicative EU contribution of €10million per project (whereas traditional projects are expected to require around €1.5m).

Box 1: Two theoretical examples of LIFE "Iintegrated Projects"

1. Natura2000

Region X has 10 Natura2000 sites under its jurisdiction so it develops a Regional Programme for Natura2000 covering all the sites. Such program covers all aspects related to the management of the sites, and all the features needed to guarantee the connectivity and the functionality of the network thus covering aspects like green infrastructures and ecosystem services.

This programme identifies a range of management and conservation needs which are translated into different activities that require financial support.

These activities include inter alia restoring four sites (removal of alien species, reforestation, creation of ponds etc), recurring management once the restoration is finalised, create corridors between the sites, stop agriculture in one site, leasing hunting rights in another site, installing waste water treatment systems for houses' discharges affecting a river and ground waters connected to five sites, soil decontamination in three sites, conditioning two sites for visitors (interpretative paths, visitors centres, observation towers and spots, parking facilities), training farmers to adopt more sustainable agricultural practices in three sites and buffers around, compensation payments etc.,

Region X identifies the financial needs for the implementation of these activities and submits a proposal for a LIFE integrated project. This project clearly specifies the activities or group of activities among those included in the programme that will be financed by LIFE (e.g. the restoration and connectivity activities, capacity building, awareness raising). In addition, it presents evidence on how it will use other funds (e.g. from EARDF, ERDF, private) to implement the complementary measures included in the programme (compensation payments, correction of power lines, infrastructure etc).

2. Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD) at a transboundary scale

A River Basin Competent Authority Y has a transboundary European river basin under its responsibility. It develops a River Basin Management Plan according to the requirements of the WFD. Such Plan covers all aspects related to water management in the river basin, aiming at ensuring "good status" for all waters in the river basin. The plan identifies more specific objectives (ecological status, quantitative status, chemical status, etc.) and identifies the range of measures that will be needed to achieve those objectives which are translated into different activities requiring financial support.

These measures include inter alia reducing pollution from agriculture through promotion of environmentally sensitive farming practices (reduction of pesticides use, promotion of water saving, suspension of certain farming activities, etc); installing waster water treatment plants in two agglomerations and green filters in specific areas to avoid percolation in ground waters; elimination of invasive alien species and developing early detection systems; decontamination of soil, developing biological monitoring methods and chemical monitoring, prevention and limitation of input of pollutants to groundwater and surface water from industry, mining and quarrying activities and diffuse pollution; promotion of sustainable drainage schemes for flood risk, floods vulnerability assessment and flood mapping and restoring floodplains etc.

Competent Authority Y identifies, together with Competent Authorities from other States belonging to the same river basin district and other interested parties (eg. representatives from hydropower industry, farmers' associations etc.) the financial needs for the implementation of these measures and activities and submits, a proposal for a LIFE integrated project. This project clearly specifies the measures/activities or group of measures/activities among those included in the River Basin

Management Plan (and programme of measures) that will be financed by LIFE (e.g. removal of obstacles for river connectivity to improve fish migration, development of monitoring methods, awareness raising, partnerships etc.). In addition, it presents evidence on how it will use other available funds (e.g. from ERDF, EARDF, public, private) to implement the complementary measures included in the programme (compensations payments, infrastructure etc).

The potential contribution of Integrated Projects to the practical integration of environmental objectives can be exemplified by the experience of INTERREG projects, since Integrated

Projects share the same objective as some INTERREG projects that seek to better integrate economic, social and environmental objectives. Some INTERREG projects therefore provide possible illustrations of the integration benefits that might follow from Integrated Projects. It should be noted that INTERREG projects do not seek to combine different funding sources and therefore do not have the requirement and potential impact as Integrated Projects do.

Below are summarised two examples of INTERREG projects which have had a particular focus on integrating environmental objectives with wider economic development objectives.

These projects illustrate the potential benefits from integrating economic, social and environmental objectives as the basis of co-ordinated action and learning.

Box 2: Successful examples of Integrated Management from INTERREG

TIDE (Tidal River Development)

The TIDE project covers the estuaries of the Rivers Elbe (DE), Humber (UK), Scheldt (BE/NL) and Weser (DE) and brings together experts, scientists, policy-makers and managers representing economic, social and environmental interests in the four estuaries. TIDE aims to promote the economic objectives of port development, alongside environmental protection and social benefits to the wider population through the development and use of ecosystem services. TIDE seeks to integrate the physical needs for economic development with ecological and environmental needs based on the definition of ecosystem services. In this case study the ecosystem service approach is used and thought of as: defining benefits that estuary ecosystems can provide, defining services required to realise these benefits and assessing what management techniques are needed to provide for these services.

The project aims to realise its objectives through principles of shared management and four work packages have been designed, one assigned to each partner. Work package integration is leading to shared experiences and promotion of knowledge transfer between sites and partners. All partners contribute to the different work packages although one partner initiates each package by producing a guidance document and a central team co-ordinates the different partners. The 4 work packages are designed to cover the following different themes:

− Improve Knowledge on Estuary Functioning − Realise Integrated Management Planning / Governance − Mitigation and Compensation Measures − Transnational Exchange & Capacity Building.

The integrated partnership model is achieved primarily through the work package integration and also through general cooperation and sharing of knowledge and solutions by partners. The benefits of this method include:

− Provision of a forum for issues to be discussed between port authorities and conservation bodies. − Scope to learn lessons drawn from previous projects − Knowledge sharing between partners, breaking down previously polarised views − Identifying and establishing the strategic management themes for estuaries to be assessed alongside estuary

specific themes.

Sources: TIDE, Tidal River development - http://www.northsearegion.eu/files/repository/20091028105326_TIDE_Flyer_8s_K07_Druck.pdf ; TIDE Times, Issue 01

2010, Hamburg Port Authority &s.Pro sustainable projects GmbH - http://tide- project.eu/downloads/TIDE_Times_Issue_01.pdf ; Stakeholder interviews

NATURESHIP

The Natureship project is part of the Central Baltic Interreg IVA Programme. The participating regions of the Programme are situated in Estonia, Finland (including Åland), Latvia and Sweden. The emphasis of the Natureship project is for a novel approach on planning and management of traditional rural landscapes and selected coastlines. The aim of the project is to create and restore an optimal ecosystem service network based on integrated sustainable coastal planning. The project builds on the earlier co-operation between partners on the Interreg IIIA project RUOKO (reed strategy in Finland and

Estonia), in which an attempt was made to optimise ecosystem services. This team was then expanded to draw on other relevant knowledge such as the County Administrative Council of Gotland who had mapped the Gotland coastal area, covering data relevant for ecosystem services. The different partners each took responsibility for different theme areas of the project including:

− Integrated coastal planning − Landscape and habitat monitoring and evaluation with retrospective land cover and land use change detection

using remote sensing and GIS

− Management and species of traditional rural biotopes − City meadows − Conservation and management of calcareous habitats in the coastal cultural Landscape − Evaluation of ecosystem services as a tool for coastal zone − Management − Ecosystem services and management of coastal lagoons.

NATURSHIP highlighted a number of win-wins, reflecting the holistic and proactive objectives that can be funded under Interreg. The project has a strong focus on ecosystem services, protecting natural resources through planning and management whilst providing a safe and healthy environment. In addition the project will also assess how to achieve costeffective planning and management of traditional rural biotopes in order to enhance public and biodiversity values.

