kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Europaudvalget 2018
KOM (2018) 0385
Offentligt

EUROPEAN

COMMISSION

Brussels, 1.6.2018

SWD(2018) 292 final

COMMISSION STAFF WORKING DOCUMENT

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) and

repealing Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013

{COM(2018) 385 final} - {SEC(2018) 275 final} - {SWD(2018) 293 final}

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Table of contents

INTRODUCTION: POLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT ........................................... 5

1.1.

1.2.

Scope and context ......................................................................................................... 5

Lessons learned from the previous LIFE+ programme (2007-2013) and the

current LIFE programme (2014-2020) ......................................................................... 7

1.2.1. Consultation activities..................................................................................... 11

THE OBJECTIVES ............................................................................................................ 12

2.1.

Challenges for the LIFE programme for the next MFF .............................................. 12

2.1.1. Key features of the current LIFE Programme ............................................................. 12

2.1.2. Key challenges and opportunities facing LIFE ........................................................... 13

2.1.3. Potential gaps and synergies with other EU programmes ........................................... 14

2.2.

2.3.

Expected impacts of an unchanged LIFE programme (baseline) ............................... 15

Objectives of the LIFE programme post 2020............................................................ 15

General and specific objectives for the future LIFE programme ............................................ 16

Seizing opportunities for optimising the performance of the LIFE programme...................... 17

PROGRAMME STRUCTURE AND PRIORITIES ........................................................ 18

3.1.

3.2.

3.3.

3.4.

Programme priorities .................................................................................................. 18

Critical mass ............................................................................................................... 19

The EU added value of LIFE ...................................................................................... 20

Possible enhancements to the scope and structure of the future LIFE

programme .................................................................................................................. 21

Extend the scope of the LIFE programme to include capacity-building projects related

to clean energy by adding a sub-programme on Clean Energy Transition .................. 22

3.4.2. Extend the scope of the LIFE programme to improve mainstreaming for nature and

biodiversity .................................................................................................................. 26

3.4.3. Extend eligibility of LIFE to the EU's Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs)

specifically for nature and biodiversity actions within the Environment sub-

programme .................................................................................................................. 27

3.4.1

3.5.

Conclusions................................................................................................................. 28

DELIVERY MECHANISMS OF THE INTENDED FUNDING.................................... 29

4.1.

Possible enhancements to funding mechanisms ......................................................... 29

4.1.1. Expand the scope and scale of Strategic Integrated Projects (SIPs) ............................ 29

4.1.2. Targeted support to upscale and replicate successful projects .................................... 31

4.1.3. Address the unbalanced participation of candidates from some Member States to LIFE

calls for proposals through a reinforced network of LIFE contact points and targeted

capacity-building actions ............................................................................................. 32

4.1.4. Increase the co-financing rate...................................................................................... 33

4.1.5. Systematically define and develop synergies with other instruments ......................... 33

4.1.6. Financial Instruments delivered through a central fund. ............................................. 35

4.1.7. Improving the strategic focus of the programme by simplifying the Regulation and the

MAWP. ....................................................................................................................... 36

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

4.2.

4.3.

Conclusions................................................................................................................. 37

Programme management ............................................................................................ 38

4.3.1. Package of measure to reduce the administrative burden for the

applicants/beneficiaries ............................................................................................... 38

4.3.2. Streamlined procedures for the implementation of the EU budget.............................. 39

HOW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED? .................. 39

5.1.

5.2.

Lessons learned related to the existing monitoring and evaluation framework .......... 40

Monitoring and evaluation framework for post 2020 indicators ................................ 42

5.2.1. How the outcomes and impact/catalytic role of the programme will be assessed ....... 43

5.2.2. The timetable and the evaluations of the LIFE Programme 2021-2027 ...................... 44

ANNEXES ..................................................................................................................................... 47

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Glossary

Term or acronym

BaU

BEST Initiative

CAP

Transition to Clean

Energy Programme

COSME

EAFRD

EASME

EFSI

EIB

EIC

EIT

EMFF

ERDF

Horizon Europe

GHG

IEE

IMPEL

IPs

LIFE+ Programme

Business as Usual scenario

Voluntary Scheme for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Territories of

European Overseas

European Common Agricultural Policy

The part of Intelligent Energy Europe which could be transferred into LIFE

Cohesion Fund

Europe’s programme for small and medium-sized

enterprises

General Directorate of the European Commission

European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development

European Agency for Small and Medium Enterprises

European Fund for Strategic Investments

European Investment Bank

European Innovation Council

European Institute of Innovation and Technology

European Maritime and Fisheries Fund

European Regional Development Fund

The 9

(post 2020) Research and Innovation (R&I) Framework Programmes-

Green House Gases

Intelligent Energy Europe

European Union Network for the Implementation and Enforcement of

Environmental Law

Integrated projects (LIFE 2014-2020)

Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE+)

–

years 2007-2013 - Regulation

(EC) No 614/2007 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 May 2007

concerning the

Multi Annual Work Programme

Multi-annual Financial Framework

Mid-term Evaluation of the LIFE Programme 2014-2020

National Contact Points

Natura 2000

Birds Directive: Directive 2009/147/EC of the European Parliament and of the

Council of 30 November 2009 on the conservation of wild birds and Habitats

Directive: Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of

natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora

Meaning or definition

MAWP

MFF

MTE

NCPs

N2000

Nature Directives

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

NEC Directive

NGO

OCTs

ORs

SDGs

SIPs

R&I

TFEU

National Emission Ceilings (NEC) Directive (2016/2284/EU)

Non-governmental organisations

Overseas Countries and Territories

Outermost Regions

Sustainable Development Goals

Structural Funds

Strategic Integrated Projects (post 2020 LIFE)

Research and Innovation

Treaty on the Functioning of the European Union.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

1.1.

NTRODUCTION

: P

OLITICAL AND LEGAL CONTEXT

Scope and context

This impact assessment

accompanies the Commission proposal for the future LIFE

Programme for the Environment and Climate Action 2021-2027 and satisfies the

requirements of the Financial Regulation in respect of preparing an ex-ante evaluation.

All current and future EU generations are affected by environmental and climate

problems, which impact on health, quality of life, and the availability and status of

natural resources, implying social and economic costs. The EU is a global leader for

environmental protection and climate action and - as confirmed in the President Juncker's

2017

State of the Union address

- wants to enhance this role

As highlighted in the Commission communication on the "Next steps for a sustainable

European future"

, the 2030 Agenda on Sustainable Development and the 17 Sustainable

Development Goals constitute an essential guiding principle and the contribution

provided by the EU policies shall be assessed during the future EU multi-annual financial

framework (MFF). The Commission communication on "A new, modern Multiannual

Financial Framework for a European Union that delivers efficiently on its priorities post-

2020

" acknowledges the citizens' expectations for their health, the environment and the

climate. It identifies the European added value, enhanced performance, simplification

and flexibility as the keys to a modern and effective EU budget.

At EU level, large investments in environmental and climate actions are primarily funded

by major funding programmes (mainstreaming), in particular the cohesion funds,

agriculture and rural development funds, maritime and fisheries funds, the research &

innovation programme as well as external policy instruments.

The LIFE programme is the only EU fund entirely dedicated to environmental and

climate objectives, addressed at present through two sub-programmes. With its modest

budget (currently amounting to EUR 3.5 billion for the period 2014-2020

–

0.3% of the

EU budget), it targets a niche between EU programmes supporting research and

innovation on the one hand and EU programmes financing large-scale deployment of

measures on the other hand (see Figure 1 below).

As Figure 1 illustrates, the first stage,

research/innovation,

involves primary research

that enhances scientific knowledge and technical demonstration to prove viability of

innovations. LIFE does not cover this area apart from small-scale research activities that

support other objectives in projects. LIFE mainly finances actions that come under:

the

demonstration/best practice

stage, including testing, demonstrating and

piloting the effectiveness of new technologies, approaches or policies as methods

for policy implementation.

This impact assessment follows a special template developed for the future EU programmes with the aim to

assess how the EU added value of the programmes can be enhanced.

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/state-union-2017_en

An analysis of the continued need for action in the various environmental policy areas and on climate change

to ensure compliance with the relevant EU legislation, the Paris Agreement and the implementation of the

Energy Union is presented in Annex 4.

SWD(2016) 390 final

See COM(2018) 98 final.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

the

facilitating exploitation/upscaling/awareness

stage to prepare the ground for

the large-scale deployment of appropriate technical and policy-related solutions.

LIFE also contributes to the

large-scale funding of green solutions,

where access to

funding constitutes the main barrier for the large-scale deployment of a technology,

approach or policy, which has already proved to be effective. Its contribution is via two

currently pilot financial instruments Private Finance for Energy Efficiency (PF4EE) and

Natural Capital Finance Facility (NCFF), that only operate at a relatively small scale.

Figure 1. The coverage of LIFE and other major EU programmes and funds

Source: European Commission

While LIFE activities tackle certain problems directly on the ground, the programme's

main impact is indirect through its catalytic role: the support for small-scale actions

intended to initiate, expand or accelerate sustainable production, distribution and

consumption practices by supporting:

the development and exchange of best practice and knowledge;

the building up of the capacities and speeding up the implementation of

environmental and climate legislation and policies;

stakeholders in testing small-scale technologies and solutions; and

the mobilisation of funding from other sources.

On 2 May 2018, the European Commission adopted its proposals for a new Multiannual

Financial Framework (MFF) for 2021-2027. Under these proposals, the LIFE programme

will have a budget of EUR 5 450 million over this period.

This impact assessment report reflects the MFF proposals and focuses on the changes and

policy choices which are specific to this instrument.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Among other things, it analyses the integration of part of the Intelligent Energy Europe

(IEE) programme

into the future LIFE Programme as a separate window on ''Clean

Energy Transition'' (see option 3.4.1 in chapter 3).

Moreover, it provides an assessment of the option for the establishment of dedicated

envelopes for biodiversity and the management of the Natura 2000 network

1.2.

Lessons learned from the previous LIFE+ programme (2007-2013) and the

current LIFE programme (2014-2020)

The final evaluation

of the LIFE+ Programme (2007-2013) concluded that the

programme was successful in promoting the implementation of the EU’s environmental

policy and legislation with significant EU added value. However, it also identified a

number of shortcomings. The vast majority

of these were addressed by introducing

changes to the design of the current LIFE Programme (2014-2020). For example, the

need to ensure that the projects supported had sufficient strategic focus was addressed in

the new programme by shifting from a pure bottom-up approach to a more flexible

approach, with specific thematic priorities and project topics defined for the Environment

sub-programme. Likewise, the need for further simplification in the application process

and reporting obligations was addressed by introducing a two-step application procedure

for the integrated projects, waiving the requirement to submit an external audit certificate

and/or a VAT certificate and streamlining the system to enable applicants to submit their

proposals electronically (e-proposal). Further details on these changes and their rationale

are provided in Annex 3.

The effectiveness of these changes was explored in the recent mid-term evaluation of

LIFE (MTE)

. While the evaluation was undertaken at an early stage of the programme

implementation, when only the 2014 and 2015 projects had started, it confirmed that the

programme is on track to be effective

, efficient and relevant and that it is providing a

contribution to the Europe 2020 strategy. Furthermore, most stakeholders see LIFE as

being a very important instrument for addressing environmental and climate priorities.

The lessons learned from the MTE and, where relevant, recommendations from other

reviews of the LIFE programme, are summarised below. They concern three aspects:

programme relevance, coherence and coverage; effectiveness and catalytic effect; and

efficiency and simplification. Some of the conclusions have already been taken into

account in the implementation of the current programme.

This impact assessment concerns a Programme for the Environment and Climate Action, including Clean

Energy and will analyse the option to include activities identified as "Clean Energy Transition" according to

the option in section 3.4.1. below.

This analysis of this option was requested by various stakeholders, including the European Parliament in the

resolution of 14 March 2018 on the next MFF: Preparing the Parliament’s position on the MFF post-2020

(2017/2052(INI)) - P8_TA-PROV(2018)0075. For further information see par. 2.1.1. below.

Communication from the Commission to

the European Parliament and the Council ‘Final evaluation of

Regulation (EC) No 614/2007 concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE+)’.

COM/2013/0478 final.

As described in Annex 3 the vast majority of the identified shortcomings have been addressed. Potential

remaining gaps may concern the development of greater synergies and coherence with national, regional, and

local programmes in Member States, and addressing liquidity problems for the NGOs that received operating

grants due to issues related to the speed and timing of payments.

EC (2017)

Report on the Mid-term Evaluation of the Programme for Environment and Climate. SWD(2017)

355 final.

Ecorys (2017) Support for an external and independent LIFE Mid Term Evaluation Report

Basing on the analysis of the Key Performance Indicators used to assess the performance of projects.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

1. Relevance, coherence and coverage



The

LIFE programme and its general objectives are relevant

and are targeting

the EU’s existing environmental and climate policy priorities. Also, the six

Priority Areas defined in the LIFE Regulation

are responding to the needs.



Around 13% of the LIFE projects impact more than one thematic area

. These

'overlaps' are synergetic: taking into account the interdependence of natural

resources,

multipurpose projects are more effective.

Their expected combined

impact is rewarded with bonus points during the evaluation of proposals.

The small budget, the breadth of policy objectives targeted and the new

challenges imply that not all the thematic areas could be addressed adequately by

the end of the programming period.

A critical mass to trigger a change on all

environmental and climate issues

would require a substantial increase of

the budget.

Reducing the thematic scope of the programme would have critical

consequences

in addressing one or more of the programme’s priorities (e.g.

resource efficiency, the quality of water and air, greenhouse gas emissions

reduction, marine conservation, etc.).

Synergies have been found between the projects financed by LIFE grants and

projects financed by grants from other EU programmes (e.g. demonstration

projects under Horizon 2020), as the programmes, while having distinct goals and

being different in size and nature have inter-related activities. In some areas (i.e.

nature and biodiversity including marine ecosystems) the Programme plays a

unique and essential role. Synergies and complementarities have been observed in

particular with research and rural development programmes. Still,

the systematic

development of synergy mechanisms could offer space for improvement.



2. Effectiveness and catalytic effect

What the Programme is delivering:



In general, the

various types of grants

(for standard projects, integrated projects,

technical assistance for integrated projects, preparatory projects and NGO

support)

appear to be effective delivery mechanisms.



The

integrated projects,

which coordinate the implementation of actions on a

large territorial scale, have shown a

significant potential to enhance the

catalytic effect

of LIFE

. LIFE financing of EUR 251.7 million to integrated

projects under the present programme in the period 2014-2016 is expected to

mobilise investments on environmental and climate action of about EUR

The priorities areas are: Environment and Resource Efficiency, Nature and Biodiversity, Environmental

Governance and Information, Climate Mitigation, Climate Adaptation, Climate Governance and Information.

The LIFE thematic priorities concern water, waste, resource efficiency, environment and health, climate

mitigation and adaptation. For instance, some nature and biodiversity projects impacted positively on water

quality, the marine environment and climate adaptation.

These views were echoed by a recent study. See European Parliament (November 2017) “Implementation

the 7th Environment Action Programme

–

Mid-term review”,

Brussels, European Union 2017

In their motion for resolution on the LIFE mid-term review - under adoption at the time of finalisation of this

impact assessment - the European Parliament has recognised the important potential of the integrated

projects.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

5.7 billion in total, thus for each LIFE euro spent a further 22 euros from other

sources is expected to be used in a coordinated way for environment and climate

objectives



The pilot financial instrument for energy efficiency,

Private Finance for Energy

Efficiency instrument (PF4EE)

is aimed at building up the capacity of financial

institutions to develop and test specific loan products targeting

private sector’s

investments in energy efficiency measures. It has shown a good uptake and the

possibility, after the pilot phase, to enable up-scaling of the piloted energy

efficiency loans via relevant financial instruments mobilised by EU programmes,

in particular under the future EU Invest Fund. The Committee of the Regions has

called on the LIFE programme to achieve greater complementarity between

PF4EE and other relevant financial instruments

The pilot financial instrument for natural capital,

Natural Capital Financing

Facility (NCFF),

provides loans, equity and guarantees to nature and climate

adaptation measures that can generate revenues or save costs. It is intended to

establish a pipeline of replicable, bankable operations that will serve as a "proof

of concept" to demonstrate to potential investors the attractiveness of operations

directly addressing biodiversity and climate adaptation objectives. It has

registered a slow uptake because of the need to adapt banking practices for

assessing the returns of such investments combined with the need to improve the

quality of the project applications. Several adjustments have been made as a

follow-up of the LIFE mid-term evaluation to increase the visibility of the

instrument and to operationalise the technical assistance facility. The project

pipeline has improved as a result. One of the recommendations still to be

addressed is to complement this financial support with targeted grants (blending).

Public procurement contracts are considered a valuable delivery mechanism

for providing targeted support for the preparation of environmental and climate

legislation and policies and their implementation/enforcement. They have an

important catalytic effect.

More targeted steering of projects towards key priorities could enhance the

focus and performance,

in particular for the Environment sub-programme,

where thematic priorities are defined in the Regulation for a period of seven

years. This may pose a challenge for new priorities emerging during the seven-

year programming period (such as have been in the current programming period

the Circular Economy and the related sectors

, for example plastics), or other

priorities which are not adequately targeted by projects (selected following a calls

for proposals on the basis of a bottom-up approach).

See Report on the Mid-term Evaluation of the Programme for Environment and Climate Action (LIFE).

SWD(2017) 355 final

and annex 5.

ENVE-VI/016, Opinion, Mid-term evaluation of the LIFE programme, Committee of the Regions. 121st

plenary session, 8-9 February 2017.

The Circular Economy Action Plan adopted in December 2015 - COM(2015)614

–

identifies 5 cross-sector

key areas (Production, Consumption, Waste Management, Secondary Raw Materials and

Innovation&Investments&Monitoring) as well as 5 Key sectors (Plastics, Food Waste, Construction and

Demolition, Bio-mass and biobased produts, Critical Raw Materials) that need to be addressed to set in

motion the transition to a circular economy in the EU.



What more could be done:



kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel



There is a low participation of beneficiaries from some Member States which

risks weakening the catalytic effect of the programme (see Annex 8)

. The use of

national allocations has proven not to be effective in targeting this problem: it

resulted in a reduced participation from the countries which had participated more

before without improving the participation of the others. It has been discontinued

since 2018.The capacity-building grants introduced in 2014 seem to have mixed

results but it is too early to reach any firm conclusion.

New ways of mitigating

an uneven participation of Member States should be sought.

The greater the replication of project results, the greater the catalytic effect

of LIFE.

A 2016 report

on LIFE + projects observed that, although about three

quarters of projects have good potential for replication, there is space for

improvement in actual replication. The beneficiaries mention that the main

barriers to replication

are a lack of: financial means, decision makers’ interest and

sense of urgency, specific information and communication of transferable

solutions, and investment-planning capacity.



3. Efficiency and simplification



The

delegation of management from the Commission to the Executive

Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME) delivered cost

savings and improved the efficiency of the programme,

because it introduced

economies of scale for implementing the large number of homogenous and

standardised operations needed to manage grants.



LIFE is relatively efficient compared to other EU programmes.

It costs, in

relative terms, significantly less to manage LIFE than other similar programmes

(e.g. COSME

and Horizon 2020

). The management practices characterised by

the use of external support for project monitoring has resulted in a very high

project success rate and a very low error rate

(0.25% in 2017 - the lowest across

all the EU programmes). However, there might be a potential for further

improving efficiency though adjustments of certain programme management

aspects, such as the monitoring of projects.

A potential risk of lacking continuity and loosing input from projects for

policy-making

and vice-versa due to the delegation of management from the

Commission to EASME

was mitigated

by transferring key human resources

from the Commission to EASME and by defining a strong policy-integration

strategy.

It should be noted that in terms reaching EU environmental and climate policy objectives, it is not necessarily

decisive where the coordinating LIFE beneficiary is situated.

Report on LIFE past, present and future contribution to employment and economic growth: LIFE

effectiveness and replicability. NEEMO 2016. This analysis is based on LIFE+ projects and does not take

into account the expected improvements in the current LIFE programme.

Europe’s programme for small and medium-sized

enterprises

See Report on the Mid-term Evaluation of the Programme for Environment and Climate Action (LIFE).

SWD(2017) 355 final.

The figures included in the interim evaluation of Horizon 2020 do not contradict this

statement. The information provided is that the level of administrative expenditure “stays below the level

observed in FP7 and below the stated target

of 5% of the overall budget”. For comparison, this figure in the

LIFE Programme for the period 2014-2020, is 2.4% including all EASME's expenditures.

The error rate identifies the amount that is considered at risk and is well below the materiality benchmark

threshold of 2 %, which represent the ceiling above which missing or incorrect information in financial

statements is considered to have an impact: it means that it was EUR 0.25 for every EUR 100 spent in 2017.



kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel



Beneficiaries find administrative burden too high. Thus, there is

a need to

simplify the application and reporting process.

Some simplification measures

have already been introduced and others are being tested.

1.2.1. Consultation activities

As part of the LIFE mid-term evaluation a wide range of consultation activities were

conducted. They included a 12-week public consultation with more than 250 responses,

six specific surveys with more than 200 responses, and over 150 interviews (and, where

relevant, site visits) of key stakeholder groups, including project beneficiaries, project

coordinators, external monitoring experts and financial instruments’ stakeholders.

The key messages from these consultation activities, described in more detail in Annex 2,

are included in the lessons presented in the previous section and have been taken into

account for the definition of the options.

Box 1: Summary of key messages from stakeholders consulted under the MTE of LIFE



95% of the respondents to the public consultation confirmed the need to have an EU programme for the

environment and climate.

Stakeholders emphasised that the transnational nature of LIFE plays an important role in the

programme’s effectiveness.

Stakeholders highlighted that LIFE is one of the few EU funds that supports the restoration and

maintenance of biodiversity and thus plays an important role in funding nature conservation.

Stakeholders welcomed the phasing out of national allocations but emphasised the usefulness of national

contact points. At the same time, stakeholders highlighted that there are large differences between

Member States in terms of their capacity and performance.

The large majority of respondents to the public consultation considered that all the different types of

interventions covered by LIFE are relevant for an EU programme for the environment and climate.

The majority of stakeholders considered LIFE to be both internally and externally coherent.

Stakeholders agreed that LIFE acts as a catalyst. Nevertheless, the consultation activities showed that this

potential should be further exploited.

The LIFE Programme was considered to be relevant by stakeholders to address the needs and problems in

the area of climate and environment. At the same time, the need for prioritisation and the potential

inclusion of a more ‘top-down’ approach was highlighted.

The majority of the respondents to the public consultation confirmed that the Programme has an

important EU added value because it supports the coherent development, implementation and

enforcement of EU environment and climate policy and legislation (98 % of respondents); it tackles

environmental and climate problems more efficiently (98 % of respondents); it preserves EU

environmental resources which, even if unevenly distributed across the EU, benefit the EU as a whole (94

% of respondents); it contributes to EU-wide sharing of 'best practices', knowledge transfer,

demonstration, and awareness raising (99 % of respondents).

Stakeholders had strong views on the need for further simplification, and the excessive administrative

complexity of the programme was criticised.

The high potential of integrated projects was emphasised by stakeholders.

With regards to financial instruments, stakeholders highlighted the need for grant blending and further

technical assistance. Some stakeholders also questioned the relevance and effectiveness of the NCFF.

The importance of the involvement of NGOs in environmental and climate policy was highlighted by the

stakeholders who replied to the consultation activities pointing the relevance of the LIFE operating

grants.

Ecorys (2017) Support for an external and independent LIFE Mid Term Evaluation Report



Source:

For this impact assessment, it was not considered necessary to organise a new, broad

public consultation. Still, further opinions on the LIFE mid-term evaluation results and

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

the future of the LIFE Programme were received from environmental NGOs and some

consultation activities to discuss the challenges and opportunities of the programme were

undertaken with relevant stakeholders (see Annex 2).

These consultations confirmed the conclusions of the LIFE mid-term evaluation and

provided new insights relating to the options for the new LIFE programme. A summary

of these points is presented in the box below.

Box 2: Summary of key points from other stakeholders



A wide range of environmental NGOs highlighted the importance of the LIFE Programme in funding

environmental issues even if the current budget of the programme only represents 0.3% of the total EU

MFF. At the same time, they called for more than a 3-fold

increase of the future LIFE’s budget,

arguing that LIFE should receive at least 1% of the total EU post-2020 MFF.

Given the need to increase nature

conservation efforts and the importance of LIFE’s role in supporting

biodiversity, some NGOs called to dedicate 50% of the future LIFE programme to Nature and

Biodiversity. Furthermore, several stakeholders called for the creation of a large dedicated Nature

Fund, possibly within the LIFE umbrella.

The need to increase co-financing rates was also highlighted, particularly to facilitate participation

from the Member States which are participating less. Furthermore, NGOs emphasised the need to

reduce administrative burden on project applicants in order to increase the effectiveness of the

programme.



2.1.

BJECTIVES

Challenges for the LIFE programme for the next MFF

2.1.1. Key features of the current LIFE Programme

The LIFE programme is directly managed by the European Commission (DG

Environment and DG Climate Action), although the implementation of some components

has been delegated to EASME. The European Investment Bank (EIB) manages the two

financial instruments associated with the LIFE programme 2014-2020.

The budget for the current Environment sub-programme is EUR 2.59 billion and it

targets the following Priority Areas: environment and resource efficiency; nature and

biodiversity, including terrestrial and marine ecosystems; environment governance and

information. The budget for the current Climate sub-programme is EUR 864 million and

it targets the following Priority Areas: climate mitigation; climate adaptation and climate

governance and information.

The setting of

strategic priorities

differs between the sub-programmes. The

Environment sub-programme is quite prescriptive in the Regulation and the Multiannual

Work Programmes (MAWP), whereas the Climate sub-programme enjoys a greater

flexibility, allowing, in the yearly call for proposals, the identification of key priorities in

line with the latest policy developments, e.g. the implementation of the 2015 Paris

Agreement on Climate Change.

LIFE currently has three

main types of

delivery mechanisms

(Article 17). These are:

grants (action and operating), financial instruments and public procurement

contracts.

An overview of the intervention logic and key features of the delivery

The Regulation also allows other interventions to be used in addition to these three, for the purpose of

achieving the general objectives.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

mechanisms is set out in Annex 5. As mentioned in Section 1.2, the final evaluation of

the LIFE+ Programme (2007-2013) identified several shortcomings, the vast majority of

which have been addressed in the design of the current LIFE Programme (2014-2020).

This includes changes to the action grants delivery mechanism.

The catalytic effect of the standard 'traditional'

LIFE projects

is to demonstrate suitable

technologies or methodologies for implementation of EU environment and climate

policy, which can subsequently be deployed at large scale, funded by other sources,

including the main EU funds. The LIFE

integrated projects

and

technical assistance

projects

are dedicated to facilitating the development, implementation and coordination

of large-scale actions including by bringing together stakeholders and by using

investment plans that mobilise funding from other sources. Likewise, the objective of the

financial instruments

currently being financed under LIFE is to test the possibility to

improve the leveraging of funds for environmental and climate objectives. Similarly,

support to the definition of policy and legislative targets, to the exchange of good

practices, and to the EU role of global leader in international fora, financed through the

LIFE procurement activities, further contributes to the catalytic effect of the programme.

Replication of results, including through promoting synergies with other EU

programmes, increases the catalytic effect of LIFE and enhances the added value of

EU spending overall.

For this reason, LIFE projects are required to establish a

replication plan (After

LIFE plan).

Furthermore, projects appearing to have a large

replication potential are closely monitored and beneficiaries are advised about other

funding instruments (e.g. the Horizon 2020 SME Instrument or regional development

schemes) or private investors which might provide additional funding for up-scaling.

Moreover, LIFE also magnifies the impacts of other EU programmes by taking forward

their results, particularly through awarding bonus points for project applications that take

up results from Horizon 2020 or previous research programmes.

It is challenging to determine the full impact of the LIFE programme because of its

catalytic effect. The full effect of a LIFE project often materialises 5-7 years after the

project has been completed, and may manifest itself in societal transformations that are

hard to measure.

2.1.2. Key challenges and opportunities facing LIFE

The key challenges and problems to be addressed by the future LIFE programme remain

largely unchanged compared to the current programme, as illustrated in the needs

analysis of Annex 4 and summarised below:



The urgent need of transforming society to a clean, circular, energy-efficient,

low-carbon and climate-resilient economy, with a high level of environmental

protection and of halting and reversing biodiversity loss.

Insufficient availability and use of efficient environmental, climate-friendly and

low-carbon methods across different sectors.

Insufficient knowledge, know-how and information.

Insufficient levels of compliance with EU environmental and climate policy and

legislation, and weak environmental and climate governance at all levels.



kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

However, as highlighted by the World Economic Forum in its 2018 Report on Global

Risks

the urgency of facing up to systemic challenges has intensified, in particular in

the field of environmental degradation and climate change.

In order to adequately address these systemic problems and failures, both environmental

and climate mainstreaming as well as targeted funding are needed. Furthermore, as

mentioned in Annex 4, allocations to integrated projects should be scaled up by at least

four-fold to achieve increased replication and large-scale deployment, particularly as

regards mainstreaming of nature and biodiversity objectives into other financing

programmes/instruments.

These challenges are developing rapidly over time, which accentuates the need for

having a LIFE programme which is sufficiently flexible to target the evolving needs

throughout the programming period as well as having a sufficient critical mass of finance

to catalyse real societal transformation.

In designing the new LIFE Programme, there is a need to address the specific challenges

mentioned in Section 1.2 above, as well as to address the cross-cutting objectives

flexibility, focus on performance, coherence and synergies, simplification, which are

mentioned in the Commission Communication on "A new, modern Multiannual

Financial Framework for a European Union that delivers efficiently on its priorities post-

2020

"..

2.1.3. Potential gaps and synergies with other EU programmes

An analysis of potential gaps and synergies with other EU programmes is presented in

Annex 6. In general, it confirms the conclusions from the LIFE mid-term evaluation that

overlaps in financing stages related to implementation and development of environment

and climate policy are synergetic. Nevertheless, if potential synergies could be exploited

more systematically, this would enhance the performance of all the programmes.

Moreover, considering the similar objective and stage in the shift to a greener Europe

(see Figure 1) targeted by the LIFE Climate sub-programme and the IEE part of Horizon

2020, integrating the IEE programme into the future LIFE Programme could increase the

coherence of the EU budget

At the same time the analysis shows some gaps related to the financing of specific

environmental, climate and energy objectives, in particular regarding:



Conservation of biodiversity and sustainable use of ecosystem services in the

EU's Outermost Regions (ORs) and Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs),

which is presently supported through the BEST initiative

Nature and biodiversity, where several evaluations and assessments (notably the

mid-term review of the EU Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 and the Nature Fitness



https://www.weforum.org/reports/the-global-risks-report-2018

See COM(2018) 98 final.

For the distinction see Figure 1 “The coverage of LIFE and other major EC programmes and funds”.

The financing comes from past pilot projects and a 2018 preparatory action. The preparatory action was

required by the Budgetary Authority and can be renewed for a maximum of three consecutive years.

According to the Financial Regulation, a preparatory action is designed to prepare a proposal for the adoption

of future actions. For more information see:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/best/index_en.htm.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Check), and a recent study

highlighted the shortcomings of the current

integration approach to nature and biodiversity financing.

2.2.

Expected impacts of an unchanged LIFE programme (baseline)

The continuation of the LIFE programme in its current format, and scale, in the next

MFF would likely see a similar outcome as that described in the mid-term evaluation and

in Annex 5. However, this would result in sub-optimal effectiveness in reaching the

programme’s overall objectives, particularly when considering the emerging new

challenges including for circular economy and the plastics strategy, as well as the needs

for nature protection, including in the marine environment.

Thus, positive environmental impacts, highlighted by previous evaluations, would

continue to be delivered in each of the programme’s thematic areas:

air quality and

emissions; biodiversity; climate change adaptation, climate change mitigation;

environmental and health; nature; resource efficiency; waste and water.

While the programme would continue to act as a catalyst to promote changes in the

development and implementation of environmental and climate policies, it is not

expected to reach its full potential as a catalyst without seizing the opportunity to

address the specific challenges mentioned in section 1.2 above, as well as the cross-

cutting MMF objectives. In particular, some gaps would remain in the funding of certain

environmental and climate challenges. Furthermore, the continuation of the programme

in its current format would not ensure extensive coherence between the LIFE programme

and other EU funds.

Without an increase in funding for certain environmental and climate challenges, the

scale of action taken may be insufficient to address the associated problems sufficiently

(see Annex 4). The funding of nature projects is one such example

. Likewise, there may

be gaps in financial support for some of the new and increasingly urgent environmental

and climate challenges.

Prioritisation between the various strands of LIFE is not possible because there is no

hierarchy of objectives in environment and climate policy. Furthermore, multiple

interlinked priorities are addressed by more than one strand of the programme, which

makes prioritising one strand above another impossible. Thus, if the scope were

broadened without an increase in budget, the funding available for all existing activities

would have to be consistently decreased and the needs described in Annex 4 would not

be adequately addressed.

The programme will continue to support existing, and promote new, jobs in

environmental and climate fields as well as supporting the development of skills,

knowledge, and innovation

2.3.

Objectives of the LIFE programme post 2020

Kettunen, M. et al., Integration approach to EU biodiversity financing: evaluation of results and analysis of

options for the future. Final report for the European Commission (DG ENV) (Project

ENV.B.3/ETU/2015/0014), Institute for European Environmental Policy (IEEP), Brussels/ London, January

2017.

See Annex 4

–

Needs analysis for a more detailed estimate.

For the contribution of LIFE to employment see the Staff Working Document for the Mid term Evaluation,

pp.39-40

as well as ‘LIFE past, present and future contribution to employment and economic growth. LIFE

effectiveness and replicability’ NEEMO 2016.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

General and specific objectives for the future LIFE programme

On the basis of the key challenges to be addressed by the LIFE Programme, the

general

objective

for the future LIFE Programme is:

Box 3:

General objective of the LIFE Programme 2021-2027

To contribute to the shift towards a clean, circular, energy-efficient, low-carbon and

climate-resilient economy, including through the transition to clean energy, to the

protection and improvement of the quality of the environment and to halting and

reversing biodiversity loss

, thereby contributing to sustainable development.

The general objective of the next LIFE Programme has been simplified but not changed

in substance compared to the current LIFE Programme, which has four general

objectives. Furthermore, while a contribution towards a transition to clean energy is

already covered by the current objectives, this transition is mentioned explicitly in the

future objective in order to reflect the appropriateness of considering the activities

discussed under Option 1 in Section 3.4.1.

In response to the general objective, the implementation of the Programme will be

optimised in terms of coverage and delivery mechanisms (see Sections 3 and 4), by

pursuing, in line with the cross-cutting objectives of the MFF, greater efficiency

(simplification and flexibility), an improved coherence and better synergy with other

programmes as well as increased effectiveness.

Although the new programme will not explicitly mention 'priority areas,' its actions will

continue to address all topics covered by the current priority areas, as they are relevant

according to the results of the mid-term evaluation. Moreover, to take into account the

possible integration into LIFE of the transition to clean energy, an additional focus has

been added on energy efficiency and renewable energy. As a result, the following

specific objectives have been set as follows:

Box 4:

Specific objectives of the LIFE Programme 2021-2027

1. To develop, demonstrate and promote innovative techniques and approaches for

reaching the objectives of the Union legislation and policy on environment and

climate action, including the transition to clean energy, and to contribute to the

application of best practice in relation to nature and biodiversity.

To support the development, implementation, monitoring and enforcement of the

relevant Union legislation and policy, including by improving governance through

enhancing capacities of public and private actors and the involvement of civil society.

To catalyse the large-scale deployment of successful technical and policy-related

solutions for implementing the relevant Union legislation and policy by replicating

results, integrating related objectives into other policies and into public and private

sector practices, mobilising investment and improving access to finance.

The specific objectives are consistent with those established by the present LIFE

Regulation, but they have been consolidated, giving more focus to replication and the

triggering of large-scale deployment. This responds to the findings of the MTE. The

present LIFE Regulation has several specific objectives for each of its six priority areas,

which are partly repetitive.

Through these specific objectives, LIFE should continue to contribute to a societal

transformation through its catalytic effect targeting the implementation of EU climate

and environment policy goals, including compliance with the relevant EU acquis. The

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

main source of EU finance for environmental, climate and energy action must continue to

come from other EU programmes (mainstreaming).

Seizing opportunities for optimising the performance of the LIFE programme

To address the cross-cutting objectives of the future MFF and take advantage of the

lessons learned, the new LIFE programme aims at achieving four operational goals,

which are presented below together with the issues/opportunities to be addressed and the

relevant parts of the programme

–

coverage, delivery mechanism, programme

management

–

in which they will be addressed.

Box 5: Operational challenges and opportunities in line with the MMF cross-cutting

objectives

Operational goals

1. To avoid gaps and

ensure coherence with

other EU programmes

Issues addressed

• Lack of finance for action on

nature and biodiversity in the EU

• Lack of finance for biodiversity in

ORs and OCTs.

• Opportunity to improve the

coherence with IEE

Relevant part

of LIFE

Programme coverage: geographical

and technical scope; delivery

mechanism

2. To improve the

strategic focus of LIFE

Limited flexibility to provide funds

for new and key environmental and

climate priorities and launch

strategically focused calls.

Unbalanced accessibility for

beneficiaries in different Member

States

Build on LIFE project successes

and improve synergies with other

EU programmes

Under-utilised potential for

Strategic Integrated projects

Delivery mechanism: strategic

flexibility

3. To improve LIFE's

performance

and

catalytic role

Delivery mechanism: Improve

awareness and know-how in Member

States

Delivery mechanism: increase

effectiveness /sustainability of

projects

Delivery mechanism: scope of

integrated projects, and specific

project type for nature mainstreaming.

Delivery mechanism: improve the

implementation of the financial

instruments

Programme management:

management costs

Opportunity to improve the

leverage effect

4: To increase the

efficiency and simplify

the management of LIFE

Potential opportunities to improve

specific elements of the programme

management

Potential opportunities to improve

specific elements of the monitoring

and evaluation processes

Potential opportunities to simplify

the application procedures for

certain beneficiaries

Programme management: monitoring

and evaluation

Programme management: application

procedures

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

3.1.

ROGRAMME STRUCTURE AND PRIORITIES

Programme priorities

Fundamentally, the priorities of the LIFE programme 2021-2027 remain unchanged from

the present programme, namely to support the development and implementation of the

EU's environment and climate policy, through catalytic actions that improve compliance

on the ground at all levels.

The operational challenges and the options to change the programme in order to address

them are described in the box below.

Box 6: Operational challenges to the LIFE programme and corresponding options

Operational challenge

Potential to cover gaps and to

increase the coherence with other EU

Funds.



Options to address the challenges

Business as Usual (BAU)

Extend the scope of the LIFE programme to

include capacity building projects related to

renewable and sustainable energy (the Clean

Energy Transition Programme as far as not

retained in Horizon Europe, excluding market

uptake of first of a kind innovations)

Extend the scope of the LIFE programme to

improve mainstreaming for nature and

biodiversity

Extend the scope of the LIFE programme to

include large scale deployment activities for

nature

Extend full eligibility of LIFE to the EU's

Overseas Countries and Territories across all sub-

programmes

Extend eligibility of LIFE to the EU's Overseas

Countries and Territories specifically for nature

and biodiversity actions within the Environment

sub-programme

BAU

Expand the scope and scale of integrated projects

Reduce the priority areas

Removal of thematic priorities and activities from

Annex III of the Regulation for the Environment

sub-programme

Remove prohibition of further pre-allocation in the

MAWP or annual calls and reduce number of

budget ceilings in the Regulation

Financial Instruments delivered through a central

fund

BAU

Systematically define and develop synergies with

other instruments

Targeted support (e.g. technical assistance) to

upscale and replicate successful results

Replace capacity building projects with a



Lack of flexibility to focus

strategically on the latest key

priorities, in particular under the

Environment sub-programme and

lack of flexibility to use the best mix

of delivery mechanisms due to

different spending ceilings in the

LIFE Regulation.



Potential for further systematically

enhancing the performance and

catalytic effect of the different

delivery mechanisms, including

improving synergies with other EU

programmes, further facilitating

replication, improving accessibility to



kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

LIFE funds for beneficiaries across

the different Member States;

Potential for enhancing further the

efficiency of the management of

LIFE; including simplification and

reduction of administrative burden

on beneficiaries

reinforced network of LIFE contact points



Increase the co-financing rate

BAU

Further delegation of management responsibilities

to EASME

Retraction of management responsibilities from

EASME

Allocation of grants to selected organisation

without the need for a call for proposals

Reducing budget lines

Package of measures to simplify the life of

applicants/beneficiaries (e.g. simplified costs

options, output based payments, two-step approach,

cascading grants, etc.)

As can be seen in their description in Annex 8, these options are not alternatives, but

rather measures that are assessed individually and can function in synergy. In Annex 8,

the effectiveness, efficiency and coherence of each one of these options has been

analysed and some of them have been discarded. Many of the options can be

implemented without a net increase to the budget; where additional budget would be

required this is described in annex 8 and below.

Given the synergistic nature of the EU's environment and climate policies that underlie

the LIFE programme and the fact that it is not appropriate to establish a hierarchy

between the different environmental and climate policy areas, in case the budget is

lowered, there will be a proportional reduction of the budget for the sub-programmes and

thus a general reduction in funding for all activities covered by the LIFE programme.

3.2.

Critical mass

As described above, the programme's main impact arises from its catalytic actions to

promote the substantial societal transformation required to achieve the full range of EU's

environmental, climate and clean energy objectives.

Annex 4 describes the overall level of change required for each thematic area covered by

the Programme, based on the scale of the problems to be addressed. Given that the role of

LIFE is to catalyse change, in order to reach the overall goals, a critical mass is required

not only in LIFE but also in other financing sources which are 'mobilised' by LIFE

actions. Any reduction from the present levels of financing would spread the funding too

thinly across different thematic areas, for the full catalytic effects to be realised.