Sources: http://www.centralbaltic.eu/documents/doc_view/4-programme-document-?tmpl=component&format=raw ; Evaluation of the Central Baltic Interreg IVA Programme 2007-2013, Final mid[term evaluation report, Deabaltika, 24

ovember 2010; Stakeholder interviews.

3. Added value and impact of Integrated Projects

The MFF Communication suggests that integrated instruments could be used to maximise their leverage role by combining different funding sources. LIFE, which is the specific instrument for the environment (as a contributor funder) would guide the implementation process in an Integrated Project by providing a specific environmental focus and expertise and by ensuring that the total funds mobilised have the most positive environmental impact. The main benefits of Integrated Projects would therefore be:

▪ Environmental priorities would become embedded into all the project activities as a requirement;

▪ Administrative cost savings; because of a larger size and potential higher

effectiveness of the projects 84 , replacing some smaller projects with associated

reductions in the costs of applications, and monitoring and evaluation;

▪ As a result of their scale, Integrated Projects provide a greater ability to create employment opportunities linked to continuing environmental management both during the project lifetime and in the post-funding period work ensuring sustained results;

▪ Because of their scale, Integrated Projects can establish a structured relationship with and develop project pipelines for the relevant EU funds, thereby promoting the mobilisation of much larger resources to support environmental objectives. This should help to tackle the current under spending by the Structural Funds in the fields of biodiversity and environment,

▪ Opportunity to build capacity on a wider scale with a wider spectrum of stakeholders;

▪ Integrated Projects provide a major role for regional and local authorities as potential lead beneficiaries, which are also often the environmental competent authorities as well as being responsible for leading projects funded by Rural Development, the Operational Programmes for Structural Funds, and the future

Natura 2000 Prioritised Action Frameworks. 85

The box below provides an early illustration of how an Integrated Project might be used to support capacity building.

Box 3: LIFE Integrated Project: Example of use for capacity building

NATURA 2000 in Slovenia - management models and information system

The Slovenian delegate to the Habitats Committee recently presented their national Management Plan for Natura 2000. They are now considering the idea of an integrated project, building on a previous LIFE project to exemplify the catalytic power of LIFE.

A previous LIFE project led to a transnational co-operation between different actors and different sectors (forestry, fisheries and water management). This capacity could now be used in an Integrated Project. Slovenia is currently in the process of implementing legislation to ensure that integrated projects are feasible.

Potential benefits:

− Rural development funds could help in aspects of forestry and agricultural, cohesion funds could be used to

undertake sustainable tourism, environmental protection and nature conservation activities, whilst LIFE funding would help with capacity building, awareness raising and training.

− Combining these activities and funding is considered to provide a real opportunity to bring together economic,

social and environmental objectives leading to enhanced results.

Practicalities:

One single regulation and one set of guidelines would be required to cover administrative and reporting aspects across all

84 The larger size of Integrated Projects responds to the call for larger projects made in the ex-post assessment of

the LIFE III Programme.

85 Noted as a benefit of Integrated Projects by the Committee of the Regions (2011) DRAFT OPINION of the

Commission for the Environment, Climate Change and Energy on THE EU LIFE PROGRAMME.THE WAY FORWARD.

funding instruments. To ensure Integrated Projects are feasible it is essential that there is a strong project design phase with rigorous and detailed preparation which agree priorities across funding instruments.

A further example describes LIFE projects that could be considered as precursors of Integrated Projects. The case studies below in Box 4 and 5 highlight potential benefits of

Integrated Projects, as outlined by the beneficiaries and also the challenges in developing and managing such projects. Integrated Projects have not been fully tested. Since the administrative capacity varies between MS and between projects, it will be important to encourage MS and regions to learn from each other and to develop mutual learning networks.

Box 4: Projects that could have been a LIFE Integrated Project

LIFE Integrated Projects: PM10 control in urban areas

Four Austrian LIFE projects are interconnected and all have PM10 control in urban areas as a main objective. Each project has been used as a further step in developing a more holistic approach and contributing to a long term plan. The four projects could theoretically have been combined into a single integrated project, which drew on several funding sources. Potential benefits

− The larger project would have greater impacts; − The project would enable partners from different sectors to work together and allow a more effective;

combination of different priorities such as climate change, health and air pollution;

− Integrated projects would help to achieve economic development alongside environmental protection; − Greater scope for innovation through the co-ordination and synergy between environmental and economic

objectives and activities.

Practicalities

An Integrated Project could follow-on from current LIFE projects, building on achievements to date. In the case of PM10 projects, they have created new knowledge and techniques which an integrated project could develop over a larger geographical scale, combining LIFE funds which would focus on practical solutions with DG RTD funds to further scientific knowledge and structural funds to invest in necessary infrastructure.

In addition, to ensure the up-take of integrated projects, it will be necessary to have just one application process in which you can apply for different combination of relevant funds and one monitoring and evaluation process rather than separate processes for each fund.

Furthermore clear clarification, guidance, provision of relevant definitions and frequently asked questions would help in the application process. The project suggested a two-step application approach, the first step establishing feasibility and eligibility, would be useful as applications for integrated projects are likely to require significant resources. The two step approach ensures that the applicant is developing a suitable project before submitting a completed application.

The example below describes a LIFE project that has successfully combined different funding sources.

Box 5: LIFE Integrated Project: An example of multiple funding

Protection and usage of aapa mires with a rich avifauna

LIFE project actual costs: €2.6m; ERDF project cost: €0.6m

The aim of this project was to prepare conservation and management plans for five areas within the central Lapland aapa mire zone, so that ecotourism and recreational use can be organised on a sustainable basis.

The project was considered successful in combining the resources gained from different EU sources (LIFE for planning and ERDF for construction of the tourism infrastructure) and national funds (for construction of barns on the hay meadows). The funds were managed efficiently. The EC payments were made in time and did not cause any problems or delays in the implementation process.

The project manager of this LIFE project noted the following (perscomm):

▪ Administratively the project was well set-up with clear roles and responsibilities for all parties. Objectives and results

were separated for purposes of effective monitoring and evaluation;

▪ It was not difficult to align the project to the different objectives of different funding sources as the various project

objectives were clear. In addition different project managers were required to clearly state their expectations in the preparation phase;

▪ The use of various funding sources provided the opportunity to make environmental objectives more ambitious. The

beneficiary also stated that integrated projects can create positive publicity and enhance the status of Natura 2000;

▪ The combination of funds has not resulted in significant additional administrative costs. If the project objectives are

mutually supportive, the overall benefit is greater than any additional costs.

By combining funds the projects can implement measures that the LIFE fund would have been unable to support such as service structures. Implementation of the service structure, in Lapland has increased interest in Natura 2000 areas and brought positive publicity to the project and to the LIFE programme more generally.

The success in combining funds has provided confidence in the approach; and it will be used in the future, with the expectation that this will allow greater integration of environmental project activity in wider development activity, engaging more stakeholders and building capacity, improve the end results and contribute to sustainability.

The table below highlights potential risks based on the reflections of public authorities that have considered the use of Integrated Projects. They were collected as part of the Impact

Assessment, and provide possible solutions that could be further developed.

Table 6: Summary of Reflections on Integrated Projects from LIFE Beneficiaries

Potential Challenge Possible Solution

LIFE as a centrally managed programme based on annual calls, could approve ‘potential’ Integrated Projects, or ‘Hub Projects’ allowing the

Structural funds have a decentralised project to subsequently link with other partners and funds in the management opposed to LIFE’s centralised decentralised programmes. management which could limit the ability to The hub project would negotiate with the other programmes before effectively manage Integrated Projects and application, and contract following approval from LIFE. The monitoring transfer lessons. and evaluation requirements would be established and managed by LIFE. If the links fail to be made, the project continues as standalone LIFE project (albeit potentially larger than the average).

Other instruments will need to revise their

legal basis to recognise the use of Integrated Discussions between DGs have taken place to discuss and develop the idea. Projects and to include them as an eligible It will be important to test the feasibility of any proposed model with activity under the main funding instruments beneficiaries and NCPs, perhaps through a workshop or seminar.

There is a lack of capacity on the ground to

put together proposals for Integrated Technical assistance funding could be made available. Best practice Projects. examples will need to be developed and provided to prospective applicants.

Although the current LIFE programme is addressing some of the gaps in the eligibility criteria, the Commission could streamline eligibility criteria

Different eligibility criteria of the different further and make explicit what activities and which type of beneficiaries

funding instrument may pose problems for and activities can be funded through Integrated Projects. Alternatively, it

potential beneficiaries could, through adequate cross-reference in the statutory basis of the

different instruments, allow the requirements of the Integrated Project to

take precedence, allowing other eligibility criteria to be excluded.

A robust planning stage with defined roles and responsibilities and detailed delivery plans will be required. The LIFE Unit could contribute to the planning of, for example, Operational Programmes for Structural Funds,

Different funding instruments may be commenting on draft Proposals. working with different timetables and also Since projects will be larger and longer, there is greater scope for some different timing cycles (e.g. structural funds flexibility. An n+2 type rule would potentially prevent projects requiring operate an n+2 cycle) structural funds being approved in the last three years of the MFF given an average life of say 5 years. Again direct involvement may be required by the LIFE Unit, or may require the suspension of such rules under the precedence granted to Integrated Projects Potential Challenge Possible Solution

Multiple monitoring and evaluation The LIFE monitoring, evaluation and reporting system could be extended requirements associated with the different in agreement with other instruments to include the completion and funds could make the administration distribution of relevant monitoring and evaluation reports to national/local complex and costly programme committees

Source: Interviews with beneficiaries from five LIFE projects and discussions with DG Environment officials

Consultation responses from a survey carried out by the Committee of the Regions (CoR) 86

with local and regional authorities found that the majority considered that Integrated Projects were both highly desirable and feasible. 85% of the respondents like the idea of ‘Integrated

Projects’, contrary to only 10% who disagree with the concept; 5% of respondents did not express an opinion. About three quarters of the respondents consider Integrated Projects quite feasible, while 21% finds those projects very feasible; only 5% believe that such projects are not feasible.

The box below summarises the main findings of the consultation with respect to Integrated Projects

Box 7: Consultation views from local and regional authorities on Integrated Projects (IPs)

The main finding of the consultation, with local and regional authorities, in relation to Integrated Projects, is that they are both desirable and feasible. The main benefits and problems are summarised below.

The benefits foreseen from the use of Integrated Projects include:

− addressing a wide variety of problems, notably in the fields of ‘freshwater management’, ‘nature and

biodiversity’ and ‘resource use and waste’ (except where a sole and specific focus on the environment is required);

− enhancing coordination in environmental issues especially when involving international cooperation; − promoting coordination between sectoral policies and between different territorial areas; − enabling the optimisation of resources and increased value for money; and − creating opportunities for the implementation of large-scale actions, bringing together both a large number of

experts/technicians and adequate funds.

Problems foreseen for the use of Integrated Projects include:

− the lack of necessary staff capacity to support Integrated Projects at the local level; − concerns that such projects are too complex and would fail to achieve high quality standards; − concerns over the increased coordination requirements between the different agencies governing IPs, calling for

consensus at a high governance level;

− the need to simplify financial reporting procedures; and − the difficulties faced by public bodies lacking resources to co-finance IPs.

Source: Committee of the Regions Consultation: LIFE Impact Assessment: Assessment of Territorial Impacts of the EU Life+ instrument (Table 1) and text

Survey replies received from 40 respondents from 12 MS

4. Critical mass evaluation

Given the resources allocated to the Environment sub-programme of the future LIFE, an analysis of ‘what will it take’ to produce a step change in the impact of the programme has been made. The number of Integrated Projects required relates to the relevant territorial

‘units’ for each environmental theme. A statistical relevance of 15-20% of the relevant territorial unit has been used to determine the number of projects required in a specific sector to have enough examples applicable to different administrative and regional characteristics

165

(including levels of capacity development) so that different experiences can be widely disseminated among Member States and regions.

Since Integrated Projects aim at implementing environmental action plans, only those sectors where EU legislation requires some planning or programming (i.e., programmed-base

Directives) could be considered for Integrated Projects funding. This is the case for Prioritised Action Framework under the Habitats Directive, a River Basin Management Plan under the

Water Framework Directive, waste minimisation plan under the Waste Framework Directive, air pollution abatement plan to meet the air quality requirements of the CAFÉ legislation and the Programme of measures under the Marine Strategy Directive. It can also derive from EU recommendations such as sustainable urban plan, integrated coastal zone management plans etc.). These sectors are also those that require a planned and large territorial scale action. This is the reason for selecting the sectors outlined below. Urban has been embedded into the Air sector and Integrated Coastal Zone Management into the Water Framework Directive (which covers transitional waters) and the Marine Strategy Directive (which covers Coastal waters).

Integrated Projects would gradually be introduced in the Climate Action sub-programme in the area of mitigation and adaptation, in order to allow time build up capacity needed for such projects.

Integrated Projects in Nature – The relevant unit is the NUTS 2 region, given than regions tend to be responsible for the management of Natura2000. This also has the merit of linking directly to possible regional funding. There are 271 NUTS 2 regions. Assuming the minimum level of action required, one Integrated Project for nature conservation, in say between 15-

25% of the regions over a 7-year programme period would be needed. This means between 6

and 10 Nature Integrated Projects per year. 87

Integrated Projects in Environment – The relevant unit depends on the environmental theme.

• Waste management – the appropriate unit is also probably the NUTS 2 region, given the

nature of regional waste management plans. 15% Integrated Project activity over the programme would provide a minimum level of catalytic effect – say a minimum of 6-10

projects a year;

• Water management – the appropriate unit is the river basin district of which there are 110

river basin districts and 176 national branches. Given the important issues associated with transposition and implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD), and the interest in ensuring cross-compliance with the WFD as a condition of regional funding, then a greater share of ‘units’ should be covered – 15-25%. This would require a

minimum of say 3-4 projects a year;

• Air quality management – activity in large cities to combat urban air pollution (e.g.

particulates, low level ozone and nitrogen dioxide) would also benefit from the use of Integrated Projects. Building on the 2013 European ‘Year of Air’, 3 IP projects a year would allow action in 20 of the most polluted EU cities. This could be combined with

other urban elements

• Marine environment – probably 1-2 Integrated project per sea basin (3-5 projects per

year).

166

The Environment strand would therefore require a minimum of 13-15 Integrated Projects a year, if the use of these projects was to really tackle the institutional weaknesses that underpin the lack of adequate policy implementation and effective policy integration in the entire acquis.