Therefore, any expansion of thematic coverage or any new emerging priority will need to

be accompanied by an adequate funding increase

or by the definition of negative or

limited priorities. The concept of negative priorities is difficult to apply in the

environmental and climate spheres there is a demonstrated interdependence among the

different priorities (e.g. air, water, nature and biodiversity, resource efficiency, climate

mitigation, etc..).

The source of funding may depend on the nature of expansion. For those areas where the scope of the LIFE

programme is expanding to address gaps or improve synergies with other programmes, some funding may be

made available through budget transfers from the relevant programmes. However, in cases where the

expansion is to address new priorities, or scale up activities, this would require a new source of funding.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

The specific unmet needs in the area of nature and biodiversity indicate that the critical

mass needed, including to promote coordinated used of complementary funding sources,

is significantly more than presently allocated.

Further elements on an appropriate level of support for the different priority areas,

defining also the need for the Strategic Integrated Projects, are provided in Annex 4.

3.3.

The EU added value of LIFE

The EU added value of the LIFE Programme is recognised by almost all stakeholders and

the general public. Its approach is unique as it is specialised in catalytic interventions

primarily targeting issues concerning environmental protection and climate action.

According to the MTE, LIFE is fulfilling its role as a catalyst by sharing best practices

and supporting actions to accelerate change.

Highlighting its catalytic role, LIFE responds to cross-border environmental challenges,

which a Member State is unlikely to address alone or which would risk leading to a

duplication of efforts by Member States.

The programme's value added stems from its support to EU environmental and climate

policy development, as well as its support to activities enhancing the ability to meet EU

environmental and climate objectives across the EU. More homogenous implementation

is achieved because LIFE represents an EU-level platform for sharing best practice and

for the demonstration of more efficient solutions as well as by giving priority to projects

that can be replicated at a wider scale in the EU

LIFE allows a better sharing of responsibility and promotes solidarity for the

management/conservation of EU environmental assets, which are usually public goods,

which are not evenly distributed across the EU. Their associated costs and benefits are

not normally reflected in the market and, as a consequence, there is the need to ensure a

sharing of associated burden.

LIFE focusses on relatively small-scale projects providing one-off investment needed in

a specific area, eliminating initial barriers and testing new approaches which in turn

catalyse broader actions and mainstreaming of environmental and climate policy into the

major EU spending instruments.

Through strategic integrated projects, and the new strategic nature projects, the

Programme will create synergies across EU and national funds which ease

implementation of the relevant EU legislation.

Furthermore, LIFE finances those actions and measures that would otherwise be

inadequately financed by Member States alone. Certain pieces of EU environmental

legislation, such as the Habitats Directive and the National Emission Ceilings (NEC)

directive, specifically acknowledge the need for EU finance to meet their objectives

2016 Annual Management and Performance Report for the EU Budget, COM(2017) 351 final

See article 8 of Council Directive 92/43/EEC and article 7 of Directive 2016/2284/EU..

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

3.4.

Possible enhancements to the scope and structure of the future LIFE

programme

The internal structure and scope of the present LIFE instrument is generally considered

sufficiently fit-for-purpose albeit there is room for broadening its scope and size, and

reflecting the possible expanded scope in the area of transition to clean energy (see

section 3.4.1) and nature (see section 3.4.2) through dedicated sub-programmes. Indeed,

as described in Annex 6, there are potential gaps in meeting the needs for environment

and climate finance in the various EU instruments as well as opportunities to enhance

synergies between them.

To address these challenges and better meet the related operational goal of avoiding gaps

and ensuring coherence with other EU programmes, several options relating to potential

changes in the scope and structure of the LIFE programme were identified and then

screened in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. Annex 8, section 1 presents

the relevant options and the results of the screening. The most promising options are

summarised in Box7 below. They are further analysed in sections 3 and 4.

Box 7: Options retained after initial screening

In accordance with the methodology described in annex 7, the impacts of the options are

considered taking into account environmental, social and economic factors, however only

those impacts which differ from the status quo are mentioned. In practice, and in view of

the fact that the options were conceived with the purpose of improving the effectiveness

of the LIFE programme to meet its environment and climate policy goals, most of the

observed net impacts concern environmental factors.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

3.4.1

Extend the scope of the LIFE programme to include capacity-building projects

related to clean energy by adding a sub-programme on Clean Energy

Transition

This option is introduced to respond to the operational challenge to increase coherence

between EU instruments and further develop synergies between the funded actions.

This option would involve extending the scope of projects supported through LIFE to

include the capacity-building activities of the Intelligent Energy Europe Programmes

(IEE)

, along with the necessary funding. Focusing on energy efficiency and small-scale

renewables that contribute to climate mitigation, the relevant activities would be funded

under a new Clean Energy Transition sub-programme.

Their objective is to enable socio-economic transformation for transition to clean energy

in Europe, especially with those regions, sectors and actors who need to catch up (e.g.

cities, coal and carbon-intensive regions in transition, islands). The transition to clean

energy is an essential contribution to the mitigation of climate change with co-benefits

for the environment and in line with the LIFE framework. These activities address the

different elements of the market environment by developing and spreading best practice

in policy implementation, mobilising investments, improving skills, creating favourable

market conditions for technology deployment and providing support to socio-economic

transformation and addressing vulnerabilities.

Lessons learnt:

The evaluation of IEE and the integration in Horizon 2020 under the Societal Challenge

3, did not reveal major weaknesses and confirmed the effectiveness of the funded actions.

The integration of the Clean Energy Transition sub-programme in LIFE is expected to

lead to improvements and address the shortcomings of the current approach as presented

in Annex 9, section 9.3. The main shortcoming, which will be addressed, is the different

focus of the R&I framework programme which does not specifically aim at supporting

capacity building activities.

The integration of IEE III into Horizon 2020, with different objectives, clients and

funding logic, has proved to be difficult and the current proposal is to continue these

activities under a better suited framework. The inclusion of IEE-like actions under the

R&I programme followed the logic of installing a comprehensive programme covering

all steps from basic research to market uptake and deployment. However, in the report on

the first results of Horizon 2020 on energy efficiency

the evaluators point out that

mainly large consortia are funded, too little support is given for the applicants and that

the impact on national policies could be improved. Also, higher barriers to participation

in Horizon 2020 than in IEE actions are mentioned (see Annex 9 9.2.2.

Lessons learnt

from the current MFF

for the details).

Conclusions for the next MFF:

Activities addressing the market uptake of energy innovation, building on the Intelligent Energy Europe

(IEE) programme 2007-2013, are presently part of Horizon 2020 - Energy Challenge (Societal Challenge 3).

The Commission committed in its Declaration on Horizon 2020, to dedicate at least 15% of the Energy

Challenge budget to Intelligent Energy Europe III Programme. See the Declarations of the Commission

(2013/C 373/02) annexed to Horizon 2020 regulation (EU) N°1291/2013

Ricardo AEA, CE Delft (2017): Report on the first results of Horizon 2020 on energy efficiency and system

integration

–

Final report

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

The Horizon Europe programme does not specifically cover 'capacity building'

activities in its scope

The R&I programme objective is to

fund excellent research and innovation,

supporting pioneers

who will show the way. But the EU has also the responsibility to

help laggards and followers 'catching up' by

building the capacity

in order to quickly

narrow the gap. There is also a need to address specific

barriers hampering the wide

uptake

of the existing clean energy solutions. For the massive

market roll-out,

'expected impact' and 'quality of implementation' criteria should outweigh the criterion of

'scientific excellence', which has less of relevance for capacity building.

Based on this conclusion

the unsuitability of the R&I framework for capacity

building is confirmed in the R&I FP proposal

for the next MFF, where the clear

demarcation is made in the Horizon Europe Impact Assessment between a 'first-of-the-

kind market uptake of innovation' and 'capacity building for a large-scale market uptake'.

As stated in the Horizon Europe impact assessment improving market uptake of

innovative solutions is a broad concept encompassing various activities, which help R&I

-driven innovation to succeed on the market and create new value for market players and

consumers/citizens alike. However, market uptake goes beyond research and innovation.

Therefore, activities under the Framework Programme alone cannot suffice to incentivise

broad market uptake and dissemination of innovative solutions. Other EU programmes

need to also play a key role (see Horizon Europe Impact Assessment Annex 7 on

Synergies).

2. Bringing the clean energy capacity building and deployment activities under the

LIFE programme will increase the coherence of the European funding landscape

As research and innovation activities would rest with Horizon Europe, the

clear

distinction

between excellent

research and innovation,

including market uptake of first

of a kind innovations, on the one side and supporting the

catching-up and rolling-out

processes by capacity building, removing barriers and shaping market on the other side

leads to improving the

coherence of EU funding landscape.

This coherence would

allow the Clean Energy Transition sub-programme to

tailor its interventions

closely to the often limited capacity of catch-up actors and territories and

lower the

barriers for participation

in the programme (see Annex 9 for a comprehensive review

of barriers to energy efficiency uptake).

3. LIFE provides the best suitable framework and the potential for synergies while the

differences in the implementation know-how will be mutually enriching when

integrating the Clean Energy Transition sub-programme.

Programme coherence and avoidance of overlaps:

LIFE provides a suitable regulatory environment, taking into account its intervention

logic, legal base and delivery mechanisms aiming to implement EU environment and

climate policy. The LIFE programme offers the possibility to host the clean energy

capacity building that contributes to climate mitigation in a clearly structured but at the

same time flexible framework. Installing the Clean Energy Transition sub-programme in

LIFE would ensure that potential theoretical overlaps between LIFE and the present IEE

III are avoided (see annex 6 for a discussion) and that gaps between the two programmes

are filled.

b. Synergies and multiplier effects:

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Joining forces would enable

synergy effects,

which can be triggered by the projects

implemented under the common framework (tackling energy efficiency, greenhouse gas

emissions and local air pollutants at the same time). Such a synergetic action between the

projects and the underlying policies is already observed

, like in the case of the

Covenant of Mayors initiative, and it will be further strengthened

. There is also a

potential for exploiting synergies between actions supporting capacity building for clean

energy transition on the one hand and strategic LIFE integrated projects focusing on

implementing climate mitigation plans at a larger scale. These synergies could be more

easily exploited if these actions were funded under the same programme (see also

Appendix 3 to Annex 9, summarising some examples of the existing synergies in the

projects and initiatives for environment, climate and clean energy).

c. Further development of the implementation know-how:

The clean energy transition enabling actions funded under IEE and its continuation in

Horizon 2020 have developed their own

implementation intelligence, know-how and

close interactions with policy-making,

which are exemplary across all the centrally-

managed EU funding activities. This precious experience needs to be preserved, while

the implementation modalities and instruments available in LIFE are definitely worth

exploring. This justifies the integration of Clean Energy Transition as a separate sub-

programme, which would allow differences in implementation approaches and facilitate

clear communication to the stakeholders.

Implementation knowledge cross-fertilization

would be facilitated by the fact that both

LIFE and IEE activities in Horizon 2020 are implemented by EASME and the frequent

interactions and common initiatives (e.g. common projects feedback workshops) are

already in place between the units implementing both programmes.

Simplification potential:

The evaluation of IEE type of actions under Horizon 2020

suggests that there is a clear

potential for simplifying the presently complex application procedures. The review

showed that the Horizon 2020 framework favours bigger projects and large consortia,

putting forward resource-intensive research and innovation efforts. This crowds out

smaller participants and projects. In consequence there is not only a need for simplified

administration on the side of the Commission, but also the need to guarantee simple and

open access to the programmes for the potential beneficiaries, especially catching-up

actors with limited capacities (see Annex 9.3.3.

Simplification efforts for details).

Assessment of the integration option:

Please see the examples provided in Annex 9 Appendix 3: Examples of synergies in the projects and

initiatives for environment, climate and clean energy

ICF International, LDK, Hinicio (2015): Evaluation of Intelligent Energy Europe Projects Supporting

Sustainable Energy Communities. Final report. ICF review the relation of IEE support for communities and

the Covenant of Mayors. Apart from quantifying the multiplier effects generated by the programmes (e.g.

set-up and signing of SEAPs) they identify investments triggered by a sample of 30 projects (€8.3bn,

p. 91),

RES production of 935.000 toe/yr.; primary energy savings of 1,938,000 toe/yr. and 7,700,000 tCO2eq.

reduced (p. 92). The consortium estimates based on a survey that by the end of the projects some 5,470 jobs

and 17,373 jobs by 2020 resulted through the projects. 78% of survey respondents confirmed that the

respective project would not have been implemented in the absence of IEE funding (figure 43, p. 96).

Ricardo AEA, CE Delft (2017)

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

The Horizon 2020 sustainable energy capacity building projects are currently managed

by EASME and currently sit within the Horizon 2020 budget programme with an

allocation ~€135 million per year

. A planned expansion of the allocated annual budget

for these projects to ~€171 million could include the policy support and capacity building

for renewables Particular focus is given to capacity building related to the

implementation of the climate and energy package in the Member States, as a key enabler

for acceleration of the technological, financial and social transformation.

This option would extend the current thematic coverage of LIFE to explicitly include

capacity building for policy implementation and investment mobilisation for the uptake

of existing technologies related to: energy efficiency and small-scale, distributed

renewable energy

sources for climate mitigation. The option will not include projects

on biofuels.

The option would not require any change to the current management modes, delivery

mechanism and type of projects financed under LIFE.

Table 3.1: Assessment of option 1

Relevant conclusions from screening results

Effectiveness

+ Greater concentration of financial resources would improve capacity to have a

greater catalytic effect.

+ Increased coherence in the overall MFF structure since the actions to be financed

under this extension correspond better to those already financed by LIFE as regards

their size, nature and objectives, as compared to the other projects financed under the

framework programme for research and innovation.

+ Increased synergies

in energy, environmental and climate policies implementation

on the ground and improved coherence of the EU funding landscape.

Impact assessment (qualitative assessment)

Economic

impacts

Social impacts

Environmental

impacts

Conclusions

Greater positive impacts, in particular on ensuring coherence and synergies. Potential negative

implementation-coherence impact and increased administrative burdens.

+ Potential accrued economic impact due to the integration into LIFE, although the

activities were already in place under a different programme.

+ Increased number of beneficiary groups

+ Potential accrued environmental impact due to the integration into LIFE, although

the related activities were already in place under a different programme.

Coherence

The figure corresponds to annual funding allocated to capacity building activities in Horizon 2020- Societal

Challenge 3 based on the current programming period 2018/2019.

Not to be covered under this programme large-scale investment in renewable energy infrastructure (e.g. wind

farms, hydro power plants).

With the implementation of clean energy policies, environmental vulnerabilities such as local air pollutants

are often addressed as well. The same is true for economic synergies, such as the creation of jobs. Whereas

these economic and environmental indicators have not been systematically addressed by the present

programmes indicators, several projects have identified these co-benefits.

To target a wider range of beneficiaries, which are at present underrepresented under Horizon 2020 where

the support is given mainly to large consortia. . Especially higher barriers and a complex application process

are reported in surveys. These impediments can be expected to be significantly higher with disfavoured

regions and actors. Ricardo AEA, CE Delft (2017): Report on the first results of Horizon 2020 on energy

efficiency and system integration

–

Final report.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

3.4.2. Extend the scope of the LIFE programme to improve mainstreaming for nature

and biodiversity

This option, as the one to finance large scale deployment activities for nature and

biodiversity which was discarded during the preliminary screening (see Annex 8)

intends to address, at least partially, the

unmet needs in the area of nature and biodiversity

Under this option, LIFE would include a specific sub-programme for 'nature and

biodiversity' covering both the terrestrial and marine environment. This 'nature and

biodiversity' sub-programme would consist of a reinforced centrally managed component

funding actions similar to those presently implementing the Nature and Biodiversity

priority area of LIFE through 'traditional' standard action projects, as well as funding a

new type of dedicated strategic nature projects.

The strategic nature projects (SNPs) would reinforce the implementation of Union nature

and biodiversity objectives through mainstreaming these objectives into other policies

and funding instruments. These projects will support the implementation of programmes

of action for each Member State, including the coordination of finance available for

large-scale nature and biodiversity actions, with a particular focus on the Natura 2000

network and the implementation of the prioritised action frameworks established

pursuant to the Habitats Directive

This option does not change the objectives of LIFE, nor does it significantly alter the

structure of delivery mechanisms of the Programme. This option would be

complemented by actions, particularly under the European Agricultural Fund for Rural

Development (which presently provides 75% of EU funding for nature), the European

Regional Development Fund/Cohesion Fund and the European Maritime and Fishery

Fund, that target direct investments in nature conservation and biodiversity or that

contribute indirectly to protecting nature and biodiversity. The effectiveness of this

approach is therefore dependent on adequate allocation of funding under these other

instruments.

Table 3.2: Assessment of option 2

Relevant conclusions from screening results

++ This option would be an effective, targeted solution having the conservation

of nature as overarching objective.

+ It would facilitate the smooth transfer of best practices developed in the

classical LIFE actions to large scale implementation actions implemented in the

Member States.

+ Uptake of the funds for nature actions, which has sometimes been sub-optimal

under the CAP and Structural Funds, would be enhanced due to a greater role

for the environment authorities who would be better placed to ensure uptake.

Impact assessment (qualitative assessment)

Economic impacts

Social impacts

- Planning and coordination effort needed from the environment authorities.

++ Positive impact on governance: the establishment of dedicated managing

Effectiveness

An option to create a large shared managed fund for nature under the LIFE programme was considered

during the screening phase of this Impact Assessment, but found to imply a too significant change to the

structure and vocation of the LIFE programme. See Annex 8, section 1.

Habitats Directive: Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and

of wild fauna and flora

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

authorities would ensure the close articulation of actions with nature policy

activities in the MSs; it would ensure a smooth transfer of best practices

developed in the classical LIFE actions to large-scale implementation actions

implemented in the Member States.

Environmental impacts

Other considerations

Relevance

EU added value

+ It will address the gap in financing for nature and biodiversity in EU, and

would support implementation of EU nature legislation, including in the marine

environment, in line with findings of the Nature fitness check.

+ High EU added value since natural capital is a quintessential EU public good.

+ Experience with integration of nature and biodiversity in the CAP has so far

fallen short of expectations

. The 2017 "Communication on the future of

farming and food" recognises the link between agriculture and environment and

the need to integrate environmental objectives as a means to ensure coherence

between policies and to enhance the delivery of natural capital public goods in

rural areas. The strategic nature projects would specifically improve this.

++ Increase in nature and biodiversity large-scale deployment projects, direct

positive impacts

Mainstreaming

coherence

and

Conclusions

Effective targeting of support for financing for nature and biodiversity, with positive social and

environmental impacts. Potential small negative economic impacts as a result of increased administrative

burden. Coherence with mainstreaming approach.

3.4.3. Extend eligibility of LIFE to the EU's Overseas Countries and Territories

(OCTs) specifically for nature and biodiversity actions within the Environment sub-

programme

This option would involve a change in the Article 6 provision of the LIFE Regulation,

allowing the eligibility of projects on nature and biodiversity in OCTs countries under

the same conditions as the ones in the EU.

The BEST scheme

has addressed a gap related to the financing for biodiversity in the

Outermost Regions (ORs) and in the OCTs. It has allowed substantial synergies and its

financing should be continued.

In the absence of a specific legal basis, the financing of this scheme is decided each year

by the Budgetary Authority: in 2018 a preparatory action has been financed. According

to the Financial Regulation, a preparatory action is designed to prepare a proposal for the

adoption of future actions and cannot be renewed for more than 3 consecutive years.

There is therefore the need to provide a (more) stable financing framework for the

continuation of BEST in the next MFF.

The external development instrument, the regional funds or the LIFE Programme could

constitute such framework. However, given the need to include both ORs and OCTs, the

eligibility rules of the concerned programme, whatever it will be, would need to be

ECA special report No 21/2017: Greening: a more complex income support scheme, not yet environmentally

effective.

The

BEST

–

voluntary scheme for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Territories of European overseas

–

initiative aims to support the conservation of biodiversity and sustainable use of ecosystem services

including ecosystem-based approaches to climate change adaptation and mitigation in the EU Outermost

Regions (ORs) and Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs).

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

changed. Taking into account the type of actions (small-scale grants) and the specific

sector (biodiversity), the LIFE Programme seems to be the most suitable framework,

subject to additional funding being made available.

This option would allow the continuation of the financing of the BEST scheme under

LIFE under its Nature and Biodiversity sub-programme.

Table 3.3: Assessment of option 3

Relevant conclusions from screening results

Effectiveness

+ Secured future for the BEST initiative, supporting the financing of small-

scale demonstration projects related to biodiversity in both the OCTs and the

ORs (which are already eligible under LIFE).

Impact assessment (qualitative assessment)

Economic impacts

Social impacts

Environmental impacts

Conclusions

Potential positive impacts on external coherence of the Programme and on biodiversity in OCTs and ORs

but there is the need to ensure no overlap with the external development instrument for OCTs.

- Additional funding would be needed to support the BEST scheme (8 million

Euro per year) without displacing finance for other LIFE priorities.

+ The grassroots organisations that are receiving support under BEST could

continue their activity for the protection of biodiversity.

+ Additional support for biodiversity hotspots in OCTs and ORs, positive

climate resilience benefits from ecosystem-based adaptation solutions.

3.5.

Conclusions

The LIFE programme has a very high EU added value and its scope and structure are

generally suitable to its objectives. This section presents three possible extensions to the

current scope of the LIFE programme.

The option to extend the scope to include the energy efficiency and renewable energy

actions presently financed under Horizon 2020 is clearly desirable and should be

implemented as a priority, provided the new LIFE Programme is equipped with the

necessary funding.

The option to extend LIFE to further support the mainstreaming of nature and

biodiversity objectives is a highly viable alternative for better financing of nature. In line

with the Commission communication on the post 2020 financial framework

,., this

would improve coherence in the overall structuring of the EU budget by facilitating an

improved mainstreaming approach.

The integration of the BEST initiative for OCTs (and ORs) is a smaller extension to the

programme, which also shows an overall positive impact. Unless either an external

instrument or the European Regional Development Fund can finance the entirety of the

BEST initiative, it should be incorporated into LIFE, to the extent that the capacity of

LIFE to address other priority objectives is not weakened.

See the Commission Communication "A new, modern Multiannual Financial Framework for a European

Union that delivers efficiently on its priorities post-2020COM(2018) 98 final.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

ELIVERY MECHANISMS OF THE INTENDED FUNDING

The present LIFE instrument comprises a variety of delivery mechanisms including

several types of standard action grants, strategic integrated projects, technical assistance

to develop integrated projects, preparatory projects, operational grants for NGOs, two

financial instruments, capacity-building projects for certain Member States and

procurement. As mentioned in Section 1.2, these mechanisms (also described further in

Annex 5) have been assessed as generally effective and efficient in delivering the

objectives of the LIFE programme. It is therefore not appropriate to substantially modify

the delivery mechanisms or management model of the programme. Elements such as the

NGO operational grants will be continued in their present format

. However, this section

explores some possible options for further improving the effectiveness and efficiency of

the LIFE programme.

As in Chapter 3, these options are not alternatives, but rather complementary measures

that are assessed individually and could be applied in synergy. In accordance with the

methodology described in Annex 7, only those impacts which differ from the status quo

are mentioned and most of the observed net impacts concern environmental factors in

view of the inherent nature of the options.

4.1.

Possible enhancements to funding mechanisms

As previous sections of this report indicate, several challenges and opportunities have

been identified in relation to LIFE's present funding mechanisms. In particular,

operational challenges have been established as the basis for further optimisation in view

of evolving policy needs to improve the performance and catalytic role of LIFE, and to

improve the strategic focus of LIFE.

Options for addressing these operational challenges and improving simplification are

presented and screened in Annex 8. An overview of the options assessed is also

presented in Box 6 above. The most promising options are further considered below. In

terms of project management arrangements, the present model is considered to be the

best option. Some measures related to the reduction of the administrative burden are

included in Annex 9.

4.1.1. Expand the scope and scale of Strategic Integrated Projects (SIPs)

This option is meant to improve the performance and catalytic role of LIFE. The

proposed option is an expansion in both the scope and scale of the integrated projects

which will be called strategic integrated projects (SIPs) in the post-2020 programming

period. The SIPs are designed to support Member State implementation of key

environmental or climate plans and strategies, so are focussed on practical support to

policy implementation. Since the concept of integrated projects is proving effective

during the present programme, it should be reinforced through both:

an increase in the SIPs targeting the presently eligible plans (air, water, nature, waste,

climate mitigation and climate adaptation)

. As regards waste, SIPs would be

eligible for both waste management plans and, as a new feature, for waste prevention

E.g. double funding will be prevented in all cases. The effectiveness and the impact of such mechanisms will

continue to be assessed during programme implementation (see Chapter 5 for further information)

At present the Regulation foresees indicatively three integrated projects per Member State over the 7-year

period.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

programmes, in coherence with the overall aim of transitioning towards a circular

economy and

an increase in the scope of the SIPs under the Environment sub-programme (to

include also plans for national emissions ceilings, noise, marine environment and

nitrates in accordance with the relevant legislation and policies). SIPs related to the

marine environment could be developed through LIFE and EMFF funding.

While the funds allocated for integrated projects in the current programming period have

been at a level appropriate to piloting the concept, this level does not allow full

realisation of the potential of the mechanism as a tool for improving compliance with key

climate and environment policies and legislation, and would need to be increased.

This would imply an overall funding increase in the LIFE budget so as to ensure

continued availability of funding also for other project types.

Specifically in order to respond to the considerable needs for financing in the area of

nature including the marine environment, identified in the Nature Fitness check, and in

order to ensure that LIFE can play the necessary role in coordinating actions related to

nature and biodiversity under the mainstream EU funds, the number of strategic projects

for nature (SNPs) should be significantly increased and their focus on mainstreaming

should be reinforced (see section 3.4.4). Further information about the critical mass

required for SIPs can be found in the relevant section of annex 4.

Table 4.1: Assessment of option 4

Relevant conclusions from screening results

Effectiveness

+ This effective mechanism for promoting compliance would cover more key

elements of environment and climate policy, addressing a wider range of

implementation challenges.

+ Cost-efficient way to ensure coordinated use of environmental

mainstreaming in other EU instruments, including financial instruments. To

ensure the full potential of SIPs and SNPs, however, the programming

process for the mainstream funds needs to be sufficiently flexible to allow the

financing of complementary actions after SIPs and SNPs are defined. At the

very least, the potential for such complementary financing needs to be taken

into account in the national strategies and programmes for implementing the

main funds.

Efficiency

Impact assessment (qualitative assessment)

+ More potential to mobilise finance from sources other than EU programmes

for environmental and climate objectives

Economic impacts

- While greater administrative burden can be expected, given that the process

for processing SIPs is already established the impact will not be significant

but procedures and resources will be required to ensure policy coherence.

- Additional budget required

Social impacts

++ Positive impacts on capacity building / Positive impact is on governance

and ownership of stakeholders in playing their role

+ Potential to achieve greater environmental and climate impacts as a result of

the targeting of the most pressing environmental and climate issues

+ Potential for better governance of nature and biodiversity given the more

emphasis on this area

Environmental impacts

Other aspects

Mainstreaming

The success depends on condition that the other instruments provide the

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

expected levels of environmental mainstreaming for complementary actions.

The large over subscription for such projects limits this risk.

Conclusions

Only very minor negative impacts and significant positive impacts on social and environmental aspects.

4.1.2. Targeted support to upscale and replicate successful projects

This is a second option aimed at improving the performance and catalytic role of LIFE.

LIFE would provide targeted support to facilitate the upscaling and replication of

successful LIFE project results. It would therefore increase overall performance by

enhancing the impacts of the projects supported by the programme, and focussing the

effort on those projects with the greatest potential impact.

This would include a range of mechanisms such as follow-up technical assistance grants

to provide coaching and finance to develop upscaling and/or replication plans and

undertake centralised measures to diffuse project results to relevant stakeholders. These

technical assistance will be small in size and would not require additional budget overall

for the LIFE programme.

Targeted support could help to facilitate access to technical assistance/grants, e.g.

following the successful example of the ELENA facility, or blending or pilot financial

instruments under the centrally managed

EU Invest Fund,

as a means of enhancing

sustainability and dissemination of project results.

In such option, the overall existing focus on follow-up plans during project duration

would remain and use as a reference for identification of the more promising projects. It

would be complemented by additional targeted support actions.

This approach will be coordinated with policy initiatives, taking into account and

building on existing dissemination activities (databases of measures, Country Dialogues,

Commission-led networks such as the Covenant of Mayors for Energy and Climate,

expert groups, conferences, etc.). It will thus strengthen the link between LIFE and policy

development.

Table 4.2: Assessment of option 5

Relevant conclusions from screening results

Effectiveness

Coherence

+ Increase support to most promising projects

+ Increased synergies with other EU programmes

Impact assessment (qualitative assessment)

+ improved contribution to the Europe 2020 Strategy and in particular to

sustain innovation

Economic impacts

- Increased administrative burden to deal with applications, and also tailoring

of support to different types of projects

Social impacts

+ improved contribution to the Europe 2020 Strategy and in particular to

create and maintain jobs

++ Upscaling of positive environmental and climate impacts: enhanced

overall impact of LIFE projects through replication and upscaling of positive

environmental and climate impacts

Environmental impacts

Others

Catalytic effect

+ Improved catalytic effect of the Programme

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Conclusions

Significant positive environmental impacts. Further positive impacts on social aspects and coherence.

Potential negative economic impacts.

4.1.3. Address the unbalanced participation of candidates from some Member States

to LIFE calls for proposals through a reinforced network of LIFE contact points and

targeted capacity-building actions

This option is aimed at improving the performance and catalytic role of LIFE, notably

through enhancing participation from different Member States.

Taking into account the experience of the current national capacity building projects, the

capacity of the LIFE contact points will be enhanced through the financing of networking

activities. Specifically, it will improve performance by focussing on those approaches

that have been most effective under the current programme at building the capacity of

national contact points to support the preparation of high quality proposals. The funding

for the network would be managed centrally by the European Commission or EASME,

and participation would be open to all Member States. The funding would be used to

target the specific capacity building needs of the National Contact Points (NCPs),

including through mutual learning. It would also include a component targeting barriers

to participation specifically in Member States with a low absorption rate. This evolution

is in line with suggestions already made by several NCP which have tried to initiate such

cooperation in the framework of the preparation of the Multi Annual Work Programme

2018-2020. It would still lead to specific target actions similar to the existing capacity

building projects. In turn, the increased capacity of the national contact point will

enhance their role in supporting project applicants, leading to both an increase in

participation rates from selected Member States, as well as high quality proposals.

These activities will be supported using the budget that is currently allocated to capacity

building projects under the current programme.

Table 4.3: Assessment of option 6

Relevant conclusions from screening results

+/- Expected wider impact than the present capacity building projects, which

have shown only limited results to date but no evidence yet that it will

produce anticipated results

+ Greater flexibility to target interventions to specific needs

Impact assessment (qualitative assessment)

Economic impacts

+ Reduced administrative burden associated with submitting/processing of

application and award than for the capacity building projects for all concerned

+ Enhancing ownership, governance and potential involvement of all Member

States

+ Positive impacts linked to the possibility to learn from experiences of other

countries

No significant environmental impacts.

Effectiveness

Social impacts

Environmental impacts

Other considerations

EU added value

Flexibility

+ Positive impacts linked to the possibility to learn from experiences of other

countries

+ Greater flexibility to target interventions addressed to specific needs

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Conclusions

Positive impacts on education and training, whilst also offering greater flexibility. May require additional

management time.

4.1.4. Increase the co-financing rate

This is the fourth option for responding to the operational goal to improve the

performance and catalytic role of LIFE, notably through enhancing participation for

beneficiaries in different Member States

. The maximum EU co-financing rates that are

included in the LIFE Regulation would be increased and therefore project beneficiaries

would be required to provide less co-financing. It will therefore improve performance by

removing one of the barriers to applicants.

Additional budget would need to be made available to allow for an increase in co-

financing rates whilst maintaining the same number of projects to be supported.

Table 4.4: Assessment of option 7

Relevant conclusions from screening results

Effectiveness

+/- Alleviates one of the barriers to participation, but increasing the co-

financing rate may means that fewer projects can be supported in total unless

the overall budget is increased.

+ Potential for increased coherence if increased co-financing rate ensure

greater harmonisation across other programmes

Coherence

Impact assessment (qualitative assessment)

Economic impacts

- If the overall budget is not increased proportionately, fewer projects can be

financed, decreasing the total cumulative impact of LIFE interventions.

++ Increased access of funds and hence increased participation from

beneficiary groups which have limited co-financing capacity.

Social impacts

+Alleviates one of the barriers to participation, and thereby encourages

projects from some of those countries that currently have low participation

rates due to lack of resources for co-financing.

No significant environmental impacts.

Environmental impacts

Other considerations

Quality of projects

Conclusions

- Might create false demand and stimulate more applications for lower quality

projects. The rate of over subscription of the on-going LIFE programme

should ensure that this risk will be very limited.

Would increase participation of beneficiary groups but this may be at the expense of a reduction in the

cost-effectiveness of the programme, as fewer projects would be supported.

4.1.5. Systematically define and develop synergies with other instruments

This option also responds to the operational goal to improve the performance and

catalytic role of LIFE.

At present, for most projects, the maximum co-financing rates range between 55% and 60% of total eligible

costs of the projects. In the opinion to the European Commission on the mid-term evaluation of LIFE

(ENVE-VI/016), the Committee of the Regions invites the EC to better align the co-financing rates of LIFE

with the rates of other both directly and jointly managed EU funding programmes increasing the co-financing

rate.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

It would complement the present practice of giving preferential treatment in standard

LIFE project applications to projects which build on the result of relevant EU research

projects (Horizon 2020 or previous programmes)

. The preference could be extended to

results from other programmes that develop small-scale pilots, such as Interreg.

More systematic mechanisms would be developed to operationalise synergies with other

EU programmes that can support sustainability, upscaling and replication of relevant

LIFE results. One main area of potential developing of synergies is with the European

Institute of Innovation and Technology (EIT) European Innovation Council (EIC) that

might support the up-scaling of innovations but also support the objectives of LIFE with

targeted activities like the ‘EIC challenges’ (innovation prizes). This would include the

possibility to scale up the best close-to-market

LIFE projects’ results, by channelling

them towards the EIC mechanisms.

Moreover, according to the results of the mid-term evaluation, the development of more

systematic synergies through specific mechanisms would be beneficial with the European

Regional Development Fund (ERDF, including the European Territorial Cooperation

goal), the Cohesion Fund (CF), the European Agricultural Fund for Rural Development

(EAFRD) and the European Maritime and Fisheries Funds (EMFF), which can support

the large-scale implementation of project results.

This option would not require any specific modifications to the LIFE legal base, but

would require more coordination and control at the level of programming and

implementation among the concerned DGs and Agencies

. No additional budget will be

required to implement this option.

Table 4.5: Assessment of option 8

Relevant conclusions from screening results

Effectiveness

+ Expected to increase catalytic effect, but scale is uncertain

+ Will build coherence with other funding programmes.

Coherence

Impact assessment (qualitative assessment)

Economic impacts

Social impacts

Environmental impacts

+ Facilitates the dissemination of new ideas and projects, supporting

innovation.

+ Ensures continued support to promising projects

No significant social impacts.

+ Greater impact in terms of environmental and climate policy goals

may be expected by increased link of LIFE interventions with large

scale implementation.

To encourage synergies, LIFE provides for a mechanism to promote the uptake, into LIFE projects, of the

results of environmental and climate-related research and innovation under Horizon 2020 and previous

framework programmes for research: during the award process, an extra point is granted to proposals that

plan to take up results generated through EU-funded research projects. In this perspective, LIFE gives an

incentive to implement and scale up knowledge and solutions developed, tested and deployed through EU-

funded research activities.

At present, the LIFE Regulation mentions explicitly the need to develop synergies with Horizon 2020 and it

underlines that the LIFE programme should also encourage the uptake of the results of environmental and

climate-related research and innovation under Horizon 2020. In general, the common provisions regulation

(CPR) of the ESI Funds acknowledges already this complementarity and actually already contains a special

section on coordination and synergies between the ESI Funds and LIFE.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Other considerations

EU added value

Conclusions

Potential positive impacts on innovation and potential to increase coherence with other funds and

create EU added value. No negative impacts.

+ Clear EU added value in maximising the impact of EU finance

Such an evolution will require some effort to define and operationalise the mechanisms

but is feasible as long as the legal bases do not prevent such mechanisms.

4.1.6. Financial Instruments delivered through a central fund.

This is the sixth and final option considered to respond to the operational goal to improve

the performance and catalytic role of LIFE. At present the LIFE Programme operates two

small-scale pilot financial instruments

. After the pilot phase, thus in the next MFF, such

instruments could be upscaled and delivered through a central funding instrument

(InvestEU Fund) to allow synergy and economies of scale. This up-scaling would require

additional budget.

As described in Annex 6 the EU employs a large and increasing number of FIs, several of

which could support projects of a similar nature to those targeted by LIFE’s

FIs (i.e.

PF4EE and NCFF). PF4EE’s design features specify the nature of support it offers, it

helps intermediary banks in Member States to develop and offer specific loan

programmes for energy efficiency projects and supports projects that help achieve the

national energy efficiency action plan objectives, plus Member State energy efficiency

programme objectives. It offers a combination of an EC guarantee, an EIB loan and a

technical assistance facility. This combination distinguishes it from the majority of other

instruments that can finance energy efficiency projects, although none of the elements are

unique. Some potential overlap with EBRD and ERDF loans was highlighted in the Mid-

term evaluation of LIFE, there are also other FIs that could support energy efficiency

projects (including the EFSI). However, due to the vast investment needs in energy and

climate projects that are necessary to achieve the EU’s 2030 objectives, and the relatively

small scale of PF4EE the risk of FIs seeking to support energy efficiency projects

crowding each other out appears minimal.

The NCFF provides €10 million of technical assistance and €50 million guarantee to

support EIB investments of up to €125 million that are intended to contribute to the EU’s

biodiversity and climate adaptation objectives, financing projects that generate a revenue

stream from natural capital. This is a new approach and thus no other European FI offers

a competing service.

For the future, the creation of the InvestEU Fund as Union-wide investment instrument,

providing an EU guarantee with a view to mobilising public and private financing

support various political priorities represents a great opportunity for new synergies. This

Private Finance for Energy Efficiency (PF4EE) is a risk haring facility for private sector financial institutions

looking to invest in energy efficiency projects. The Natural Capital Financing Facility (NCFF) is a debt and

equity instrument - supports upfront investment and operating costs in projects supporting payments for

ecosystem services (PES); green infrastructure; biodiversity offsets; innovative pro biodiversity and

adaptation investments.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

instrument will be the single entry point for 360-degree project development assistance for

project promoters.

The suggested structure of this InvestEU Fund includes the following four windows:

Social, skills, and human capital; SMEs; Research and Innovation; Infrastructure and

Climate.

The

InvestEU Fund

is expected to play an important role with financial

instruments for market related action, in particular by supporting a thematic investment

platform for research and innovation in the Blue Economy.

Besides the existing financial instruments, the opportunity to finance technical assistance

and/or blending mechanisms, recommended in the LIFE mid-term evaluation, would be

explored.

Table 4.6: Assessment of option 9

Relevant conclusions from screening results

+ Possibly a larger budget and economies of scale could be available under a

window in a single instrument

+ Specificity of the financial instruments in the testing phase offset in the long

Efficiency

run by improved economy of scale in the use of FIs

Impact assessment (qualitative assessment)

Effectiveness

Economic impacts

Social impacts

+ Improved contribution to the Europe 2020 Strategy through upscaling

revenue generating solutions

+ Improved contribution to the Europe 2020 Strategy and in particular to

create and maintain jobs

+ Upscaling of positive environmental and climate impacts: enhanced overall

impact of LIFE projects through replication and upscaling of positive

environmental and climate impacts from successful pilot FIs, and from

blending

Environmental impacts

Others

Catalytic effect

Conclusions

Significant positive environmental impacts. Further positive impacts on socio-economic aspects and

coherence. InvestEU should include more financing for these up-scaled financial instruments than currently

foreseen in the existing LIFE program (2014-2020) .

+ Improved catalytic effect of the Programme

4.1.7. Improving the strategic focus of the programme by simplifying the Regulation

and the MAWP.

This option responds to the operational goal to improve the strategic focus of LIFE,

specifically including the possibility to target specific new and key policy priorities, in

line with the cross-cutting objectives of the MFF to pursue budget flexibility and

simplification.

It involves the removal of:

The current list of thematic priorities and related activities under the Environment

sub-programme from the LIFE Regulation. The thematic priorities could be

included in the MAWP.

The ceilings related to various delivery mechanisms or thematic areas, beyond the

earmarking by sub-programmes, for biodiversity and for project types.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

This option would allow for further earmarking within the MAWP and/or in yearly calls

for proposals, to target key and emerging priorities including circular economy and

plastics waste. No additional budget will be required to implement this option.

Table 4.7: Assessment of option 10

Relevant conclusions from screening results

Effectiveness

Efficiency

Coherence

+ Ensures the alignment of the MAWP with new and emerging policy

priorities.

+ Increased possibility to adapt the delivery mechanisms to the demand

+ Increased coherence with other EU policies as it creates more room for

flexible response to priorities.

Impact assessment (qualitative assessment)

- Potential negative impacts on applicants because it would de facto decrease

the bottom-up allocation, which many applicants favour because it allows

some predictability related to the priorities targeted in future calls. Only a

limited portion of the budget would be thus earmarked for key priorities.

+ Reduction of the administrative burden linked to the respect of the ceilings

Social impacts

No significant social impacts.

+ Potential for increased environmental impacts

Environmental impacts

+ Increased impact on priorities which are not covered with the "pure" bottom

up approach.

+ Potential increased impact on new/urgent environmental challenges.

Conclusions

Greatest positive impacts relate to increased flexibility. Some positive impacts on coherence. While

negative economic impacts are expected.

Economic impacts

4.2.

Conclusions

Most elements of the present LIFE delivery model can be considered to be fully

functional at present and do not need any modification.