Given that these projects are larger in size (EU contribution €10 million per project), this would imply that traditional projects could not be financed. These traditional projects cannot be phased out since they address particular needs. Firstly, these projects address the needs of stakeholders that are not necessarily public authorities. In many cases, environmental projects are aimed at demonstrating ways to achieve a more effective implementation of the legislation by the addressee of environmental legislation, which could be a SME or another type of private operator. In addition, not all environmental activities require a planned and large territorial scale action. For example, some activities aiming at halting the loss of biodiversity, while being part of the EU Biodiversity strategy, require small scale interventions that can create projects 'blueprints' to be scaled up and continued through other funds. Finally, not all public authorities would be ready at the beginning of the programming period to submit an

Integrated Project in some cases due to lack of capacity.

Based on the experience under LIFE+, between 8-10 traditional project per environmental sector would be required to achieve critical mass and create multipliers. If environmental sectors are grouped in 6 sectors (biodiversity, water, natural resources and waste, environment health, which would include noise and chemicals, emissions, which would include air and

IPPC, and green economy) around 56 to 60 traditional projects per year are required in addition to information projects.

Therefore, Integrated Projects would concentrate on the sectors (1) where implementation and integration problems are more significant, (2) are more linked to achieving Europe 2020 resources efficiency targets; and (3) have more possibility to link to, and therefore mobilise, other EU funds.

(1) Sectors where implementation or integration problems are more significant

As to implementation problems, a good indicator is infringement cases. Nature conservation, waste and water legislation accounts for 59% of the infringement case load for the environment sector, with the sectors "impact assessment" and air contributing the bulk of the

remainder (27%). Other sectors, such as Marine, are still in a development phase. 88 The last

few years have seen a marked increase in cases in the air sector.

Implementation problems often reflect integration problems. For example, the high percentage of cases concerning nature protection legislation can be explained by the fact that many infrastructure developments proposed in Member States that lead to complaints are those affecting in some way Natura 2000 sites or EU protected species. As shown above when analysing consistency with other EU funds and the Zero option, Nature conservation also has problem of absorption capacity in other EU programmes, partially because authorities do not always perceive the socio-economic benefit of nature conservation.

The overall percentage share of waste and water cases reflects the fact that they have entered crucial implementation phases. The waste sector also has problems of absorption capacity in other EU programmes. As in the case of Nature, the capacity to develop and prepare investments, and to channel large amounts of EU funding, is still lacking in some Member

States. There is a risk that some funds from the 2007-2013 programming period will not be spent in time.

167

Nature, water and waste are entering crucial implementation phases. In the near future, the Habitats Directive will move from designation to active management and restoration; similarly, under the Water Framework Directive (WFD), the river basin management plans will need implementation to achieve the objective of good environmental status. Air legislation will be revised in 2013, which implies that in the period 2014-2020 will also enter its crucial implementation phase. The Marine legislation will enter as well the crucial implementation phase, since by 2020 Member States should have achieved or maintain a good environmental status.

Management and implementation costs for Natura2000, water and waste are very high i.e., €5.8 billion per year for Natura2000, €30 billion per year for water, €7-12 billion per year for municipal waste compared to Air which requires about €1 billion per year (see Annex 5).

(2) Sectors that are more linked to achieving Europe 2020 resource efficiency targets and direct environmental benefits

The Resource efficiency roadmap indentifies biodiversity, water, waste, air and soil as the main environmental sectors that are essential to shift towards a more resource efficient economy. Of these, biodiversity, water, waste and air are suitable for Integrated Projects.

As to direct environmental benefits, as shown in section 2.2.2(a) and Annex 7, Nature, water and waste are the sectors with more direct environmental benefits. In addition, air provides many socio-economic benefits linked to health. Not enough information about marine projects exists as to determine the environmental benefits generated.

(3) Sectors that have more possibility to link to, and therefore mobilise, other EU funds.

Mainstreaming of nature, water and waste is much consolidated and has been improved under the MFF Communication proposals thereby providing more opportunities for providing examples for integrated funding to solve the significant absorption capacity problems identified. Air has also improved mainstreaming due to its health impacts, and many links with climate change (especially in urban areas). The new European Maritime and Fisheries policy has also improved the integration of Nature Directives and the Marine Strategy

Framework Directive.

Additional criteria:

(4) The maturity of the sector (i.e., the development of plans and programmes is required by the legislation and they are already in place), including the success of environmental sectors in LIFE.

Nature, water and waste are probably the most mature environmental sectors in terms of planning and programming. Management plans for Natura2000, River Basin Management

Plans and Waste management plans have already been developed. The Habitats Directive will require a programme approach applied to the network (and not only to a site) through

Prioritised Action Frameworks. The Water Framework Directive’s River Basin Management Plans already foresees an integrated approach, and there is an increasing call for overreaching waste strategies.

As to the consolidation of the sectors in LIFE, Nature, water and waste are the traditionally successful sectors: 50% of resources are allocated to Nature, and water and waste applications amount to almost 70% of all LIFE Environment applications, with an average of 50-60 applications for water and 80-100 for waste compare with 12 applications for air. Marine applications tend to be done in the context of the Habitats Directive.

(5) The stakeholders’ opinion could also be used to discriminate between one or another sector. As seen in Box 9 above, nature, water and waste are the sectors signalled by stakeholders. Air is also mentioned but to a lesser extent

5. Expected progression over the programming period for the sub-programme for Environment

A progressive decrease in the number of traditional Action grant LIFE projects financed (and a parallel decrease in the budget dedicated to such projects) is expected during the Programme implementation. In parallel, an increase in the number of Integrated Projects is foreseen (see projections below). For the nature component, the start will be easier since the current LIFE+

Regulation is financing the elaboration of Prioritised Action Framework that will serve as a basis for the Integrated Projects. For water and waste a slower start is expected i.e., fewer projects in the beginning of the programming period.

Figure 5.1. Integrated Projects covered (water, waste, nature)

Budget Progression LIFE Environment sub-programme

700,00

600,00 Traditional

500,00 Integrated projects

n 400,00

Total LIFE ENV budget

il li

o

m 300,00 TOTAL LIFE

200,00 Log. (Total LIFE ENV

budget) 100,00

  • 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year

Figure 5.2 Integrated Projects covered (water, waste, nature, air; targets reduced)

Budget Progression LIFE Environment sub-programme

700,00

600,00 Traditional

500,00 Integrated projects

o n 400,00 Total LIFE ENV budget

il li m 300,00 TOTAL LIFE

200,00 Log. (Total LIFE ENV

budget) 100,00

  • 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020 Year

The table below summarises foreseen evolution of the number and budget for Integrated

Projects over the programming period, in order to reach the critical mass threshold.