Concerning the operational goal to improve the performance and catalytic role of LIFE,

two options were explored in relation to improving the accessibility of LIFE for

applicants from all EU Member States. The option to provide centralised support to the

entire NCP network instead of the present national capacity building projects (for only

certain MSs) is assessed positively. The option of increasing co-financing rates would

need to be further considered once the overall shape and budget of the LIFE programme

for the next MFF will be decided and basing on the demand over time. It is important

that the legal base does not prejudge this issue in line with the existing template.

Several other complementary options were considered to improve the performance and

catalytic role of the Programme. Among them, the extension of the SIPs is considered to

be the most powerful mechanism based on the pilot experience of integrated projects in

the present LIFE programme.

The options to enhance replication and to increase both the flexibility of the programme

and the possibility to target key and emerging issues through simplifying the Regulation

and the MAWP have no serious negative implications, so should both be introduced.

Concerning financial instruments, it would beneficial to upscale the current LIFE pilot

instruments under InvestEU in the next MFF (2021-2027).

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

The options that are not depending on additional budgets should be implemented in any

event. If the budget is specifically increased to include Clean Energy Transition and/or to

include a sub-programme for Nature, these options (option 1 and 2) should be included in

the structure of the Life Programme. If the LIFE budget is expanded in general, the

options 3, 4 and 5 could be implemented.

4.3.

Programme management

The MTE concluded that current management arrangements of the programme were

efficient and effective. The same conclusion was made with respect to the monitoring

and evaluation arrangement of the current programme. Nevertheless, some further

options were considered as part of the Impact Assessment to explore whether further

improvements could be made to the programme management and monitoring and

evaluation processes.

4.3.1. Package of measure to reduce the administrative burden for the

applicants/beneficiaries

This combination of measures is proposed in order to respond to the operational goal of

introducing simplification measures, where possible. This package includes changing

some of the processes and systems that are used in the programme management,

including:



Taking into account the experience of the ongoing pilot, consider further waiving the

requirement to submit a complete proposal at the start of the application process by

expanding the use of a two-step award procedure for standard projects. This has

already been applied for integrated projects and is being piloted for some traditional

projects. It would reduce administrative burden for applicants.

Adapting reporting requirements in proportion to the length and complexity of

projects and the value of the grant.

Simplifying the indicators database, based on project focus.

Use of Simplified Cost Options, payments based on output, limitation of eligible

costs for grants.

Use of cascading grants with limited reporting, with the involvement of the

monitoring team

Simplification of the application process, including rationalised forms and

supporting documents



The detailed assessment of the impact of these measures in comparison to the business

as usual scenario showed the following:

Table

4.8

: Assessment of measures to reduce the burden for applicants/beneficiaries



Relevant conclusions from screening results

+Increased efficiency

+ Increased effectiveness

Efficiency

Effectiveness

Impact assessment (qualitative assessment)

+ Reduced barriers to entry for applicants.

Economic impacts

+ Reduced administrative burden and increase of flexibility for beneficiaries

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

+ Reduced administrative burden for EASME and EC.

Social impacts

Environmental impacts

No significant social impacts.

No significant environmental impacts.

Conclusions

Greatest positive impacts relate to the reduction of administrative burden.

4.3.2. Streamlined procedures for the implementation of the EU budget

These measures respond to the operational goal to introduce simplification measures, where

possible, and to increase efficiency in the implementation of the programme.

They include:

the mention in the Regulation of selected organisations, which regularly receives grants

without a call for proposals according to Art.190 of the RAP (e.g. because they have a de

facto monopoly or the specific administrative power required for the implementation of

projects with special characteristics) so that grants can be awarded directly without the

need of an exceptional procedure. This will be restricted to a few organisations, such as

the IMPEL network and the network of National Contact Points.

the reduction of the multiple budget lines linked to the LIFE Programme and used for

internal management to one operational line per parent DG while going on with the

current system for tracking the funds per priority area.

The assessment of these measures in relation to their economic, environmental and social impacts

in comparison to the business as usual scenario showed the following:

Table 4.9: Assessment of measures to make easier the budget implementation



Screening results

+ Increased efficiency

Efficiency

Impact assessment (qualitative assessment)

++ Simplification

–

reduced burden for both the applicant and the

Commission

Economic impacts

+ Elimination of the administrative effort needed to move any unspent money

between budget lines

Social impacts

Environmental impacts

Other considerations

Transparency

The organisations which would receive recurrent grants would be clearly

stated in the Regulation.

+ Ensuring the possibility of long term development plan to the beneficiary

organisations.

No significant environmental impacts.



Conclusions

Greatest positive impacts relate to the reduction of administrative burden.

OW WILL PERFORMANCE BE MONITORED AND EVALUATED

The general and specific objectives proposed in Section 2.3 place greater emphasis on the

catalytic role of LIFE and its contribution to supporting societal transformation through

replication and the triggering of large-scale deployment rather than focusing on outputs

at project level. Moreover the transition to clean energy has been added. Thus, while

performance should still be measured at project level (building on the current monitoring

and evaluation framework), additional performance criteria have been identified to

strengthen the monitoring and evaluation of LIFE’s catalytic effect at programme level

(as defined below).

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Box 8: The catalytic effect

The assessment of the catalytic effect of the Programme is extremely difficult because LIFE funds small

and heterogeneous projects. Moreover, the related indicators need to incorporate the different possible

dimensions of the catalytic effect delivered, which can be:

Temporal (i.e. in leading to the replication of an activity beyond the timespan of a LIFE project)

AND/OR

Sectoral (i.e. beyond the sectoral bounds of a LIFE project

–

a specific technology or practice can be

tested in another sector/technical context) AND/OR

Quantitative (i.e. a "practice" which is generalised) AND/OR

Spatial (i.e. beyond the geographic bounds of LIFE projects) AND/OR

Financial (i.e. every LIFE project mobilises external co-financing).

In summary, the monitoring and evaluation framework is designed to facilitate the

assessment of LIFE’s performance in the following ways:

Contribution towards meeting EU environmental, nature and biodiversity and

climate targets:

measured in quantitative terms (as a direct outcome) using standard

EU environmental indicators, with the metric, baseline and milestone set at project

level for use as illustrative examples to assess progress at programme level in

qualitative terms.

3. Contribution towards improved environmental and climate governance:

measured in quantitative terms (as a direct output) by the extent of LIFE projects

supporting the development, implementation, monitoring and enforcement of

environmental and climate policies. The contribution to improved environmental and

climate governance is assessed at programme level in qualitative terms against a

wider policy landscape.

Contribution towards socio-economic transition:

measured at programme level in

qualitative terms (as an indirect outcome) by the

extent of LIFE’s catalytic effect

according to various dimensions, including: temporal (project runs for an extended

time period), sectoral (approaches or techniques are adopted across sectors), spatial

(approaches or techniques are adopted across territories), quantitative (a novel or

emerging technique succeeds in becoming commonplace), or financial (additional

finance is secured to support large scale deployment).

The proposed monitoring and evaluation framework reflects the change in focus arising

from the revised general and specific objectives as well as the lessons learned from the

current programming period (section 1.2.). Notably, the reporting requirements at project

level have been simplified and the application of the performance criteria (in qualitative

terms) has been centralised. The reporting requirements and indicator design that inform

this framework are set out in section 5.2 below.

5.1.

Lessons learned related to the existing monitoring and evaluation framework

The present LIFE Regulation (Article 3.3) identifies the performance indicators against

which the programme should be assessed in relation to its general objectives. It also

empowers the Commission to adopt delegated acts to further define the performance

indicators in relation to

the programme’s priority areas and thematic priorities.

Given that the MAWP establishes qualitative and quantitative outcomes, indicators and

targets for each priority area and type of project, no delegated act was adopted in this

respect.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

As specified in the MAWP, the number and scope of successful projects within a priority

area mainly depend on factors that the Commission cannot influence, e.g. the number of

eligible applications per priority area and technical and socio-economic factors. Hence,

expected

final outcomes have also been defined at a project level in relation to project’s

objectives and an initial baseline.

The existing qualitative and quantitative outcomes, indicators and targets primarily

address issues

in a project-centric way

and some are focused solely on project outputs,

outcomes and impact because action grants correspond to the bulk of the funding (a

minimum of 81% of the overall budget

). The system was designed to assess project

results for both programme and policy purposes.

Consequently, a system of key indicators has been established at project level. It ensures

a good coverage of the grant monitoring and is a source of information on the

effectiveness of the programme as a whole since some project level data can be

aggregated at the programme level (albeit with some difficulties, as project baselines,

metrics, timeframes and reporting vary between projects

Experience has shown the following shortcomings in the system:

1. not only the grants, but also the results of other delivery mechanisms (e.g.

procurement) should be included in the performance framework of the

programme;

2. the project level indicators are too complex and numerous; the collection of data

is resource-consuming and sometimes of limited use;

3. outcome indicators are only available at a late stage in the implementation of the

programme, taking into account the time needed to put it in place and the multi-

year duration of most projects;

4. the burden related to the collection of data for project level indicators is on the

shoulders of the project beneficiaries,

5. not all the programme-level indicators defined in the Regulation are measurable;

6. the catalytic role of the programme is difficult to capture.

Moreover, the existing key project indicators would need to be up-dated:

to incorporate, wherever possible, the SDGs indicators, to which LIFE is

expected to contribute;

to reflect experience gained during the first year of operation of the key project

indicators database, including its suitability to meet policy development needs;

to ensure, as far as possible, greater harmonisation and comparability at EU level.

E.g. the Commission is working on cross-cutting indicators on Natura 2000 for

the ESI funds that will allow tracking the level of EU funding in support of the

Natura 2000 network and marine protected areas. LIFE should also use these

indicators.

This is not supposed to change significantly in the post 2020 programme.

As for example, under the priority area biodiversity some projects aim at increasing the population size of an

endangered species while other at protecting the total captive population at a given number of animals,

therefore the aggregated value related to the increase/protection from the baseline, even in percentage, does

not make any sense.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

5.2.

Monitoring and evaluation framework for post 2020 indicators

The proposed monitoring and evaluation framework for post 2020 LIFE builds directly

on the existing framework, with some modifications. This general consistency should

allow continuity in reporting between programming periods and enhance reporting

through the application of lessons learned.

At a high level, the changes are summarised as follows:



Programme level reporting of process and output indicators established: Extended

scope of process indicators to include reporting for all delivery mechanisms and

linked to financial reporting.

Reduced number of outcome indicators: use of key project indicators.

Reduced reporting burden for the beneficiary: only required to report process and

outcome indicators, using key project indicators for the latter, where appropriate.

Greater robustness and relevance established for impacts: targeted assessment of

impacts.

More detail concerning these changes is set out below according to the reporting

requirements for the monitoring and evaluation framework for the LIFE programme post

2020 which will be based on the types of indicators mentioned in the following figure.

The indicators defined for the LIFE programme are aligned with those established for the

wider MFF.

Figure 5-1 LIFE Programme: indicators' types and timeline

Process

indicators

Year n

Output

indicators

Outcome

indicators

Impact

indicators

Year n+9

They include:

Process indicators:

They measures all the resources mobilised: the financial resources,

the delivery mechanisms. In the case of grants they involve data related to the demand

per priority area and type of projects, in terms of number and types of applicants, country

of origin, contribution requested and total project costs, time-to-grant, time-to-pay, error

rate, etc..

Coverage:

Burden:

Tool:

All the interventions

Commission and the applicants

A database on information on grant proposals is available (cd. infoview).

Availability: Once a year. Generally at the end of year n. No baseline.

Output indicators:

they measure physical outputs (e.g. number of interventions per

priority area and delivery mechanism). In the case of grants they include data per project

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

types, number and types of beneficiaries, country of origin, amount of grants and external

cofinancing). Data will also be collected on the number of LIFE-financed projects which

include the exploitation and deployment of research and innovation results, financed

from Horizon Europe or previous R&I programmes.

Coverage:

Burden:

Tool:

All the interventions

Commission

A database on information on grant projects is available (cd. infoview).

Availability: Once a year. Generally in year n+1. No baseline.

Outcome indicators:

they measure the direct results of the interventions in terms of

deliverables/achievements (e.g. a conference, persons informed, hectares of ecosystem

restored, CO2 emissions reduced, etc.)

Coverage:

All the interventions

Availability: At the beginning of the intervention in terms of anticipated results

(usually, for projects, in year n+2) and at the end of each intervention

(generally, for projects in year n+4) . Depending from its duration, the

progressive achievement of the results is monitored. Baseline to be

defined.

Burden:

Tool:

Commission, the beneficiary (in terms of grants) and the monitoring team

A database on information on indicators at project level is available (cd.

KPIs database).

Impact indicators:

they measure the full impact of the results of the intervention after its

end, including both direct and indirect impact and, in particular, the catalytic effect of

LIFE.

Coverage:

Selected interventions. They can be meaningless for some interventions

(i.e. study contracts)

Availability: From 3 to 5 years after the end of the intervention. Once, two times for the

selected interventions. Generally in year n+7/n+9

Burden:

Tool:

Commission

Ad hoc

5.2.1. How the outcomes and impact/catalytic role of the programme will be assessed

The outcomes and impact of each LIFE project are currently assessed on the basis of a

system of indicators developed by the Commission. At the beginning of a project, a

baseline is defined according to the system of indicators, together with the results

expected at its end and 3 years thereafter.

The values are defined by the beneficiaries and checked by a team of external monitoring

experts with experience in the specific field and in the concerned country. They are

validated by the operational officer who is entrusted with the technical supervision of the

project. During the project, the results are monitored at least every year.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

At the end of the project, the beneficiaries are required to update the values of the

indicators, thus providing information on the final results of the project (versus the

expected ones) and to prepare an after-LIFE plan to define how they intend to sustain and

replicate the activities and further disseminate the project results.

The public consultation showed the need to simplify and streamline these indicators,

which were found by the beneficiaries too complex to be managed.

A new evaluation framework for the projects with a reduced number of outcome and

impact indicators is being defined. The work is on-going given the need to take into

account the indicators related to the SDGs and to have a harmonised framework across

the Commission.

The evaluation framework is composed of a system of indicators per priority with

multiple levels, plus some horizontal indicators. For each indicator, the number of

interventions, the beneficiaries and the amount of the related interventions will be

provided.

This framework is also intended to incorporate the results other activities, related not

only to grant projects. At the launch of the related procedure, the expected results will be

defined. They will be confronted with the final results assessed at the end of the

intervention.

To assess the impact and the catalytic role of the Programme, it is necessary to strike a

balance between the need to get data and the associated costs. It is therefore proposed to

combine the following sources:

1. a significant sample of projects that can be assessed on the basis of sources and

tools independent from the project itself (e.g. regional data on air quality

or data

from the register of enterprises). These projects will be systematically identified;

2. the data mentioned for each project in the KPI database and in the After-LIFE

plans, will be checked after one year for the majority of projects and, on sample

basis, through ex-post missions, after more than one year from project end;

3. the data provided by the beneficiaries of already ended projects on a voluntary

basis

checked on sample basis and through ex-post missions;

4. enquiries of main actors at national and EU level.

In this way the burden related to the collection of the data will be further shifted from the

beneficiaries

to the monitors (monitoring team, external monitors, EASME and the

Commission).

5.2.2. The timetable and the evaluations of the LIFE Programme 2021-2027

The timeline related to the availability of indicators’ values is showed on the below

figure.

An example to clarify the idea: in the case of an integrated project in Malopolska, Poland for example,

regional information on air quality, plus the value of the complementary funds that are mobilised and will be

mobilised, in Malopolska and adjacent regions for a period of ten years. The same could be done on specific

pieces of legislation by comparing historical trends and new trends on the key indicators after its entry into

force.

Legal constraints impede making this contribution mandatory after the end of the contract.

The beneficiaries shall keep the ownership of the expected results that they have defined.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Figure 5.2

–

Timeline on the availability of data for the assessment of the LIFE Programme

The monitoring and evaluation framework of the future Programme would have three

main building blocks:



Continuous monitoring of the programme management and implementation

through process and output indicators starting from year 2. They allows checking

of whether the programme is on track and if adjustments need to be made;

Among these indicators the ones mentioned in the following tables will be

mentioned in the Draft Regulation:

Output indicators

Number of projects developing, demonstrating and promoting

innovative techniques and approaches;

Number of projects applying best practice in relation to nature and

biodiversity;

Number of projects for the development, implementation, monitoring or

enforcement of the relevant Union legislation and policy;

Number of projects improving governance through enhancing capacities

of public and private actors and the involvement of civil society;

Number of projects implementing

–

key plans or strategies;

programmes of action for mainstreaming Nature and Biodiversity.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Result indicators

Net change to the environment and climate, based on the aggregation of

project level indicators to be specified in the calls for proposals under

the sub-programmes for

–

Nature and Biodiversity,

–

Circular Economy and Quality of Life covering at least the

following: Air quality, Soil, Water, Waste

–

Climate Change Mitigation and Adaptation;

–

Clean Energy Transition.

Cumulative investments triggered by the projects or finance accessed

(million EUR);

Number of organisations involved in projects or receiving operating

grants;

Share of projects having had a catalytic effect after the end date of the

project..



Annual monitoring of the programme performance thanks to outcome and

impact indicators starting from year 3:

this allows assessing to which extent

the programme is progressing towards its objectives, based on predefined

baselines and targets;

Moreover a regular monitor and report on mainstreaming of climate and

biodiversity, including the amount of expenditure, will be ensured. The

contribution of the LIFE programme to the EU budget-wide target of 25% of

expenditure contributing to climate objectives shall be tracked through the EU

climate marker system. Biodiversity-related spending will be tracked using a

specific set of markers to quantify the commitment appropriations expected to

contribute respectively to climate and to biodiversity objectives over the period

2021-2027 at the appropriate level of disaggregation.



Two fully-fledged evaluations

of the programme performance at mid-term and

at the end of the programming period (upon completion). The evaluations will

assess the Programme's effects on the ground based on the programme

indicators/targets and a detailed analysis of the degree to which the programme

can be deemed relevant, effective, efficient, provides enough EU added value and

is coherent with other EU policies. They will include lessons learnt to identify

any lacks/problems or any potential to further improve the actions or their results

and to help maximise their exploitation/impact.

The mid-term evaluation would capture the first anticipated outputs and outcomes

of the LIFE programme 2021-2027, as well as some of the final outcomes and

impact of the current LIFE programme and the previous LIFE+ Programme. The

final evaluation at the end of the programming period would capture the on-going

and the final anticipated outcomes of the LIFE programme 2021-2027 and the

final outcomes and impact of the current LIFE programme and the previous

LIFE+ Programme.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

ANNEXES

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

ANNEXES

Table of contents

ANNEX 1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION ......................................................................... 50

1.1. Organisation and timing .................................................................................. 50

1.2. Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board .............................................. 50

1.3. Evidence used in the impact assessment ......................................................... 52

ANNEX 2: STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION .................................................................. 55

2.1. Consultations ................................................................................................... 57

2.1.1. Opinion of the Committee of the Regions (CoR) of the LIFE MTE ................. 57

2.1.2. Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) of

the LIFE MTE .................................................................................................. 57

2.1.3. Opinions of environmental NGOs .................................................................... 58

2.1. Other inputs ..................................................................................................... 57

2.1.4. Inputs from relevant units within DG Environment and Climate Action and

with representatives from other DGs ........................................................................... 59

2.1.5. Inputs from EASME.................................................................................................... 59

ANNEX 3: EVALUATIONS RESULTS .................................................................................... 63

3.1. Summary of the mid

–term

evaluation of LIFE (2014-2020) ......................... 63

3.2. Summary of the evaluations of LIFE+ (2007-2013) ....................................... 65

3.3. Summary of evaluations of IEE/Horizon 2020 Energy Efficiency ................. 74

ANNEX 4: NEEDS ANALYSIS .................................................................................................. 79

4.1. Environmental problems and needs................................................................. 79

4.2. Who is affected by unmet environment and climate needs? ........................... 79

4.3. The need to address the drivers of environmental and climate

problems .......................................................................................................... 80

4.4. Sector-specific Needs ...................................................................................... 85

4.5. Needs for LIFE Strategic Integrated projects: ................................................. 97

4.6. Conclusions ................................................................................................... 103

ANNEX 5: DESCRIPTION OF THE PRESENT LIFE PROGRAMME AND THE

BUSINESS AS USUAL (BAU) SCENARIO ................................................................... 104

5.1. Overview of the LIFE Programme since 1992 .............................................. 104

5.2. LIFE 2014

–

2020 .......................................................................................... 104

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

5.3. Methodology for Assessing the Impact of LIFE under the Business as

Usual Scenario ............................................................................................... 114

ANNEX 6. GAPS AND SYNERGIES ANALYSIS............................................................... 151

6.1. Step one: LIFE and other EC programmes coverage of different stages ...... 151

6.2. Step two: Potential overlaps / synergies between LIFE and other EC

programmes ................................................................................................... 153

ANNEX 7: METHODOLOGY ................................................................................................. 166

7.1.

7.2.

7.3.

7.4.

7.5.

7.6.

Step 1: Identification and characterisation of the remaining challenges ....... 166

Step 2: Development of the specific objectives and operational goals ......... 166

Step 3: Identification of the options .............................................................. 166

Step 4: Screening of the options .................................................................... 167

Step 5: Impact assessment of the short-listed options ................................... 168

Step 6: Summary of conclusions ................................................................... 170

ANNEX 8: DESCRIPTION AND SCREENING OF OPTIONS ........................................... 171

8.1. Options linked to programme scope and structure ........................................ 171

8.2. Options linked to delivery mechanisms ........................................................ 178

8.3. Options related to programme management.................................................. 190

ANNEX 9: IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF OPTION 1 - INTEGRATION OF

CLEAN ENERGY TRANSITION PROGRAMME IN LIFE....................................... 199

9.1. Needs analysis ............................................................................................... 200

9.2. Lessons learnt from the current and past programmes and assessment

of the next MFF proposal .............................................................................. 205

9.3. Assessment of impacts of the Clean Energy Transition Programme in

LIFE ............................................................................................................... 207

9.4. Conclusion ..................................................................................................... 212

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

NNEX

1: PROCEDURAL INFORMATION

Lead DGs: Directorate Generals Environment (ENV) and Climate Action (CLIMA)

Commission Work

Programme reference

number

CWP2018-annex1 -

n° 2

Short title

Foreseen

adoption

Spring 2018

(Commission

Proposal)

Programme for the Environment and Climate Action

1.1.

Organisation and timing

In December 2017, an Inception Impact assessment on "The future of the EU Programme for

Environment and Climate Action (LIFE)" was prepared and submitted to the Regulatory Scrutiny

Board (RSB). An upstream support meeting was then held with the RSB on the 11

of January

2018.

As follow up of the mid-term evaluation findings, on December 2017, an Inception Impact

assessment was prepared "The future of the EU Programme for Environment and Climate Action

(LIFE)" and submitted to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board (RSB). An upstream support meeting

was then held with the RSB on the 11

of January 2018.

The Inter Service Steering Group (ISSG) for the Impact Assessment was set up by the SG in

February 2018 and includes the following additional DGs and Services: SJ, ECFIN, GROW,

EMPL, AGRI, ENER, MOVE, RTD, MARE, REGIO, SANTE, NEAR, DEVCO, BUDG,

OLAF, JRC.

Three meetings were organised between February 2018 and May 2018. Further consultations

with the ISSG were carried out by e-mail.

The ISSG discussed the Inception Impact Assessment and the main milestones in the process, in

particular the inclusion of the Energy component and the draft Impact Assessment report before

the submission to the Regulatory Scrutiny Board.

This impact assessment has drawn extensively on the Mid-term evaluation of the present LIFE

programme, preparation of which began on July 2015 and ended in October 2017 when the

Commission Report and the staff working document were published and submitted to the

European Parliament and the Council, as well as to the Committee of the Regions and the

European Social and Economic Committee.

1.2.

Consultation of the Regulatory Scrutiny Board

The Regulatory Scrutiny Board ("RSB") received the draft version of the present Impact

Assessment report on the 21

of March 2018. The RSB gave some preliminary indications of

what was required through an upstream support meeting. Further to the meeting with the RSB on

the 11

of April 2018, the RSB gave a positive opinion with reservations on the 13

April 2018.

The opinion included recommendations, which have been addressed in the revised IA report as

explained in the table below.

Comments from the Regulatory Scrutiny Board

Main considerations

Further considerations

How these issues have been addressed in

the IA Report

A more in depth analysis of the options

–

which have been partially re-drafted - has

1. The discussions of the

proposed extensions of

Concerning the integration of the

Intelligent Energy Europe (to be

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

LIFE’s scope should

include a critical

discussion of the

implications for LIFE’s

philosophy, structure,

objectives, delivery

mechanism, etc. The

discussion should also

cover the feasibility of

integrating those

programmes into LIFE

successfully, as well as

any potential pitfalls.

moved from Horizon 2020 to

LIFE), the report should clarify to

which extent LIFE would need to

adapt to accommodate this new

scheme. In particular, the report

needs to explain the foreseen

governance of the merged

programmes.

If it is confirmed, the possibility

of LIFE becoming also the main

instrument for financing Natura

2000 has to be clearly

acknowledged as a significant

departure from the current

philosophy and objectives of the

catalytic role of this fund, with a

shift towards shared management.

The report should also be more

explicit on the corresponding cuts

in other programmes that would

be necessary to provide the

necessary additional funding.

The proposed indicators are not

related to the specific objectives

and the report does not indicate

possible steps to better capture the

catalytic effect of LIFE projects.

At the same time, the report

should take care not to

unnecessarily inflate the

monitoring regime. The report

should better document other

characteristics of the programme,

such as the envisaged synergies

been added in Annex 8 and 9, particularly

related to the options on the extension of

the LIFE's scope.

A table has been added providing a full

list of options that have been assessed

(section 3.1), along with a summary

table of the options retained after initial

screening (section 3.4).

Some information have been added in

par. 3.4.4. However, it was not possible

to clarify which part of the other

programmes should be cut, given the

other IA for the future programme were

all underway at the timing of writing.

2. The monitoring regime

needs to improve in order

to become less dependent

on stakeholder views for

evaluations.

Text is added to show how the proposed

changes relate to the shortcomings

identified for the current programming

period, including improved robustness

and relevance of reporting.

Text is added to show how the proposed

changes relate to the shortcomings

identified for the current programming

period, including improved robustness

and relevance of reporting.

Additional section added to establish the

link between the proposed objectives and

the monitoring and evaluation

framework.

Extra text has been added to the

descriptions to explain the rationale for

the delivery mechanisms.

A table has been added providing a full

list of options that have been assessed

(section 3.1), along with a summary

table of the options retained after initial

screening (section 3.4).

This table has not been repeated in

section 4, but instead a reference is made

to this table.

3. The report needs to

better motivate the

proposed changes to the

delivery mechanisms. For

example, it is not clear

whether strengthening

national contact points

are meant to increase the

quality of applications

and provide support to

find co-funding, or to

increase the number of

applications.

Additionally, the report should

briefly clarify which alternatives

are assessed and which are

dismissed in annex 8.

Finally, the report would gain to

refer more clearly to the analysis

on the efforts to simplify the

programme, in particular

regarding funding applications

The options on simplification have been

added back into the main report

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

(currently in Annex 10).

1.3.

Evidence used in the impact assessment

The Commission sought external expertise through a contract for a support study with

RICARDO

–

Energy and Environment. From the deliverables of this contract, the IA report used

in particular the analysis and methodology of the different policy options.

Ricardo “Support for an ex ante impact assessment of the post 2020 (LIFE) financial

instrument for environment and climate”, ongoing

In addition, the JRC provided a contribution concerning the analysis of the future indicators at

programme level

The IA report and the options considered in the IA report were developed based on the following

documents, sources and evidence:

A Rocha et al. (2017) Position Paper on the EU LIFE Programme in the next Multi-

annual Financial Framework (MFF)

AC Teon (2012) Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin

management plans in the EU Task 4 b: Costs & Benefits of WFD implementation

CoR (2017) CoR opinion: Mid-term evaluation of the Programme for the Environment

and Climate Action (LIFE) 2014-2020

COWI (2009) Ex-post evaluation of LIFE

Decision No 1386/2013/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 20

November 2013 on a General

Union Environment Action Programme to 2020 ‘Living

well, within the limits of our planet’

EASME (2017) Annual work plan

EC (2006) Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection - Impact assessment of the thematic

strategy on soil protection

EC (2011) Impact Assessment. Accompanying the document Proposal for a Regulation

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

SEC(2011) 1542 final

EC (2013) The Declaration of the Commission annexed to the Horizon 2020 Regulation

(1291/2013)

EC (2013) Specific financial statement, EASME.

EC (2014) Commission Implementing Decision on the adoption of the LIFE multiannual

work programme for 2014-17. (2014/203/EU)

EC (2014) Financing the energy renovation of buildings with Cohesion Policy funding

EC (2015) Roadmap for the LIFE Programme

EC (2015) Summaries of the data on the progress made in financing and implementing

the financial instruments for the programming period 2014-2020 in accordance with

Article 46 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the European Parliament and of the

Council

EC (2015) The State of Nature in the European Union Report on the status of and trends

for habitat types and species covered by the Birds and Habitats Directives for the 2007-

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

2012 period as required under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive and Article 12 of the

Birds Directive. COM/2015/0219 final

EC (2016) Fitness Check of the EU Nature Legislation (Birds and Habitats

Directives). SWD(2016) 472 final

EC (2016) Qualitative and quantitative outcome indicators for LIFE projects

EC (2017) A stronger and renewed strategic partnership with the EU's outermost regions.

COM(2017) 623 final

EC (2017) Clean Energy Transition Programme Inception Impact Assessment

EC (2017) Draft General Budget of the European Union for the financial year of 2018.

Working document Part I. Programme statement of operational expenditure

EC (2017) Inception Impact Assessment: The future of the EU Programme for

Environment and Climate (LIFE)

EC (2017) Reflection paper on the EU finances

EC (2017) Report on financial instruments supported by the general budget according to

Art.140.8 of the Financial Regulation as at 31 December 2016. COM(2017) 535 final.

EC (2017) Report on the Mid-term Evaluation of the Programme for Environment and

Climate Action (LIFE). SWD(2017) 355 final.

EC (2017) Study for the strategy for a non-toxic environment of the 7th Environment

Action Programme, prepared by Okopol, Milieu, RPA and RIVM

EC (2017) The future of food and farming. COM(2017) 713 final

EC (2018) Commission Implementing Decision on the adoption of the LIFE multiannual

work programme for 2018-2020. (EU/2018/2010)

EC (2018) Environment - LIFE: Toolkit. Project management tools: Standard Agreement

and

Common

Provisions.

[online]

Available

at:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/toolkit/pmtools/life2014_2020/guidelines.htm

[Accessed 2 Mar. 2018]

EC (2018) Toolkit for the key project-level indicators (KPI) under LIFE

ECA (2003) Special report No 11/2003 concerning the financial instrument for the

Environment (LIFE), together with the Commission’s replies. OJ C292/1.

ECA (2009) The sustainability and the Commission’s management of the LIFE-Nature

projects. Special report No 11.

ECA (2013) Has the environment component of the LIFE programme been effective?

Special Report No 15

Ecorys (2017) Support for an external and independent LIFE Mid Term Evaluation

Report

EEA (2015) SOER 2015

–

The European environment

–

state and outlook 2015

EEA (2017) Environmental indicator report 2017: In support to the monitoring of the 7th

Environment Action Programme. EEA Report No. 21/2017

EEB (2018) The EEB Memorandum to the Bulgarian Presidency of the European Union

Including the Ten Green Test

EESC (2017) EESC opinion: Mid-term evaluation of the LIFE programme

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

EIB (2017) Energy efficiency in buildings: how to accelerate investments?

EP (2016) LIFE

– How to use €3.46 billion for environment and climate protection.

Study for the ENVI Committee

EP (2017) Implementation of the 7th Environment Action Programme

–

Mid-term

review

EPRS (2017) Reducing air pollution National emission ceilings for air pollutants.

Briefing EU Legislation in Progress. |European Parliamentary Research Service

European Commission Regulatory Scrutiny Board (2017) Opinion Evaluation / LIFE

Programme for Environment and Climate Action

GHK et al. (2011) Combined Impact Assessment and Ex Ante Evaluation of the Review

of the LIFE+ Regulation: Options Development

GHK, Arcadis & Vito (2010) Mid-Term Evaluation of the Implementation of the LIFE+

Regulation

ICF International, LDK, Hinicio (2015) Evaluation of Intelligent Energy Europe Projects

Supporting Sustainable Energy Communities- Final report

IEEP et al. (2017) Integration approach to EU biodiversity financing: evaluation of

results and analysis of options for the future

IUCN (20147) The BEST Initiative

LIFE Indicators Database

LIFE Projects Database

Lopez, P.D. (2017) LIFE Key Project-level Indicators (KPI). Presentation by the

European Commission

Milieu, IEEP and ICF (2016) Evaluation Study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds

and Habitats Directives

NABU and BirdLIFE (2017) Additional information to the public consultation on Mid-

term evaluation of the LIFE Programme

Neemo & EY (2016) LIFE: Contributing to employment and economic growth

Regulation (EC) No 614/2007 concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment

(LIFE+)

Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013 on the establishment of a Programme for the

Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) and repealing Regulation (EC) No

614/2007

Ricardo and CE Delft (2017) Report on the first results of Horizon 2020 on energy

efficiency and system integration

–

Final report

Ricardo, IEEP and Trinomics (2017) Climate mainstreaming in the EU budget: preparing

for the next MFF

Trinomics (2012) Final evaluation of LIFE+: Summary of conclusions and

recommendations

WWF (2018) The EU Multiannual Financial Framework: WWF Position Paper on the

next EU Budget and its application

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

NNEX

2: STAKEHOLDERS CONSULTATION

As part of the mid-term evaluation of the current LIFE Programme a wide range of consultation

activities were conducted, including (i) a 12-week public consultation generating more than 250

responses, (ii) six specific surveys with more than 200 responses, and (iii) over 150 interviews

(and where relevant site visits) of the key stakeholder groups, including project beneficiaries,

project coordinators, external monitoring experts and stakeholders related to the LIFE financial

instruments.

A summary of key stakeholder messages from the above consultation activities is presented in the

box below:

Box 0-1: Summary of key messages from stakeholders consulted under the MTE of LIFE



95% of the respondents of the public consultation confirmed the need to have an EU programme for the

environment and climate.

Stakeholders emphasised that the transnational nature of LIFE plays an important role in the

programme’s effectiveness.

Stakeholders highlighted that LIFE is one of the few EU funds that specifically supports the restoration

and maintenance of biodiversity and thus plays an important role in funding nature conservation.

Stakeholders welcomed the phasing out of national allocations but emphasised the usefulness of national

contact points. At the same time, stakeholders highlighted that there are large differences between

Member States in terms of their capacity and performance.

Between 72% and 96% of respondents considered that all types of interventions covered by LIFE are

relevant for an EU programme for the environment and climate.

The majority of stakeholders considered LIFE to be both internally and externally coherent.

Stakeholders also agreed that LIFE acts as a catalyst nevertheless the consultation activities showed that

this potential should be further exploited.

The LIFE Programme was considered to be relevant by stakeholders to address the needs and problems in

the area of climate and environment. At the same time, the need for prioritisation and the potential

inclusion of a more ‘top-down’ approach was highlighted. Some stakeholders also suggested putting less

restrictions on thematic focus in the Regulation.

The majority of the respondents of the public consultation undertaken in the framework of the mid-term

evaluation confirmed that the programme has an important EU added value because it supports the

coherent development, implementation and enforcement of EU environment and climate policy and

legislation (98 % of respondents); it tackles environmental and climate problems more efficiently (98 %

of respondents); it preserves EU environmental resources which, even if unevenly distributed across the

EU, benefit the EU as a whole (94 % of respondents); it contributes to EU-wide sharing of 'best practices',

knowledge transfer, demonstration, and awareness raising (99 % of respondents).

Consulted stakeholders had strong views on the need for further simplification, and the excessive

administrative complexity of the programme was criticised.

The high replication potential of integrated projects was emphasised by stakeholders.

With regards to financial instruments, consulted stakeholders highlighted the need for grant blending and

further technical assistance. Some stakeholders also questioned the relevance and effectiveness of the

NCFF.

The importance of the involvement of NGOs in environmental and climate policy was highlighted by the

stakeholders who pointed to the relevance of the LIFE operating grants.



Source: Ecorys (2017) Support for an external and independent LIFE Mid Term Evaluation Report

Although it was not considered necessary to organise a new, broad public consultation for this

impact assessment, further opinions on the MTE results and the future of the LIFE Programme

were received from environmental NGOs and some consultation activities to discuss the

challenges and opportunities of the programme were undertaken with relevant stakeholders,

including relevant units within DG Environment and DG Climate Action, as well as

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

representatives from other DGs taking part in the Inter-Service Steering Group meetings, and

with EASME.

These consultations provided further justification for the conclusions of the MTE but also

provided new insights into the future direction of the LIFE programme. A summary of these

points is presented in the box below while Annex 3provides more detailed information.

Box 2-2: Summary of key points from further discussions



A wide range of environmental NGOs highlighted the importance of the LIFE Programme in

funding environmental issues even if the current budget of the programme only represents 0.3% of

the total EU MFF. At the same time, they called for a

significant increase in the future LIFE’s

budget. Overall, they argued that LIFE should receive at least 1% of the total EU post-2020 MFF.

Given the need to increase nature conservation efforts and the importance of LIFE’s role in

supporting biodiversity, some NGOs called to dedicate 50% of the future LIFE to the Nature and

Biodiversity priority area. Furthermore, several stakeholders called for the creation of a large

dedicated Nature Fund, possibly within the LIFE umbrella.

The need to increase co-financing rates was also highlighted, particularly to facilitate participation

from the MS which are participating less. Furthermore, NGOs emphasised the need to reduce

administrative burden on project applicants in order to increase the effectiveness of the programme.

Discussions with Commission services highlighted the importance to consider flexibility within the

programme, synergies between LIFE and other EU funds, the potential for replicability, the need to

understand critical mass and the difficulties inherent in assessing the full catalytic effect of the

programme. The current unbalanced participation from certain Member States and beneficiaries was

also highlighted.

An interview in EASME covered a number of points relating to the management and scope of LIFE.

In particular, the lack of value that would represent delegating procurement contracts to EASME

was confirmed. Using a two-stage application process and using E-Grant were seen as positive

developments. Regarding the scope of LIFE, an inclusion of the former Intelligent Energy Europe

(IEE) parts from Horizon 2020 into LIFE would be beneficial in terms of coherence and size of the

Programme and it would lead to management synergies within EASME.



2.1. CONSULTATION ACTIVITIES

As indicated in the main report, as part of the mid-term evaluation of the current LIFE

Programme extensive consultation activities took place which included a 12-week long public

consultation, six specific surveys targeting relevant stakeholders and more than 150 interviews

with a wide range of LIFE stakeholders.

Given the above, it was not considered necessary to undertake a new and wide-ranging public

consultation. Nevertheless, a limited set of further consultation activities were undertaken. This

included some discussions on the potential challenges and opportunities relevant to the LIFE

programme post-2020 with relevant stakeholders, including relevant units within DG

Environment and DG Climate Action, representatives from other DGs taking part in the Inter-

Service Steering Group (IISG) meetings, and with EASME.

In addition, the Committee of the Regions and the European Economic and Social Committee

have adopted specific opinions on the future of the LIFE Programme after having acknowledged

the results of the mid-term evaluation and certain environmental NGOs have prepared position

papers outlining their views on the funding priorities under the next MFF, which included some

views on the LIFE programme. While this evidence is biased towards the views of a single

stakeholder group, so cannot be considered representative, the options are still useful

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

2.1.1. Opinion of the Committee of the Regions (CoR) of the LIFE MTE

The Committee of the Regions in its opinion

on the mid-term evaluation of the LIFE

Programme provided the following conclusions:



Reiterated its strong support for the LIFE Programme and called for its continuation with a

significantly increased budget in the post-2020 MFF.

Called for the increase of funds for the Nature and Biodiversity priority area and indicated

the need to significantly increase the programme’s contributions to the Natura 2000

network.

Recommended to strengthen the Climate Action sub-programme of LIFE.

Recommended to reinforce LIFE’s role in tackling uneven implementation

and enforcement

of the EU environmental acquis in the Member States.

Recommended the further implementation of the (strategic) integrated projects and the

Governance and Information priority areas.

Called for the increase of co-financing rates under the future LIFE programme.

Called for revisiting the decision on the phase out of national allocations.

Called for the introduction of further simplification of the application procedures for project

applicants.

Called the Commission to assess the opportunities for LIFE to support large-scale

deployment.

Called the Commission to assess the role of the financial instruments of the LIFE

programme with the aim to attract investors related to the Environment and Resource

Efficiency priority area.

2.1.2.

Opinion of the European Economic and Social Committee (EESC) of

the LIFE MTE

The European Economic and Social Committee in its opinion

on the mid-term evaluation of the

LIFE Programme provided the following conclusions:



Reiterated its support to retain and further develop the LIFE Programme.

Acknowledged the important role of the LIFE programme in supporting EU

environmental policy. Particular emphasis was put on LIFE’s role in directly achieving

direct and tangible environmental impacts and in supporting EU citizens to understand

and accept EU environmental policy.

Highlighted LIFE’s role in identifying inconsistencies in EU policy decisions in relation

to environmental and climate objectives.

Called for the need for LIFE to support the Sustainable Development Goals.

Recommended that the future LIFE should be the main instrument for funding the Natura

2000 network and that appropriate funds are earmarked for this.



CoR (2017) CoR opinion: Mid-term evaluation of the Programme for the Environment and Climate Action

(LIFE) 2014-2020

EESC (2017) EESC opinion: Mid-term evaluation of the LIFE programme

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel



Recommended to further assess how LIFE projects could be better replicated.

Recommended to establish a clearer distinction between LIFE and Horizon 2020

projects, i.e. to not provide LIFE funding for conventional research projects.

Recommended to further develop the Climate Action sub-programme, in particular with

a focus on adaptation actions.

2.1.3.

Opinions of environmental NGOs

Since the publication of the mid-term evaluation of LIFE a set of position papers on the direction

of the future LIFE Programme were published by a set of environmental NGOs.

They included:

- A joint statement from 17 environmental NGO members

of the European Habitats

Forum63;

A position paper on the post-2020 MFF by WWF

;

A joint position paper by NABU and BirdLife on the MTE

;

The EEB’s Memorandum on the Bulgarian Presidency

2.1.3.1 The need to significantly increase the future LIFE budget

All environmental NGOs emphasised the important role LIFE plays in supporting environmental

and climate objectives in the EU. Given the programme’s importance and the continued need to

tackle environmental and climate challenges the NGOs argued that the LIFE Programme should

be continued in the future MFF. In addition, all NGOs agreed that the programme’s budget needs

to be significantly increased. LIFE currently represents 0.3% of the EU budget. The member

NGOs of the European Habitats Forum suggested increasing this share to 1%. At the same time,

EEB in its note on suggested priorities for the Bulgarian EU Presidency presented an argument

for a ten-fold

increase in LIFE’s budget.

NGOs not only argued for the overall increase of the LIFE Programme but to also increase the

dedicated budget to the Nature and Biodiversity priority area. NGOs re-iterated the importance of

LIFE in funding biodiversity conservation and also pointed to the continuous conservational

challenges within the EU. Members of the European Habitats Forum argued that 50% of LIFE

should be dedicated to LIFE while earlier in a joint position paper BirdLife and NABU suggested

a 10% increase in funding for nature.

2.1.3.2.

The need to increase co-financing rates

A need for an increased co-financing rate was emphasised by all NGOs. They argued that in

order to overcome the financial challenges project beneficiaries facing co-financing rates need to

be increased to 75%. They argued that in some cases co-financing rates could be even increased

to 90%, for instance in the case of those projects that target species which are considered to be in

an unfavourable-bad status under the Habitats Directive.

Including BirdLife, EEB and WWF whose individual opinions are also presented in this section. While most

individual opinions are similar to those included in the case of the amount by which the LIFE programme is

suggested to be increased is different. Such differences are highlighted in the sections below.

https://www.eurosite.org/wp-content/uploads/LIFE-EHF-Position-Dec-2017.pdf

Published in December

2017.

http://d2ouvy59p0dg6k.cloudfront.net/downloads/WWF_-_MFF_position_paper_-_January_2018.pdf

Published in January 2018.

Not available online. Published in 2017.

Not available online. Published in January 2018.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

2.1.3.3.

The need to reduce administrative burden for applicants

All NGOs highlighted that currently project applicants have to face complex and time-consuming

processes and there is a need to reduce administrative burden. They specifically highlighted the

need to introduce the two-step application process more widely under the programme.

2.1.3.4.

The need to support 'traditional' standard projects more widely

WWF emphasised the need to increase support for 'traditional' standard projects which have a

bottom-up

approach and thus have potential to bring LIFE projects “closer to citizens”. WWF

suggested to provide a 50% earmarking within action grants for 'traditional' standard projects.

2.2.

Other inputs

2.2.1. Inputs from relevant units within DG Environment and Climate Action and

with representatives from other DGs

The below sections provide a summary of the main points raised by Commission services in

reflection on the future of the LIFE Programme.

The need to ensure synergies between LIFE and other funds

While the MTE of the LIFE Programme highlighted that there are synergies already in place

between LIFE and

various other financial programmes

, DGs within the European

Commission indicated that these synergies should be further explored and supported whenever

possible. Specific references were made to the European Regional Development Fund (EDRF)

and the Research and Innovation Framework Programme 9 (Horizon Europe).

In relation to research and innovation, the possibility to include the sustainable energy component

of Horizon 2020 in the future LIFE Programme was discussed and it was concluded that given

the suitable nature, objectives and intervention logic of this part of Horizon 2020 this could be a

viable option for the post-2020 LIFE.

The need to ensure a critical mass

Commission services emphasised the need to reflect

on the “critical mass” that is needed to

effectively implement the future LIFE Programme. This reflection needs to take account of the

identified needs. It was also highlighted that it is important to consider the need for flexibility in

view of the critical mass identified.

The need to foster project replicability

The importance to continue replicating successful LIFE projects was highlighted. For instance, it

was emphasised that an important feature of LIFE is that it can support projects which can then

be replicated by the Structural Funds at later stages.

Other issues

In addition to the above issues, Commission services called for the need to address the

unbalanced access to LIFE funds for beneficiaries within the Member States. This was asked to

be addressed by relevant delivery mechanisms.

Finally, the need to assess how to deal with the participation of third countries in the LIFE

Programme was requested.

2.2.2. Inputs from EASME

The discussion with EASME focussed on the management cost implications of the options for

changing the scope of LIFE and also covered the options relating to reducing the administrative

burden. The interviewee was also able to offer some personal input based on his long experience

of the LIFE programme.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Validity of current role of EASME in LIFE

EASME do the management of virtually all LIFE projects, including the integrated projects.

They don’t do procurement and some preparatory projects, and they felt that there would be little

to gain from them taking these on. Procurement is policy driven and from EASME’s experience

in other programmes (COSME and EMFF) putting this type of action into an agency does not add

value.

NGO funding

The interviewee felt that the annual budget structure is a constraint, but this is required by the

financial regulations. He stated that the current two-year funding approach is enabled by signing

a framework type contract with the recipients, however he did not feel that it generates that much

of an administrative saving. The interviewee felt that longer framework partnership agreements

should be considered

Simplification

On the benefits of a two-stage

application approach, EASME doesn’t have calculations on this,

but the justification is to reduce applicant time. The interviewee felt that an approximate estimate

of the time savings would be that a full proposal takes 2-3 person months of man days, which

costs at least €10k, but could be as much as €30-40

k. In contrast preparing a short (outline (stage

one)) proposal should take no more than 2-3

weeks and cost €5k at most. The interviewee

thought applicants with a long history of success, who know the programme well, would not like

this idea, because it loses some of the advantage their experience gives. However, this was not

the case, as Birdlife (a very successful applicant) were very enthusiastic as it would allow new

applicants to approach LIFE. The interviewee felt that a two-stage approach would almost

definitely result in more applications. EASME asked DEVCO about their experience and the

conclusion was extremely positive The interviewee raised one down side, with the question of

how the concept notes should be evaluated. There is a risk of being more subjective in evaluating

them as it would be difficult to have detailed criteria that would justify an approval of a certain

top ranked percentage. This risk may be addressed by carefully designing the concept note

structure and associated guidelines The interviewee stated that the two-stage application process

is already used in parts of Horizon 2020, and that the approach is expanding to other

programmes. For example, DG EAC also use a two-stage process. He felt that it works best in

programmes that have lots of proposals, or where the level of detail (required for the full bid) is

very high.

The interviewee stated that other potential simplifications for the full proposals include reusing

the text entered for the concept note and reducing the level of detail in the application forms.

EASME are assuming responsibility for the IT for LIFE and in due time, will have sufficient

capacity to make the changes required. to the existing IT tools to introduce these simplifications

The intention is to move to the E grant tool by 2020 (as used by most other programmes). This is

intended to become a single portal to access all EU financial programmes. This switch might lose

a few specificities (to LIFE), but efforts will be made to keep the best (and most useful) things.

Moving some of the energy parts of Horizon 2020

The interviewee felt that the positive elements of this option are that it would boost the LIFE

budget and quality and the EASME LIFE and Horizon 2020 Energy units are close in terms of

approach and interests. He also felt that taking some of the energy projects (the former IEE

programme) out of Horizon 2020 would give more flexibility to the projects it supports. It would

also address the feeling that these projects get ‘lost’ in Horizon 2020. He felt that there could be

some extra costs of moving the Horizon 2020 energy projects into LIFE. For example, if the

monitoring approach for the Horizon 2020 projects is adjusted to be the same as for the LIFE

projects it will mean more national monitors are required, though the required growth would not

be entirely linear. The project negotiation process would also add extra costs. On the positive side

the interviewee stated that according to ex-post audits there is a lower error rate in LIFE projects

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

(currently some 0.25%) than Horizon 2020 projects. He felt that the project revision process

helps with this as do the national monitors. The interviewee felt that if the LIFE approach were

applied to the Horizon 2020 projects the extra administrative costs would be largely offset by a

lower error rate.

Third countries and outermost regions

The interviewee stated that Article 5 allows associated counties to participate in any programme

if they sign an agreement and contribute to the budget of that programme. For LIFE that hasn’t

been taken up, largely because the likelihood of these countries getting back their contribution is

low. A system to guarantee that at least a share of that money would be reinvested in the

countries that contributed might be considered to make the scheme more appealing.

The interviewee stated that Article 6 of the LIFE programme allows actions to be supported

anywhere in the world if they are necessary to deliver results in the EU. An obvious example is

helping migratory birds in their wintering countries. This approach could be expanded to include

problems clearly caused by the EU - e.g. illegal ship recycling in Asia. However, this is an

exceptional approach, so clear evidence of EU relevance would be needed on a case by case

basis.

Unequal geographic distribution of LIFE participation:

The interviewee felt that there is historical evidence that the approach of a certain percentage of

the total number of 'traditional' standard projects for each MS is a distortive element. The

evidence shows that it in no way helped low performing MSs to increase their share of take from

LIFE. The only way is to work patiently on the real causes in each MS , but also in every

economic or social sector. He felt that there is arguably some merit in having a geographical

distribution factor for integrated projects, on the basis of numbers of projects per MS, rather than

share of budget per MS.

General scope

In the traditional grant area, the interviewee felt that the bottom up approach to sourcing projects

is the main success factor of LIFE. He agreed that the current mix between priorities and bottom

up ideas should be maintained and improved striking the right balance between predictability and

flexibility and between EU policy priorities and local capacity and perception of where problems

lie. The budget for these projects could easily be doubled to better match the historic level of

demand and absorption.. He also agreed that Integrated projects could be expanded to cover

additional themes e.g. energy, noise, marine, etc.) and be regarded as a primary mainstreaming

method for the Commission, but again this would require a significant budget increase. With

regard to preparatory projects, their overall budget is small, but these are important top-down

projects driven and may justify a certain increase.

The interviewee felt that the current balance of objectives between the Regulation and the annual

program appears a good solution as it allows some flexibility year to year. In general, all parts of

LIFE appear worthy of retention (scope and approach) with the exception of the capacity building

element, and the country allocation approach. The current single MS capacity building approach

should be replaced by one or two grants addressing the support of the whole network of LIFE

National Contact Points

Monitoring and Evaluation

With regard to the option of changing the approach to Monitoring and Evaluation, by bringing it

back into the Commission and doing it all from Brussels. The interviewee felt that this change

would not only be very difficult in view of the staff figures we would be looking for (100-150),

but more important we would kill the most visible and appreciated special feature of the LIFE

program: the network of professional monitors. In every evaluation or audit across the years, this

special feature has been prized by beneficiaries, member States and even EU institutions.

Internalising this staff in EASME could be materially possible, but they would never be able to

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

ensure the proximity, the language coverage and the logistic flexibility that the LIFE monitors

bring.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

NNEX

3: EVALUATION RESULTS

3.1.

Summary of the mid

–term

evaluation of LIFE (2014-2020)

During its 25 years of existence, the LIFE programme has been evaluated a number of times. The

current programme is the result of these evaluations and has been shaped by the lessons learnt

from the programme’s implementation

over the years.

The mid-term evaluation

As required by the LIFE Regulation, the mid-term

evaluation builds on the external study ‘Mid-

term analysis of the LIFE Regulation’, carried out by independent contractors.

The mid-term evaluation was carried out at an early stage of the programme's implementation.

This means that most projects were not started yet, and few projects were completed (the average

duration of a LIFE project is 4 to 5 years).

For these reasons the mid-term evaluation focused mainly on the processes put in place (launch

of calls, signing of contracts, funding of projects, etc.) to reach the LIFE programme's objectives.

Where relevant, the evaluation looked at their expected results more than the results achieved.

Moreover a comparison was done with the previous programme (its outputs are used as a

reference) because most of the activities and the related procedures ('traditional' standard

projects, operating grants and procurement) continue to be as they were under the LIFE+

programme.

3.1.1. Main findings

Overall, the mid-term evaluation provided reasonable assurance that the LIFE programme is on

track to be:



effective,

because it is well placed to meet its targets and deliver on environmental and

climate objectives and contribute to the pillars of the Europe 2020 strategy.

Ongoing projects from the 2014 calls for proposals are expecting to reach 70% of each

milestone envisaged for 2017, for example, by targeting better conservation of 114 species,

59 habitats and 85 Natura 2000 sites.

Activities are in place to fulfil all the general objectives and to contribute to resource-

efficiency, innovative technologies and, in a limited way, employment.

Some of the most recent policy developments have been financed by LIFE - namely the

circular economy package adopted in 2015 and the 2030 climate and energy framework

adopted in 2014, the implementation of the Paris Agreement ratified in 2016 as well as the

EU's adaptation strategy -.



efficient,

because the projects are expected to provide value for money. It is estimated that

the benefit to society of some of the projects from the 2014 call for proposals will amount to

EUR 1.7 billion. This figure alone represents four times the cost of the overall LIFE budget

for 2014.

The transfer of most of the grant management from the Commission to the executive agency

EASME is well on track and it is expected to produce an overall gain in efficiency, above

the EUR 8.2 million gains initially planned for 2014-2020.

relevant,

because the ongoing projects are addressing some crucial challenges such as

halting the loss of biodiversity, deriving savings from the circular economy, reducing the

costs of inaction related to the consequences and effects of climate change.

complementary

to and works in combination with other programmes (thus producing

synergies). As confirmed by the analysis of areas with similar objectives, the fact that the

different programmes do not have the same primary focus means that there is little



kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

possibility of overlapping. Initial findings also show that the LIFE programme has

encouraged using the results of the projects financed by research programmes. It has also

encouraged taking advantage of the European Structural and Investment Funds, in particular

through the integrated projects.

Moreover, the LIFE programme showed a substantial and unanimously recognised

EU added

value,

because it helps to make the application of EU environmental and climate legislation and

policies consistent across the EU. It allows a better sharing of responsibility and promotes

solidarity for the management/conservation of EU environmental assets. Some evidence also

confirms that the programme is successfully playing its role as catalyst, promoting activities to

exchange best practice and knowledge and to improve the utilisation of project results as well as

transfer of know-how.

The evaluation also highlighted aspects which need to be improved. This involves:



simplifying grant management procedures, in particular the application and reporting

processes;

increasing the strategic focus of the demand-driven part of the programme, e.g. by targeting

topics not covered by the projects funded in previous years;

doing more to reproduce the projects and transfer their results, e.g. by developing the

capacity to plan and implement investments and addressing the lack of financial resources;

improving the communication strategy to better target audiences, deliver more objective-

specific and target-specific key messages and ensure more structured coordination between

players.

The results of the LIFE mid-term evaluation exercise helped to improve these aspects under the

next multiannual work programme (2018-2020) and will be addressed in the next multiannual

financial framework.

3.1.2. RSB Opinion

On February 2017 the Regulatory Scrutiny Board gave a positive opinion on the evaluation of the

staff working document (SWD) on the mid-term evaluation, with observations on how the SWD

could still be further improved. These recommendations were taken into account and several

changes were made in the final version of the SWD.

Main considerations:

The Board notes that the Commission services undertook the mid-term evaluation at an early stage of

the implementation of the programme (2014-2020). Therefore information on the actual impacts of

projects is not yet fully available.

The Board gives a positive opinion, but considers that the report should be adjusted in order to

address a number of key shortcomings, using the information from the evaluation study and

incorporating the longer-term results of the LIFE+ programme:

(1) The scope of the evaluation is unclear. It does not cover all questions of relevance for the next

Multi-annual Financial Framework (MFF). It is unclear whether its focus encompasses the

whole programme or only its new features.

(2) The report does not provide evidence as to whether and how the LIFE programme has achieved a

strategic focus (e.g. in thematic priorities, programme structure, Multi Annual Work

Programme). 2

(3) The report does not demonstrate the catalytic role of the LIFE programme in mobilising

additional funding, integrating environmental and climate objectives into other policies, and in

spreading good practices.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

(4) The report does not provide a full analysis of the programme's actual implementation costs or its

simplification potential (e.g. lump sums, VAT, selection procedure).

(5)

The report does not sufficiently explain the EU added value of the LIFE programme and the

synergies with other funding programmes.

3.2.

Summary of the evaluations of LIFE+ (2007-2013)

3.2.1. Summary of the final evaluation of LIFE +

The final evaluation

of the LIFE+ Programme (2007-2013) conclude that the

programme was successful in promoting the implementation of the EU’s environmental

policy and legislation with significant EU added value. However, it also identified a

number of shortcomings concerning the action grants and the NGO operating grants.

These challenges are presented below in two sections; the first shows those that were

addressed in the design of the current LIFE Programme (2014-2020), and how this was

achieved, according to the Mid-term evaluation (MTE)

of LIFE. The second section

presents those challenges that do not appear to have been explicitly addressed.

The following challenges of the LIFE+ Programme (2007-2013) were identified in its

final evaluation and were addressed in the current Programme:

1. There was a need for a more strategic focus. A minimum of 78% of the LIFE+

budget was devoted to action grants, so its success in addressing EU’s

environmental and climate policy issues was strongly influenced by the quality

and quantity

of the applications received, given the ‘bottom-up’ approach of

responding to the demand for action grants.

The LIFE Programme (2014-2020) addressed this issue by:

a) Shifting from a pure bottom-up approach to a flexible bottom-up approach,

which could better steer demand, with specific thematic priorities and project

topics defined for the Environment Sub-programme.

b) Dedicating a minimum of 81% of the LIFE budget to action grants projects,

funded via an annual call for proposals, and to operations grants, financed by

financial instruments. While both projects and operations still depend on the

quality and quantity of the application, the definition of priorities is assumed

to have improved the Programme’s strategic focus.

2. LIFE+ stakeholders indicated that the application process and reporting

obligations should be simplified.

The LIFE Programme (2014-2020) addressed this issue by:

a) Shifting to a two-step application procedure for the integrated projects.

b) Waiving the requirement to submit an external audit certificate and/or a VAT

certificate.

Communication

from the Commission to the European Parliament and the Council ‘Final evaluation of

Regulation (EC) No 614/2007 concerning the Financial Instrument for the Environment (LIFE+)’.

COM/2013/0478 final.

EC (2017) Report on the Mid-term Evaluation of the Programme for Environment and Climate. EC (2017)

Report on the Mid-term Evaluation of the Programme for Environment and Climate Action (LIFE).

SWD(2017) 355 final.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

c) Streamlining the system to enable applicants to submit their proposals

electronically (e-proposal).



However, despite the adjustments mentioned above, the MTE of LIFE

(2014-2020) indicated that stakeholders still found the application process

and the reporting requirements burdensome and that they need to be

simplified.

3. The LIFE+ Programme objectives were not always clear and certain strands were

lacking definition, especially the ‘Environmental Policy and Governance’ and

the

‘Information and Communication’ parts.

The LIFE Programme (2014-2020) addressed these issues by:

a) Changing the overall objective and adding two additional objectives

(Objective (a) and (c) contained in Article 3(1) of the LIFE Regulation

which clarify the general purpose of the LIFE Programme, the importance of

environmental and climate governance involving all stakeholders, and the

role of LIFE in the enforcement of environmental and climate policy and

legislation.

b) Creating a sub-programme for climate action, which upgraded the thematic

strand ‘climate change’ during the LIFE+ Programme.

4. There was a need to better utilise project results and transfer know-how by

focusing on implementing and creating multipliers.

The LIFE Programme (2014-2020) addressed this issue by:

a) Making the potential for replicability and transferability of project results one

of the project award criteria.

b) Close monitoring and organising of platform meetings during the

implementation of the project, which makes it easier to disseminate and

transfer project results.

Drawing up ‘after-LIFE Plans’ to organise the continuation of project

activities and enhancing the ex-post monitoring visits two years after LIFE

financing ends.

5. A lack of complementarity and synergies with other EU Funds.

The LIFE Programme (2014-2020) addressed this issue by:

a) The LIFE regulation explicitly highlights the need to develop synergies with

Horizon 2020



EASME’s analysis

confirmed that LIFE and Horizon 2020

contribute to common objectives in different ways, reinforcing each

other.

b) The common provisions regulation (CPR) of the ESI Funds contains a section

that promotes coordination and synergies between the ESIF and LIFE, and in

particular the ERDF was mentioned in the Mid-term evaluation as

complementary to LIFE.

Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the

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

(EC) No 614/2007,

Uptake of the results of EU-funded research projects in the LIFE NAT 2014-2015 portfolio. EASME

Ares(2016)4835449 - 29/08/2016

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

6. Restrictions on funding activities in countries not directly participating in the

LIFE+ Programme reduced the Programme’s effectiveness

The LIFE Programme (2014-2020) addressed this issue by:

a) Adding in the regulation of the currently running programme that

interventions in countries outside the EU and participation of legal persons

based in those countries in activities financed under LIFE should

exceptionally be possible.

7. There was an uneven distribution of funding between the Member States. Italy,

Spain and Germany received disproportionally more amounts of LIFE+ support,

while newest Member States had a lower rate of success

The LIFE Programme (2014-2020) addressed this issue by:

Introducing ‘capacity-building projects’, which aim to provide

financial

support to enhance the capacity of Member States, including national and

regional contact points, to participate more effectively in the LIFE

Programme.



However, the MTE of the currently running programme indicated that the

uneven distribution of funds among Member States remains, with Italy,

Spain and Germany receiving most of the grants.

The following weaknesses of the LIFE+ Programme (2007-2013) were identified in its

final evaluation but do not appear to have been explicitly addressed in the next

Programme:

1. There was room for more synergies and coherence with national, regional,

and local programmes in Member States.

2. There were liquidity problems for the NGOs that received operating grants

due to issues related to the speed and timing of payments.

Based on the opinions that small and new MS NGOs are not frequently supported)

trialling the inclusion of a stream of funding to support new member state and small

NGOs.

3.2.2. Programme coverage and Thematic choices

Results of the mid-term evaluation of the LIFE+ Programme (2007-2013) suggested a need to

increase the strategic focus of the programme. This was re-iterated by the impact assessment for

the 2014-2020

LIFE Programme, which stated that the “MTE

argued that LIFE could be

improved, particularly in terms of a more strategic, multiannual approach that better articulated

and translated the strategic EU priorities, especially in relation to the implementation and

integration of environmental policy, as the basis of programme activity”.

The

need for a more

strategic approach was considered in the Impact Assessment (IA, 2011) of the various policy

options for the post-2014 LIFE Programme

With regard to future thematic choices, the IA (2011) considered the contemporaneous

environmental issues and environmental policy requirements. The IA identified that major

environmental issues were well defined and subject to ongoing monitoring and research by the

European Environment Agency (EEA) and periodically presented by theme and Member State in

the State of Environment report. The issues were briefly summarised with regard to three policy

areas:



“The physical environment”, primarily related to nature and biodiversity and including

climate change impacts

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel



“The existing acquis”, including air quality,

freshwater management and implementation of

the Water Framework Directive; and

“Resource efficiency and decoupling” in terms of resource use (including climate change

mitigation) and waste.

Essentially, the IA recognised a continuum of environmental issues from those specifically

concerning the state of the environment, stock of environmental assets and associated ecosystem

services to those more generally related to resource efficiency and decoupling of resources. The

IA noted that there was also a continuum between the need to further develop environmental

policies (supported by public procurement of service contracts) and policy implementation

(largely supported by LIFE programme’s action grants). However, against this backdrop, none of

the responses to

the IA’s stakeholder survey supported restricting LIFE to addressing one

particular environmental issue or policy and general consensus was that it was difficult to

prioritise individual themes because of the extent of interactions between all of them. This was

also the view of 75% of respondents to a Committee of the Regions survey, although the

remainder were in favour of prioritising climate change, management of the Natura 2000

Network and the Habitats and Birds Directives. A separate survey conducted by

the EC’s LIFE

Unit in “Your voice in Europe”, also identified that 60% of respondents felt that the Commission

should set thematic environmental priorities, especially for nature and biodiversity, although a

wide range of other environmental policy areas were also flagged as important.

3.2.3. Territorial choices

The IA (2011) identified that the main territorial concern was the extent to which third countries

should benefit from LIFE finding, in what ways and whether activities beyond the EU should be

eligible. Three arrangements were considered in terms of potential scope:



“Exclusively EU”

“Minor allowances for third country involvement” (e.g. clear transboundary issues which

affect implementation of a specific EU environmental policy)

“Greater integration of third countries” based on defined needs and thematic focus, given

Treaty requirements for international action and importance of global and European

neighbourhood environmental problems. It was noted that this would require cooperation

between DG ENV and former DG RELEX and DG DEV and could weaken development

policy coherence.

Stakeholders across all consultations associated with the IA generally supported potential for

LIFE to fund activities outside the EU provided the EU benefited. Most stakeholders also felt that

the indicative 15% share of LIFE+ funds ear-marked for transnational projects was reasonable.

3.2.4. Options assessment

One of the five options (Option 5) assessed by the IA (2011) considered narrowing the thematic

focus of the LIFE programme to implementation of Article 8 of the Habitats Directive, to secure

the effective management and stewardship of the Natura 2000 network and the related

biodiversity policy agenda. The assessment of this option concluded that expansion of the Nature

component would provide increased benefits from wider biodiversity-related activity, Nature

activities should not be overly constrained by a focus on Natura 2000 sites, and that associated

projects should be larger with broader scope and scale.

The preferred option arising from the IA (Option 3) had a thematic focus reflecting the general

objective of developing, updating and implementing EU environmental policy, i.e. addressing

emerging problems of EU scale across the whole of the environmental acquis. This included

action outside the EU where it provided EU added value, in cooperation with former DG RELEX

and DG DEV. The ex-ante evaluation of this preferred option suggested that there would be no

negative distributional effects, as environmental problems (e.g. pollution) disproportionately

affect lower income households.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Ultimately, a “flexible bottom-up” approach was introduced, i.e. inclusion of thematic priorities

under the Environment sub-programme.

3.2.4.1.

LIFE+ MTE

The need to increase catalytic role

The MTE indicated that LIFE+ played an important catalytic role in leveraging MS funds that

would otherwise not be allocated. It also noted that among MS, while national funding for Natura

2000 strongly varied, there was generally a heavy reliance on EU financing instruments.

However, the LIFE+ MTE noted that while the programme was relevant to the specific objectives

and effective at project level, it was not fulfilling its potential to realise EU added value due to

lack of a strategic approach to the programme. It neither fully reflected EU policy needs in

programme activity nor fully used project results in support of policy needs. While all projects

were required to disseminate results and there was some synthesis of lessons by project by theme,

the MTE noted that there was limited effort was made to build networks between projects and

stakeholders that might apply and replicate project results more widely. The MTE advocated that

LIFE+ could be improved by a more strategic, multi-annual approach to programme activity

reflective of the EU’s strategic priorities, especially in relation to implementation and

mainstreaming of environmental policy, as well as by improving project’s knowledge transfer to

different stakeholders.

LIFE IA 2011

The LIFE IA (2011) identified three options that it identified as having extensive catalytic

potential:



Option 3

–

Strategic programming option

–

expanding the planning and delivery of the

financial instrument. This option continued with a specific financial instrument for the

environment (LIFE) but that was more strategically focused and linked directly to DG

ENV’s policy priorities and work programmes. The option differed from the LIFE+

instrument by having a greater emphasis on: establishing strategic priorities in the MAWP

based on DG ENV’s well-defined

needs; increasing its catalytic potential and synergies

with other financial instruments by increasing multiplication and replication, leveraging

additional funding and expanding use of project results. The option proposed that

LIFE’s

catalytic effect would be increased through developing projects, for example, to: improve

peer-to-peer mutual learning networks between competent authorities; maximise the

contribution of other EU financial instruments to environmental goals; serve as pilots for

subsequent mainstreaming under the Cohesion Policy of CAP; improve synergies with

other financial instruments, given LIFE’s relatively limited resources; encourage increased

cross-working between financial instruments (i.e. as integrated projects).

Option 4

–

Restricted activities option

–

focusing on a limited set of activities. This was

based on Option 3 but with a reduced range of activities by excluding specific information

and communications activity and eco-innovation. The thematic focus reflected the general

objective to develop, update and implement EU environmental policy across the whole

acquis. Territorial focus was on the EU except, minorly, where there were specific

transnational interests. The option had the same emphasis as Option 3 on maximising the

catalytic value of LIFE.

Option 5

–

Restricted thematic (Nature) option

–

focusing the instrument on the statutory

area requiring co-finance. This was a thematically focused version of Option 3 intended to

meet the legal obligations to co-finance the Natura 2000 network and to address climate

change.



kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

In addition to address Environment, the LIFE Regulation 2014-2020

subsequently introduced a

sub-programme for Climate Action. In relation to the Environment sub-programme, the

Regulation identified three priority areas

–

Environment and Resource Efficiency; Nature and

Biodiversity; Environmental Governance and Information -. These encompass thematic priorities

and associated activities set out in Annex III to the Regulation. The multiannual work programme

(MAWP) for 2014-2017 also contained a non-exhaustive list of project topics implementing the

thematic priorities under the Environment sub-programme. The Regulation also sets three priority

areas for the Climate Action sub-programme

–

Climate Change Mitigation, Climate Change

Adaptation, Climate Governance and Information. In contrast to the Environment sub-

programme, no thematic priorities are established. Instead relevant policy areas are mentioned in

the MAWP and key priorities are further detailed in the yearly calls for proposals.

3.2.4.2.

Delivery mechanisms

Historically, the main delivery mechanism for the LIFE budget programme has been action

grants, and this remains true for the current programming period (2014-2020) (e.g. GHK, 2011;

Ecorys, 2017). Their design has evolved overtime in response to the issues encountered and to

improve implementation of the LIFE budget programme across all Member States (see below).

The main issues identified through previous evaluations include: complex application and

implementation processes; low visibility of the budget programme; territorial imbalances

concerning access to the budget programme (linked to low levels of interest and weak capacity to

develop high quality project applications); low transparency in the project award process;

inadequate monitoring at programme level; low sustainability of projects; and weak catalytic

effect (related to dissemination as well as design aspects of operating grants) (COWI, 2009;

ECA, 2009; Trinomics, 2012; 2014; Trinomics, 2012; European Parliament, 2016).

In response to the issues identified, there has been a stronger focus on improving capacity

building and dissemination with a good degree of success. Particularly - efforts to establish

‘mutual learning’ through the Commission website toolkits and communication tools as well as

the annual Best Projects exercise to share best practice. It is also observed that external and inter-

project communication within the programme has improved, e.g. better website and project

database, platform meetings, themed brochures and conferences and clustering of projects.

A key ongoing challenge appears to be territorial imbalances relating to uptake. With national

allocations deemed ineffective (and having unintended adverse effects on competition within

certain Member States), the conclusions from previous evaluations pointed to the need for

strengthened capacity building through targeted delivery mechanisms (as established by the

capacity building and technical assistance projects in the current programming period) together

with greater stakeholder engagement in project design (as established through integrated

projects).

Table 3-1: Overview of issues encountered through previous evaluations

Issues

Application process too time-consuming

(in comparison to other budget

programmes in particular); time taken to

sign a LIFE contract can be delayed by

up to a year

Source

Actions taken to address issues

Guidance developed and annual templates for

project applications

Promotion of active knowledge sharing at EU

level

Overtime it is observed that the electronic

application process has reduced the

COWI (2009);

ECA (2009);

Ecorys (2012)

Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013 of the European Parliament and of the Council of 11 December 2013 on the

establishment of a Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE) (OJ L 347, 20.12.2013, p.

185);

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/?uri=uriserv:OJ.L_.2013.347.01.0185.01.ENG.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Issues

Source

Actions taken to address issues

administrative burden.

Project

implementation

requires

considerable human resources (staff costs

between 18.5 and 83.5% of action grant

costs)

Insufficient transparency in the award

criteria in the selection process; in some

cases applications were being approved

despite failing to meet key criteria (cross

reference with low project sustainability

–

e.g. Box 1, ECA, 2009). Particularly an

issue as increasing level of rejected

project applications

Monitoring is at the project level; none at

programme level. Potential identified to

expand the use of electronic reporting in

project monitoring.

Low visibility of the budget programme

in certain Member States - accompanied

by low level of interest by Member State

competent authorities; and weak capacity

to develop high quality project

applications

Low level of dissemination of project

results; namely the mode of delivery (i.e.

via manuals which are often available

only in national languages, and not

systematically made available online

–

especially where websites close once a

project is finished). Examples of

incomplete communication plans found.

Insufficient attention paid to the

sustainability of LIFE projects; often

found to be missing in project

management plans (e.g. Box 4, ECA,

2014). Failure to identify and target

where there has been a good level of

replicability (e.g. projects led by groups

of companies).

Unbalanced territorial coverage linked to

low EU co-financing rates where public

national funding is insufficient to allow

access to the budget programme; and low

capacity to develop high quality project

applications.

National allocations have been ineffective

in addressing this

–

mainly found to be

magnifying competition between projects

in the same country

ECA (2014)

COWI (2009);

ECA

(2009;

2014);

European

Parliament

(2016)

Details set out in the MAWP concerning the

award criteria

Ongoing challenge; particularly as rejection

rate has increased with 1/6 or 1/7 applicants

awarded action grants between 2014-2017

(previously this was 1/5 or 1/4).

Framework established for output and result

indicators at programme level

COWI (2009);

ECA (2014);

Ecorys (2012)

COWI (2009);

European

Parliament

(2016)

Efforts to

establish ‘mutual learning’ namely

through the Commission website toolkits and

communication tools as well as the annual

Best Projects exercise to share best practice.

Additional delivery mechanisms established,

namely capacity building, IPs and TAs

COWI (2009);

ECA

(2009;

2014);

European

Parliament

(2016)

Most notably actions took effect in LIFE+.

Overtime it is observed that external and inter-

project communication within the programme

has improved, e.g. better website and project

database,

platform

meetings,

themed

brochures and conferences and clustering of

projects.

ECA

2014)

(2009;

GHK (2011);

Ecorys (2012)

EU co-financing rates increased for all action

grants. Up to 100% co-financing for capacity

building projects (for which eligibility is based

on LIFE absorption rate and national GDP per

capita)

ECA (2014)

Phasing out of national allocations

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Issues

Disproportionately high EU co-financing

rates for operational grants

Inappropriate targeting of operating

grants. E.g. could support NGOs involved

in the shaping of policy; could target

capacity building for small/new NGOs.

Source

GHK (2011)

Actions taken to address issues

EU co-financing rates for operating grants

decreased

GHK (2011);

Ecorys (2012)

3.2.4.3.

Programme Management

The management arrangements for the LIFE programme have evolved over time as lessons have

been learned from previous programming phases. A brief summary of the main issues identified

in previous evaluations, and the relevant actions taken to address the problems, are summarised

below. The table should not be considered comprehensive as other actions may have been taken

which have not been summarised in the relevant reports.

Table 3-2: Overview of issues encountered through previous evaluations

Issues

Management structure

Room for improvement in the role of the

national focal points in programme

management, through their contact, support

and advice to applicants

COWI

(2009)

GHK

(2010)

Ecorys

(2012)

Opportunities

existing

improve

efficiency by the Commission outsourcing

the receipt, eligibility check, selection and

award phases of the selection procedure

Some potential for duplication of tasks e.g.

checks are performed by the monitors are

sometimes repeated by the LIFE Unit.

Application process

Further improvements can be made to

application guidance and application

forms, e.g., by simplifying and digitalising

application forms

The application for LIFE+ funding is

perceived to (still) be fairly onerous, with

further opportunities for simplification

COWI

(2009)

Additional guidelines for applicants

was prepared

GHK

(2010)

COWI

(2009)

Capacity building projects were

introduced

the 2014-2020

programming period to build the

capacity of Member States, including

LIFE national or regional contact

points, with a view to enabling

Member States to participate more

effectively in the LIFE Programme.

Delegation of the management of the

majority of grants to EASME

Ecorys

(2012)

Source

Actions taken to address issues

Source

GHK

(2010)

GHK

(2010)

An on-line application form was

introduced in 2011, which after

initial teething problems, allowed an

efficient selection process from 2012.

Ecorys

(2012)

Appraisal and selection process

For the sake of independence, transparency

and harmonisation of procedures, the

ECA (2003)

Greater involvement of independent

GHK

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Commission

should

consider

the

possibility of entrusting the evaluation to

outside experts.

Selection of projects was a slow process

with cumbersome application procedures

which could benefit from further

optimisation and outsourcing of tasks

Opportunities for improvements in

management processes including faster

response time from the Commission (e.g.

evaluation of applications and of payment

requests) and higher flexibility (including

the use of funding, broader scope of

eligible topics, implementation, budget

amendments and other modifications

needed throughout the project).

Monitoring and selection

On-the-spot checks should be stepped up,

if need be by employing outside auditors.

ECA (2003)

COWI

(2009)

evaluators in the selection procedure.

(2010)

Ecorys

(2012)

Current system of ex post monitoring

visits was started in 2009 to provide

See also Observation 83 "EU

funds were not well mobilised to support the management of the Natura 2000 network. The EU’s approach to

financing the implementation of the Natura 2000 network has been to use existing EU funds. The use of these

funds for the network is the competence of the Member States. There was a lack of reliable information on

the EU funds used for Natura 2000 over the 2007-2013 programming period (paragraphs 41 to 44). There

were weaknesses in the preparation of PAFs by Member States, and the assessment of funding needs for the

2014-2020 programming period was not accurate or complete (paragraphs 45 and 46). At site level,

management plans often lacked an accurate and complete assessment of the costs (paragraph 47) associated

with the implementation of conservation measures. The 2014-2020 programming documents for the various

EU funds did not fully reflect funding needs (paragraphs 48 to 54) and the Commission did not address these

weaknesses in a structured manner. EU funding schemes, in particular under the CAP and regional/cohesion

policy, were insufficiently tailored to the objectives of the Natura 2000 sites (paragraphs 55 to 62)."

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

budget.

In spite of its small size LIFE fund has been of crucial importance for

implementation of EU nature legislation and Natura 2000 in particular. Target LIFE projects

have led to substantial improvement of the conservation status of a number of threatened

habitat and species, have had catalytic effect by mobilising other funds for nature

(particularly through integrated projects) and have tested a number of methods and

approaches which later were replicated with great success in management of the Natura 2000

sites.

This shows that effective mainstreaming is essential but is not sufficient to solve the

environmental problems. Targeted environmental, clean energy and climate funding is

needed to address the additional financing needs but also to provide a catalytic effect to

support relevant policy implementation and altogether more sustainable production and

consumption behaviours. However, targeted funding programmes will only reach their full

potential if complemented by appropriate mainstreaming.

As a result, both environmental and climate mainstreaming as well as targeted funding, such

as the ones of the LIFE Programme, would be needed to adequately address the EU's

environmental problems and failures.

Reporting:

The Fitness Check on Environmental Reporting and Monitoring (SWD(2017)230 and

supporting study

) looked, amongst other issues, at the effectiveness and efficiency of the

current approaches to data management. This uncovered a number of cross-cutting issues

which are relevant to financing needs.



The current LIFE Regulation covers a large part of the legally required operations

related to environmental reporting. On one hand, the EEA is financed by LIFE+ and

has estimated that it uses €4.5 mio annually

to support DG ENV on legislative

reporting. This does not include staff costs but operational costs. In addition, DG

ENV spent between €4-€7 mio (2014-2016)

annually from its LIFE operational

budget to outsource reporting-related activities to address all those legally required

actions that allow the Commission to exercise its duties of “Guardian of the Treaty”

(in other words, to assess Member State implementation of EU environmental laws

and report the results to the European Parliament and the Council). These outsourced

activities are mainly procurements with consultants or administrative arrangements

with the JRC. There are also some few reporting activities related to chemicals

legislation where ECHA is providing those services but no budgetary estimated was

made. Finally, the Commission’s IT budget is covering a small part of these activities

and the services are executed by Unit ENV A4.

The type of activities of all these actors related to reporting are all very similar. They

execute several steps of the date management chain, namely:

collect and store information and data provided by the Member States

quality assurance and control of the data

put together the national data into a new, consolidate European datasets

analyze, assess and interpret the data and information



Milieu, IEEP and ICF, Evaluation Study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives,

March 2016

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

prepare data products such as maps, statistics, dashboards, textual summaries,

etc.



It is therefore apparent that:

The data management is highly fragmented and diverse.

The overall approach is highly inefficient. On average, the time between the

moment that Member States are supposed to report the data and the

Commission preparing its report to the EU institutions is 630 days. The best

practices (all carried out by the EEA) are below half a year (180 days), the

worst is more than 1200 days.

The EEA has been demonstrated as being generally more efficient and

effective in reported data management.

The effectiveness of the data management can be improved significantly by

reducing the textual information, increase the use of indicators, standardize

data management procedures and allow for synergies, interoperability and

coherent approaches between the different data management actors. This

would involve to use more modern and standardized IT solutions. Through

this, the quality of the products can be improved whilst saving time and

money.

Currently the approaches, in particular from outsourcing to consultants, create

a diversity of solutions and products and do not offer sustainability and

continuity. The hosting of data products (such as databases or map viewers) is

open done through the contracts. When these contracts run out, the products

are either not hosted or maintained anymore or there is a indefinite need for

having follow up contracts to cover such costs. This is not an effective use of

the LIFE operational budget.

All the above evidence is based on the Reporting Fitness Check and therefore relates to

data management that is required in 58 pieces of environmental legislation (and 181

reporting obligations). However, the issues are similar and can be extrapolated to wider

environmental data management, e.g. related to policies (where no legislation exists)

such as circular economy, forestry, soil, etc. or evidence-based products which do not

rely only on reported data such

as the EEA’s SOER, the DG ENV’s EIR or any

evaluation or impact assessment, and by analogy to climate needs. Therefore, LIFE

financing is needed to support a coherent approach to evidence gathering, data

management and processing in the areas of environment and climate.