Table 5.1 Possible evolution scenarios for IP in the Programming period (water, waste, Nature)- current

prices

Year NAT-IP Budget (€ ENV IP million) Budget (€million)

2014 3 30 2 20 2015 4 40 4 40 2016 6 60 7 70 2017 8 80 9 90 2018 10 100 12 120 2019 10 100 15 150 2020 10 100 12 120 51 510 61 610

(Benchmark) 49 56-63

Critical mass 7/year 8-9/year

budget

Table 5.2. Possible evolution scenarios for IP in the Programming period (water, waste, nature and air)-

current prices)

Year NAT-IP Budget (€ ENV IP million) Budget (€million)

2014 3 30 5 42.5 2015 4 40 7 62.5 2016 6 60 10 92.5 2017 8 80 12 112.5 2018 10 100 13 127.5 2019 10 100 15 150.0 2020 10 100 15 142.5 51 510 77 730

(Benchmark) 49 83-98

Critical mass 7/year 12-14/year

budget

Figure 1 Programmatic approach and integrated projects in practice: Natura 2000 example Figure 2: Programmatic approach and integrated projects in practice: River Basin Management Plans (Water Framework Directive) A NNEX 12: R EFERENCES

Sources of information used for the present Impact assessment are the following:

a. Official documents of the European Commission

• DG JRC (2004) Promoting environmental technologies: sector analyses, barriers and

measures. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/etap/pdfs/spc_finalreport_ipts.pdf

• EC (2010). Report from the Commission. 27th Annual Report on Monitoring the

Application of EU Law (2009). COM(2010)538 i. European Commission. 1 October 2010. Brussels. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/community_law/infringements/infringements_annual_report_27_e n.htm

• EC (2010). The EU Budget Review (COM(2010) 700 final i). Available from:

http://ec.europa.eu/budget/reform/library/com_2010_700_en.pdf

• EC (2010). 2009 Environmental Policy Review: Part 2. SEC(2010)9745 final.

Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/pdf/policy/EPR%202009_SEC_2010_0975_Part%20 2.pdf

• EC (2010). Sustainable Development. Available from:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/eussd/

• EC (2010). Europe 2020 Flagship Initiative: Innovation Union COM(2010) 546 i Final.

Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/research/innovation-union/pdf/innovation-unioncommunication_en.pdf

• EC (2010). Eurostat. Available from:

http://epp.eurostat.ec.europa.eu/portal/page/portal/eurostat/home/

• EC (2010). Environment – LIFE Programme: Raptors. Available from:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/themes/animalandplants/lists/raptors.htm

• EC (2009). Part III: Annexes to Impact Assessment Guidelines. Available from:

http://ec.europa.eu/governance/impact/commission_guidelines/docs/iag_2009_annex_ en.pdf

• EC (2009). PRO INNO Paper 7: The impact of publicly funded research on

innovation. Available from: www.proinnoeurope.eu/admin/uploaded.../NBNA23100ENC.pdf

• EC (2008). Consolidated versions of the Treaty on European Union and the Treaty on

the Functioning of the European Union (2008/C 115/01). Available from: http://www.ecb.int/ecb/legal/pdf/fxac08115enc_002.pdf

• EC (2007) Mid term review of the 6th Environmental Action Programme, COM(2007)

225 Final. Available from: http://eur- lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2007:0225:FIN:EN:PDF

• EC (2007). Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on

the protection of the environment through criminal law. COM(2007)51 i. Brussels. 9.2.2007.

• EC (2007). Commission staff working document - Accompanying document to the

proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control) (recast): Impact Assessment (COM(2007) 843 final i). Available from: http://eur- lex.europa.eu/Notice.do?val=462132:cs&lang=en&list=511975:cs,516991:cs,508612: cs,505133:cs,499125:cs,485132:cs,461932:cs,462133:cs,462132:cs,261603:cs,&pos= 9&page=1&nbl=16&pgs=10&hwords=&checktexte=checkbox&visu=#texte

• EC (2007). Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on

the protection of the environment through criminal law. COM(2007)51 i.

• EC (2006). Thematic Strategy on the Sustainable Use of Pesticides: Impact

Assessment. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ppps/pdf/sec_2006_0894.pdf

• EC (2005) The Communication on Thematic Strategy on Air Pollution and The

Directive on “Ambient Air Quality and Cleaner Air for Europe”: Impact Assessment. (COM(2005)446 final i). Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/archives/cafe/pdf/ia_report_en050921_final.pdf

• EC (2004). Commission Working Document, ‘Integrating environmental

considerations into other policy areas – a stocktaking of the Cardiff process’. COM (2004) 394 final i.

• EC (2004) Co-ordination Group for Biodiversity and Nature (meeting 02/03/2010).

Financing Natura 2000 – State of Play, Agenda item 3.A, Doc.3.A and European Commission (2004). Financing Natura 2000. (COM(2004)431 final i)

• EC(2004). Integrating environmental considerations into other policy areas – a

stocktaking of the Cardiff process. COM(2004)394 i.

• EC(2004). Financial Perspectives 2007 – 2013. COM(2004)487 i.

• EC (1998). Commission Working Document, “Partnership for integration. A Strategy

for integrating environment into EU policies”. COM (1998) 333 final i.

b. Articles, books, other literature

• ADB (2008). Effectiveness of ADB’s Capacity Development Assistance. How to Get

Institutions Right.

• Allio, Lorenzo and Fandel, Marie-Hélène (2006). Making Europe work: improving the

transposition, implementation and enforcement of EU legislation. EPC Working Paper No. 25. European Policy Centre. June. Brussels. Available at: www.epc.eu.

• Antypas, A (2010) Environment and the Purposes of a Danube Area Macro-regional

Strategy

• BirdLife Europe et al. (2010). Changing Perspectives: How the EU budget can shape a

sustainable future. Available from: http://www.eeb.org/EEB/?LinkServID=7819455B- C145-9353-9D77F0192D2A9BD2&showMeta=0

• Börzel, Tanja, and Hofmann, Tobias (2007). Why do member states infringe on EU

law? A quantitative study on the interactive effects of capacity and power. Centre for European Studies Working Papers 148.

• Christensen, J. H.; Hewitson, B.; Busuioc, A.; Chen, A.; Gao, X.; Held, I.; Jones, R.;

Kolli, R. K.; Kwon, W.-T.; Laprise, R.; Magaña Rueda, V.; Mearns, L.; Menéndez, C. G.; Räisänen, J.; Rinke, A.; Sarr, A. and Whetton, P., 2007. Regional Climate Projections. In: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change. Solomon, S.; Qin, D.; Manning, M.; Chen, Z.; Marquis, M.; Averyt, K. B.; Tignor, M. and Miller, H. L. (eds.), Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, United Kingdom and New York, NY, USA.

• Culture Action Europe (2010). The EU 2020 Strategy: Analysis and Perspectives.

Available from: http://www.cultureactioneurope.org/langen/component/content/article/41-general/597-the-eu-2020-strategy-analysis-andperspectives

• Demmke, Christoph (2004). Implementation of environmental policies in the US and

the EU. In: Vig, N. and Fauvre, M. (eds). Green Giants? Environmental Policies in the US and the EU. MIT Press.

• EEA (2010). State of the Environment (SOER) Assessment. Available from:

http://www.eea.europa.eu/soer

• EEA (2010) Global and European Temperature CSI 012

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/global-and-europeantemperature/global-and-european-temperature-assessment-3

• EEA (2008) Impacts of Europe’s Changing Climate – 2008 indicator based

assessment. EEA Report 4/2008

• EEA (2007) Air pollution in Europe 1990 – 2004. EEA Report 2/2007

• EEA (2010) The European Environment State and Outlook 2010 – Air Pollution

• EEA (2009) Progress towards the European 2010 biodiversity target. EEA Report

4/2009.

• EEA (2010) Use of freshwater resources – outlook from the EEA (Outlook 014)

http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/use-of-freshwater-resources- outlook/use-of-freshwater-resources-outlook

• EEA (2007) Europe’s environment – the fourth assessment. State of the Environment

Report 1/2007

• EEA (2010) The European Environment State and Outlook – Nature and Biodiversity

• EEA (2010) Land Take (CSI 014) http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and

href="http://www.eea.europa.eu/data-and-maps/indicators/land-take/land-take-assessment-published-nov-2005">maps/indicators/land-take/land-take-assessment-published-nov-2005

• EEA (2010) Towards an early warning and information system for invasive alien

species (IAS) threatening biodiversity in Europe. EEA Report 5/2010

• EEA (2010) The European Environment State and Outlook - Soil

• EEA (2010) The European Environment State and Outlook – Material Resources and

Waste

• EEA (2009) Diverting waste from landfill. Effectiveness of waste-management

policies in the European Union. EEA report 7/2009

• Euractiv (2010) Greens unimpressed by draft 'Europe 2020' plan. Available from:

http://www.euractiv.com/en/climate-environment/eus-draft-2020-strategy-fails- impress-environment-news-282980

• Europa Press Release RAPID (2009) Commission launches consultation on EU 2020:

a new strategy to make the EU a smarter, greener social market. Available from: http://europa.eu/rapid/pressReleasesAction.do?reference=IP/09/1807

• Farmer, Andrew (2007). Simplifying EU Environmental Policy. Study for the

European Parliament’s Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety under contract IP/A/ENVI/FWC/2006-172/C1/SC4.

• Gallagher, N. (2003). Fact sheet on LIFE project ‘Epicentre - The application of

Environmental Performance Evaluation and EMS to achieve and report regional environmental improvement’ LIFE00 ENV/IRL/000756. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dsp Page&n_proj_id=1884&docType=pdf

• Gallup Organisation (2007). Survey of the Observatory of European SMEs. Available

from: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/policies/sme/files/analysis/doc/2007/02_summary_en.pd f

• Garnaut, R., Howes, S., Jotzo, F., Sheehan, P., 2008, 'Emissions in the Platinum Age:

the Implications of Rapid Development for Climate Change Mitigation', Oxford Review of Economic Policy 24 (2), 377-401

• Geeraerts, Kristof, Bursens, Peter and Leroy, Pieter (2006). De omzetting van de

kaderrichtlijn water in Vlaanderen. Succes- en faalfactoren in de totstandkoming van het decreet integraal waterbeleid. Universiteit Antwerpen. Steunpunt Milieubeleidswetenschappen. December 2006.

• Griffiths, N. (2010). Europe 2020: innovation, green growth and jobs; Reshaping the

EU's long-term strategy - take two. Available from: http://www.innovationeu.org/news/innovation-eu-vol2-1/0199-europe-2020- innovation-green-growth-and-jobs.html

• Hulme, P. E. (2007) Biological Invasions in Europe: Drivers, Pressures, States,

Impacts and Responses. Biological Invasions, (25), 56–80

• IEEP, Bio and Ecologic (2009) Study on Inspection Requirements for Waste Shipment

Inspections. Study for the European Commission under the Framework Contract G.4/FRA/2007/0067. Available at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/shipments/pdf/report_august09.pdf.

• IPCC (2001) Special Report on Emissions Scenarios, in IPCC, 2007: Climate Change

2007: Synthesis Report. Contribution of Working Groups I, II and III to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change [Core Writing Team, Pachauri, R.K and Reisinger, A. (eds.)]. IPCC, Geneva, Switzerland, 104 pp.

• Knill, Christoph and Lenschow, Andrea (2000). New concepts – old problems? The

institutional constraints for the effective implementation of EU environmental policy. Paper presented at the Conference of the International Studies Association in Los Angeles, USA. March 2000.

• Krämer, Ludwig (2004). Data on Environmental Judgements by the EC Court of

Justice. Journal for European Environmental & Planning Law. Vol 1. Issue 2. September 2004. pp. 127-135.

• Milieu Ltd, AmbienDura and FFact (2009) Study on the feasibility of the

establishment of a Waste Implementation Agency. Report for the European Commission, DG Environment under Study Contract DG ENV.G.4/ETU/2008/0080r. December 2009.

• ODI (2006). Capacity Development for Policy Advocacy: Current Thinking and

Approaches among Agencies Supporting Civil Society Organisations. Prepared by Blagescu, M. and Young, J.

• OECD (2006). The Challenge of Capacity Development: Working Towards Good

Practice.

• Persson (2004), Stockholm Environment Institute, “Environmental Policy Integration

– An Introduction”

• Rechtschaffen, C. (2007). Shining the spotlight on EU Compliance with the

environment.

• Rhodes, Edwardo Lao. 2003. Environmental Justice in America. Indiana University

Press: Bloomington, IN

• Richardson, Jeremy (ed.) (2001). European Union: Power and Policy-making.

Routledge.

• Siepcevic, Reinhard (2009). The judicial enforcement of EU law through national

courts: possibilities and limits. Journal of European Public Policy. Vol 16. Issue 3. pp 378-394.

• Stern, N. (2007): The Economics of Climate change: The Stern Review, Cambridge,

available at: http://www.occ.gov.uk/activities/stern.htm

• TEEB for National and International Policy Makers (2009). Available from:

http://www.teebweb.org/ForPolicymakers/tabid/1019/Default.aspx

• Ten Brink, Patrick and Farmer, Andrew (2005). Funding Environmental Compliance:

lessons learned from international practice. OECD, http://www.ieep.eu/publications/pdfs/2005/fundingenvcompliance.pdf

• UNEP FI/PRI and TruCost (2010). Universal ownership. Why environmental

externalities matter to institutional investors. UNEP FI. New York. Available from: http://www.unepfi.org/fileadmin/documents/universal_ownership.pdf

• UNDP (2007). Capacity Assessment methodology: User’s Guide.

• University of Southampton, Federation of Small Businesses et al (2008), Sustainable

Waste Management: Implementing Sustainable Waste Management Within Micro and

Small to Medium Sized Enterprises

• Wennerås, Pal (2007). The enforcement of EC environmental law. Oxford University

Press. pp 341.

• Wilkinson, David (2007): ‘Environmental Policy Integration at EU level – State-ofthe-Art

Report’, EPIGOV Paper No. 4, Ecologic – Institute for International and European Environmental Policy: Berlin.

c. Case studies

1.3.1 Implementation of the French Bonus-Malus scheme

• ACEA (2009) New passenger Car Registrations:

www.acea.be/images/uploads/files/20091215_PRPC-FINAL-0911.pdf

• Bredin E. (2010) Presentation held at IEA workshop in November 2010: French

incentives supporting low emissions vehicles: Focus on the Bonus/Malus scheme: www.iea.org/work/2010/tax/6_1_Bredin.pdf

• CGDD (2010) Une évaluation du bonus malus automobile écologique, le point sur nr

53, Mai 2010 : www.developpement-durable.gouv.fr/IMG/pdf/LPS53.pdf

• Douaud A. (2010) CO2, Gaz a effet de serre, Economie de carburant, Priorite n1 en

Europe www.unep.org/transport/pcfv/PDF/Douaud_VehiculeBasCO2.pdf

• EIS Analysis Briefing (2010) Greenhouse gas emissions from passenger vehicles have

decreased

• IEEP et al. (2005) ‘Service contract to carry out economic analysis and business

impact assessment of CO2 emissions reduction measures in the automotive sector’. A report to DGENV by IEEP, TNO and CAIR. Brussels.