Knowledge gaps and support for Eco-Innovation:

Back in 2013, the 7

Environmental Action Programme already stressed the importance

of taking further steps to maintain and strengthen our knowledge and evidence base in

order to ensure that policy in the Union continues to draw on a sound understanding of

the state of the environment, possible response options and their consequences. The

recent (draft) evaluation of this programme

has however revealed that significant

knowledge gaps remain in a number of environmental issues, for example on

environmental thresholds (tipping points), the circular economy paradigm, the combined

European Parliament -

Committee on the Environment, Public Health and Food Safety, report

2017/2030(INI)

from 26.10.2017

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

effects of chemicals, nano-materials, hazard identification methods, the impacts of micro

plastics, and the interaction between systemic risks and other health determinants.

There is a need to develop an ecosystem for eco-innovation that supports the transition to

a low carbon and circular economy as well as a better implementation of environmental

legislation by building on the strengths of the sector

–

namely the local collaboration

among administration, citizen and entrepreneurs. The most promising approach to build

upon is provided by the European Institute of Technology (EIT) in the Climate-KIC and

KIC-Inno Energy.

Innovation prices

–

as piloted in Horizon2020 and likely foreseen for continuation in

future

–

could develop into a particularly interesting tool of specific interest for

encouraging collaborative innovation among administration, citizen and entrepreneur.

4.4.

Sector-specific Needs

Concerning the specific needs by sector, a summary of the key environmental problems inside

the EU and some of their investment needs is presented in the table below; it should be noted that

there is no comprehensive information available about the total needs for most environmental

sectors.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Table 4-1: Summary of environmental energy and climate problems and needs

Environmental, energy and climate problem

Nature and biodiversity

Natural capital provides the basic conditions for human existence and its economic activities. The complexity of

natural systems and irreversibility of some environmental damage carries significant risks with respect to

continued degradation of ecosystems and their services.

There is a long-term

need, with a vision of up to 2050, “to protect, conserve and enhance the Union’s natural

capital’ and ‘live within the planet’s ecological limits.’

The Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 sets targets up to

2020, however, the 2015 mid-term review of the EU biodiversity strategy to 2020 concluded that biodiversity

loss was continuing and that much strengthened efforts were needed to reach the 2020 target.

There has been some progress made over recent years in halting the loss of biodiversity, but the last State of

Nature in the EU report indicates that overall goals of the EU nature legislation have not been met yet; a

substantial proportion of species of EU interest are threatened and/or declining (around 17% of the birds species

are threatened and another 15% are near threatened, declining or depleted; in case of non-bird species 60% have

been found to be in unfavourable conservations status), and a substantial proportion of habitats and non-bird

species have an unfavourable conservation status (habitat types, on the whole, have a worse conservation status

and trend than species; across the EU-27, only 16% of habitat assessments are favourable, while more than two-

thirds are unfavourable)

Significant progress have been made with designation of the Natura 2000 network but moderate progress has

been made in establishment of conservation measures for Natura 2000 sites (e.g. through management planning

and objectives setting, and practical land management agreements with owners)

A 20+ year outlook expects that the underlying drivers of biodiversity loss are not evolving favourably. Full

The Nature Fitness Check and the mid-term review of the

Biodiversity Strategy to 2020 both concluded that lack of

funding is a major issue, overall costs are in the range of

11-20 billion euro per year, as detailed below.

In 2010 total funding necessary for the management of

the Natura 2000 network was estimated conservatively at

approximately 6 bn EUR/yr.

This figure

–

based on a survey sent to the EU MS

–

risks

to be substantially underestimated as it reflects rather the

current level of available funds than estimation of all

needs. It is estimated the EU co-financing covered only

9-19% of this estimated financing need

. A recent re-

evaluation of needs in Germany resulted in twice the

amounts previously estimated. i.e. Financing needs for

Natura 2000 might be up to 12bn.

In addition, it was estimated that the EU biodiversity

strategy target to maintain and enhance ecosystems and

their services, including through restoring 15% of

degraded ecosystems, would entail a total estimated

additional cost ranging from € 0.5 to 11 billion per

annum, with a middle scenario

of around € 5 billion per

Indicative investment need

Environment Action Programme, Regulation (EU) No 1293/2013

COM/2015/0478 final; EEA (2017) Environmental indicator report 2017: In support to the monitoring of the 7

Environment Action Programme. EEA Report No. 21/2017

REPORT FROM THE COMMISSION TO THE COUNCIL AND THE EUROPEAN PARLIAMENT The State of Nature in the European Union Report on the status of and trends

for habitat types and species covered by the Birds and Habitats Directives for the 2007-2012 period as required under Article 17 of the Habitats Directive and Article 12 of the Birds

Directive COM/2015/0219 final/

Milieu, IEEP and ICF, Evaluation Study to support the Fitness Check of the Birds and Habitats Directives, March 2016.

European Parliament (November 2017) Implementation of the 7

Environment Action Programme

–

Mid-term review, Brussels, European Union 2017

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

implementation of policy is needed to deliver the needed level of improvements.

annum.

Financing needs to continue the BEST small grants

programme for biodiversity in ORs and also the OCTs

(which are not part of the EU) are estimated at 8 million

Euro per year.

Environment and Health (incuding Chemicals)

Due to their increasing use and their potential health impacts, attention to chemicals is growing both in science

and policy-making. Their use provides benefits to society, but at the same time the use of hazardous substances

should be assessed and minimized by 2020. From 2006 to 2015 there was a 7.5% decrease in the consumption of

both hazardous and non-hazardous chemicals.

However, while current legislation increasingly addresses the

impacts of chemicals, concerns over their cumulative effect on human health and the environment and newly

emerging chemicals are proliferating. The call for the development of a non-toxic environment by 2018 as

mentioned in the 7th EAP should address these concerns but the main obstacle is the large knowledge gaps in the

chemicals area. Moreover, the global trend beyond 2020 shows that chemicals production will increase, which

creates a cause of concern.

Air Pollution remains the number one environmental cause of adverse health impacts and premature deaths in

Europe. Despite decreases in emissions of air pollutants over the last decades and improved air quality, the

European Environment Agency estimates that more than 400,000 premature deaths p.a. in the EU are due to air

pollution and poor air quality. Currently 24 of the 28 Member States are not in compliance with the air quality

standards i.e. maximum pollutant concentration levels for key air pollutants set in the Ambient Air Quality

Directives. This has a significant bearing on human health and ecosystem services (notably vegetation including

crops). Where the established standards for ambient air quality are not met, the Directives require Member States

to prepare and implement air quality plans and measures (for a given pollutant). Guided by the principle of

subsidiarity, the Directives leave the choice of means to achieve these standards to the Member States, but do

explicitly require that exceedance periods are kept as short as possible. Effectively addressing this problem

When the willingness-to-pay methodis used to estimate

the amount that people would be willing to pay to avoid

premature death due to pollution-related disease, the total

is estimated to be more than US$4.6 trillion, which is

6·2% of global economic output

In high-income countries, health-care spending

diseases caused by air pollution alone amounted to 3.5%

of total health expenditures in 2013

. This equals ~130€

(PPS) per person per year in the EU.

EC (2017) Support for an external and independent LIFE Mid Term Evaluation Report, Luxembourg, European Union, 2017

EEA (2015) SOER 2015

–

The European environment

–

state and outlook 2015

EEA (2017) Environmental indicator report 2017: In support to the monitoring of the 7th Environment Action Programme. EEA Report No. 21/2017

Ibidem

The Lancet Commission on Pollution and Health (2017) http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ S0140-6736(17)32345-0

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

beyond 2020, considering the many non-compliance situations, will require a strengthened effort, combining

LIFE instruments such as Integrated Projects at national and regional scale with standard projects addressing data

monitoring and modelling, capacity building for governance, information and awareness projects as well as pilots

and demonstration projects in areas where emissions can be reduced such as agriculture, mobility and energy

e.g.. to demonstrate the role and relevance of innovative Zero-Emission Transport solutions, including intelligent

consumer services, in urban and rural areas, with a particular view to increasing consumer buy in.

Air quality should also be mainstreamed in climate mitigation projects to maximise synergy effects.

Noise

According to the findings of the World Health Organisation (WHO), noise is the second largest environmental

cause of health problems, just after the impact of air quality (particulate matter).

In the EU, more than 125 million people were exposed to high levels of road traffic noise alone, resulting in 14.1

million adults severely annoyed by environmental noise, 5.9 million adults are highly sleep disturbed, 69 000

hospital admissions and 15 900 cases of premature mortality occur annually, due to environmental noise.

The implementation of the Environmental Noise Directive, which is intended for Member States to achieve a

common approach to avoid, prevent and reduce environmental noise, and to inform EU actions on noise, is

delayed. In 2017, 13 years after its adoption, only around 80 % of the noise maps and not even 50 % of the

respective action plans have been submitted.

Reasons for the delay vary, but include the lack of financial resources available in Member States.

Air quality

A central component of safeguarding people’s health and wellbeing is ensuring good air quality.

The full implementation of the Clean Air Package is projected to enhance air quality and reduce by 2030 the

health impacts by half compared to 2005, particular pollutants will still be above harmful levels, posing a threat

to human and ecosystem health.

The National Emission Ceilings Directive (NECD, 2016/2284/EU) and the Ambient Air Quality Directives

(AAQD, 2004/107/EC and 2008/50/EC) set up the legal framework for pollution control and compliance with ait

MS repeatedly request financial support to implement the

measures in the plans.

A rough extrapolation from German/ESTAT data

indicates costs of around 1.5 billion € for EU 28.

The marginal costs related to the additional measures

included in the last programme for implementation of

the National Emission Ceilings Directive, which is 2.2 to

3.3 billion euros per year; this provides an indicative

minimum estimate of the investment needs to tackle this

problem beyond Business As Usual.

Although, a lot of the funding will be done by citizens

COM2017 (175) final, at

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/legal-content/EN/TXT/PDF/?uri=CELEX:52017DC0151&from=EN

EEA (2015) SOER 2015

–

The European environment

–

state and outlook 2015

EPRS | European Parliamentary Research Service (2017), Reducing air pollution National emission ceilings for air pollutants. Briefing EU Legislation in Progress

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

quality standards.

The new NECD 2016/2284/EU has to be transposed by 1 July 2018. Substantial support in developing and

implementing the

National Air Pollution Control Programmes

will be needed. Many Member States need

capacity-building and other support in developing or improving a national emission inventory and projections

system.

The Ambient Air Quality Directives (2004/107/EC and 2008/50/EC) are currently undergoing a Fitness Check,

with the aim to establish an Action Plan in 2019 or 2020.

The air quality situation across Europe raises concerns that exceedance above established limit values and target

values will continue beyond 2020 in many Member States.

In the framework of the Clean Air Dialogues and similar initiatives with MS, it is clear that examples of good

practice (e.g. LIFE projects) play an important role, as well as funding possibility - as MS feel they often lack the

data (e.g. monitoring data, emission inventories, modelling), the capacity and governance to properly address the

situation, or the expertise in certain areas (e.g. information to the citizen).

Clean Energy policies play a substantial role in improving air quality (both indoor and outdoor), by

decarbonising energy production specifically the local sources of heating and increasing energy efficiency of

buildings and industry sectors. The relevant legislation is here: Renewable Energy Directive, Energy Efficiency

Directive, Energy Performance of Buildings Directive and Ecodesign and Energy labelling Directives and

regulations.

Circular economy, resource efficiency and waste

The transition to a circular economy is required to prevent further breeching the ‘limits of the planet’. New

technologies like distributed manufacturing, robotics, digitalisation for tracking of substances and the internet of

things are important enablers for this transition. However, support to the replication of existing best practices that

have proved successful in shifting entrepreneurs investments and consumers behaviours towards more

sustainable patterns are even more instrumental for the overall transition to a more resource efficient and circular

economy. Massive investments are needed to support and accelerate the transformation across sectors and along

(e.g. replacing boilers and cars) and industry (IED), often

for other reasons than air quality (e.g. reducing energy

bills), and most actions will serve multiple policy

objectives (energy efficiency, renewable energy, GHG

emission reduction, noise, road safety, …)

, it is

estimated that MSs will need support around 0.7 billion

EUR including the co-financing of demonstration and

pilot initiatives tackling specific aspects of air quality

(e.g. monitoring and modelling, emission inventories,

VOCs)

Article 7 of the NEC Directive requires the Commission

endeavour to

make funds available: " …, in order to

support the measures to be taken with a view to

complying with the objectives of this Directive. Those

Union funds include present and future available funding

under, inter alia:

… (c) instruments for the funding of

environment and climate action such as the LIFE

programme."

The estimated

104

investment needed to realise important

benefits of the circular economy in three sectors

(mobility, food, built environment) amounts to 1.050

billion EUR by 2025 of which 380bn are additional to

current developments.

Annual additional costs for top5% with highest

In a Commission study from the DG for Climate Action, it was estimated that about 4% of the funding of the required mitigation measures will come from the EU. The rest will be

born by third parties. As climate mitigation and air quality measures tend to be very similar, this gives a very rough indication for air quality

as well of around € 2500 bn. But because

of the large overlap with energy/climate mitigation, mobility and agriculture this amount can of course not be attributed to air quality alone.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

value chains.

Moreover, whilst resource productivity is a benefit per se

, the rapidity of this transformation could allow

European firms to keep and increase their competitiveness. In line with the global agenda on sustainable

development, circular economy and resource-efficiency are regarded as key to address global environmental

challenges. Not only improvements are in demand at international level across a wide range of industrial sectors;

policy measures worldwide affecting flow of materials and goods have also a direct impact on EU companies and

public authorities requiring adaptations of infrastructures and of business models. Accompanying policy

development and effective implementation, as well as supporting investments and the replication of best practices

are therefore needed. The circular economy has a strong social dimension offering a wide variety of job

opportunities including high, medium and low skilled profiles (eco-design, engineering, IT system planning,

maintenance, repair, dismantling.

However, for this to happen the market barriers that prevent these opportunities from being developed and

demonstrated in practice need to be overcome. Companies and public authorities may lack the information,

confidence and capacity to engage in co-creating circular economy solutions along value chains. Current

investment in innovation for the circular economy

is overly focussed on recycling technologies whereas

support to new business models, to eco- and modular design of products and substitution of hazardous materials

in the products remains marginal

. It is very difficult to estimate the uncovered needs

–

beyond the development

of recycling technologies - for innovation for the circular economy transition. A major bottleneck to overcome

for entrepreneurs is the opportunity to test their approaches in real life environments (‘living labs for the circular

economy’). Major progress could be made by orienting existing industrial innovation support infrastructures

and

programmes towards innovation for the circular economy transition.

The financial system often fails to provide for investment in efficiency improvements based on new technologies

or provide financing for substantial initial investments for innovative business models (for example the initial

purchase of large number washing machines to be leased to consumers), which are perceived as more risky and

complex, deterring many traditional investors. Technology lock-in and resilient consumer habits can also hinder

ecological footprint of 22mio companies in EU to

implement EMAS and employ new expertise: €104bn p.a

+ €22bn one-off

initial EMAS system development;

During one year (2015/16) in 23 major EU cities to total

market uptake of industrial warehouses amounted to

8mio m² equal to 800ha of land. For which opportunities

for industrial symbiosis within the plots and with the

surrounding were not considered.

104

"Achieving 'Growth Within'", SYSTEMIQ, in collaboration with the Ellen MacArthur Foundation, 2017. (Original amounts in GBP!)

Waste prevention, ecodesign, reuse and similar measures could bring net savings of € 600 billion, or 8 % of annual turnover,

for businesses in the EU, while reducing total annual

greenhouse gas emissions by 2-4 %.

EEA (2017) Circular by design

The World Economic Forum calls for “Dialogues and partnerships that bring technology developers and providers together with environmental

experts to co-develop these innovations

and to ensure they are

developed for the public good, while minimizing risks of unintended environmental consequences. WEF (2017) “Harnessing the Fourth

Industrial Revolution

for the Earth”

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

new products and services development. Such barriers tend to persist in a context where prices do not reflect the

real costs of resource use to society, and where policy fails to provide strong and consistent signals for the

transition to a circular economy.

Industrial symbiosis is the use of waste material streams of one company as input material for other industrial

processes

–

preferentially in the vicinity to avoid long distance transport of bulk materials. Realising industrial

symbiosis would require taking it into account in the initial design of industrial estates, during their rehabilitation

and in urban planning linked to material flows. In the absence of binding legislation in that respect one would

have to count on volunteer action from real estate developers and reinforcement by planning authorities.

Various traditional and new environmental policy areas like waste and water policy but also the new specific

policies on plastics, on bioeconomy and raw materials play an important role for the transition to the circular

economy. Identified investment needs in these sectors are additional to the investment needs identified above.

Smart regulation, market-based instruments, research and innovation, incentives, information exchange and

support for voluntary approaches as well as replication of best practices are needed to build up an overall

enabling framework.

Europe has a very large ecological footprint and the EU’s resource needs are increasingly met by imports from

other countries. Circular economy can lower the overall consumption of resources and materials, reducing the

environmental burden and increasing global competitiveness. Projections show that resource efficiency will be

slightly improved by 2020, meeting the objective of the 7th EAP.

100

Nevertheless, this improvement is far from

the anticipated progress in reducing the absolute material use, which requires a systemic change in the European

production and consumption patterns, as called for by Sustainable Development Goal 12. In this respect, an

integrated perspective on production-consumption systems, which entails changes in, among others, raw

materialssourcing (secondary vs. Primary), waste prevention, , waste management, energy production and

consumption, transportation, water use, non toxic materials cycles and industrial production, will have a central

role to play in the post-2020 period. Of all the EU Member States, 9 so far have adopted resource productivity

targets of which 5 include post-2020 targets

101

and only a few have adopted circular economy policy frameworks

and strategies. This indicates that MSs are strengthening their approach to material use, but still more has to be

done.

In the case of land use, the pursuit of resource efficiency is often translated into land use intensification. It is

essential that any such effort reflects a comprehensive ecosystem-based concept (including all ecosystem

functions and services provided by land and land use) to optimise overall ecosystem condition and service

100

101

EEA (2017) Environmental indicator report 2017: In support to the monitoring of the 7th Environment Action Programme. EEA Report No. 21/2017

ibid

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

delivery to society and to avoid unfavourable trade-offs e.g. if intensification aims unilaterally at growing wood

or food outputs, at the cost of losing biodiversity or other ecosystem functions.

Establishing an Environmental Management and Audit System (EMAS) in public and private

organisations

is a first step on path to reduce the environmental footprint and rethink product & services design

for circularity. 1

year implementation costs for an EMAS system are estimated at 40.000€ for small and

medium sized enterprises with recurrent annual

costs of 20.000€. Taking more ambitious steps towards

circularity would mainly require additional specialised staff (internal or external) in the company for the

definition of projects that are both green and profitable.

102

Implementing EMAS has a very high return on

investment over time.

103

Considering the EU GDP share of public procurement,

support for the uptake of Green Public Procurement

as a voluntary scheme by national and local authorities would also generate a tangible shift towards more

sustainable consumption patterns and would allow public authorities to play fully their role mode in the

transition. Support for the uptake of

the EU Ecolabel,

on the other hand, would allow companies to reap the

benefit of their efforts for placing on the market greener products that protect consumers and the environment.

The overarching notion of the Circular Economy paradigm is ‘nothing is wasted’, and thus, the shift to a

European circular economy involves major improvements in the

prevention and management of waste.

Between 2004 and 2012 per capita waste generation fell by 7% in the EU-28. Waste management also improved

during this period with recycling levels going up, which helped reduce the amount of waste deposited in

landfills.

105

However, waste generation in the EU remains considerable and many of the Member States will have

to significantly step up their waste management and prevention efforts to successfully implement the objectives

of the current waste policy.

106

Recently revised EU waste legislation sets ambitious recycling and landfill

reduction targets: 65% in 2035 for municipal waste and 70% in 2030 for packaging and a maximum of 10% of

municipal waste to be landfilled in 2035. This will increase the pressure on Member States, especially those that

are currently lagging behind, to deliver and rethink their approach to waste management in light of circular

economy principles. The revised Waste Framework Directive also requires Member States to take action to

reduce food waste generation at each stage of the food supply chain, as a contribution to UN Sustainable

Development Goals, monitor food waste levels and report back on progress made. These new obligations

strengthen the integration of food waste prevention as part of waste policy and call for the preparation of national

102

Significant investments in infrastructure are needed to

ensure implementation of the revised Waste Framework

Directive, including for the new requirements imposed by

the 2018 waste target review on collection and recycling

targets. Further efforts could be requested by the follow

up review clause introduced with the same 2018

amendments (e.g. waste oil target review).

Many of the MSs need to go from 30 % recycling to 60-

65% recycling in the next 10 years. This means that the

necessary investments in separate collection, quality

sorting and recycling infrastructure for these waste flows

need to be secured, in particular for bio-waste and

plastics. In addition, innovation will be needed

COMMISSION DECISION (EU) 2017/2285 amending the user’s guide setting out the steps needed to participate in EMAS. Annual average

cost for a specialised junior staff

estimated at 75.000€ p.a.

Idem. Notably for medium sized enterprises with larger material throughput. Not applicable to Micro-companies (<9 employees).

EEA (2015) SOER 2015

–

The European environment

–

state and outlook 2015

EEA (2017) Environmental indicator report 2017: In support to the monitoring of the 7th Environment Action Programme. EEA Report No. 21/2017

103

105

106

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

food waste prevention programmes.

An integrated approach to all the above areas is therefore needed to cover the wider scope of the transition to a

circular economy

throughout the EU to boost the recyclability of more

products

and

prevent

waste.

Yearly investments for waste infrastructure in the EU for

the next ten years are estimated at 12.5 Billion euro (split

in about one third for governments, and 2 thirds for

specialised operators) [Commission services estimates on

Eurostat

data].

The EU should continue to financially support MS in

achieving more ambitious recycling levels with the most

appropriate technology and infrastructure.

Water

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

European freshwater resources have been under considerable pressure both in terms of their quantity and of their

quality. There are three dimensions to the water challenge, namely water scarcity, flooding and water pollution.

These water-problems are addressed by the Water Framework Directive, which aims to achieve good ecological

status for all the surface and groundwater sources. Specific aspects of these main challenges are also addressed

by other Directives (Floods Directive, Urban Waste Water Treatment Directive, Nitrates Directive, etc.).

Although the quality of European water resources has improved over the last two decades, many waterbodies are

still significantly affected by these problems, since only around 40% of surface waters achieved a good

ecological status by 2015. Groundwaters are in a better state, with 74% in good chemical status and 89% in good

quantitative status

107

. This clearly indicates a major implementation problem, which will be further amplified by

the more ambitious targets laid out in the second set of River Basin Management Plans (2016-2021) developed

by the MSs. The RMBPs need to address the major challenges to water: diffuse pollution, in particular from

agriculture, urban waste water, pollution by hazardous substances and hydromorphological changes to water

bodies. On top of that, it is certain that additional water efficiency improvements as well as action on nutrient

pollution will be needed beyond 2020 due to increasing future pressures, such as climate change, population

growth and urbanisation, which will continue stressing water resources even further in the post-2020 period.

Improving water efficiency will have significant effect on reaching the EU’s energy efficiency targets.

Soil

Soil provides a series of essential ecosystem services and can help to tackle societal challenges such as climate

change, loss of biodiversity, migration, food security or clean water and energy. Unfortunately the current

pressures on land and soil are huge and expected to continue growing. Accelerating drivers behind land and soil

degradation such as urbanization, expansion and intensification of agriculture, demographic growth, climate

change and industrial production continue to undermine soil functions and the delivery of ecosystem services.

EU policies which limit and reduce pressures on soil to safeguard its provision of services are still embryonic and

uncoordinated, which implies that policy development rather than implementation needs to receive priority.

Immediate action needs to be taken to meet the targets of the Agenda for Sustainable Development and especially

to achieve a land degradation neutral world by 2030 (SDG 15).

Considerable additional investments are still needed to

guarantee basic services such as access to water and

sanitation for all European citizens and ensure full

compliance. Also emerging pollutants of concern will

require particular attention in the coming years

(pharmaceuticals, micro plastics).

108

Soil degradation generates costs equal to 38 billion euros

per year

109

The estimated cost of inaction for Europe (5.652 Bio

USD) largely outweighs the cost of action (945 Bio

USD) on a time horizon of 30 years. The return on

investment in Europe is amongst the highest in the

world.

110

Nutrients cycle

107

108

109

110

EEA (2015) SOER 2015

–

The European environment

–

state and outlook 2015

ACTeon (2012) Comparative study of pressures and measures in the major river basin management plans in the EU Task 4 b: Costs & Benefits of WFD implementation

EU Commission (2006) Thematic Strategy for Soil Protection - Impact assessment of the thematic strategy on soil protection

Nkonya et al., 2016, Economics of Land degradation and Improvement, a global assessment for sustainable development (ELD Initiative)

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Nutrients are essential for plants and intensively used as fertilizers in agriculture. The biogeochemical cycles of

nutrients have been radically changed by humans as a result of many industrial and agricultural processes and by

the inefficient and excessive use of nutrients, especially in the agricultural sector

111

. This is problematic due to

the increasing scarcity of resources (e.g. Phosphorus) and due to various environmental impacts such as

contribution to climate change, eutrophication, and acidification of water.

Several EU policies are in place to improve one or several aspects of nutrient management (e.g., Nitrates

Directive, Water Framework Directive and daughter directives, Common Agricultural Policy) and the more

sustainable and resource-efficient management of the nutrient cycle is also one of the objectives of the 7th EAP.

Despite improvements in reducing nutrient losses, excess nutrients from human activities such as agriculture and

wastewater and nutrients mismanagement are still damaging the natural nutrient cycle, causing pressure on both

water and terrestrial ecosystems

112

Climate change adaptation

The Paris Agreement on climate change recognises the importance of actions needed to help people adapt to a

warmer temperatures. The minimum cost of not adapting to climate change is estimated to range from € 100

billion a year in 2020 to € 250 billion in

2050 for the EU as a whole. For coastal management, the estimate for

adaptation measures (construction of dikes, beach nourishment) range from the annual expenditure of around €1

billion up to the 2020s, €2 billion in the 2050s and over €2.5 billion in the

2080s[1]. Estimates for investment

needed to make critical infrastructure[2] climate resilient until 2040 go up to 25 billion EUR and to €87 billion

by 2070. To make infrastructures climate resilient up to the end of the century, capital costs could exceed

€200

billion and operation and maintenance costs could grow to €5.4 billion per year. These estimates reflect only a

fraction of the potential climate change impacts on society in Europe. Weather-related disasters could affect two-

thirds of the European population annually by 2100 with a 50-fold increase in fatalities compared to today, if no

adaptation action is taken. Southern and southeastern Europe are projected (and are) the most affected hotspots,

while coastal areas and floodplains are multi-sectoral hotpots. Cities are also vulnerable to climate change owing

to the concentration of people and economic assets.

The Clean Energy Transition and Climate change mitigation

The Paris Agreement on climate change sets out a long term goal to put the world on track to limit global

warming to well below 2°C above pre-industrial levels

–

and pursue efforts to limit the temperature increase to

1.5°C. The transition to a low carbon, resource and energy-efficient economy demands a fundamental shift in

111

112

Limited studies on the investment need but multiple

estimates, 35-62 billion per year (a narrower scope), 158-

518 billion per year (wider scope), etc.

Delivering the 2020, 2030 and 2050 energy and climate

targets is estimated to need 178 billion euros per year

until 2030, closing the financing gap between the BAU

http://science.sciencemag.org/content/347/6223/1259855.full

https://www.eea.europa.eu/airs/2017/natural-capital/agricultural-land-nitrogen-balance

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

technology, energy, economics, finance and ultimately society as a whole. The EU leaders have committed to

transforming Europe into a highly energy-efficient, low carbon economy

–

the policy package on Clean Energy

for All Europeans. To reach EU's Paris agreement target the EU must cut emissions by at least 40% by 2030

(compared to 1990). EU also has a binding target of at least 27% of renewable energy and an energy efficiency

increase of at least 27%. To achieve Clean Energy goals, Member States must develop long term integrated

national climate and energy plans. The 2017 Report on the State of the Energy Union shows that most Member

States are on track to meet their 2020 targets. However, further actions will be needed by all sectors and at all

levels to achieve the EU's 2030 climate and energy targets set in the CE4AE package.

Urban development

Due to their high density of population and economic activity, European cities are locations where a range of

environmental issues accumulate, such as high air pollutant concentrations, the majority of greenhouse gas

emissions and energy use, waste management problems, etc. This situation also offers many opportunities to

address issues such as air quality, noise, circular economy, water, environmental aspects of transport and

housing, soil sealing, land use, and energy use and efficiency, as well as climate change mitigation and

adaptation.

SDG 11 has various urban targets (e.g. providing sustainable transport for all, or universal access to green spaces,

'reducing' impact of cities, 'increasing' integrated policies and plans.

The 7th EAP sets an overreaching aspirational target (to ensure a majority of cities are planning sustainably by

2020) that is hard to measure and even harder to achieve, but then sets specific actions all of which are

achievable and are underway.

EU Ministers responsible for urban matters agreed on the Urban Agenda in May 2016 with the Pact of

Amsterdam. The Urban Agenda promotes cooperation between Member States, cities, the European Commission

and other stakeholders, with the goal to achieve Better Regulation, Better Funding and Better Knowledge

(knowledge base and exchange) to address urban challenges. In the Urban Agenda 12 partnerships work on

specific topics, such as Air Quality, Circular Economy, Sustainable Land Use, Urban Mobility, Energy

Transition, and Climate Adaptation..

Habitat III

–

New Urban Agenda offers an amazing set of environmental commitments for sustainable urban

development and planning covering all areas from climate and energy, transport, air, green spaces and much

The clean energy transition should be driven at local level as is a great opportunity for local communities to

become more competitive and resilient based on local energy flows, socially fair and to which every citizen can

113

investments of 9 448 billion and the estimated need of 11

230 billion.

113

DG Clima. Climate mainstreaming in the EU budget. Preparing for the next MFF: final report. https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1df19257-aef9-11e7-

837e-01aa75ed71a1

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

contribute. The transition implies profound changes in energy generation, transmission and consumption, with

decentralisation, bi-directional energy flows, energy efficient and flexible consumption. The key role is often

played by cities smart urban energy planning for sector coupling and matching locally available sustainable

energy sources and local demand and in setting ambitious strategies and delivering concrete actions on the

ground. In many instances, this is done through voluntary commitments to the Covenant of Mayors, an initiative

launched by the European Commission to develop and implement at local level Sustainable Energy Action plans.

Support for similar activities focussing also on the resource efficiency of buildings, as well as on the disposal of

construction and demolition waste would allow to have a more holistic approach to urban impacts on the

environment.

4.5.

Needs for LIFE Strategic Integrated projects:

Whereas the previous section outlined the overall needs for environmental financing, from LIFE and other sources, a specific analysis was carried out

concerning the needs for LIFE Strategic Integrated projects under the next MFF. This analysis takes into account the experience, to date, of the initial piloting

of integrated projects under the present LIFE programme.

At present, LIFE finances integrated projects in four areas, on a pilot basis. By the end of the current programme, it is expected that about 60-70 integrated

projects will be financed for these four areas. An assessment of these areas demonstrates the added value of the present projects as well as the scale needed for

a significant impact on the target policy areas.

Table 4-2: Existing indicative areas

Indicative area

Requirements

Current challenge

As many as 670 air quality zones

across the EU for a single air

pollutant (with different zones for

each of the pollutants included in

the AQD at varying levels of local,

regional and national).

Particular challenges for PM10 and

NO2 (17 and 18 non-compliant

zones in 2014). Upcoming

challenge relating to PM2.5

expected (currently no proceedings

against Member States but

standards only recently entered

into force).

Added value of SIPs

Development of AQPs requires

stakeholder

engagement

across

multiple levels of communication

(across varying levels of governance;

involving different authorities across

sectors and policy areas; and

sometimes requiring transnational

communication). To implement the

AQP requires funding, monitoring and

reporting frameworks. SIPs provide a

framework to guide communication

and can facilitate access to funding.

Scale needed

At a minimum, there should be a

sufficient number of SIPs to support

AQPs targeting different sectoral

challenges (in particular transport,

residential heating, agriculture and

industry). In addition, SIPs should

provide

sufficient

geographic

coverage to reflect the different

biophysical qualities of Member States

affecting air quality; and sufficient

support across different levels of

governance (including local, regional,

national and transnational).

Air quality (AQPs)

AQPs are required for

all zones which are non-

compliant with the air

quality standards set by

the AQD.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Indicative area

Requirements

Current challenge

65 PAFs were developed for the

current programming period; and

will need revising for the 2021-

2027 period.

A review found that the assessment

of funding needs for the 2014-2020

programming period was not

accurate or complete in PAFs.

Coordination between relevant

authorities,

stakeholders’

participation and cross-border

cooperation were also found to be

underdeveloped in many cases.

Significant

delays

the

implementation of conservation

measures were reported and the

impact assessment of measures

included in the PAFs was found to

be inadequate.

A review of WMPs covered 45

plans across 18 Member States.

The review found improvements in

waste management because of

waste management infrastructures

but poor implementation of

supporting measures. Of regions

with improved waste management

infrastructures, only 25% achieved

EU waste policy objectives; and

this was through the supporting

measures.

Waste collection strategies were

found to have positive impact on

performance of waste management

infrastructures. The development

supporting

information,

Added value of SIPs

Scale needed

Natura 2000 (PAFs)

PAFs are planning tools

required to provide an

integrated overview of

the measures needed to

implement the Natura

2000 network, linking

them

the

corresponding EU funds

and specifying their

financing needs

Implementing the Natura 2000

network to its full potential requires

cooperation

between

multiple

stakeholders. Reporting funding needs

in PAFs needs to be improved to

secure the successful implementation

of the measures.

SIPs provide a framework to guide

communication and can facilitate

access to funding.

Owing to the large geographic scale of

the current challenges which are

expected to continue in the coming

programming period, at the very least

one large SIP per Member State would

be needed in the 2021-2027

programming

period.

realistically multiple SIPs are needed

per MS to cover the different

administrative and biogeographical

subdivisions. In order to serve as

comprehensive mainstreaming tools,

the strategic projects for nature should

be considerably larger than other SIPs.

Waste

(WMPs)

management

WMPs are required

from all MS and need to

cover the whole territory

of the Member State.

WMPs can also be

developed at regional

and sub-regional levels,

and by sector.

Supporting organisational, strategic

needs and implementation of waste

management plans is a higher priority

than infrastructural needs. The focus

on regional waste management should

be expanded. Greater focus is needed

to improve supporting measures to

waste management infrastructures.

SIPs could help address these needs.

To meet the need for greater strategic

planning at national level (taking into

account waste management at regional

levels), one SIP per Member State

might be an appropriate level. This

could span both the 2014-2020 and

2021-2027 programming periods.

Owing to the nature of the challenges

facing WMPs, the number of

stakeholders involved in each SIP will

likely be limited to the waste sector

and competent authorities.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Indicative area

Requirements

Current challenge

administrative

and

economic

measures

varied

significantly

between regions and Member

States. One observation made is

that regional waste management is

often overlooked at EU level as the

focus is on waste management at a

national level.

A total of 128 RBMPs are

designated in the EU (of which 49

are international). In 2015, 76

RBMPs were reported as not

meeting their targets.

Two thirds of the RBMPs reported

that the basic measures are not

sufficient

to tackle

diffuse

pollution

from

agriculture,

indicating a need to take

supplementary measures.

Around three quarters of the

RBMPs indicated that basic

measures are not sufficient to

address water flow regulation and

morphological

alterations,

indicating a need to take

supplementary measures.

The type of basic measures more

often reported as significantly

delayed are those related to water

abstraction

(31

RBMPs)

predominantly

due

funding/financial obstacles.

In 2012, the total, European wide

costs for the implementation of

only WFD dependent measures for

the first planning cycle are lying

Added value of SIPs

Scale needed

Water (River basin

management plans)

RBMPs

set

out

measures

implemented over six-

year cycles aimed at

improving the status of

waterbodies.

RBMPs

link with other key

policy areas such as

agriculture, land use,

biodiversity,

tourism,

recreation and flood

protection.

Progress on the first implementation

phase indicates that there is still a

large investment gap. In addition, SIPs

help to support the measures that are

not yet started, and to some extent, the

on-going ones. There is a need for

supplementary measures to address

agriculture diffuse pollution, as well as

flow and morphological alterations.

Delays

concerning

abstraction

measures need to be addressed, mostly

through additional funding. There has

been an overall low use of ESIF to

implement measures. SIPs assist in

facilitating access to these funds.

With 76 RBMPs not meeting their

targets in 2015, the scale of SIPs

required to support their development

might be, at the very least, one per

Member State. Additional SIPs should

target a selection of international

RBMPs.

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Indicative area

Requirements

Current challenge

between 111 billion Euros and 444

billion Euros. In 2015, at EU level,

23% of WFD-specific basic

measures were reported as

completed, 66% on-going and 11%

not started. The figures reported

for supplementary measures were

29% completed, 54% on-going and

17% not started.

Climate change adaptation plans

have been developed at national

level across Member States (with

25 strategies and 15 plans in

place). Challenges facing the

implementation of these strategies

and plans include low public

awareness

and

political

commitment, need for improved

understanding (including best

practice examples and data,

particularly at a regional level),

and

investment

needs.

Development of National Energy

and Climate Plans for 2021-2030

are underway with most Member

States in the initial planning phase

(and just 7 at the advanced stage of

development). A key challenge for

climate change mitigation is

expected to be meeting the

investment needs with the average

EU28

annual

additional

investments for the 2030 climate

and energy programme estimated

at €38 billion (between 2011-30).

More than half of the investments

are needed in the residential and

Added value of SIPs

Scale needed

Climate action

To implement the Paris

agreement

and

the

resilient Energy Union,

plans, strategies and

actions are needed at all

levels.

Ensuring efficient implementation of

climate mitigation and adaptation

plans at a larger territorial scale by

coordinating

the

actions

and

leveraging substantial financing from

other sources. .

.Many regions could benefit from

having climate action coordinated

through SIPs. Based on the current

level of applications for SIPs for

climate mitigation and adaptation at

least doubling the number of SIPs

would be appropriate.

100

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Indicative area

Requirements

Current challenge

tertiary sectors.

Added value of SIPs

Scale needed

SIPs could also play a similar role in more policy areas than the four that are targeted under the current programme. Similar to the above table

the needed scale of SIPs for new indicative areas is assessed in view of the identified challenges.

This analysis shows that in view of the

challenges related to the new indicative areas around 70 additional SIPs would be needed.

Table 4-3: New indicative areas

Indicative area

Requirements

Current challenge

Projected emissions based on policies and

measures currently in place indicate that 18

Member States are not on track towards meeting

their reduction commitments set for 2020 for

, NH

, NMVOCs, SO

and/or PM

2.5

Similarly, 22 countries are not on track for one or

more of their 2030 commitments. For some

Member States, the exceedance of emission

ceilings is due to advanced monitoring

techniques which have improved projections

since current policies and measures were

adopted.

The Commission aims to set a Clean Air Forum

to work closely with stakeholders to identify best

practices and to support with monitoring and

reporting.

There is a significant overlap between the NEC

Directive and the Air Quality Directive and

coordination between their implementation is

required.

Added value of SIPs

Scale needed

There are various components

within the development of a

NAPCP; support could be

provided

targeted

components

within

the

NAPCP (e.g. support with

projections, selection and

adoption of policies and

measures, or monitoring and

reporting), or at a whole

programme level. SIPs would

add value through better

coordination

between

stakeholders

and

with

measures implemented under

the AQD. At the very least, 22

SIPs are needed to support

with the NAPCPs in those

Member

States

facing

challenges.

A minimum of 4 SIPs are

needed to support those

coastal Member States with

inadequate monitoring plans.

A further 13 SIPs would add

Emission

reductions

(NEC directive)

MS are required to

develop National Air

Pollution

Control

Programmes and report

them by April 2019

SIPs could be used as a strategic

tool to support the development of

NAPCPs

–

relating to projections,

the

development

and

implementation of policies and

measures,

monitoring

and

reporting across all Member

States. In addition, SIPs could be

used to enhance coordination

between policies and measures

developed under the NEC

Directive and the Air Quality

Directive.

Marine (MCPs)

Marine

conservation

plans are required for

the

established

European

marine

regions and sub-regions

Ensuring that monitoring approaches are

compatible between Member States is

challenging (a recent assessment found that 4

Member States had implemented an inadequate

monitoring framework, and 13 a partially

SIPs could be used as a strategic

tool to support the development of

compatible

monitoring

programmes and ensure adequate

coverage of all regions. SIPs

101

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Indicative area

Requirements

based on geographical

and

environmental

criteria in the 23 coastal

Member

States.

Reviewed every 6

years.

Current challenge

complete framework). Further coordination

among Member States at regional and sub-

regional level is needed to deliver consistent and

comparable data and improve the spatial scope of

monitoring programmes. This could potentially

reduce costs, through more effective monitoring

across disciplines and among Member States.

Cooperation between Member States is also

needed to improve cross-boundary issues.

Action plans are adopted at a national level but

implemented at a regional/ local level according

to the different soil and climate zones

–

administrative organisation of the Member State.

Action plans include measures to reduce or

prevent pollution from agricultural sources, such

as: periods when mineral and organic fertilisers

application is prohibited, minimum required

storage capacity for livestock manure, limitation

of land application of fertilisers, and land

application near waters and on slopes.

Despite driving improvements in nitrates

concentrations and eutrophication levels, there

remain 'hotspots' where nitrate pollution remains

a challenge (namely in relation to intensive

livestock or horticultural production, and to soil

and geological formations).

A particular

challenge is the eutrophication of the Baltic Sea

(owing mainly to intensive

agriculture

practices).

Member State are required to report every 4

years on the status of nitrate levels and the

Commission closely monitors the content and

application of the action programmes. However,

very little information concerning the

effectiveness of programmes is reported by

Added value of SIPs

could be further used to assist

Member States in accessing funds

to support implementation of

strategic measures where needed.

Finally, SIPs may be used for the

development of a platform to

support cooperation between

neighbouring Member States.

Scale needed

value targeting those Member

States with partially complete

monitoring plans.

Nitrate

Programmes

Action

Member States are

required to establish a

national

action

programme

that

contains a suite of

measures

applying

within

designated

vulnerable zones or to

the whole territory.

Member States may

choose to implement

the

requirements

through an overall

regulation

fertilisation or via an

integrated approach (i.e.

via

joint

implementation

with

the Water Framework

Directive

the

Common Agricultural

Policy).

Ongoing strategic support is

needed for Member States with

hotspots for nitrate pollution to

address the challenges they face.

Where an action programme is

deemed inadequate, SIPs could be

used to revise the action

programme (amend measures

included in the programme;

strengthen

implementation

through

enhanced

capacity

building for farmers and land

managers carrying out the

measures; strengthen integrated

implementation

the

programme, where relevant). SIPs

could also be used to strengthen

the monitoring and reporting

frameworks at national level to

help with reporting to the

Commission;

particularly

support with reporting on the

effectiveness of programmes.

SIPs are needed at a national

level; although the extent of

interaction at local or regional

level will vary considerably

depending on the number of

zones established in a

Member State. The latest

Member State reporting is due

imminently and should be

used to inform the scale of

action needed

–

based on the

results

from

the

Environmental

Implementation Review, SIPs

are needed at the very least

for Member States in the

Baltic regions.

102

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Indicative area

Requirements

Current challenge

Member States at the time of the latest reporting

(2008-2011; as reported by the Commission in

2013).

A total of over 5,000 plans are adopted across the

EU. Implementation challenges vary, in sum:

insufficient guidance and support in the obtaining

of data resulting in low levels of good quality

data (experience in 23 Member States); low

coordination between different authorities

responsible

for

the

development

and

implementation of noise action plans leading to

significant delays. (experience in 9 Member

States); inadequate human resources in terms of

trained experts (17 Member States); and

insufficient financial resources (15 Member

States).

Added value of SIPs

Scale needed

Noise (NAPs)

The Directive requires

Member

States

prepare and publish,

every 5 years, noise

maps

and

noise

management

action

plans

for:

agglomerations

with

more than 100,000

inhabitants;

major

roads; major railways;

and major airports.

SIPs could be used to assist the

development of sufficient noise

mapping tools and to support the

access to funds required for that.

The added value provided by SIPs

would be the framework it

provides to local authorities in

improving

the

coordination

between different stakeholders,

facilitating discussions to access

financial

resources,

and

developing an expertise in noise

action

planning

through

networking and sharing of best

practices.

A minimum of 23 SIPs are

needed to support Member

States with noise mapping

(each SIP would need to take

a multi-plan approach as noise

plans are adopted at local

level). The 23 SIPs would

also need to provide a

framework

enhance

communication

between

stakeholders, secure access to

funding, and ensure adequate

training among personnel in

competent authorities in noise

action planning.

4.6.

Conclusions

From the above, it becomes evident that SIPs have already managed to mobilize resources to achieve the LIFE Programme’s objectives

and to

address the identified challenges. The table also suggest that, in order to address all the identified challenges through the generation of a critical

mass of projects,

allocations to SIPs should be scaled up by at least four-fold.

103

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

ANNEX 5: DESCRIPTION OF THE PRESENT LIFE PROGRAMME AND

THE BUSINESS AS USUAL (BAU) SCENARIO

The baseline scenario for this report is 'business as usual' based on a continuation of the existing

LIFE programme. The main body of this report presents the net expected impact of deviations

from this baseline. The purpose of this annex is to describe the existing programme and to

identify the key environmental, economic and social outcomes and impacts of the LIFE

programme according to this business as usual (BAU) scenario.

5.1.

Overview of the LIFE Programme since 1992

The LIFE Programme is the EU’s funding instrument for environment and climate action. Since

1992, there have been four complete phases of the LIFE Programme: LIFE I (1992-1995), LIFE

II(1996-1999), LIFE III (2000-2006), and LIFE+ (2007-2013). The current LIFE Programme

began in 2014 and will run up until 2020.

During the first four phases (1992-2013), LIFE co-financed 3954 projects across the EU,

contributing approximately €3.1 billion to the protection of the environment.

114

Under the

present programme to date, LIFE has co-financed more than 400 projects addressing

environment- and climate-related issues. A number of audit reports and evaluations have

highlighted the strengths and weaknesses of past phases. Some examples of the achievements

during the first four phases of LIFE include: improved conservation and restoration of some 4.7

million hectares of land; higher air quality for some 12 million people; waste prevention of

around 300,000 tonnes; and annual CO2 emissions reduced by 1.13 million tonnes.

115

The LIFE programme has evolved through its phases to reflect the lessons drawn from its

implementation and to adapt to the ever-changing policy environment. One of the main lessons

from the two decades of LIFE programmes is that for the environment (and for climate action),

specific approaches are required which can tackle the uneven integration of objectives into

Member States’ practices, the uneven and inadequate implementation of relevant legislation in

Member States, and the insufficient dissemination of information about, and promotion of, policy

goals. LIFE has consistently focussed on achieving a substantial impact, close synergies with EU

other programmes and a high EU added value.

5.2.

LIFE 2014

–

2020

5.2.1. Programme scope and structure

The LIFE Programme has the following general objectives:

(a) to contribute to the shift towards a resource-efficient, low- carbon and climate- resilient

economy, to the protection and improvement of the quality of the environment and to halting

and reversing biodiversity loss, including the support of the Natura 2000 network and

tackling the degradation of ecosystems;

(b) to improve the development, implementation and enforcement of Union environmental and

climate policy and legislation, and to act as a catalyst for, and promote, the integration and

mainstreaming of environmental and climate objectives into other Union policies and public

and private sector practice, including by increasing the public and private sector's capacity;

involvement of civil society, NGOs and local actors;

(d) to support the implementation of the 7th Environment Action Programme.

114

115

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/about/index.htm.

SEC(2011) 1541, p3. Point 2: Current structure and performance of LIFE

104

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

In pursuing those objectives, the LIFE Programme aims to contribute to sustainable development

and to the achievement of the objectives and targets of the Europe 2020 Strategy and of relevant

Union environment and climate strategies and plans.

Figure 5-1: The intervention logic of the current LIFE Programme

Source: European Commission (2017)

116

Report on the Mid-term Evaluation of the Programme for Environment and Climate Action

(LIFE){COM(2017)642final. SWD(2017)356final.

105

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

LIFE is meant to act as a catalyst, providing leverage that promotes changes in the development

and implementation of environmental and climate policies, among others by offering a platform

for exchanging best practices and knowledge-sharing.

The LIFE programme is comprised of two sub-programmes, one for Environment and a second

for Climate Change.

The Climate Action subprogramme, with €864 million (25% of the total budget), targets climate

change mitigation, climate change adaptation, and Climate Governance and Information. The

Environment sub-programme,

with €2593 million (75% of the total budget) targets the priority

areas of Environment and Resource Efficiency, Nature and Biodiversity, and Environmental

Governance and Information; under the Environment programme, thematic priorities are

established for each priority area in an annex to the Regulation, and for each thematic priority,

project topics (which are favoured in the project selection process) are established through a

delegated act.

The Intervention logic of the present LIFE programme is illustrated in Figure 5-1

The two sub-programmes of LIFE use the same delivery mechanisms to mobilise LIFE funding.

These delivery mechanisms are described in Table 5-2.

Table 5-2: Types of projects and activities by delivery mechanism and their key features

Type of project

Action grants

Pilot,

demonstration, best

practice,

and

information,

awareness

and

dissemination

projects

('traditional'

projects)



Projects supporting pilot and demonstration actions on the ground

Best practice projects (nature and biodiversity only), in which at least

25% of the budget within each project must be dedicated to concrete

conservation actions.

Information and governance projects

Favours projects which apply results from Horizon 2020 and

European Innovation Partnerships (EIPs).

All projects must show EU added value, including replicability

Projects are proposed and selected via an open, bottom-up delivery

mechanism, with earmarking only for the nature and biodiversity

priority area (55% from 2014 to 2017 and 60.5% since 2018).

Designed to support Member State implementation of key

environmental or climate plans and strategies (design and action on

the ground).

Limited to four indicative areas in the environment sub-programme

(relating to specified environmental policies).

Capped: Maximum of 30% of the annual budget allocated to action

grants.

Indicatively 3 per MS, one of which should be under the Climate

Action Subprogramme

Fast track application process

Provides technical assistance to prepare a future IP proposal.

Maximum of 1% of the annual budget allocated to IPs may be made

available

to technical assistance projects (€100,000/ project).

Fast track application process with no competition

Projects to enable eligible Member States to participate more

effectively in the LIFE programme.

Targeted support for policy needs identified annually by the

Commission.

Key features



Strategic

Integrated Projects

(IPs, also known as



SIPs)



Technical

assistance (TAs)



Capacity building



(CAP projects)



Preparatory

projects

(PREP

106

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Type of project

projects)

Operating grants

Key features



Maximum of 1% of the annual budget allocated to action grants for

the period 2014-2017.

Annual operating



grants/ Framework

partnership

agreements

for

NGOs

Financial instruments

Private Finance for



Energy Efficiency



(PF4EE)

Natural

Capital



Financing Facility

(NCFF)



Annual/ multi-annual support for operational and administrative costs

for non-profit making entities primarily active in the development,

implementation and enforcement of Union environmental and climate

policy and legislation.

Risk sharing facility for private sector financial institutions; expert

support for financial intermediaries (managed indirectly by the EIB).

Projects supported: energy efficiency.

Debt and equity instrument - supports upfront investment and

operating costs (managed indirectly by the European Investment

Bank (EIB).

Projects supported: payments for ecosystem services (PES); green

infrastructure; biodiversity offsets; innovative pro biodiversity and

adaptation investments.

Public procurement contracts

Public

procurement

Support

expenditure (ATA)



Procurement of services linked to implementing policies (includes:

TA, research and policy appraisal and evaluation and environmental

monitoring and funding of DG ENV mission costs).

Expenditure relating to preparatory, monitoring, control, audit,

communication and evaluation activities. May also include the

organisation of seminars and workshops, dissemination of project

details or facilitating information exchange.



5.2.2. LIFE Programme Uptake between 2014 and 2016

A total of 344 projects were awarded funding under the LIFE budget programme between 2014

and 2016. Although the main delivery mechanism to award this funding is the 'traditional'

standard action grant; as illustrated below, both in terms of the number of projects awarded and

the volume of EU contribution, the integrated projects have played a substantial role in terms of

mobilisation of funding for environmental and climate objectives (see the table below).

107

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Table 5-3: Overview of LIFE integrated projects and complementary sources of financing (2014-2016)

The number of SIPs supported is expected to increase in line with their intended use for the 2014-

2020 programming period.

Capacity building projects and preparatory projects account for the smallest share in terms of

both budgetary and project numbers behind support for governance and information and

operating grants.

Figure 5-4: EU28 overview of LIFE expenditure and number of projects supported by delivery mechanism

(2014-2016)

Source: LIFE Projects Database

In the same period, the first phase of financial instruments was underway (2014-2017).

The total planned EU allocation for this first

phase was €30 million for the NCFF;

however, uptake was slow initially. Following increased efforts to expand the pipeline,

there were three projects signed by mid-March 2018, and more projects in the pipeline

(see

www.eib.org/ncff).

Going forwards, the NCFF is intending to execute between 3 to

4 projects a year. For the PF4EE, 4 operations were signed off at the end of 2016 with

€14.1 million committed from the LIFE budget programme (with a total €80 million

planned for the first phase). The PF4EE was intending to execute 10 projects in the first

phase of financial instruments under LIFE.

By project theme, the greatest number of projects is awarded to biodiversity and nature, followed

by resource efficiency and waste. The smallest number of projects are awarded to air quality and

108

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

emissions; while for all other environmental and climate themes, the number of projects awarded

is fairly similar.

Note that project themes are reported by the LIFE Projects Database and

do not correlate exclusively to the corresponding thematic priority.

Within 'traditional' standard action grants the most significant sub-programme is Environment

(relating primarily to environment across multiple themes, and to a lesser extent nature which is

mainly supporting projects relating to biodiversity and nature). Climate change adaptation and

mitigation comprise a much smaller share of the total 'traditional' standard action grants awarded

and were typically found to contribute to fewer multi-objective projects.

SIPs are contributing to air quality and emission reduction, climate action, nature, water and

waste (including one which considers waste and the circular economy). This is aligned with the

indicative areas set by the LIFE Regulation.

Operating grants were found to be supporting a higher share of climate change projects compared

to other delivery mechanisms (almost 50%).

Financial instruments are targeted to energy efficiency and natural capital (including biodiversity,

nature and climate change adaptation projects).

Figure 5-5: EU28 overview of awarded projects by theme and delivery mechanism (2014-2016)

Source: LIFE Projects Database

109

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Figure 5-6: EU28 overview of awarded 'traditional' standard action grants by sub-programme and according to

themes (2014-2016)

Source: LIFE Projects Database

Concerning beneficiary type, 'traditional' standard action grants are awarded to a relatively even

split of beneficiary groupings (with competent authorities, NGOs, private sector, and research

accounting for ~25%, respectively). It is interesting to observe that private sector and research

bodies are key beneficiary groupings. Integrated projects are awarded primarily to competent

authorities (~80%); together with NGOs (~15%) and research bodies (~5%). As to be expected,

NGOs are the sole beneficiary awarded operating grants. They are also awarded a significant

share of preparatory projects and governance and information projects (the latter via 'traditional'

standard action grants); again, as these delivery mechanisms support capacity building type

activities, it is to be expected that NGOs will form a key beneficiary.

The slow uptake of financial instruments in their first phase makes it difficult to determine any

trend in beneficiary groupings; however, the NCFF has thus far received applications led mainly

NGO and non-profits while the PF4EE has received applications led by the private sector.

110

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Figure 5-7: EU28 overview of LIFE number of projects awarded by type of beneficiary (2014-2016)

Note: Blue denotes competent authorities; orange, NGOs; yellow, research bodies; and

green, private sector.

Source: LIFE Projects Database

According to the mid-term evaluation, from 2014 to 2016, more than a third of the financed LIFE

projects have a co-ordinating beneficiary situated in Spain and Italy, moreover, no projects were

awarded to Luxembourg. The share of project proposals received from beneficiaries from Italy

and Spain is even higher and the success rate in these countries is below average. However, the

strong concentration of project proposals from two Member States and the absence of project

proposals from beneficiaries in other Member States indicate that the accessibility to the LIFE

Programme is unequal.

There is evidence that a few Member States (Poland, Portugal and Greece) which previously had

a below average adsorption rate of LIFE funding have now increased their rate to be above the

EU average, which is indicative of a trend towards improved territorial balance between Member

States.

111

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Figure 5-8: EU28 overview of LIFE expenditure and number of projects supported by Member State (2014-

2016)

Note: No projects awarded to Luxembourg between 2014 and 2016

Source: LIFE Projects Database

The uptake of financial instruments is limited to a handful of Member States owing to the

slow uptake.

5.2.3. Management of the Programme

The

European Commission

(DG Environment and DG Climate Action) is responsible for the

Programme. On the operational level, most of the LIFE programme is directly managed and

implemented by the Executive Agency for Small and Medium-sized Enterprises (EASME). At

the strategic level, DG Environment and DG CLIMA both remain involved in the management of

each respective sub-component

117

. Specifically, DG Environment and DG CLIMA are

responsible for the following activities:



117

Preparing the multi-annual work programme;

Managing the LIFE committee;

Supervision of EASME for each sub-component;

Defining eligibility, selection and award criteria for implementation of calls;

Definition of activities necessary to ensure smooth and effective integration of the

programme results into policy (programme-policy integration);

Definition of communication strategy;

Reporting on implementation to the Council and to the EP; and,

Policy development based on project results.

The main activities of EASME for both sub-programmes include:

Implementation of calls, including drafting terms of reference, evaluating proposals,

awarding grants and analysis of final reports;

Ex-post monitoring, including financial ex-post audit and technical ex-post monitoring;

EASME Financial Statement (2013)

112

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel



Implementation of communication activities;

Follow up of audits; and,

Development and maintenance of IT applications.

External organisations are also contracted to assist the Commission and EASME with the

delivery of some of the programmes’ activities, including project selection, monitoring and

communication.

The European Investment Bank (EIB) manages the two financial instruments (PF4EE and NCFF)

associated with the programme.

The decision to outsource programme management to EASME was taken on the following

grounds

118

1. To allow the Commission to focus on policy making in view of the development,

implementation and enforcement of Union environmental and climate policy and

legislation and to catalyse and promote integration and mainstreaming of environmental

and climate objectives into other Union policies and practices.

2. Considering the high degree of complementarity across programmes, delegation to

EASME facilitates the practical development of synergy and coordination between the

sub-programme for Environment and the one for Climate Action and with Horizon 2020,

as envisaged by the Life Regulation.

3. Since EASME is focused exclusively on project management rather than a wider range

of activities this increases the potential for identification of efficiency gains and

simplification opportunities.

Public procurement is most managed by DGs ENV and CLIMA directly and is found to add

substantial value to LIFE. The procurement includes:



studies producing evidence for policy making incl. Impact Assessments

activities directly supporting the implementation of legislation and policy instruments

communication/ dissemination activity (including platforms, helpdesks, secretariats)

ex-post evaluation or REFIT

translation interpretation Technology/ IT assistance.

With respect to the overall management structure, the MTE found that the overall costs for the

management of the LIFE programme were relatively low, for example they were perceived to

have decreased compared to previous Programme periods. The MTE estimated that the total

economic cost for EASME and NEEMO of implementing and running the whole programme for

the period 2014-2017

was €82m (3.6% of the managed budget for the period of €2.3bn), with

€8.2m savings having

been realised through outsourcing specific activities to EASME.

Currently, according to the EASME Annual Work Program for 2017, the operating budget for

EASME is €4.6m, with an additional €0.71 budget for management and administrative support,

making a

total budget of €5.3m. This figure covers staff related costs (Title 1), overhead costs

(Title 2) and programme support expenditure/ other costs (Title 3) budget for LIFE. This does not

include EC costs.

5.2.4. Monitoring of the Programme

Developed in 2016, the LIFE Project Indicators Database

119

contains information concerning all

LIFE projects financed by grants starting in 2015, as well as certain projects from the 2007-2013

118

EASME Financial Statement (2013)

113

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

programme. The contents of this database are based on self-reporting from the project

beneficiaries, which is checked by the LIFE programme monitors and then validate by the

operational desk officer in EASME. Although aggregated data should be treated with caution due

to differences in assumptions, they can be used in some cases to produce programme impact

indicators. Programme output indicators are derived from financial reporting.

5.3. Methodology for Assessing the Impact of LIFE under the Business as Usual

Scenario

The assessment of the impact of LIFE under the business as usual scenario is based on the

following assumptions:



Scale and scope of mechanisms:

The volume of EU expenditure and number of awarded projects are similar to

those from the 2014-2016 period. (It should be noted that SIPs, capacity building

projects and financial instruments were newly introduced in the current

programming period so the scale at which they are used between 2014 and 2016

is limited compared to their intended use.)

'traditional' standard action grants:

continue to be the prevalent delivery

mechanism.

Integrated projects (strategic integrated projects, SIPs):

continue to be the

second most significant delivery mechanism in terms of budgetary volume;

supporting comparatively few projects in relation to 'traditional' standard action

grants but the scale of their use will be greater as they become more established.

Preparatory projects:

continue to support targeted needs, representing a minor

share of LIFE projects and spending.

Governance and information activities:

continue to play supporting role

(accounting for ~10% of projects in terms of numbers and spend).

Capacity building projects:

continue to support targeted Member States,

representing a minor share of LIFE projects and spending

120

Operating grants:

continue to play supporting role (accounting for ~10% of

projects in terms of numbers and spend).

Financial instruments:

will become a more prominent delivery mechanism in

their second phase, albeit still playing a supporting role.

Average EU contribution per project according to the various delivery mechanisms:

'traditional' standard action grants: €2.5 million (and €1.6 million for governance

and information activities within this delivery mechanism)

Integrated projects (strategic integrated projects, SIPs): €10.2 million

Preparatory projects: 0.5 million

Capacity building projects: €0.7 million



119

120

life.idom.com

Based on current progress, of the 14 Member States accessing the capacity building projects, 3 reported

above EU average adsorption rates for 2014-2016 (excluding outliers from this average). This is indicative of

a ~1/5 success rate. Assuming that capacity building projects continue to be used in the second half of the

programming period with a similar rate of success, the number of Member States with a below average

adsorption rate would reduce by ~1/5 per half a programming period (so that 9 Member States are eligible at

the beginning of 2020). The amount of EU expenditure which would be allocated for eligible Member States

is based on the current average cost of a capacity building

project (~€170,000 and the maximum cost allowed

by the Regulation for second half of the current programming period (€750,000 per Member State).

114

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel



Operating grants: €2.9 million

Financial instruments: insufficient uptake to generate an average

Project themes:

'traditional' standard action grants:

(including governance and information

activities): continue to be awarded across all thematic priorities, contributing to

multiple priorities where relevant. A larger share of projects will be awarded under

the Environment and Nature sub-programmes (54% and 28%, respectively)

compared to climate change (10% and 9% for adaptation and mitigation,

respectively).

Integrated projects (strategic integrated projects, SIPs):

continue to target waste,

water, nature, air and climate action.

Preparatory projects:

continue to support a range of thematic priorities, on a needs

basis.

Capacity building projects:

continue to support untargeted to thematic priorities.

Operating grants:

continue to support a range of thematic priorities with an even

split between the environment and climate change sub-programmes.

Financial instruments:

continue to target energy efficiency and natural capital

(including biodiversity, nature and climate change adaptation).



Beneficiary type per project according to the various delivery mechanisms:

'traditional' standard action grants:

continue to be awarded to an even mix of

beneficiary groupings (competent authorities, NGOs, private sector, and research.

Within 'traditional' standard action grants, governance and information activities

continue to support NGOs primarily, and private sector, competent authorities and

research bodies to a lesser extent.

Integrated projects (strategic integrated projects, SIPs):

continue to be

primarily awarded to competent authorities, with support from NGOs and

research bodies.

Preparatory projects:

continue to support NGOs primarily, and competent

authorities and research bodies to a lesser extent.

Capacity building projects:

continue to support competent authorities.

Operating grants:

continue to support NGOs, only.



Financial instruments:

the NCFF will continue to support projects led mainly

NGO and non-profits while the PF4EE will continue to support projects mainly

led by the private sector.

The territorial balance would be similar to that occurring during the period 2014 to 2016

with a minimum of 6 to 8

projects per year

per Member State

The impact of the individual projects was based on data available in the LIFE Indicator Database

for a selected number of indicators and projects during 2014 and 2015. (Later data was not

broadly available at the time of conducting this analysis.) Project details supported by financial

instruments under the LIFE budget programme are gathered from the MTE and other sources.

Procurement contracts are not considered in the analysis as they are not expected to have a

significant environmental, economic or social impact. Where relevant, additional data sources

have been used to fill gaps or provide context. It should be stressed that the data should not be

treated as comprehensive for a programming period but rather indicative of main trends.

The indicators selected for analysis are set out in the following table:

115

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Table 5-9: Selected indicators from the LIFE Indicator Database used to assess

environmental and social impacts

Thematic priority

Environmental impacts

Water

Humans influenced (1.6)

Terrestrial extent affected by the pressure or risk addressed (2.1)

Aquatic extent affected by the pressure or risk addressed (2.2.)

Waste

Humans influenced (1.6)

Waste management (3.1)

Resource efficiency

Humans influenced (1.6)

Energy consumption (4.1.1)

Renewable energy production (4.1.3)

Environment

health

Air

quality

emissions

Biodiversity

nature

and

Humans influenced (1.6)

Noise level / frequency

–

terrestrial (5.2.1)

and

Humans influenced (1.6)

Air emissions (6.1)

and

Humans influenced (1.6)

Natural or semi-natural habitats (7.3)

Wildlife species (7.4)

Invasive alien species (7.5.1)

Climate

mitigation

change

Humans influenced (1.6)

CO2 emission savings (8.1.1)

Other GHG emission savings (8.1.2)

Climate

adaptation

change

Humans influenced (1.6)

Particularly vulnerable areas (9.2)

Infrastructures targeted for climate resilience (9.3)

Social impacts

Governance

Information

awareness

Capacity building

Jobs

Involvement of non-governmental organisations (NGOs) and other

stakeholders in project activities (10.2)

and

Website (11.1)

Networking (12.1)

Jobs (full time equivalent) (13)

Selected indicators

Note: Selected indicators are defined within the LIFE framework for Key Project- level Indicators (KPIs). Indicator

references are included in the table in parenthesis.

116

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Source: European Commission (2017)

121

The main metrics used for each of the indicators include the intended improvement achieved

during the lifetime of the project, and beyond it. (Note that since the projects are still underway,

only the 'intended' improvement is known; the actual improvement can only be measured after

the end of the project.) The improvement beyond the project duration and/or area is intended to

reflect the sustainability of the effects, as well as the catalytic effect e.g. further scaling up

activities. Another metric is the intended persons affected or influenced by the project. This is

also reported both for the lifetime of the project and beyond it.

The metrics described above vary considerably between projects. There are several reasons for

this, not least the baseline and units used can vary, along with the timeframe considered. As such,

it is not possible to aggregate the results and impacts reported; rather the data is used to ascertain

the ratio of intended improvements, comparing between the intended impact during the lifetime

of a project and the period beyond it.

On this basis, the environmental and social impacts were determined. The economic impacts are

derived from data provided by EASME, as the main management body for LIFE. Aggregated

results and impacts are included where derived as part of the MTE and details concerning their

methodology are set out in the MTE.

It should be noted that financial instruments are not included in the LIFE Projects Database. The

EU contribution to these projects should also be treated differently to the action and operating

grants as they comprise mainly debt and equity instruments.

5.3.1. Environmental Impacts of the Business as Usual Scenario

Environmental impacts can be determined at project level where a direct chain of causality

between the project intervention and the impact can be established, i.e. where the outcome has a

direct environmental impact. Difficulties also arise when determining impacts beyond a project

–

where the LIFE project is no longer the sole factor influencing the impact.

Where the project intervention is one of several factors influencing an environmental impact, it is

not possible to quantify the impact of the LIFE project alone, i.e. where the outcome facilitates

another outcome which may have a direct environmental impact. Thus, environmental impacts

are more generally limited to LIFE projects supporting action on the ground and do not reflect the

impact arising as a result of improved capacity or project replicability. Where environmental

impacts can be monitored, difficulties then arise when aggregating these impacts at programme

level, as outlined previously. Thus, environmental impacts are discussed in aggregate form in

relation to their broad trends, and where relevant, illustrative examples are included to give an

indication of environmental impacts.

The following sections present the environmental impacts reported by

thematic priority

for the

current programming period, i.e.

where a project is explicitly addressing a thematic priority

identified in the MAWP (which is not always the case).

For each thematic priority a series of

corresponding targets were developed for the MAWP. Progress against these targets was reported

in the MTE and is summarised here, where available.

5.3.1.1.

Environmental impacts - sub-programme for Environment

A. Air quality and emissions

Programme Level:

121

Qualitative and quantitative outcome indicators for LIFE projects.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/toolkit/pmtools/life2014_2020/monitoring.htm

117

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

For air quality and emission reductions the MTE reported a total of 3 projects explicitly within

this

thematic priority;

there are another 22 projects within other thematic priorities which are

also contributing to air quality and emission reduction.

Progress towards targets is positive against many of the MAWP targets set for air quality and

emissions as shown below.

Table 5-10: Progress towards air quality and emission reduction targets (2014-2015)

Indicator

Progress

towards

target

(%)

Target 2017

Percentage of ongoing or finalised projects implementing replicable or

transferable actions and progressing towards reaching or surpassing the

relevant Union air quality target on project level

Percentage of ongoing or finalised projects implementing replicable or

transferable actions in Air Quality zones where pollutant levels are above

targets established by law: projects foresee to reach/ surpass these targets on

project levels;

Percentage of ongoing or finalised projects implementing replicable or

transferable actions and progressing - where Air Quality policies are being

developed and implemented: projects foresee to develop new measures,

methods or techniques that can serve as models for Union policy

development.

Persons covered by ongoing or finalised projects implementing replicable or

transferable actions progressing towards reaching or surpassing the relevant

Union air quality target.

80%

1 million

persons

Source: MTE

At a programme level, the environmental impacts were aggregated for selected pollutants

–

illustrated below. The impacts relate to improvements in pollutant concentrations and/ or

reductions in emissions, comparing the beginning of a project to its end. Emission reductions

were more commonly reported than improvements to air quality; and only two projects reported

impacts relating to deposition. NO

and particulate matter are the most common pollutants

impacted by LIFE projects, both being key pollutants at an EU level for air quality improvements

(NO

) and emission reductions, and particularly relevant to the transport sector. For air quality,

the impacts reported relate to 3 of the 12 pollutants with air quality standards. Despite this

comparatively low pollutant coverage, the fact that the projects improve air quality with respect

to NO

and PM

2.5

and PM

is important as these are the most challenging pollutants at EU level

with respect to air quality.

118

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Table 5-11: Projected impacts concerning air quality and emissions (2014-2015)

Source: MTE

The sectoral split of air quality improvements and emission reductions, as reported in the MTE,

indicates that both transport and industry (comprising energy, landfills and production) are well

targeted by LIFE projects, supporting a shift towards a more sustainable mobility system and

energy/ production system. However, agriculture is less well targeted.

Among the indicators used for air quality and emissions, the ones discussed in the following

sections include the emissions to air only (indicator 6.1).

Note that air emission environmental objectives are not among the themes targeted by FIs in the

current programming period.

'traditional' standard action grants:

'traditional' standard action grants support 14 projects contributing to emission reductions (in

relation to the following pollutants: VOC, CH4, NH

, SO

/SO

, particulate matter (PM),

/NO

). The grants were awarded across the Environment (10), Nature (1) and Climate

Change Mitigation (CCM) (3) sub-programmes.

The average co-financing rate for these projects was 55% (owing to a low average reported for

those under the Environment sub-programme of 53%). The projects are awarded across 4 EU15

Member States with a majority in Italy (8).

Across all the sub-programme areas, the extent of improvement achieved through the project is

larger beyond the project lifetime compared to during it (at a ratio of ~0.7:1). Whereas the extent

of humans influenced or benefiting from the projects is the same between the two project phases.

In terms of outreach, of the projects reporting the environmental impacts described above, the

following impacts were also reported:



Stakeholder engagement (indicator 10.2; involvement of non-governmental organisations

(NGOs) and other stakeholders in project activities): 2 projects (all within the CCM sub-

programme).

119

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel



Website use (indicator 11.1): 5 projects (within the Environment and CCM sub-

programmes).

Networking (indicator 12.1): 5 projects (within the Environment and CCM sub-

programmes); the most common group of individuals involved in networking activities

are professionals. The impact of networking in terms of persons influenced is greater

during the lifetime of a project compared to beyond it (by a factor of ~3:1).

According to the projects database, 11 projects contribute to air quality and emission reductions;

all of which are funded under the Environment sub-programme (with an average co-financing

rate of 54%). Thus, it is understood that the lower co-financing rate reported by the indicators

database is primarily led by projects under the CCM; moreover, it is observed that there are a

number of projects under the thematic priority of air which are not reporting impacts to the

indicators database.

For the 2021-2027 programming period therefore, it is understood that in the BAU scenario, environmental

impacts for emission reductions will:



Be achieved mainly by 'traditional' standard action grants with a strong overlap between air

emissions and climate change mitigation

Have a greater environmental impact beyond the lifetime of the project compared to during it; with

the same number of persons affected/ influenced by the projects between this time

Projects will have a relatively low reporting rate of environmental impacts to the indicators database

Greater uptake in EU15 Member States; and comparatively low co-financing rates in relation to other

thematic priorities

Environmental impacts will continue to be supported by a limited level of outreach activities and at a

much lower rate compared to action on the ground with limited evidence of networking and online

activities

In addition, between 2014 and 2015 two governance and information 'traditional' projects were

supported with an average co-financing rate of 60%.

The greatest impact is reported for the transboundary project, CLEAN HEAT (operating grant);

affecting ~214 million residents across 7 Member States. The project aims to reduce PM caused

by wood burning through information awareness. Immediate improvements occur in the lifetime

of the project; although improvements in air quality are expected to be ongoing, to a lesser extent

(improvements are estimated at ~4:1/ ~5:2 during the lifetime of the project compared to beyond,

depending on the Member State).

The accuracy of the impacts quantified for CLEAN AIR is questionable as information

awareness relies on uptake which cannot be guaranteed. Other governance and information

activities include monitoring and information exchange tools and the impacts are be quantified.

For the 2021-2027 programming period, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for air

quality and emissions will:



Be accompanied by small number of governance and information projects, with high co-financing

rates compared to 'traditional' standard action grants supporting this thematic priority.

Strategic integrated projects (SIPs):

A total of 2 SIPs were signed for air quality in 2014 and 2015 (in Poland and Italy) with an

average co-financing rate of 60%. Neither project reported environmental impacts to the

indicators database. In terms of outreach, no reporting was provided by the indicators database

for SIPs.

The project will be completed in 2023 and while impacts cannot be quantified a qualitative

discussion of the Polish SIP (providing support for the implementation of an Air Quality Plan in

the Małopolska

region) is included to give an indication of planned environmental impacts. The

120

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

main area of activity targeted by the AQP, and the SIP, is the combustion of solid fuels in

obsolete household boilers. Specifically, the SIP intends to facilitate:



A reduction of the concentration of PM

, PM

2.5

and NO

/ NO

emissions with 34% for

the PM and with 26% for the NO

/ NO

emissions.

Immediate improvements in the lifetime of the project; although improvements in air

quality are expected to be ongoing, to a lesser extent (improvements are estimated at ~4:1

during the lifetime of the project compared to beyond)

Number of persons affected considers residents in the region, which amounts to 3.3

million. (MTE)

The project has secured a further €798 million for large

scale deployment of the plan

(sourced primarily from ESIF and the National and Regional Fund for Environmental

Protection and Water Management). Thus, for every €1 from LIFE, the project has

secured approximately €50.

Improved design of air quality plans elsewhere, following the approach adopted for the

Małopolska region

Number of persons affected does not consider residents in adjacent areas including the

province of Silesia, and regions in Slovakia and the Czech Republic; which will also

benefit from improved air quality as a result.

The project is expected to attract private investment; with additional and ongoing

benefits for air quality which are not included in the current estimations



For the 2021-2027 programming period therefore, it is understood that in the BAU scenario, environmental

impacts for air quality will:



Be targeted by SIPs at a reduced scale compared to 'traditional' standard action grants

Impacts will be greatest during the lifetime of the project compared to beyond it

Co-financing rates will be high compared to other delivery mechanisms targeting air quality, and

more widely in relation to other indicative areas (for which the average co-financing rate is 55%)

Other:

No capacity building or preparatory projects reported environmental impacts in the programming

period reviewed.

B. Biodiversity and Nature

Programme Level:

According to the MTE, 47 projects were awarded in the area of nature and biodiversity. An

additional 17 projects awarded were found to also be contributing to nature and biodiversity

relevant indicators (amounting to 64 projects reporting biodiversity and nature environmental

impacts).

For the 64 projects reporting against biodiversity and nature indicators, the following impacts

were planned at the beginning of the projects (MTE):



Over an area of 1,012,136 ha including 73 ecosystems supporting 237 ecosystem

services, almost half of the ecosystem services were assessed as very poor/ poor/

moderate/ deteriorating the beginning of the project; and were expected to improve as a

result of the project.

Of the 167 natural or semi-natural habitats (over an area of 10,878,700 ha) targeted by

LIFE projects, 129 were assessed as being less than favourable/ secure conservation



121

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

status at the beginning of the project; and of these 129, 46% were planned to reach an

improved conservation status by the end of the LIFE project.



Of the 174 wildlife species targeted by LIFE projects, 66% (114 species) were planned to

reach an improved conservation status by the end of the LIFE project.

Table 5-12: Progress towards biodiversity and nature targets (2014+2015)

Indicator

Progress

towards

target

Target

Set up to improve conservation status within the meaning of the habitats

and birds Directives

Share of habitats targeted by ongoing/ finalised projects that are

progressing towards an improved conservation status

Share of species targeted by ongoing or finalised projects that are

progressing towards an improved conservation status

Percentage of Natura 2000 sites targeted by ongoing or finalised projects

that are progressing towards an improved conservation status

Percentage of ecosystem types targeted by ongoing or finalised projects

implementing replicable or transferable actions and progressing towards

improvement or restoration

Percentage of ecosystem surfaces targeted by ongoing or finalised projects

implementing replicable or transferable actions and progressing towards

improvement or restoration

Percentage of projects that report on continuation/ transfer/ replicability

indicators

100%

10% of the

habitats

targeted

10% of the

species targeted

10% of Natura

2000 sites

targeted

80%

10% of the

ecosystem types

targeted

21 of 64

(67%)

Source: MTE

Among the indicators used for biodiversity and nature, the ones discussed in the following

sections include the area or length of land within a project targeting the improvement of natural/

semi-natural habitats (indicator 7.3) or wildlife species (indicator 7.4) and protection from

invasive alien species (indicator 7.5.1).

The only projects reporting against these indicators are supported via 'traditional' standard action

grants (62) and SIPs (2). According to the projects database, in addition to 'traditional' standard

action grants (as the main delivery mechanism) and integrated projects (environment only), a

handful of governance and information projects (4) have also been awarded in relation to this

environmental objective.

'traditional' standard action grants:

Between 2014 and 2015, 27 'traditional' standard action grants were reporting against the

indicator, improvement of natural/ semi-natural habitats; the majority of which were Nature

'traditional' standard action grants (23). Projects were also supported by the Environment

'traditional' standard action grant (2) and Climate Change Adaptation (2). Note that for this

indicator, 'traditional' standard action grants were the only delivery mechanism reporting impacts

between 2014 and 2015.

The average co-financing rate for these projects was 62% - with climate change adaptation at the

low end of this range (50%) and Nature at the high end (63%). The greatest number of projects

122

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

are in Italy and Spain which have an average co-financing rate of 60% and 61%, respectively.

The highest co-financing rates are reported for projects in new Member States (75%) - with the

exception of Poland which has a low co-financing rate of 50% for the 1 project awarded.

Across all the sub-programme areas, the extent of improvement achieved through the project is

larger during the project lifetime compared to beyond the lifetime of the project (at a ratio of

~3:1). However, the extent of humans influenced or benefiting from the projects is constant

between this time.

Between 2014 and 2015, 27 'traditional' standard action grants were reporting against the

indicator, improvement of wildlife species (indicator 7.4); all of which are within the Nature sub-

programme.

The average co-financing rate for these projects was 64%. The projects span 15 Member States,

with a fairly even split in biophysical terms but a minority based in new Member States (5). The

greatest number of projects is in Italy; with an average co-financing rate of 62%. Co-financing

rates are generally in the region of 70-75% across Member States - with lower than average rates

only reported for projects in Austria, Croatia, Denmark, Germany, Italy, Malta, Spain and the

UK.

The extent of improvement achieved through the project is larger during the project lifetime

compared to beyond the lifetime of the project (at a ratio of ~2:1). However, the extent of humans

influenced or benefiting from the projects is constant between this time.

Comparatively few projects reported impacts concerning invasive alien species (9). The majority

of these are 'traditional' standard action grants and follow the same trends as described above for

habitats and species, namely: an average co-financing rate of 61%; an average ratio of ~5:1 for

improvements in the lifetime of a project compared to beyond; however, the extent of humans

influenced or benefiting from the projects is constant between this time..

In terms of outreach, of the projects reporting the environmental impacts described above, the

following impacts were also reported:



Stakeholder engagement (indicator 10.2; involvement of non-governmental organisations

(NGOs) and other stakeholders in project activities): 23 projects (all within the Nature

sub-programme); NGOs are the main stakeholder engaged in biodiversity and habitat

projects (13) with an average co-financing rate of 66%. Public bodies and other civil

society organisations were awarded the highest rates of co-financing (75 and 70,

respectively).

Website use (indicator 11.1): 33 projects (within the Environment and Nature sub-

programmes, but primarily the latter) with an average co-financing rate of 59 and 63%,

respectively. Website traffic is greater during the lifetime of a project compared to

beyond it (by a factor of ~2:1).

Networking (indicator 12.1): 36 projects reported networking activities; the most

common group of individuals involved in networking activities include professionals,

followed by members of interest groups. The extent of humans influenced or benefiting

from the projects is constant for the project duration and the time period beyond it.



For the 2021-2027 programming period therefore, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for

biodiversity and nature will:



Primarily be carried out by 'traditional' standard action grants

Have a greater environmental impact during the lifetime of the project compared to beyond it; with

some evidence of networking and online activities, but not comprehensive across all projects

Have a good territorial balance in biophysical terms; but limited projects across Member States in

terms of numbers. Average co-financing rates will continue to vary between Member States.

Be led primarily by NGOs (despite having below average co-financing rates), with networking

activities involving professionals and civil society organisations to a greater extent than laymen and

123

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

persons in education.

In addition, a total of 10 projects were reported in the projects database in relation to governance

and information projects for biodiversity and nature with an average co-financing rate of 59%

(below the averages reported for 'traditional' standard action grants; but greater than the

integrated projects).

Environmental impacts are not reported for these projects.

For the 2021-2027 programming period, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for

biodiversity and nature will:



Be accompanied by small number of governance and information projects, with low co-financing

rates compared to 'traditional' standard action grants.

Strategic integrated project (SIPs):

At the time of the MTE, 3 SIPs for nature and biodiversity had been awarded. Environmental

impacts are only reported for 1.

According to the projects database a total of 5 SIPs were awarded between 2014 and 2015, in

Belgium, Italy, Germany, Spain and the Netherlands. Of these, 3 provided support to the further

development of regional Priority Action Frameworks (PAFs); strengthening the targets set and

designing measures to meet the targets and facilitating discussions between different stakeholder

groups representing various sectoral concerns; and between different governing bodies. Only a

few SIPs provided targeted support to specific habitat types within PAFs, including wetlands and

marine habitats; while one was found to target green infrastructure within the Natura 2000

network.

The average co-financing rate for these SIPs is 56%; which is much lower than the other delivery

mechanisms contributing to biodiversity and nature objectives.