• IFEN - Institut Français de l’environnement (2006) Etat de l’environnement en

France, Paris, France

• IHS et al. (2010) EC study Assessment of the Effectiveness of Scrapping Schemes for

Vehicles, study prepared by IHS & Global Insights: http://ec.europa.eu/enterprise/sectors/automotive/files/projects/report_scrapping_sche mes_en.pdf

• La Dépêche (2009) Bonus-malus : Sarkozy confirme le principe mais reporte son

extension, September 19, 2009 : http://www.ladepeche.fr/article/2008/09/19/476584- Bonus-malus-Sarkozy-confirme-le-principe-mais-reporte-son-extension.html

• Les Echos (2010) Victime de son succès, le bonus-malus auto sera encore durci en

2011 et en 2012, 29/10/10: www.lesechos.fr/economiepolitique/france/actu/020895168295-victime-de-son-succes-le-bonus-malus-auto-sera- encore-durci-en-2011-et-en-2012.htm

• Les Echos (2009b) Il faut étendre le bonus malus, Les Echos, 10 Septembre 2009 :

http://www.lesechos.fr/info/france/020129653296-il-faut-etendre-le-bonus-malus.htm

• MEEDDM - French Ministry of Ecology, sustainable development, transport and

housing (2010) Q&A on the bonus ecologique (in French): www.developpementdurable.gouv.fr/spip.php?page=article&id_article=13044

• Roussel F. (2009) Qualité de l’air en France : une amélioration lente et hétérogène,

actu-environnement, 31 July 2009 : http://www.actuenvironnement.com/ae/news/bilan_2008_qualite_air_france_8027.php4

• TNO et al. (2006) Review and Analysis of the Reduction Potential and costs of

Technological and other Measures to reduce CO2 emissions from Passenger Cars. TNO, IEEP and LAT. Brussels. October 2006.

• ten Brink, P. (2010) Mitigating CO 2 Emissions from Cars in the EU (Regulation (EC)

o 443/2009) Chapter 6 in Oberthuer S. and Pallemaerts M. (Eds) The New Climate Policies of the European Union, Brussels University Press, Brussels

1.3.2 Implementation of the Habitats and Birds Directives in Belgium (Flanders)

• Decleer, K. (2008). Ecological Restoration in Flanders. Mededelingen van het

Instituut voor Naturuur- en Bosonderzoek INBO M.2008.04, Brussel, Belgium, 160 pp.

• Department Leefmilieu, Natuur en Enegie (LNE), 2010. Economic Valuation of

Ecosystem Services.

http://www.lne.be/themas/beleid/milieueconomie/engelse-brochure-economische-

waardering-van-esd

• De Nocker L., Liekens I., Broekx S., Bulckaen D., Smets S. and Gauderis J. (not

dated) Natte Natuur in het Schelde-estuarium – Een verkenning van de kosten en baten. Using a cost-benefit analysis to select the optimal flood protection measures. VITO

• Gantioler S., Rayment M., Bassi S., Kettunen M., McConville A., Landgrebe R.,

Gerdes H., ten Brink P. (2010) Costs and Socio-Economic Benefits associated with the

Natura 2000 Network. Final report to the European Commission, DG Environment on

Contract ENV.B.2/SER/2008/0038. Institute for European Environmental Policy /

GHK / Ecologic, Brussels

• INBO (2010) State of Nature in Flanders, Biodiversity Indicators 2010, Report of the

Research Institute for Natura and Forest, INBO.M.2010.3 http://www.inbo.be/files/bibliotheek/40/213740.pdf

• IEEP and Alterra (2010). Reflecting environmental land use needs into EU policy:

preserving and enhancing the environmental benefits of “land services”: soil sealing, biodiversity corridors, intensification / marginalisation of land use and permanent grassland. Final report to the European Commission, DG Environment on Contract ENV.B.1/ETU/2008/0030. Institute for European Environmental Policy / Alterra Wageningen UR.

• Jacobs (2004). Environment Group Research Report: An Economic Assessment of the

Costs and Benefits of Natura 2000 Sites in Scotland, 2004 Final Report, The Scottish Government. http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Resource/Doc/47251/0014580.pdf

• Liekens I., Schaafsma M., Staes J., De Nocker L., Brouwer R. en P. Meire (2009)

Economische waarderingsstudie van ecosysteemdiensten voor MKBA. Studie in opdracht van LNE, Afdeling Milieu-, Natuur- en Energiebeleid, VITO, 2009/RMA/R308.

1.3.3 Implementation of species specific conservation measures (UK)

• Dickie, I., Hughes, J. and Esteban, A. (2006) Watched like never before: the local

economic benefits of spectacular bird species. A report by RSPB. https://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/watchedlikeneverbefore_tcm9-133081.pdf

• GHK (2006) UK Biodiversity Action Plan: Preparing Costings for Species and Habitat

Action Plans Costings Summary Report. Revised Report to Defra and Partners. http://www.defra.gov.uk/evidence/economics/foodfarm/reports/documents/Biodiversit y.pdf

• JNCC (1995) A framework for Otter conservation in the UK: 1995-2000.

http://www.jncc.gov.uk/pdf/pubs99_FrameworkforOtterConservation.pdf

• Laycock, H., Moran, D., Smart, J., Raffeilli, D. and White, P. (2009) Evaluating the

cost-effectiveness of conservation: The UK Biodiversity Action Plan, Biological Conservation, Vol. 142, 12, p3120-3127.

• Maclean, N. (2010) Silent Summer: the state of wildlife in Britain and Ireland,

Cambridge University Press: Cambridge.

• Molloy, D. and Rollie, C.J. (2010). The Galloway Kite Trail: Economic impacts

within Dumfries & Galloway. RSPB Scotland, Edinburgh.

• Rayment and Dickie (2001) Conservation Works. RSPB. Sandy.

http://www.rspb.org.uk/policy/Economicdevelopment/economics/local_economies/ind

ex.asp

• Rayment, M., Pieterse, M., Graugaard, J. and Buisson, R. (2010) The Costs of

Implementing the UK BAP – 2010 Update. A final report submitted by GHK to Defra.

• RSPB (2008) Case studies as an annex to the Parliamentary Briefing on Scotland’s

biodiversity http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/BiodiversityAnnexRSPBScotlandCaseStudies_tcm9- 181721.pdf

• RSPB (2010). The State of our birds. http://www.rspb.org.uk/Images/sukb2010_tcm9-

262382.pdf

• Wildlife Trust (2009)The Otters are back! atural World, Summer 2009. .

1.3.4 Forest Fires prevention (Portugal)

• Autoridade Florestal Nacional, 2010. Relatório Provisório de Incêndios Florestais -

Fases Alfa, Bravo, Charlie e Delta. Lisboa // 1 de Janeiro a 15 de Outubro de 2010. RP10/2010 http://www.afn.minagricultura.pt/portal/dudf/relatorios/resource/ficheiros/2010/20101015-AFN-RP10.pdf

• Autoridade Florestal Nacional, 2007. Incêndios florestais – Relatório de 2007.

Relatório DFCI (Versão provisória – fases Bravo e Charlie).

• Bassi, S., Kettunen, M., Kampa, E. and Cavalieri, S. (2008) Forest Fires: Causes and

Contributing Factors to Forest Fire Events in Europe Study for the European Parliament Committee on Environment, Public Health and Food Safety under contract IP/A/ENVI/FWC/2006-172/LOT1/C1/SC10.

• GHK, 2006. Strategic Evaluation on Environment and Risk Prevention Under

Structural and Cohesion Funds for the Period 2007-2013 - National Evaluation Report for Portugal Main Report. http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/docgener/evaluation/pdf/evalstrat_env/pt_ main.pdf

• Joint Research Centre (JRC), 2004. Forest Fires in Europe 2003.

http://effis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/fire-reports

• Joint Research Centre (JRC), 2010. Forest Fires in Europe 2009.

http://effis.jrc.ec.europa.eu/reports/fire-reports

• Mendes, A. M. S. C., Feliciano, D., Tavares, M. and Dias, R., 2004. The Portuguese

Forest. Country level report delivered to the EFFE Project – Evaluating Financing in Forestry in Europe.

• Ministerio da Agricultura, do Desenvolvimento Rural e das Pescas (MADRP), 2010.

Relatório Intercalar PRODER - 1º Semestre de 2010

http://www.proder.pt/PresentationLayer/conteudo.aspx?menuid=1693&exmenuid=15

35

• Pereira, H.M, Domingos, T. and Vicente, L. (eds), 2004. Portugal Millennium

Ecosystem Assessment: State of the Assessment Report. Centro de Biologia Ambiental, Faculdade de Ciências da Universidade de Lisboa.

• Presidência Do Conselho De Ministros, 2006. Resolução do Conselho de Ministros

n.o 65/2006. Diário da República—I Série-B N.o 102—26 de Maio de 2006 (page 3511-3559)

• Santos, F.D., K. Forbes, and R. Moita (eds) (2002) Climate Change in Portugal,

Scenarios, Impacts and Adaptation Measures - SIAM Project. Gradiva, Lisboa.

1.3.5 Implementation of the IPPC Directive

• EC (2007): EC(2007)1679 – Impact Assessment: Accompanying document to the

proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on industrial emissions COM(2007)843 final i, Brussels, 21/12/2007

• EC (2010): Industrial Emissions – Prevention and control of Industrial Emissions,

website of the DG Environment, last accessed 06/12/10. Available from: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/pollutants/stationary/index.htm

• ENTEC (2007):Assessment of options to streamline legislation on industrial emissions

and analysis of the interactions between the IPPC Directive and possible emission trading schemes for NOx and SO2, report for the European Commission, buy ENTEC Ltd, July 2007

• Defra (2007): Mid-term review of the UK’s implementation of the Pollution

Prevention and Control Regulations, UK Department for Environment, food and Rural Affairs, April 2007.

• IEEP (2006): Data gathering and impact assessment for a possible review of the IPPC

Directive, report for the European Commission by IEEP, BIO, VITO, December 2006

1.3.6 anotechnologies

• BauA & VCI (2006): Exposure to Nanomaterials in Germany: Results of the

Corporate Survey of the Federal Institute for Occupational Health and Safety (BauA) and the Chemical Industry Association (VCI) Available at:

• EC (2010): Nanomaterials – summary provided on the European Commission DG

Environment website, last accessed 04/11/2010, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/chemicals/nanotech/index.htm

• EC (2010). Budget: Budget breakdown of the Seventh Framework Programme of the

European Community (EC) (2007-2013) and Euratom (2007-2011) (in EUR million). Available from: http://cordis.europa.eu/fp7/budget_en.html

• EC (2009) Information from Industry on Applied Nanomaterials and their Safety –

Background paper on options for an EU-wide reporting scheme for nanomaterials on the market, prepared for the European Commission DG Environment by Milieu and RPA consultants, September 2009. Available at: http://www.nanomaterialsconf.eu/

• EC (2008): Summary of legislation in relation to health, safety and environment

aspects of nanomaterials, regulatory research needs and related measures – SEC(2008)2036 accompanying document to COM(2008) 366 final i: Regulatory Aspects of Nanomaterials.

• EC (2008). Regulation on Classification, Labelling and Packaging (CLP)

(1272/2008/EC)

• EC (2006). Regulation on the Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction

of Chemicals (REACH) (1907/2006/EC)

• EC (2006): Technical Assistance for REACH Impact Assessment Updates –

ENTR/05/100, produced for the European Commission DG Enterprise by Risk & Policy Analysts (RPA) consultants, December 2006.

• EC (2005): The impact of REACH on the environment and human health, by the

Danish Technical Institute (DHI) for DG Environment, September 2005

• Tillinghast (2003): Asbestos: The current situation in Europe, by Salvator, L., Santoni,

A., and Michaels, M. For Tillinghurst – Towers Perrin, available at:

• Salvatori, L., Santoni, A., Michaels, D. (undated). Asbestos: The current situation in

Europe. Available from: http://www.actuaries.org/ASTIN/Colloquia/Berlin/Salvatori_Santoni_Michaels.pdf

• Poland, C.A., Duffin, R., Kinloch, I., Maynard, A., Wallace, W.A.H., Seaton, A.,

Stone, V., Brown, S., MacNee, W. And Donaldson K. (2008) Carbon nanotubes introduced into the abdominal cavity of mice show asbestos-like pathogenicity in a pilot study, Nature Nanotechnology Vol. 3 pg. 423-428.

• UBA (2010): Nanoparticle emission of selected products during their life cycle –

Summary, by Dr. T. Kulbusch & C. Nickel for the Federal Environment Agency

(Germany). Available from: http://www.uba.de/uba-info-medien-e/4028.html

1.3.7 Application of high prevention and recycling targets on bio-waste in Hungary

• ARCADIS, Eunomia (2010): ‘Assessment of the options to improve the management

of bio-waste in the European Union’ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/waste/compost/developments.htm

1.3.8 Development of windrow composting as a tool to obtain landfill diversion of

biodegradable waste for the region of Pleven in Bulgaria

• ARCADIS and partners, ‘Preparation of solid waste management measures in

Pazardjik, Pleven and Vidin regions-Bulgaria’, for the Bulgarian Ministry of Environment and Water.

1.3.9 Air emission reduction measures for the Port of Rijeka in Croatia

• ARCADIS (2009),”Technical assistance on the development of cost-efficient emission

reduction measures for the Port of Rijeka Croatia”, prepared for the Department of Foreign Affairs of the Flemish Government

• ARCADIS (2009), “Real environment related health costs” for the Department LNE

of the Flemish Government

1.3.10 Implementation of the Water Framework Directive (WFD)

• Nera & Accent (2007): Report on the benefits of Water Framework Directive

programmes of measures in England and Wales, for the UK Department for Environment, Food and Rural affairs (Defra)

• EC (2006), SEC(2006)947 Commission Staff Working Document Impact Assessment,

Proposal for a Directive of the European Parliament and of the Council on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy and amending Directive 2000/60/EC i, http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/waterdangersub/pdf/sec_2006_947_en.pdf

 
 
 

3.

Meer informatie

 

4.

EU Monitor

Met de EU Monitor volgt u alle Europese dossiers die voor u van belang zijn en bent u op de hoogte van alles wat er speelt in die dossiers. Helaas kunnen wij geen nieuwe gebruikers aansluiten, deze dienst zal over enige tijd de werkzaamheden staken.

De EU Monitor is ook beschikbaar in het Engels.