Of these SIPs, only 1 (in Germany) reported environmental impacts according to the indicators

discussed here (with respect to the area or length of land within a project targeting the

improvement of wildlife species (indicator 7.4) and protection from invasive alien species

(indicator 7.5.1)). Of note, the extent of impacts achieved in terms of the improvement in area are

expected to be greater beyond the project lifetime compared to during it (at a ratio of 0.7:1).

In terms of outreach, no reporting was provided by the indicators database for SIPs.

For the 2021-2027 programming period therefore, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for

biodiversity and nature will:



Be targeted by SIPs at a reduced scale compared to 'traditional' standard action grants

Impacts will be greatest beyond the lifetime of the project compared to during it; with little evidence

during the lifetime of the project to indicate the environmental impact had

Co-financing rates will be low compared to other delivery mechanisms

Preparatory projects:

The MTE reported 3 preparatory projects in relation to this delivery mechanism for biodiversity

and nature; while only 2 are reported to the projects database for the same time-period (2014-

2015), with an average co-financing rate of 60% (below the averages reported for 'traditional'

standard action grants; but greater than the integrated projects).

Environmental impacts are not reported for these projects.

124

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

For the 2021-2027 programming period, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for

biodiversity and nature will:



Be accompanied by a very small number of preparatory projects, with low co-financing rates

compared to 'traditional' standard action grants.

Other:

No capacity building projects reported environmental impacts in the programming period

reviewed.

The slow uptake of funding via the Natural Capital Financing Facility (NCFF) in first few years

of the current programming period has meant that there are few examples of signed projects, and

even fewer of monitoring and reporting of environmental impacts.

However, the NCFF has evolved over the past year and starts to show successes. For instance,

the first NCFF operation, a € 6 million loan to Rewilding Europe, was signed in April 2017. It

will support over 30 nature-focused businesses across Europe. In addition, to the creation and

consolidation of nature-based businesses, new nature-related business models will be supported

in sectors like forestry, water management, sustainable fisheries and tourism. The agreement is

expected to create 250 jobs.

For the 2021-2027 programming period, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for

biodiversity and nature will:



Carried out by an increasing number of projects funded via the NCFF (assuming that uptake is faster

once the NCFF is more established)

Monitoring and reporting of environmental impacts will improve as the number of projects increase

and the timeframe of activity continues

Environment and health (including chemicals and noise)

Programme Level:

The MTE reported a total of 17 projects reporting against chemical indicators (7 relating

specifically to chemicals and REACH legislation) and 3 projects reporting against noise

indicators. In sum:



Chemicals: 370,000 persons influenced by projects relating to chemicals; of which

240,000 are expected to be influenced in terms of implementing replicable actions during

the lifetime of the project. Beyond the project (3-5 years): 1.3 million persons influenced;

1.6 million are expected to be influenced in terms of implementing replicable actions.

Noise: Planned noise reduction by at least 3 dB for 2 of the 3 projects, influencing 4,319

persons which is expected to increase slightly after 3-5 years.

Table 5-13: Progress towards environment and health targets (2014+2015)

Indicators

Progres

towards

target



Percentage of ongoing or finalised projects implementing replicable or transferable

actions and progressing towards reaching or surpassing the relevant Union chemical

substance target on project level

Percentage of persons covered by ongoing or finalised projects implementing

replicable or transferable actions set up to reduce adverse effects of chemicals on

125

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Indicators

Progres

towards

target

health and environment, including estimates over the long term effects - after 3 or 5

years

Percentage of ongoing or finalised projects implementing replicable or transferable

actions and progressing towards reaching or surpassing the relevant Union noise

reduction target on project level

Percentage of ongoing or finalised projects implementing replicable or transferable

actions targeting noise reduction progressing towards reducing noise exposure by at

least 3 dB

Number of the persons benefitting from ongoing or finalised projects implementing

replicable or transferable actions set up to reduce noise levels by at least 3 dB

4000

Source: MTE

Note that environment and health environmental objectives are not among the indicative areas

targeted by SIPs or the themes targeted by FIs in the current programming period.

Furthermore, the number of projects contributing to noise is much greater in the projects database

although this is because it is grouped together with air quality and emission reductions. Owing to

this discrepancy in reporting, no comparison with the projects database is made for this

environmental objective. There is no separate reporting for chemicals as this is grouped with

industrial production and is more closely aligned with resource efficiency. Of the 41 LIFE

projects concerning industrial production, 12 include aspects relating to chemicals.

Among the indicators used for noise, the one discussed in the following sections include the noise

level/frequency

–

terrestrial (indicator 5.2.1).

'traditional' standard action grants:

Environmental impacts are only reported by 4 'traditional' standard action grants under the

Environment sub-programmes in Belgium, Spain and Italy (with an average co-financing rate of

56%).

The environmental impact is expected to be greater beyond the lifetime of the project (compared

to during it), at a ratio of ~0.4:1; while the number of persons affected or influenced is expected

to remain constant.

In terms of outreach, no reporting was provided by the indicators database for these projects.

For the 2021-2027 programming period, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for

environment and health will be:



Relatively few in number compared to other environmental objectives; although environmental

impacts will have long-standing effects beyond the lifetime of the project.

Carried out by 'traditional' standard action grants, under the Environment sub-programme.

126

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

In addition, a total of 2 governance and information projects reported environmental impacts, 1

relating to energy efficiency and the other to renewable energy. Both projects are based in EU15

Member States and sit within the climate change programme with an average co-financing rate of

60%.

The extent of the impacts in relation to renewable energy are expected to be greater beyond the

lifetime of the project (at a ratio of ~0.7:1). The type of renewable energy is not specified by the

indicators database. Energy efficiency impacts are only reported in terms of the number of person

influenced by the project, which is expected to be greater during the project lifetime compared to

beyond it (at a ratio of ~3:1).

The projects database indicates an additional 2 governance and information projects are relevant

to the resource efficiency thematic priority. These projects concern industrial production and sit

within the environment sub-programme. The average rate of co-financing is lower at 56%.

Other:

No capacity building or preparatory projects reported environmental impacts in the programming

period reviewed.

D. Resource efficiency (including soil, forests, and green and circular economy)

Programme Level:

According to the MTE a total of 15 projects directly target resource efficiency between 2014 and

2015; although 51 projects were found to contribute to relevant indicators in the indicators

database (with 39 projects contributing to energy efficiency and 24 to achieving a circular

economy).

The MTE reports the combined planned impacts of these projects as follows:



Reduction in energy consumption from electricity [120,000 MWh/year]

Reduction in energy consumption from methane [500,000 MWh/ year]

Increase renewable energy production [300,000 MWh/year from unspecified sources;

190,000 MWh/year from biomass; 7 MWh from solar]

Plan to sustainably manage 1,900 ha of forests, and provide data for 71 forests to the

European Data Centre

Projects covering 344 ha of soil

Progress towards targets is positive against many of the MAWP targets set for resource efficiency

as shown below.

Table 5-14: Progress towards resource efficiency targets (2014-2015)

Indicators

Progress

towards

target

Tar

get

Percentage of ongoing or finalised projects implementing replicable or

transferable actions and progressing towards implementing aspects of green

circular economy

Percentage of additional companies covered by ongoing or finalised projects

implementing replicable or transferable actions set up to implement green

circular economy

80%

com

pani

80%

Percentage of ongoing or finalised projects implementing replicable or

transferable actions and progressing towards maintaining or improving soil

127

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

functions

Percentage of ongoing or finalised projects implementing replicable or

transferable actions and progressing towards implementation of the European

Forest Strategy

Percentage of ongoing or finalised projects implementing replicable or

transferable actions set up to provide data for the European Forest Data Centre

(EFDAC)

80%

Source: MTE

The following analysis focusses on two of the indicators included in the indicator database,

including energy efficiency

–

energy (indicator 4.1.1) and renewable energy (indicator 4.1.3). Of

the two, energy efficiency relating to consumption is the most common indicator used to report

the environmental impact of resource efficiency projects.

Note that resource efficiency environmental objectives are not among the indicative areas

targeted by SIPs or the themes targeted by FIs in the current programming period.

'traditional' standard action grants:

'traditional' standard action grants are the primary delivery mechanism used by resource

efficiency projects (according to the indicators database and the projects database). In relation to

energy efficiency, projects are typically funded via the Environment sub-programme (total of 22

and to a lesser extent the climate change mitigation (7). Renewable energy 'traditional' standard

action grant projects are funded by the full suite of sub-programmes: Environment (7), Nature

(1), Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) (1) and Climate Change Mitigation (CCM) (3).

The average rate of co-financing is comparatively low next to other thematic priorities; and the

territorial balance favours EU15 Member States with no projects awarded to new Member States

between 2014-2015. Projects under the climate change programmes receive a much lower rate of

co-financing (averaging 49% for energy efficiency under CCM; 50% and 58% for renewable

energy under CCA and CCM, respectively). For energy efficiency projects, between Member

States, the rate is lower still at 32% for a project funded in Sweden and 39% for two projects

funded in Belgium. For renewable energy projects the rate of co-financing is more balanced

between Member States; albeit still low compared to other thematic priorities.

Under energy efficiency, electricity is the main source of energy targeted by the projects funded

(16 under the Environment sub-programme and 3 under CCM). The extent of the impact is on

average greater during the lifetime of the project compared to beyond it (at a ratio of ~2:1 for

those under the Environment sub-programme and ~5:1 under CCM).

Under renewable energy, the source of energy is largely undefined and only solar and biomass

are specified by the indicators database. The extent of the impact and the extent of persons

influenced are on average the same during the lifetime of the project compared to the time period

beyond it.

The following impacts were also reported in terms of outreach related to these projects reporting

environmental impacts:



Stakeholder engagement (indicator 10.2; involvement of non-governmental organisations

(NGOs) and other stakeholders in project activities): 9 projects (across all sub-

programmes except CCA).

Website use (indicator 11.1): 15 projects (across all sub-programmes except CCA).

Planned website traffic is greater beyond the lifetime of a project compared to during it

(by a factor of ~0.9:1).

Networking (indicator 12.1): 15 projects reported networking activities; the most

common group of individuals involved in networking activities is professionals. The



128

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

impact of networking in terms of persons influenced is similar during the lifetime of a

project compared to beyond it.

The projects database indicates a larger number of projects are contributing to the resource

efficiency thematic priority, taking into account a wider range of activities (rather than focussing

on energy). By theme, the following observations can be made:



Energy: 1 project awarded under the Environment sub-programme with a co-financing

rate of 58%

Environmental management: 11 projects awarded under the Environment sub-

programme with an average co-financing rate of 58%

Industry

–

production: 56 projects awarded across the full scope of sub-programmes

(primarily under the Environment sub-programme) with an average co-financing rate of

56%

Land-use: 21 projects awarded across the full scope of sub-programmes (of which, 19

under the Environment sub-programme) with an average co-financing rate of 54%. The

remaining 2 projects fall under the CCA programme and have an average co-financing

rate of 38%.



For the 2021-2027 programming period, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for resource

efficiency will be:



Primarily awarded via 'traditional' standard action grants, across all sub-programme areas but

primarily under the Environment sub-programme

Projects have a particular focus on energy efficiency and overlap with the CCM programme (and

CCA to a lesser extent)

Greater uptake in EU15 Member States (presumably new Member States are accessing regional

funds for energy efficiency projects); and comparatively low co-financing rates in relation to other

thematic priorities.

Environmental impacts will continue to be supported by outreach activities but at a lower rate

compared to action on the ground. Private for profit and public bodies will continue to be the key

stakeholders engaged in outreach activities.

Other:

No capacity building or preparatory projects reported environmental impacts in the programming

period reviewed.

E. Waste

Programme Level:

The MTE reports that 16 projects were funded under the waste thematic priority between 2014-

2015; and that a total of 30 projects were found to be contributing to relevant indicators. The

combined planned impact of indicators of these 30 projects was reported to be 218,275 tonnes/

year in waste prevention and 141,906 tonnes/ year in recycling with impacts covering 43

municipalities and regions. Progress against targets was not reported in the MTE.

The following analysis focusses on one of the indicators included in the indicator database, waste

management (indicator 3.1).

Note that waste management environmental objectives are not among the themes targeted by FIs

in the current programming period.

'traditional' standard action grants:

'traditional' standard action grants are the main delivery mechanism relating to waste

management projects. Of these projects, 40 reported to the indicators database against the waste

management indicator between 2014 and 2015. Of these, 34 are supported under the

Environment sub-programme, 3 under Nature, 1 under CCA and 2 under CCM. The majority

129

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

relate to non-hazardous waste management with just 3 concerning hazardous waste management.

Across all waste management 'traditional' standard action grants the extent of waste management

is much greater during the lifetime of the project compared to beyond (at a ratio of ~10:1). The

extent of the persons influenced are on average the same during the lifetime of the project

compared to the time period beyond it.

The rate of co-financing is relatively low compared to other thematic priorities (at 57%); the

average is brought lower by the 3 hazardous waste management projects (46%). Territorial

coverage is limited with projects in EU15 Member States only.

By sector the greatest number of projects are supported in the industry and agriculture sectors (17

and 12 projects, respectively). This followed by household (5), mining (4) and construction (1).

The rate of co-financing is greatest for mining projects (average of 59%) while the lowest is for

industry and construction (averages of 56%). The relatively large ratio of improvement achieved

during the project lifetime compared to beyond is driven by projects in the industry and

agriculture sectors (at a ratio of ~15:1 and ~10:1, respectively).

The projects database reports a similar number of projects as the indicators database, with the rate

of co-financing also relatively low compared to other thematic priorities (at 55%).

The following impacts were also reported in terms of outreach related to these projects reporting

environmental impacts:



Stakeholder engagement (indicator 10.2; involvement of non-governmental organisations

(NGOs) and other stakeholders in project activities): 22 projects (across all sub-

programmes except CCM); an equal number of private for profit and NGO represent the

main stakeholders engaged (6, respectively) with an average co-financing rate of 50%

and 54%, respectively.

Website use (indicator 11.1): 33 projects (across all sub-programmes). Planned website

traffic is expected to be greater during the lifetime of the projects compared to beyond it

(at a ratio of ~2:1).

Networking (indicator 12.1): 38 projects reported networking activities; the most

common group of individuals involved in networking activities include members of

interest groups. Across all groups of persons, planned activity is expected to be greater

during the lifetime of the projects compared to beyond it (at a ratio of ~2:1).



For the 2021-2027 programming period therefore, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for

waste management will:



Be led by 'traditional' standard action grant projects

Environmental impacts will be greatest during the lifetime of the project

Greater uptake in EU15 Member States; and comparatively low co-financing rates in relation to other

thematic priorities.

Strong uptake by industry and agriculture sectors and focussing on non-hazardous waste

management

Environmental impacts will continue to be supported by outreach activities but at a lower rate

compared to action on the ground. Networking activities will continue to be the most common

outreach activity across projects.

In addition, the projects database reports 6 governance and information within the Environment

sub-programme projects relating to waste management between 2014 and 2015 with a co-

financing rate of 59%. Of these projects, none report to the indicators database on waste

management.

For the 2021-2027 programming period, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for waste

130

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

management will be:



Governance and information projects will continue to play a relatively minor support role to waste

management environmental impacts.

Strategic integrated project (SIPs):

One SIP was awarded between 2014 and 2015 to support with the national waste management

plan of Finland with a co-financing rate of 60%. The project supports with the updating of the

2017-2022 plan. It does not report any environmental impact in relation to waste management

and in terms of outreach, no reporting was provided by the indicators database for SIPs.

For the 2021-2027 programming period therefore, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for

waste management will:



Be targeted by SIPs at a reduced scale compared to 'traditional' standard action grants

Environmental impacts will vary according to the project; based on SIPs in other indicative areas, it

is likely that the environmental impacts will continue beyond the lifetime of the project.

Co-financing rates will be average compared to other delivery mechanisms contributing to waste

management; and higher than average compared to other indicative areas (average co-financing rate

of 55%).

Other:

No capacity building or preparatory projects reported environmental impacts in the programming

period reviewed.

Water

Programme Level:

According to the MTE, 16 projects targeted water as a thematic priority between 2014 and 2015.

Although in total 40 projects reported relevant environmental impacts in the indicators database.

At the time of the MTE, progress towards the MAWP targets was below target but not

significantly

–

as shown below.

Table 5-15: Progress towards water targets (2014-2015)

Indicators

Progress

towards

target

rge

Percentage of ongoing or finalised projects implementing replicable or

transferable actions and progressing towards good ecological status at project

level

Number and percentage of water bodies (inland/ transitional/ coastal) covered by

ongoing or finalised projects implementing replicable or transferable actions set

up to improve their ecological status

(70

total);

70%

100

(nu

er)

Source: MTE

The following analysis focusses on two of the indicators included in the indicator database,

including terrestrial extent affected by the pressure or risk addressed (indicator 2.1) and aquatic

extent affected by the pressure or risk addressed (indicator 2.2).

131

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Note that water environmental objectives are not among the themes targeted by FIs in the current

programming period.

'traditional' standard action grants:

A total of 12 projects reported the terrestrial extent affected by the pressure or risk addressed and

16 projects reported the aquatic extent affected by the pressure or risk addressed. These are

mainly under the Environment sub-programme (17) and to a lesser extent the CCA sub-

programme (5).

For projects reporting the terrestrial extent affected by the pressure or risk addressed, the main

pressures targeted include flood protection, diffuse pollution from industry, morphological

changes and water quality. The average ratio of improvement during the lifetime of projects

compared to beyond it is greater (~5:1); this is primarily due to projects targeting flood protection

and diffuse pollution from industry.

For projects reporting the aquatic extent affected by the pressure or risk addressed, the average

ratio of improvement is reportedly the same for the time period beyond the project and the

lifetime of the project.

For projects reporting the terrestrial extent affected by the pressure or risk addressed, the average

co-financing rate is 55%. For projects reporting the aquatic extent affected by the pressure or risk

addressed, the average co-financing rate is 56%. Across all projects, there is a greater number of

projects in EU15 Member States (5) compared to new Member States (2).

The following impacts were also reported in terms of outreach related to these projects reporting

environmental impacts:



Stakeholder engagement (indicator 10.2; involvement of non-governmental organisations

(NGOs) and other stakeholders in project activities): 13 projects (across all sub-

programmes except CCM); public bodies are the most common stakeholders engaged

across projects (4), followed by an equal number of private for profit and NGOs (3,

respectively). Co-financing rates are lowest for the projects involving NGOs (52%)

Website use (indicator 11.1): 16 projects (across all sub-programmes except CCM).

Planned website traffic is expected to be greater beyond the lifetime of the projects

compared to during them (at a ratio of ~2:1).

Networking (indicator 12.1): 38 projects reported networking activities across all groups

of stakeholders at a relatively even split. The extent of networking activity is greater

during the lifetime of a project compared to beyond it (at a ratio of ~2:1).



A much greater number of projects are reported by the projects database in relation to the water

thematic priority (35 under the Environment and Nature sub-programmes) and with a slightly

higher co-financing rate comparatively (58%).

For the 2021-2027 programming period therefore, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for

water quality will:



Be led by 'traditional' standard action grant projects

Environmental impacts are typically ongoing beyond the lifetime of the project

Greater uptake in EU15 Member States; and comparatively low co-financing rates in relation to other

thematic priorities.

Environmental impacts will continue to be supported by outreach activities but at a similar rate to

action on the ground. Networking activities will continue to be the most common outreach activity

across projects.

Strategic integrated project (SIPs):

132

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

A total of 2 SIPs reported environmental impacts to the indicators database between 2014 and

2015 in Germany and the UK; all reporting the aquatic extent affected by the pressure or risk

addressed, and of which 1 also reported pressures relating to flood protection (in Germany).

The average co-financing rate was 56%. The project which reported the aquatic extent affected

by the pressure or risk addressed average, reported that planned impacts was much greater during

the lifetime of the project compared to beyond it (~10:1). Whereas the projects reporting the

aquatic extent affected by the pressure or risk addressed was, reported a greater planned impact

beyond the lifetime of the project compared to during it (~0.4:1).

The following impacts were also reported in terms of outreach related to these projects reporting

environmental impacts:



Stakeholder engagement (indicator 10.2; involvement of non-governmental organisations

(NGOs) and other stakeholders in project activities): only one SIP reported planned

impacts against this indicator, with greater stakeholder engagement planned beyond the

project compared to during its lifetime (at a ratio of ~0.1:1).

Website use (indicator 11.1): both SIPs reported planned website traffic, which is

expected to be greater during the lifetime of the projects compared to beyond them (at a

ratio of ~4:1).

Networking (indicator 12.1): both SIPs reported planned networking activities relating to

members of interests groups in the case of the UK and to laymen in Germany.



The projects database reported 4 SIPs between 2014 and 2015 (with an average co-financing rate

of 50%), covering Belgium and Sweden in addition to Germany and the UK.

For the 2021-2027 programming period therefore, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for

water management will:



Be targeted by SIPs at a reduced scale compared to 'traditional' standard action grants

Environmental impacts are expected to continue beyond the lifetime of the project

Co-financing rates will be lower than average compared to other delivery mechanisms contributing

to water management; and average compared to other indicative areas (average co-financing rate for

SIPs in this time-period is 55%).

Other:

No capacity building or preparatory projects reported environmental impacts in the programming

period reviewed.

5.3.1.2.

Environmental impacts

–

sub-programme for Climate action

Programme Level:

According to the MTE, there were 11 ongoing projects within the climate change adaptation sub-

programme and an additional 17 projects contributing to projects from other sub-programmes.

The total area targeted is 35 million ha; with 50% of projects funded so far addressing

particularly vulnerable areas and 61% of projects supporting the development of infrastructures

targeted for climate resilience.

With regards to climate change mitigation, the MTE reported that within the CCM sub-

programme, 15 projects are planned to contribute to GHG mitigation and 11 to carbon capture

and sequestration. An additional 48 projects outside the CCM sub-programme contribute to the

relevant indicators with 41 of 48 projects planning to reduce GHG emissions and 14 to sequester

carbon. An overview of these planned mitigation impacts is provided below.

133

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Table5-16: Climate change mitigation impacts reported to the indicators database (2014-

2016)

Source: MTE

The following analysis focusses on 4 of the indicators included in the indicator database,

including particularly vulnerable areas (indicator 9.2) and infrastructures targeted for climate

resilience (indicator 9.3) for climate change adaptation; and CO

emissions (indicator 8.1.1) and

other GHG emissions (indicator 8.1.2) for climate change mitigation.

'traditional' standard action grants:

'traditional' standard action grants are the primary delivery mechanism used by climate action

projects (according to the indicators database and the projects database).

A. Climate change adaptation

Programme Level:

In relation to climate change adaptation, projects are typically funded via the CCA sub-

programme (total of 6 in relation to resilience and 8 for infrastructures). However, adaptation

'traditional' standard action grant projects (namely those relating to infrastructure) are also funded

by the following sub-programmes: Environment (8) and Nature (3).

Under the CCA sub-programme, the average rate of co-financing is 57%; and it is observed that

very few Member States have ongoing projects under this sub-programme. Climate resilience

projects mainly target flood management (and in this respect, overlap with flood protection

activities funded with respect to the water thematic priority (where the co-financing rate is

generally higher; between 60 and 75%). Climate infrastructure projects most commonly relate to

non-specified buildings and water and sewage facilities. The average rates of co-financing are

57%, respectively.

The extent of the impacts are greater beyond the lifetime of the project for building resilience

(~0.8:1 across all projects).

The following impacts were also reported in terms of outreach related to these projects reporting

environmental impacts:



Stakeholder engagement (indicator 10.2; involvement of non-governmental organisations

(NGOs) and other stakeholders in project activities): 4 projects (within the sub-

programme CCA). The extent of planned engagement is greater beyond the lifetime of

the projects compared to during it (~0.5:1).

134

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel



Website use (indicator 11.1): 6 projects (within the sub-programmes Environment and

CCA). Planned website traffic is greater during the lifetime of a project compared to

beyond it (by a factor of ~2:1).

Networking (indicator 12.1): 7 projects (within the sub-programmes Environment and

CCA). The planned extent of networking activities is greater during the lifetime of a

project compared to beyond it (by a factor of ~2:1).



The projects database indicates a larger number of projects are contributing to climate change

adaptation with 36 projects awarded under the CCA sub-programme with a co-financing rate of

57%. Thus indicating that a relatively large share of climate adaptation projects are not reporting

impacts to the indicators database in relation to resilience and infrastructures.

For the 2021-2027 programming period, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for climate

change adaptation will be:



Primarily awarded via 'traditional' standard action grants, primarily under the CCA sub-programme

Low level of reporting impacts to the indicators database

Comparatively low co-financing rates in relation to other thematic priorities

Environmental impacts will continue to be supported by outreach activities but at a lower rate

compared to action on the ground. The full extent of outreach activities is not well captured with the

current approach as it relies on reporting of environmental impacts.

B. Climate change mitigation

Programme Level:

In relation to climate change mitigation, projects are funded via the CCM sub-programme (total

of 12 in relation to CO

mitigation and 3 for other GHG emission mitigation). However,

mitigation 'traditional' standard action grant projects (CO

mitigation) are primarily funded by the

Environment sub-programmes (21), and to a lesser extent other GHG emission mitigation (4).

For CO

mitigation, the CCA sub-programme also included projects reporting CO

savings (2).

Under the CCM sub-programme, for projects contributing to CO

savings, the average rate of co-

financing is lower compared to the Environment sub-programme (53 and 56%, respectively); and

it is observed that fewer Member States have ongoing projects under CCM in this respect.

The greatest CO

savings are achieved through industrial production projects (11 under the

Environment sub-programme and 5 under the CCM). The planned extent of savings achieved

during the lifetime of the project are reportedly higher under the CCM sub-programme compared

to beyond it (at a ratio of ~21:1) whereas the ratio is less exaggerated under the Environment sub-

programme (at a ratio of ~2:1).

With regards to other GHG emissions, between 2014 and 2015, mitigation only concerned CH

Again, it is observed that the Environment sub-programme funded a greater number of projects

reporting against this indicator compared to the CCM. The planned extents of savings achieved

during the lifetime of the projects are reportedly the same as those achieved in the time period

beyond the projects.

The following impacts were also reported in terms of outreach related to these projects reporting

environmental impacts:



Stakeholder engagement (indicator 10.2; involvement of non-governmental organisations

(NGOs) and other stakeholders in project activities): 3 projects (across multiple sub-

programmes).

Website use (indicator 11.1): 4 projects (also across multiple sub-programmes and with

the greatest number under the Environment sub-programme).

Networking (indicator 12.1): 4 projects (also across multiple sub-programmes and with

the greatest number under the Environment sub-programme).



135

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

The projects database indicates a larger number of projects are contributing to climate change

adaptation with 28 projects awarded under the CCM sub-programme with a co-financing rate of

55%. Thus, indicating that a relatively large share of climate mitigation projects are not reporting

impacts to the indicators database in relation to CO

and other GHG savings.

For the 2021-2027 programming period, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for climate

change mitigation will be:



Primarily awarded via 'traditional' standard action grants, primarily under the Environment sub-

programme, rather than the CCM

Low level of reporting impacts to the indicators database of CCM supported projects

Comparatively low co-financing rates in relation to other thematic priorities

Environmental impacts will be supported to a minor extent by outreach activities. The full extent of

outreach activities is not well captured with the current approach as it relies on reporting of

environmental impacts.

In addition, for adaptation, of the projects reporting impacts to the indicators database, 2 relate to

governance and information activities. The planned impact in terms of improvements to

particularly vulnerable areas is expected to be greater beyond the lifetime of the project compared

to during it at a ratio of ~0.3:1.

For mitigation, 3 projects reported planned CO

savings to the indicators database with an

average co-financing rate of 60% (higher than the rate provided for 'traditional' standard action

grants relating to climate change mitigation). The planned impact in terms of CO

savings is

expected to be greater during the lifetime of the project compared to beyond it at a ratio of 2:1.

According to the projects database, 6 governance and information projects under the climate sub-

programme were awarded between 2014 and 2015 with an average co-financing rate of 60%

(higher than the rate provided for 'traditional' standard action grants relating to climate change

action).

For the 2021-2027 programming period, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for climate

action will be:



Governance and information projects will continue to play a relatively minor support role to climate

actions.

Strategic integrated project (SIPs):

The projects database reported 2 SIPs between 2014 and 2015 (with an average co-financing rate

of 54%), covering Denmark and Germany. No environmental impacts are reported to the

indicators database for the projects concerned.

The Danish SIP provides support to municipalities in the development of their CCA plans,

relating to all spatial areas and intended to provide a comprehensive base for implementation,

evaluation and planning in light of the uncertainties of future climate change. The German SIP

supports to a societal transition to renewable energies and energy efficiencies. It aims to facilitate

a large-scale change based on changes to consumer behaviour and land use strategies. There are

no planned environmental impacts reported for either SIP.

For the 2021-2027 programming period therefore, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts for

climate actions will:



Be targeted by SIPs at a reduced scale compared to 'traditional' standard action grants

Environmental impacts cannot readily be quantified owing to the nature of the projects

Other:

136

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

No capacity building or preparatory projects reported environmental impacts in the programming

period reviewed.

An update on PF4EE operations is provided below (up to and including 2017). It shows the

number of operations signed and approved together with the planned energy savings and CO

mitigation per year for each operation.

Table 5-17: PF4EE operations (November 2017)

Source: EIB (2017)

122

The NCFF is also relevant to climate action with respect to climate change adaptation although

the environmental impacts are as yet not quantifiable as no operation has been signed at the time

of reporting in relation to climate change adaptation.

For the 2021-2027 programming period, it is understood that in the BAU, environmental impacts

for climate action will be:

Carried out by an increasing number of projects funded via both the PF4EE and the

NCFF (particularly assuming that uptake is faster once the NCFF is more established)

Monitoring and reporting of environmental impacts will improve as the number of

projects increase and the timeframe of activity continues

5.3.2. Economic Impacts of the Business as Usual Scenario

The economic impacts in the BAU are assumed to be similar to the current implementation of the

LIFE programme. There are two main economic impacts:

1. The economic impacts on applicants

2. The economic impacts on EASME/ EC.

These two main impacts are assessed quantitatively in the next sections. Additional economic

impacts include:

1. The economic impact on Member States

–

the involvement of MS is not expected to

change in the future, hence there will be no difference from the business as usual

scenario.

122

EIB (2017) Energy efficiency in buildings: how to accelerate investments? Paris, December 2017.

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/sites/ener/files/documents/015_2a_isidoro_tapia_seif_paris_11-12-17.pdf

137

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

2. The economic impact on SMEs

–

the extension of the scope, change in delivery

mechanism, simplification of procedures might provide differing impacts on SMEs.

These are explored in the individual options.

3. The impact on research and innovation

–

the extension of the scope, change in delivery

mechanism might incentivise different type of projects under LIFE and hence could

have an impact on research and innovation catalysed through LIFE programme. These

are explored in the individual options.

5.3.2.1.

Economic impacts on applicants

Application procedure costs

–

Action grants

LIFE stakeholders have expressed their concerns regarding the application process in the mid-

term evaluation. EASME experts mentioned that the application process is overly complex,

extensive and lacking purpose, and both NEEMO monitoring experts and project beneficiaries

agreed that it is a burdensome procedure for the applicants.

123

Since 2018, there are two project submission procedures for

'traditional' standard action

grants.

Under the

Environment sub-programme,

a two-stage process is followed according to

which, in the first stage, applicants have to submit a brief concept note (approximately 10 pages)

that will summarise key information about the proposed project and subsequently only the

applicants with the best ranked concept notes are invited to submit a full proposal. Under the

Climate Action sub-programme,

however, the application procedure involves only the

submission of a full proposal.

These two procedures have different implications for the costs that both the applicants and the

Commission have to bear in the application phase. According to an interview with EASME,

developing a full proposal requires work equivalent to approximately 44 to 66 person-days (2

–

months, assuming 22 working days per month), which, assuming an average person-day cost of

€400, will cost the applicants from €17,600 to €26,400. On the

other hand, preparing a short

concept note would only take around 10 to 15 person-days, which entails a significantly lower

cost that ranges between €4,000 and €6,000, assuming €400 per day, and it will reduce the work

needed to prepare a full proposal in the second stage. See Table 5-1 for the overview of

calculations and assumptions.

During the 2014-2016 period, 3,239 traditional project proposals were submitted in total, 2,797

(86%) of which were under the Environment sub-programme and only 442 (14%) of them were

under the Climate Action sub-programme.

124

If we assume that the number of applications each

year will be approximately the same and that 1/3 of the submitted applications under the

Environment sub-programme would be eligible to be invited to the second stage and submit a full

proposal, then the estimated total application cost for 'traditional' standard projects for the 2014-

2020 period under both sub-programmes

is around €73 to €115 million, or around €10 to €16

million per year. This cost includes the preparation of concept notes from all the applicants under

the Environment sub-programme and full proposals for those that made it through the second

stage (assuming one third), and the preparation of full proposals from all applicants under the

Climate Action sub-programme. These estimates are presented in more detail in Table 5-11

below.

123

EC (2017) Support for an external and independent LIFE Mid Term Evaluation Report, Luxembourg,

European Union, 2017

Based on data on 'traditional' standard action grants provided by the Commission

124

138

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Table 5-18 Estimated application cost for 'traditional' standard action grants

No.

Stage I

Type of

Stage II

proposals Total cost

time

time needed time needed - (2014-2016) 2014-2016

application

needed - needed -

- days (min) days (max)

(min)

procedure

days (min) days (max)

Type of

project

Total cost

2014-2016

(max)

person-day cost:

€ 400

'traditional'

standard

Stage II

–

Two-stage

Stage I

–

Stage I

–

Stage II

–

action

full

procedure concept concept

grants

note cost note cost proposal cost proposal

(ENV)

(min)

(max)

(min)

cost (max)

€4,000

€6,000

€13,600

Project

proposal

'traditional'

standard

action

grants

(CLIMA)

€22,400

Project

proposal

2797

€23,867,733*

€37,666,267*

time needed time needed -

- days

(min)

days

(max)

One-stage procedure

442

€7,779,200

€11,668,800

person-day

cost: € 400

€17,600

€26,400

€10,548,978

€ 73,842,844

€16,445,022

€115,115,156

Per year application cost for 'traditional' standard projects for both sub-programmes

Estimated total application cost for 'traditional' standard projects (2014-2020)

* It was assumed that 1/3 of the concept notes were eligible to submit a full proposal

The

integrated projects

follow the same two-stage approach as described for the 'traditional'

standard projects under the Environment sub-programme. This means that the applicants first

submit a shorter concept note and after their evaluation the highest ranked applicants are invited

to submit a full project proposal. Therefore, the total application cost for these projects depends

on the number of concept notes received and the success rate, i.e. how many pass to the second

stage. The total application cost for integrated projects

per year was estimated to be between €2.8

to €4.3 million or around €400,000 to €600,000 per year, assuming that more person-days

are

needed for the preparation of a full proposal for integrated projects than for 'traditional' standard

projects due to the higher complexity of the former. For the overview of these calculations see

Table 5-1. The importance of the

technical assistance

projects in the preparation of integrated

projects has to be highlighted here. The stakeholders’ interviews in the mid-term

evaluation have

revealed that it would be very difficult for integrated project applicants to find sufficient internal

resources to successfully apply without technical assistance.

The project selection process for the

operating grants

is based only on the submission of a full

proposal, so the total cost for applicants can be estimated by the number of the submitted

applications and the average cost of preparing a full proposal. However, according to the mid-

term evaluation, the biannual framework partnership agreements for operating grants, which

requires the submission of an application for each year and an overall application, increases the

administrative burden of the application process. There is also the possibility under the operating

grants to be awarded a project without a call for tender. This applies to specific cases, such as to

IMPEL. In this case, the application procedure cost for the grant beneficiary is negligible.

139

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Table 5-19 Estimated application cost for integrated projects

Stage

Stage I Stage I

No. concept

Type of

time

Stage II notes (2015- No. full

Total cost

time

application needed - needed -

time needed -

proposals 2015-2016

2016)

needed

procedure

days

days (max)

(2015-2016)

(min)

- days

(min)

(max)

(min)

Type of

project

Total cost

2015-2016

(max)

person-day

cost: € 400

Stage II

Stage I

–

Stage II

–

concept

full

concept

note cost

proposal proposal

note cost

(min)

cost

cost (max)

(max)

(min)

Integrated

projects

(ENV)

Two-stage

procedure

Integrated

projects

(CLIMA)

€4,000 €6,000 €16,000

€24,000

€224,000

€336,000

€596,000

€894,000

Per year application cost for integrated projects for both sub-programmes

Estimated total application cost for integrated projects (2014-2020)

€410,000

€2,870,000

€615,000

€4,305,000

For the two LIFE

Financial instruments,

the Private Finance for Energy Efficiency (PF4EE)

and the Natural Capital Financing Facility (NCFF), the mid-term evaluation provides some

insights on the application costs. Regarding the NCFF, and although acknowledging that only a

limited number of FTEs are allocated for this instrument, the MTE suggested that it was too early

to assess the administrative burden for the EIB and applicants. Specifically, however, the MTE

suggested that an extensive amount of time is used inefficiently in practice by the EIB for

discussing and supporting non-mature project ideas with project applicants. The MTE also stated

that according to the EIB and evaluators, the reporting requirements could be high based on the

large number of indicators that the final beneficiaries should report on. On the other hand,

although also too early to come to conclusions, for PF4EE the MTE suggests that it is on the right

efficiency track, despite the limited number of EIB staff involved in implementation. Interviewed

intermediaries indicated that there were no excessive administrative requirements in the

application process for PF4EE. However, reporting requirements are also considered too

cumbersome in the PF4EE, creating an administrative burden to intermediaries.

The costs of reporting requirements:

As for the reporting requirements, the majority of the NEEMO monitoring experts and more than

80% of the beneficiaries interviewed during the mid-term evaluation found them to be very high,

as beneficiaries have to prepare and submit five reports in total during the implementation

phase,

125

and report on output indicators. An

inception report

has to be delivered within 9

125

EC.europa.eu. (2018). Environment - LIFE : Toolkit : Project management tools : Standard Agreement and

Common Provisions. [online] Available at:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/toolkit/pmtools/life2014_2020/guidelines.htm [Accessed 2 Mar. 2018].

140

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

months after the start of the project, and contains information regarding the implementation of

the project, the work plan, its financial state, and a self-assessment of the viability of the project.

progress report

has to be submitted no later than 18 months between consecutive reports and

should include similar information to the inception report with the addition of concise statements

regarding the undertaken tasks, encountered problems, possible deviations from the plan, and a

forecast for the next reporting period. In the end of the project, beneficiaries have to submit the

final report

of the project, which is particularly lengthy, and has to include administrative,

technical, and financial information. A

mid-term report,

which contains the same information as

the final report, is also required for projects that last for more than 24 months or the EU

contribution they receive is higher than

€300,000. After the end of the project and as part of the

final report, a

layman’s report

has to be submitted, which aims to summarise the work of their

LIFE project for a general audience, serving as a marketing tool for promoting and extending the

impact of the project beyond the area of implementation.

In order for the actual impact of the LIFE Programme to be evaluated applicants and

beneficiaries have to measure and monitor the qualitative and quantitative environmental and

climate action outcomes. Hence, each project has to report on

key indicators

according to the

sector or priority area on which the project focusses and on further key indicators which depict its

societal and economic outcomes. In addition to these mandatory indicators, the applicants and

beneficiaries have to report on at least one

complementary key indicator

that reflects the

multipurpose character of the project and the synergies it generates. Except for the application

phase, the relevant indicators and related descriptors have to be reported in the end of the project

and 3-5 years after its completion. NEEMO stated that the indicator database used is too

complicated and requires enormous resources from the beneficiaries to report on them.

126

Most of

the beneficiaries expressed the same concern regarding the indicator set in the interviews of the

mid-term evaluation, claiming that they are difficult to comprehend and very time-consuming.

Assuming different person-days for the respective reports, based on their length and on the effort

required to complete them, and following the same average person-day

cost used above (€400 per

person-day), we can approximate the cost per report and hence the total cost of reporting. It is

assumed that the inception report would take approximately 5 person-days to be prepared, which

would cost around €2,000. The progress report should be no longer than 20 pages and normally

contains about 10 pages, therefore, 3 person-days should be sufficient, which would cost around

€1,200. The final

and mid-term reports are especially lengthy and thus it is assumed that 10

person-days

are necessary, amounting to €4,000 each. The layman’s report would need 3 person-

days to be completed since it is usually short and not very demanding in terms of the effort

needed, so it would cost €1,200. Finally, reporting the qualitative and quantitative outcome

indicators has been described by beneficiaries as a cumbersome and time-consuming process,

therefore, the cost of reporting them would be roughly €3,200. This

makes a total of over

€12,000, as the approximate total cost of reporting per beneficiary. The table below summarizes

the abovementioned information.

Table 5-20 Estimated cost of reporting requirements (including indicators)

Type of report

Estimated time needed

(person-days)

Person-day cost

€ 400

Total cost per report

€ 3,200

€ 2,000

Indicator reporting

Inception report

126

EC (2017) Support for an external and independent LIFE Mid Term Evaluation Report, Luxembourg,

European Union, 2017

141

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Progress report

Midterm report*

Final report

Layman's report

Total

€ 400

€ 1,200

€ 4,000

€

1,200

€ 12,400

* For projects longer than 24 months or with more than €300,000 EU contribution

5.3.2.2.

Economic impacts on EASME / European Commission

In order to estimate the annual management costs of LIFE in the baseline post-2020, we build

upon the actual costs and staff needs reported in the EASME Annual Work Programme for 2017

(2017 AWP), and the EASME Financial Statement (2013), as discussed in the next sections.

We have used FTEs for the calculation of indicative operational costs based on the 2017 AWP

127

For the day rates per FTE, we referred to the indicative data provided by the Commission during

a phone conversation. Although the 2017 AWP indicates accurate figures for the 2017

programme, it does not include indicative FTE data for the European Commission. Based on the

EC data that had been recorded in the EASME Financial Statement (2013), we make the

additional assumption that 1 Commission FTE is needed per year to supervise the Agency

128

Furthermore, it is expected that programme operational costs will change from year to year

depending on the assigned budget and the prioritisation of different projects and themes.

However, we have assumed that the FTE data used from the 2017 AWP represents a sufficiently

up to date and average indication of the operational costs per year. One final assumption was that

National Contact Points continued to be funded by Member States themselves, rather than by

LIFE, and are therefore excluded from the calculations.

Finally, in our calculations we have assumed only Title 1 budget is included. Conversely, the

estimate for overall EASME operational cost mentioned in the 2017 AWP include Title 2 and

Title 3 budgets (operational + other costs) post-2020

would be expected to be around €, and at

€5.7million, , whereas the 2017 AWP reports €5.3 million.

Calculation - Operational budget for staff:

Based on the assumptions made, the total operational cost of EASME is in the order of €2m per

year (specifically for 2017, the number is calculated to have been €2,170,200) although this is

limited to only the Title 1 budget. Our data is shown in Table 5-14 below.

Table 5-21 Calculated operational budget for staff

2017 -

CLIMA

DG 2017 - DG 2017

ENV

TOTAL

1.7

4.3

Officials and temporary agents

(FTEs)

127

128

The data tables that we have referred to can be found in section 4-10.

142

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Officials and temporary agents

(Rate, €/day)

Officials and temporary agents (€)

Seconded national agents (FTEs)

Seconded national agents (Rate,

€/day)

Seconded national agents (€)

Contractual agents (FTEs)

Contractual agents (Rate, €/day)

Contractual agents (€)

Total (FTEs)

Total (€)

143,0

n/a

82,00

n/a

74,00

n/a

143,0

143,000

243,100

614,900

1,001,000

n/a

82,000

n/a

82,000

n/a

82,000

n/a

4.5

74,000

n/a

11.3

74,000

n/a

15.8

74,000

333,000

6.2

576,100

836,200

15.6

1,451,100

1,169,200

22.8

2,170,200

Source: FTE numbers taken from EASME Financial Statement (2013), day rates provided by DG

Environment.

Other costs:

The other costs, i.e. management and administrative support cost, overhead cost (title 2) and

programme support costs (title 3) are assumed to be the same as today.

Table 5-22: Other costs

Cost element

LIFE management and administrative costs

Overhead (Title 2)

Programme support expenditure (Title 3)

Total

Source: EASME Annual Work Programme 2017

The total annual management budget for LIFE (operational + other costs) post-2020 would be

expected to be around €5.71 million.

Annual cost € million

0.71

0.4

2.4

3.51

5.3.3. Social Impacts of the Business as Usual Scenario

In line with the Commission’s

Better Regulation guidelines, the social impacts included in this

assessment of the LIFE budget programme relate to:

Employment (job creation)

Education and training (outreach to those in education and professionals)

143

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Governance and good administration (involvement among public administrations, civic

organisations and other stakeholders; and public engagement)

Social impacts relating to public health and safety overlap with the environmental impacts

considered and therefore are not included here.

5.3.3.1.

Employment

The social impact of the LIFE budget programme in relation to employment is measured by the

number of jobs created as a result of its intervention.

At a project level, between 2014 and 2015, a total of 150 projects reported the number of jobs

created (in terms of Full Time Employment) to the indicators database. On average, the number

of jobs created during the lifetime of the project is 14 FTE; compared to 8 FTE for the period

beyond it.

At a programme level, it is estimated that implementation of projects supported by the LIFE

budget programme create 31,000 jobs (FTE) throughout an entire programming period; and that

an additional 43,500 jobs (FTE) are created in the 5 years after a programming period as a result

(NEEMO and Ernst & Young, 2016) (i.e. assuming that job creation beyond a LIFE project has

grown by a factor of 0.7 compared to during its lifetime).

In contrast, the MTE found that the significance of LIFE projects in relation to planned job

creation was not considered to be very great by stakeholders responding to the public

consultation. The main reason for this was that LIFE projects are generally not intended to create

jobs and that job creation is an indirect result occurring from other intended results such as a

change in policy, legislation or behaviours; and that indirect results are too difficult to quantify

with any certainty.

By delivery mechanism, the greatest number of projects contributing to job creation are

associated with 'traditional' standard action grant projects (namely within the Environment and

Nature sub-programmes). Comparatively few 'traditional' standard action grant projects have

reported job creation within the climate action sub-programmes; and fewer still under other

delivery mechanisms. The number of projects reporting against this indicator is indicative of the

overall share of jobs created (with the largest number of jobs created via 'traditional' standard

action grants within the Environment and Nature sub-programmes).

Figure 5-23: Number of projects reporting job creation (2014-2015)

Source: Indicators database

For the 2021-2027 programming period, it is understood that in the BAU scenario, social impacts in relation

to job creation will be:



'traditional' standard action grants will be the main delivery mechanism driving job creation; and the

number of jobs created by delivery mechanism will largely reflect the number of projects funded by

the respective mechanisms

The ratio of jobs created is greater beyond the lifetime of a LIFE project compared to during its

144

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

lifetime

5.3.3.2.

Education and training

To gauge the impact of the LIFE budget programme on education, reporting on networking is

used, measured at project level based on the number, and type of individuals that have been

included in or participated in any of the different networking activities (indicator 12.1).

Of the 159 total projects reporting against this indicator (for the years 2014 and 2015), 34

included networking activities among those in education (referring to students and pupils of

school age). The majority of these projects were supported via 'traditional' standard action grants

within the Environment (16) and Nature (14) sub-programmes. The 3 remaining projects were

supported via 'traditional' standard action grants and governance and information action grants

within the climate action sub-programmes.

In qualitative terms, the MTE highlighted the significance of SIPs to capacity building, training

of involved stakeholders and skills development and capacity building projects. The latter were

also found to deliver benefits in this regard

–

namely for implementing and setting up training

(relating to further education on and dissemination of environmental and climate action best

practices).

While the monitoring and evaluation framework for the LIFE budget programme includes an

indicator for professional training or education (indicator 12.2), the results are not included in the

impact assessment as they were deemed too unreliable.

For the 2021-2027 programming period, it is understood that in the BAU scenario, social impacts in relation

to education and training will be:



'traditional' standard action grants will be the main delivery mechanism supporting networking

activities among those in education; and compared to other stakeholders involved in networking

activities, those in education are comparatively few

SIPs and capacity building projects will provide the greatest added value in terms of training

activities compared to other delivery mechanisms

5.3.3.3.

Governance and good administration

Reporting on stakeholder involvement (indicator 10.2) and website traffic (indicator 11.1) is used

to gauge the impact of the LIFE budget programme on governance and good administration.

Of the 96 projects reporting against the stakeholder involvement indicator (for the years 2014 and

2015), NGOs comprise the largest stakeholder group. The majority of these projects were

supported via 'traditional' standard action grants within the Environment (42) and Nature (28)

sub-programmes.

145

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Figure 5-24: LIFE projects according to the types of stakeholder involvement

Source: Indicators database

Website traffic relates to the number of unique site visits, average site duration, number of

individuals and number of downloads. Overall 140 projects reported planned impacts relating to

website traffic (of which all reported the number of individuals but between 90 and 94% reported

against the other metrics). The number of individuals visiting the project websites is on average

greater during the lifetime of the projects compared to beyond it (at a ratio of 2:1). The majority

of the projects reporting against this indicator are 'traditional' standard action grants; as concluded

in the MTE, the majority of governance and information activities reported by LIFE projects is

occuring in projects outside the corresponding sub-programmes and delivery mechanisms.

For the 2021-2027 programming period, it is understood that in the BAU scenario, social impacts in relation

to governance and good administration will be:



NGOs will be the main type of stakeholder involved in in LIFE projects, followed by public bodies

Stakeholder involvement by delivery mechanism reflects the number of projects awarded by the

respective delivery mechanism (whereby a greater number of projects under 'traditional' standard

action grants report a larger share of stakeholder involvement)

Governance and administration activities will be funded across all delivery mechanisms, and will not

be limited to the governance and information sub-programmes

Website traffic for LIFE projects is greatest during the lifetime of a project

Supporting evidence: LIFE management costs

EASME 2017 AWP:

146

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

147

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

148

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

149

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

2013 Life Financial Statement

150

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

ANNEX 6 : GAP AND SYNERGIES

This annex provides an overall picture but it is not complete because of the need to take into

account of the scope of the new generation of programmes after 2020.

ANNEX 6.

APS AND SYNERGIES ANALYSIS

This annex adopts a two-step approach, as follows:



Step one

–

Assessing which aspects of needs for policy support on the route from research,

through demonstration, to market uptake and financing full scale implementation, are

covered by the various components of the LIFE programme cover, which are those covered

by other major EU programmes and funds.. Concluding with the gaps in coverage and the

areas of potential overlap with regard to the stages being supported.

Step two

- Discussion of these areas of overlap and potential synergy taking into account the

issues targeted by the support and finance. This is split into the current overlaps based on the

current LIFE approach and the current approach in the other programmes (including the

mainstreaming efforts in these other programmes), and the future potential synergies - based

on the information available at the time of preparation of this impact assessment for the

future of the other programmes (where this is available).



6.1.

Step one: LIFE and other EC programmes coverage of different stages

The following diagram shows the main coverage of the LIFE programme and other major

EC programmes and funds in terms of how they can contribute to transforming Europe’s

approach to the climate and environment.

It is important to stress that this diagram only refers to coverage by stage, it should not be

interpreted as implying that there is duplication between the programmes. This is because

the subject and nature of what is being funded by LIFE is (virtually always) different to

that being funded by the other programmes. This point is illustrated in the following

sections.

Figure 6-1. The coverage of LIFE and other major EC programmes and funds

Source: European Commission

151

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

The steps in the figure are relevant to both nature and climate, and cover approaches as well as

technologies:

Research / Innovation (first of a kind)

–

This includes primary research, i.e. pure

science that may or may not result in a technology, approach or policy that improves the

environment or climate, including basic scientific activities to identify and characterise

environmental and climate problems. Taking research and applying it to a problem, for

technology, this would include first prototypes; for policies / approaches, this would

include,

inter alia,

modelling and analysis.

LIFE does not currently cover this area. The only activities that LIFE could currently

support under this stage is work supported by procurement (directly let consultancy

projects). However, these activities are focussed on new policy development rather than

the technology development or basic research that lies at the heart of what Horizon 2020

supports, so there is no inherent overlap. LIFE can also finance small-scale, focussed

research work in support of other objectives in projects, but this is on a scale which could

not be supported by Horizon 2020.

Demonstration/ best practice

–

Testing, demonstrating and piloting the effectiveness of

new technologies, approaches or policies. Public subsidy may well be needed to

overcome the costs associated with displacing an incumbent technology or approach, by

demonstrating a technology/ practice from laboratory/ demonstration plant in large-scale

industrial application. Best practice refers to refining and encouraging the broader take

up of technologies and approaches, by promoting the existence and effectiveness of

(already demonstrated) new technologies, approaches or policies in small scale projects,

which also serve to experiment with, and improve on, best practice.

A significant amount of what LIFE currently offers comes under this stage, in particular

under the traditional standard action grants. For example, there are projects developing

innovative ways of conserving and protecting nature and its habitats or demonstrating

concrete solutions for reducing the environmental impact of the housing sector by testing

innovative solutions.

This includes both sub-programmes.

Facilitating exploitation/awareness

–

Preparing the ground for the large-scale

deployment of new approaches / technologies, this includes helping to overcome barriers,

such as difficulties in accessing finance or overcoming lack of knowledge and expertise.

A significant amount of what LIFE currently offers comes under this stage, in particular

from the 'traditional' standard action grants and the NGO operating grants. Most of the

'traditional' standard action grants have a communication/ awareness raising component

as part of the project. NGO operating grants aim to strengthen the participation of NGOs

in the dialogue process in environmental and climate change policy-making and in its

implementation.

Large scale funding of green solutions

–

This is the final stage where technology/

approach / policy is credible, and ready to be widely applied, and one of the main barriers

is access to funds.

The LIFE financial instruments (Private Finance for Energy Efficiency (PF4EE) and

Natural Capital Finance Facility (NCFF)) are active in this area. Currently, these

financial instruments are pilots, and operate at a relatively small scale. The NCFF is

specifically targeted on projects demonstrating that natural capital projects can generate

revenues or save costs, while delivering on biodiversity and climate adaptation

objectives. The PF4EE aims to increase the availability of private finance for investments

152

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

in energy efficiency. To date the PF4EE has been more successful in completing projects

but the NCFF is starting to attract more applicants.

6.2. Step two: Potential overlaps / synergies between LIFE and other EC

programmes

The following sections discuss where there appear to be overlaps and synergies between

what LIFE is attempting to do and what is being done (and what could be done in the

future) by other programmes.

6.2.1. LIFE and CAP

Programme description

The Common Agricultural policy (CAP) of the EU supports three main types of activity:



Income support, to farmers, based on market orientation (i.e. production that

meets consumer demands), and linked with environmental sustainability, animal

health and welfare, and food safety

Market measures, to balance impacts on vulnerable common agricultural due to

external factors such as weather conditions or a high price volatility

Rural development, responding to the specific needs for rural development of

each of the 28 EU countries.



The CAP annual budget is roughly €59 billion, with measures financed through the

European Agricultural Guarantee Fund (EAGF) and the European Agricultural Fund for

Rural Development (EAFRD). The EAGF and EAFRD have numerous sub programmes.

Each Member State administers its own share of the CAP budget, against a strategic

direction and set of rules set at EU level.

Overlap

The potential for overlap exists because the CAP includes numerous sub programmes

and schemes designed to influence land management by farmers and land owners, and

finance (via subsidies to farmers) the uptake of certain known land management

practices. These programmes and schemes have a clear influence on nature and the

environment. The CAP also includes climate relevant actions, such as using known land

management techniques for flood prevention (climate adaptation) and improving energy

and resource efficiency among famers (climate mitigation).

However, LIFE does not seek to directly finance these widespread changes to operational

practices but mainly focuses on the (relatively small scale) development and

demonstration of new and best practice. There is therefore some overlap (or synergy) in

objectives between LIFE and aspects of the CAP, but there is not an overlap in terms of

duplication of actions.

The only potential overlap between the CAP and LIFE is in the area of large scale

deployment, where the LIFE financial instrument NCFF could be used to support some

of the same actions that the CAP finances. However, the financial instruments provide

loans whereas the vast majority of the CAP actions provide (in effect) direct grants. The

scale is also vastly different, the LIFE NCFF is very small in comparison to the CAP.

The nature of the projects likely to attract support under the LIFE NCFF is also very

different to what the CAP supports. As such, the LIFE NCFF acts more as a

complementary financial instrument rather than a substitute in terms of nature protection

and climate adaptation.

153

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Current synergies and mainstreaming

The relevant actions carried out under CAP in order to meet the objectives it shares with

LIFE can be described as mainstreaming because the environment / climate relevant

aspects are linked to achieving the objectives that are central to the CAP

–

primarily the

support and protection of farmers income.

The EAFRD is currently the largest source of EU funding for nature and biodiversity

(amounting to around 75% of the total EU funding). The mid-term review of LIFE

(2014-2015)

mentioned: “A link between LIFE and EAFRD has been successfully

established for 12 Member States that have opted for integrated projects on nature, air

and water. This is mobilising a total budget of EUR 373 million of which EUR 153

million from LIFE”. Other synergies exist with respect to demonstration projects, where

the results of a LIFE demonstration project could be taken up by farmers.

This shows that better synergies and complementarities between LIFE and EAFRD

should be explored, as there are good examples which could be replicated, if the relevant

stakeholders can be engaged and convinced.

A recent report

129

for DG ENV on the need for a dedicated

biodiversity

fund considered

the issues of mainstreaming of objectives to protect and enhance biodiversity in EU

funding. “Since 2007, EU funding for biodiversity and the Natura 2000 network has

been made available by integrating biodiversity goals into various existing EU funds or

instruments. The EU funds available for financing Natura 2000 during the periods of

2007-2013 and 2014-2020 include EAFRD. However, the report also specified that under

this integrated framework only LIFE provides dedicated support to biodiversity and

Natura 2000; whereas all other EU funding instruments, including CAP, are primarily

targeted to deliver the EU goals on rural, regional, infrastructural, social and scientific

development. “While this allows the integration

of biodiversity into broader rural and

regional contexts, it also makes the availability of funding dependent on the overall goals

and mechanisms of the given funding instruments, thereby creating a need to demonstrate

compliance with each funds' specific

rules.”

Future synergies

There is a strong potential for improved future synergy in that the results of relevant

LIFE projects could be implemented using CAP support and vice-versa, in particular for

'traditional' standard action grants and integrated projects. The orientation of the future

CAP post 2020 should enhance the level of ambition of environment and climate action.

The strategic direction of the future of the CAP includes numerous suggestions as to how

the objectives it shares with LIFE can be better operationalised and to how the potential

(more practical) synergies between the programmes can be improved.

Linking LIFE to CAP (which is maybe easier in Natura 2000 areas) offers better linkages

and consideration of environmental issues, which is an ambition for the future of the

CAP, provided the specific and operational objectives of the CAP will be aligned with

129

Kettunen, M., Illes, et al (2017) Summary report - Integration approach to EU biodiversity financing:

evaluation of results and analysis of options for the future. Final report for the European Commission (DG

ENV) (Project ENV.B.3/ETU/2015/0014), Institute for European Policy (IEEP), Brussels / London.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/financing/docs/Kettunen_2017_financing_biodiversity_su

mmary.pdf

154

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

those of EU environment policy that are reflected in LIFE.

130

. The CAP can draw on and

'operationalise' the best practice ‘library’ of LIFE.

For example, LIFE-Nature projects

have developed and tested land management approaches which have then been integrated

in the CAP as specific measures in the Operational Programmes.

For the next MFF, Natura 2000 funding could come solely under the EAFRD (part of

CAP) for 'rural' areas, with the cohesion fund no longer funding nature actions outside of

urban areas. This generates a concern about nature intervention in non-urban areas which

are not covered by the CAP meaning of 'rural areas', and would risk thus of not being

funded anymore.

According to the Food and Farming Communication (2017), MSs would have to take

more account of EU environmental and climate strategies in their CAP strategic plans

131

and Member States will set their own targets and do their own monitoring

132

. According

to DG AGRI, high level targets will be set at EU level, with Member States more free to

set their own local targets to achieve EU and national environmental objectives, which

should make them more appropriate to national standards and nature needs.

Creating a separate fund for nature or re-enforcing the existing funding in a new LIFE

programme should be carefully assessed. From the CAP perspective it could be counter-

productive with the integration principle of environment and climate into sectorial policies.

Furthermore, it is not certain if it could solve the issue of lack of existing funds if there is not a

sufficient critical mass of funding. However, a separate fund for nature would increase the

effectiveness of the EU action for nature and biodiversity in rural areas, with more targeted and

effective measures, compared to a system such as the one of the CAP 2014-20. A more

pragmatic solution could be to use strategic projects for nature under LIFE, conceived as

expanded SIPs, to improve the mainstreaming of nature and biodiversity in other funding

instruments such as the CAP.

130

Food and Farming Communication 2017 “a modernised

CAP should enhance its EU added value by

reflecting a higher level of environmental and climate ambition, and address citizens' concerns regarding

sustainable agricultural production.” “Any new CAP should reflect higher ambition and focus more on

results

as regards resource efficiency, environmental care and climate action.”

Food and Farming Communication 2017. “When preparing CAP strategic plans, the Member States will take

into account their planning tools adopted emanating from EU environmental and climate legislation and

policies. Such as the Management Plans and Prioritised Action Frameworks for Natura 2000, River Basin

Management Plan, Air Quality and Air Pollution Programmes, Biodiversity Strategies.” “The current green

architecture of the CAP, that primarily relies on the complementary implementation of three distinct policy

instruments

–cross

compliance, green direct payments and voluntary agri-environmental and climate

measures will be replaced and all operations integrated into a more targeted, more ambitious yet flexible

approach. The new delivery model will allow Member States to devise a mixture of mandatory and voluntary

measures in Pillar I and Pillar II to meet the environmental and climate objectives defined at EU level.”

Food and farming

communication, 2017. “The granting of income support to farmers will be conditioned to

their undertaking of environmental and climate practices, which will become the baseline for more ambitious

voluntary practices. The new conditionality will rely on the implementation of a streamlined set of

environmental and climate conditions, providing environmental and climate public goods. These practices

would be further defined by Member States in order to better take account of their specific situation, climate

risks and needs, while ensuring that these practices adequately contribute to the objectives agreed at EU

level. Member States would have to ensure that the agreed targets are met and monitor performance in a

robust and credible way. Additional environmental / climate benefits will be achieved through voluntary

entry level schemes and more ambitious agro-environment-climate schemes that will allow Member

States/Regions to target their specific concerns”. “However, to ensure coherence with the overarching

objectives, all actions and targets put forward by the Member State will be approved by the Commission

within an EU framework agreed as part of the CAP strategic plan.”

131

132

155

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

6.2.2. LIFE and the European Structural and Investment Funds (ESIF)

Programme description

The ESIF for the 2014-2020 period is made up of five different funds: the European Regional

Development Fund (ERDF), the Cohesion Fund (CF), the European Social Fund (ESF), the

European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), and the European Agricultural Fund for Rural

Development (EAFRD).

The purpose of putting these five funds within a framework is to improve coordination and

harmonisation between them. The ESIF establishes a common framework with 11 thematic

objectives which determine the use of all five funds. These objectives include several of

relevance to nature and climate, for example:

11.

Strengthening research, technological development and innovation

Supporting the shift towards a low-carbon economy in all sectors

Promoting climate change adaptation, risk prevention and management

Preserving and protecting the environment and promoting resource efficiency

Promoting sustainable transport and removing bottlenecks in key network infrastructures

Enhancing institutional capacity of public authorities and stakeholders and efficient public

administration

ESIF includes support for the development of physical infrastructure, including energy

infrastructure via the Cohesion Fund contribution the Connecting Europe Facility (CEF) (which

is not eligible under LIFE) as well as for large-scale land management and economic

development activities. As with the CAP, ESIF shares some objectives with LIFE, and as such

there are opportunities for the projects funded under ESIF to take account of environmental and

climate objectives. The ERDF spends over a quarter (28%) of its expenditure on various

environmental

measures, including projects in traditional sectors like waste and water, as

well as actions to support the transition to the low carbon economy

. The ERDF also funds

the Interreg programme, which is a framework for exchanging experience and best practice

between regional and local bodies in different countries, including on energy and environmental

topics. The Cohesion fund is also able to support environmental projects

, and the EMFF

finances environmental actions in the context of implementation of the maritime policy.

ESIF includes direct support for developments where environmental or climate objectives are a

significant part of the rationale, for example improving the energy efficiency of existing housing

stock as well as water and waste infrastructure projects. ESIF also includes development of soft

infrastructure, for example skills (via the ESF), which can include environmental and climate

issues. The ESIF also includes financial instruments mainly under the ERDF, but also in the

EMFF) to provide finance (preferential loans) for infrastructure and other development.

Overlap

Parts of ESIF (the FIs under the ERDF and to a lesser extent the EMFF) potentially

overlap with the LIFE Financial Instruments in large scale deployment. However, the

nature and scale of the majority of what the LIFE FIs look to support are not similar to

what the (nationally managed) ESIF FIs typically support, with the possible exception of

some energy efficiency projects. A recent DG Regio publication

133

describes the methods

by which Cohesion funding can be used to support energy efficiency investments. This

133

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/en/information/publications/guides/2014/financing-the-energy-

renovation-of-buildings-with-cohesion-policy-funding

156

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

support is aimed at energy efficiency in buildings and given that this is an area of

substantial need, there appears to be more than enough demand to avoid duplication.

Overall LIFE and ESIF are complementary in terms of scale and permanence of

interventions. As with the CAP, LIFE projects can develop models which could then be

implemented at a large scale with ESIF support

Current synergies and mainstreaming

There are some good examples of existing synergies. With regards to LIFE and the

European Maritime and Fisheries Fund (EMFF), the original proposal for the 2014-2020

EMFF, included a mandatory requirement to develop integrated projects between the

EMFF and LIFE. This was removed from the programme but illustrates the willingness

and potential to continue encouraging the integrated approach to EMFF-LIFE funded

projects and reflects the fact that the EMFF Managing Authorities have been encouraged

to embrace the concept of LIFE-EMFF integrated projects. The intent was picked up in

the Common Provisions Regulation instead, which requires the programmes under the

relevant funds to take into account LIFE integrated projects and ensure complementarity.

With regard to the skills links, between LIFE and the European Social Fund (ESF). DG

EMPL have highlighted the potential regarding the skills needed for emerging

environmental and circular economy occupations. They particularly highlight the role

social enterprises can play in the repair and reuse sectors, and that these can be supported

via the future European programme for employment and social innovation, (EaSI). DG

EMPL has recently signed a 4-year framework partnership agreement with RREUSE, the

European network for social enterprises in the circular economy, who is currently

running LIFE-funded projects (BIOHEC, ReWEEE).

According to evaluations quoted in the draft IAs, Cohesion Policy has provided a major

contribution to achieving EU water and waste targets, in particular for EU13, although

there is, and there will continue to be, a need for Cohesion Policy co-funding to projects

in these areas.

Future synergies

The proposals for the ERDF and CF Regulations continues to recognise the need for a greener,

low-carbon economy Europe by including this as a specific objective, so the alignment of

objectives between LIFE and ERDF and CF should be strengthened in future. Further there is an

increased emphasis on improving institutions and governance, cooperation with partners within

and outside a given Member State, and urban aspects.

All of these issues are potentially relevant to the future of LIFE as they offer

opportunities for synergies, in that the good practice library of LIFE, particularly in its

activities in environment and climate institutional capacity building (such as via the

Integrated projects), could be taken up by future ERDF/Cohesion funding. There is also a

need to ensure that future activities in these areas do not duplicate with any activities

planned under ERDF/Cohesion Fund. However, given that LIFE focussed on

demonstrative actions, whereas the ERDF/Cohesion Fund finance mainly large scale

operational actions, the actual overlap is less prominent.

In the future, LIFE could also potentially support platforms for joint learning and

experience sharing, to network ambitious local projects along value chains financed by

the ERDF/Cohesion fund.

157

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

6.2.3. LIFE and Horizon 2020 / Horizon Europe

Programme description

Horizon 2020 supports research and innovation from pure science through to demonstration and

market uptake. The concept of ‘scientific excellence’ needs to be evident in projects for Horizon

2020 to support them. Horizon 2020 covers the full range of fields and includes many strands of

relevance to the environment and climate. It also includes a group of objectives that were in the

Intelligent Energy Europe (IEE) Programme in the previous MFF

–

these are discussed under a

separate heading. There are also financial instruments within Horizon 2020 designed to provide

finance for developing research into a commercial proposition.

Overlap

The non-energy part of Horizon 2020 has very limited potential overlaps with LIFE, as LIFE

does not support early stage research, except where it is incidental to the main orientation of the

project.

Current synergies and mainstreaming

As with the CAP and the ESIF, there are clearly shared objectives between Horizon 2020 and

LIFE. There are also clear potential synergies in that LIFE could take more of the ideas and

innovations developed under Horizon 2020 and help developing and demonstrate this research

where it can help address environmental and climate issues. As a general rule Horizon 2020 will

cover activities that support the development, demonstration and market uptake of innovative,

first-of-a-kind solutions (through co-creation, financial instruments under EIC, public

procurement) that have a cross-border dimension. There is also arguably some potential for LIFE

to highlight the areas where it sees a research need, and for these to have some influence on what

Horizon 2020 is covering in its Work Programmes..

A synergy which currently exists is the potential for results from Horizon 2020 projects to feed

into LIFE projects focussed on the demonstration and dissemination (i.e. promotion of best

practice) of these results.

Future synergies

The draft impact assessment for Horizon Europe recognises the links between it and LIFE, and

says “The future LIFE

programme will continue to act as a catalyst for implementing EU

environment and climate policy and legislation, including by taking up and applying R&I results

from the FP. The future FP will contribute to tackling environmental challenges in particular

though the clusters on [Climate, Energy and Mobility] and [Food and Natural Resources] through

R&I activities.

For the future of Horizon Europe a need to simplify the number of EU programmes supporting

R+I has been recognised. As a general rule the Framework Programme will cover activities that

support the development, demonstration and market uptake of innovative solutions that have a

trans-national dimension, and which are first-of-a-kind for the EU and have a potential for

replication in the Union. LIFE will take more of the ideas and innovations developed under the

Framework Programme and help deploying them where it can help address environmental and

climate issues. The catalytic effect of the traditional LIFE projects will be to develop, test or

showcase suitable technologies or methodologies for implementation of EU environment and

climate policy within a Member State or region, which can subsequently be deployed at large

scale, funded by other sources, including the Framework Programme.

Through strategic programming LIFE will contribute to highlight the areas where it sees a

research and innovation need. LIFE will continue to incentivise synergies with the Framework

Programme through the award of a bonus during the evaluation for proposals which feature the

uptake of Framework Programme results.

As regards the integration of Clean Energy Policy Enabling programme in LIFE, which will

continue the actions funded under Intelligent Energy Europe III/Horizon 2020-Societal Challenge

158

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

III, it will focus on capacity building and policy support activities, while the Framework

Programme will continue focusing on technology and non-technology related research and

innovation for clean energy transition.

DG RTD has suggested a possible future additional synergy, where post-LIFE projects partners

could find support for scaling up and commercialising their ideas. This could occur via

channelling relevant successful LIFE projects into the European Innovation Council

mechanism

134

, which is being piloted from 2018 to 2020 and possibly into the proposed European

Innovation Council in Horizon Europe. This would be relevant for those innovators, beneficiary

of the LIFE programme's grants, whose projects, having demonstrated a direct environmental

impact in the regional or national context, which also have a high growth potential and ambition

to accelerate the transition to a low-carbon, energy efficient and circular economy through

sustainable innovation.

6.2.4. LIFE and the IEE III/Horizon 2020 (future Clean Energy Transition

programme)

As regards the possible integration of Clean Energy Transition programme in LIFE (option 1 in

the impact assessment), which is intended to continue the actions funded under IEE III/Horizon

2020-Societal Challenge III, there is a presumed overlap, non-confirmed in a closer assessment,

as well as possibilities for exploiting synergies better.

The aim of is to enable socio-economic transformation for Clean Energy transition by developing

and spreading best practice, mobilising investments and providing support to reduce development

gaps.

15% of the Societal Challenge 3 budget was dedicated to so-called 'market uptake' actions. "The

Commission will endeavour to ensure that at least 85 %, of the energy challenge budget of

Horizon 2020 is spent in non-fossil fuels areas, within which at least 15 % of the overall energy

challenge budget is spent on market up-take activities of existing renewable and energy

efficiency technologies in the Intelligent Energy Europe III Programme"

135

The IEE programme supports development of Sustainable Energy Communities across the

continent in order to build institutional capacity at a local and regional level. Support has been

given by associations or active networks such as Local Governments for Sustainability in the

1990’s,

Climate Alliance and Energy Cities. Projects influenced 650 local authorities to join the

Covenant of Mayors and helped to develop more than 500 SEAPs (Mayors in Action, 50000&1

SEAPs, CASCADE, BEAST, ManagEnergy)

136

Overlap

There is a presumed overlap between the actions financed under IEE III/Horizon 2020 and the

LIFE climate sub-programme because LIFE, inter alia, aims at facilitating large scale deployment

of climate mitigation measures, which include energy efficiency. However, the implementation

modalities make both programmes very distinctive and complementing each other. The IEE types

134

135

https://ec.europa.eu/research/eic/index.cfm?pg=about

According to Declarations of the Commission (2013/C 373/02) annexed to Horizon 2020 regulation (EU)

N°1291/2013

ICF International, LDK, Hinicio (2015): Evaluation of Intelligent Energy Europe Projects Supporting

Sustainable Energy Communities- Final report. ICF review the relation of IEE support for communities and the

Covenant of Mayors. Apart from quantifying the multiplier effects generated by the programmes (e.g. set-up and

signing of SEAPs) they identify investments triggered by a sample of 30 projects (€8.3bn, p. 91), RES

production of 935.000 toe/yr.; primary energy savings of 1,938,000 toe/yr. and 7,700,000 tCO2eq. reduced (p.

92). The consortium estimates based on a survey that by the end of the projects some 5,470 jobs and 17,373 jobs

by 2020 resulted through the projects. 78% of survey respondents confirmed that the respective project would

not have been implemented in the absence of IEE funding (figure 43, p. 96).

136

159

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

of actions are targeting very specific fields and policy provisions, which are seen as the most

challenging and risk to hamper the effectiveness of the policy action in the field. This requires

'top-down' prescriptive programming, policy steering and close monitoring of the implementation

as well as very intensive feedback interactions. Under the LIFE Climate Action, energy

efficiency is a part of a broad climate mitigation action, where a bottom-up approach allows the

market to arrive with the best solutions to address this broad challenge. Indeed, the focus of the

LIFE Climate sub-programme is much broader than energy efficiency. It covers all climate gases

and all sectors and it not only financing projects. Moreover, large shares of LIFE projects are

demonstration projects or best practice projects that are not directly targeting 'market uptake

action' and its specific barriers. Thus in practice the scale of the LIFE budget used on projects

facilitating market uptake of energy efficiency solutions is very limited compared to the budget

used under IEE III/Horizon 2020. Finally, the way the support is given is different under LIFE

and under IEE III/Horizon 2020 and is thus likely to accommodate a larger variety of groups.

Future synergies

There is a potential for exploiting synergies between actions supporting capacity building for

clean energy transition on the one hand and strategic LIFE integrated projects focusing on

implementing climate mitigation plans at a larger scale. These synergies could be more easily

exploited if these actions were funded under the same programme.

Furthermore, experience has shown that IEE III is not fitting well into the structure of Horizon

2020 and it is currently explicitly excluded from the proposed scope of its successor, for more

detail on coherence and synergies related to the option of including the Clean Energy Transition

programme in LIFE see Annex 9.

6.2.5. LIFE and Financial Instruments (including EFSI)

Programme description

There is currently no agreed definition or list of all EU financial instruments (FIs). The two EU

reports which collate information on large groupings of EU FIs are the annual ‘140.8’ report

137

centrally managed financial instruments and the annual report on financial instruments under the

European Structural and Investment funds (ESIF)

138

The most recent report on centrally managed instruments quotes a 2014-20 budget envelope for

financial instruments of EUR 8.4 billion which is targeted to support the financing of EUR 87.8

billion, implying an average leverage of 10.5 and an investment amount of EUR 137.6 billion.

This budget excludes appropriations for successor instruments to certain instruments established

for Enlargement and Neighbourhood or Development Cooperation countries.

There are a number of FIs which are not included in either of these reports. These exclusions

include the European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI)

139

, also known as the ‘Junker fund’)

the European Development Fund (EDF) and the Guarantee fund for External Actions. The

Commission’s explanations for excluding these funds from the Art 140.8 report are as follows:

137

COM(2017) 535 final. Report on financial instruments supported by the general budget according to Art.140.8 of

the

Financial

Regulation

December

2016.

https://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2017/EN/COM-2017-535-F1-EN-MAIN-PART-1.PDF

EC (2015). Summaries of the data on the progress made in financing and implementing the financial instruments

for the programming period 2014-2020 in accordance with Article 46 of Regulation (EU) No 1303/2013 of the

European

Parliament

and

the

Council.

http://ec.europa.eu/regional_policy/sources/thefunds/fin_inst/pdf/summary_data_fi_1420_2015.pdf

https://ec.europa.eu/commission/priorities/jobs-growth-and-investment/investment-plan-europe-juncker-

plan/european-fund-strategic-investments-efsi_en

138

139

160

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel



EFSI was designed with its own reporting requirements as a stand-alone instrument and does

not fall under the scope of Chapter VIII on financial instruments of the current Financial

Regulation. As a result, EFSI may not need to fully comply with provisions on financial

instruments under Art.139 and Art.140 which also include requirements for reporting, state

aid or exclusion of contingent liabilities.

The ‘Guarantee fund for external actions’ has a contingent liability implied and thus the

instrument is not a financial instrument in the sense of the Financial Regulation. It also

predates the Financial Regulation.

The EDF (oversea aid focussed) is excluded because it is not part of the MFF.



There are other relevant financial and funding mechanisms which the EC is involved in. A key

example here is the EU Emissions Trading System (EU-ETS) and its associated NER 300 fund.

NER 300 is so called because it is funded from the sale of 300 million emission allowances from

the New Entrants' Reserve (NER) set up for the third phase of the EU emissions trading system

(EU ETS). The funds from the sales are to be distributed to projects selected through two rounds

of calls for proposals. Under the first and second calls the EU distributed €2.1 billion of funds to

support 39 renewable energy projects, with this expenditure leverage additional private funding

of over €2.8 billion

140

. The NER 300 is not strictly speaking a Financial Instrument but a grant

scheme and it is funded by EU-ETS income (mainly from electricity generators, and ultimately

their customers) and not by the EU budget. However, the future ETS innovation Fund (funding

Innovation) and the ETS modernisation Fund (funding use) are relevant but note the

characteristics of these projects are very different from the small project financed by LIFE.

European Fund for Strategic Investments

The European Fund for Strategic Investments (EFSI) is a EUR 16 billion guarantee from the EU

budget, complemented by a EUR 5 billion allocation of the EIB’s own capital. The total amount

of EUR 21 billion aims to unlock additional investment of at least EUR 315bn by 2018. EFSI is

implemented by the EIB Group and projects supported by it are subject to usual EIB procedures.

EFSI is demand-driven and provides support for projects everywhere in the EU, including cross-

border projects. There are no geographic or sector quotas. As of November 2017

141

, EFSI has

committed some €251.6

billion of finance (of which 21% is classified as energy relevant).

The EIB applies energy lending criteria to assess projects that approach it requesting financial

support. These criteria were adjusted on the basis of a 2013 review

142

to ensure that the

banks’

lending in the energy sector reflects EU energy and climate policy, as well as current investment

trends. Their energy lending focuses on energy efficiency, renewable energy, energy networks, as

well as related research and innovation. The EIB has also introduced an Emissions Performance

Standard which it applies to all fossil fuel generation projects to screen out investments whose

carbon emissions exceed a threshold level which reflects existing EU and national commitments

to limit carbon emissions.

Overlap

It is clear that the EU is involved in a large (and growing) number of Financial Instruments, and

that many of these FIs could support projects of a very similar nature to those supported by the

PF4EE initiative of LIFE. The Impact assessment for PF4EE contains a number of design

features that make the projects it seeks to support somewhat specific and distinct from the energy

140

141

142

NER300 programme description

https://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/lowcarbon/ner300_en

Provisional and unaudited figures available at http://www.eib.org/efsi/index.htm

EIB

(2013).

European

Investment

Bank

Energy

Lending

http://www.eib.org/attachments/strategies/eib_energy_lending_criteria_en.pdf

Criteria.

161

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

efficiency projects that other FIs might support. The specific target groups and objectives of the

PF4EE FIs are as follows:



The PF4EE instrument targets projects which support the implementation of National

Energy Efficiency Action Plans or other energy efficiency programmes of EU Member

States. The PPF4EE also includes an Expert Support Facility to support participating

financial institutions to develop financial products for the financing of the national/regional

EE schemes.

To date the EIB have signed operations in The Czech Republic, Spain, France, Belgium,

Italy, Portugal, Croatia, Greece and Cyprus generating a portfolio worth of €720M of

investment. The investment leverage effect would be 14.6 against an initial target of 8.



With regard to the PF4EE the Mid-term

evaluation of LIFE states that ‘There are issues regarding

the complementarity of the instrument with other funding mechanisms supporting energy

efficiency, especially in some Member States.’. Potential overlap with

EBRD and ERDF loans

was highlighted. The overlap with ERDF loans is also mentioned in the section on ESIF.

However, although there are an increasing number of FIs active in the energy efficiency area, the

size and importance of the potential market is very large. According to DG ENER it is estimated

that an additional €177 billion per year will be necessary over the period 2021-2030

to reach the

EU's energy and climate objectives for 2030

143

. Therefore, the risk of these FIs crowding each

other out appears minimal.

The type of projects sought by the NCFF, as described in its original Impact Assessment, are

much less mainstream than those sought by the PF4EE. The NCFF centres on developing

projects so that a revenue or a cost saving stream can be generated from natural capital. This is a

new approach and as such there are no other sources offering a comparable service. Under the

NCFF, LIFE provides 10M EUR of technical assistance, and a guarantee of 50M EUR to support

EIB investments (loans and equity) of up to 125M EUR that contribute to biodiversity and/or

climate change adaptation objectives. It aims at establishing a pipeline of some 9 to 12 replicable,

bankable operations that will serve as a "proof of concept" and demonstrate to private and public

investors the attractiveness of such investments. This represents an innovation which, if

successful, could drive the architecture of natural capital financing. Although development of the

pipeline has been slow, the pace is picking up with a first operation signed in 2017, 4 in the

pipeline, and 12 more currently under scrutiny by EIB.

The pilot nature of the NCFF is reflected in the apparently low take up reported in the Mid Term

Evaluation. The NCFF has progressed since then with one project now signed, two at the

contracting phase and nine to twelve projects in the pipeline.

Recommendations from the LIFE mid-term review have been implemented including increasing

visibility and promotion, and operationalisation of the support facility. The implementation

period had been extended until 2021 and the 2018-2020 LIFE programme foresees a new

guarantee window. Experience so far with NCFF shows that there is a niche for investments in

ecosystem-based natural capital investments, though it is important to develop a pipeline to share

the experience and demonstrate the opportunities more widely. The Impact Assessment of the

future LIFE instrument will also explore the option of specific blending mechanisms.

Current Synergies and Mainstreaming

A recent study for DG CLIMA

144

considered the extent to which climate issues are mainstreamed

within the FIs that the EC supports. This report highlighted inconsistencies in approaches and

143

144

https://ec.europa.eu/energy/en/topics/energy-efficiency/financing-energy-efficiency

Climate mainstreaming in the EU budget. Preparing for the next MFF : final report

–

Study.

https://publications.europa.eu/en/publication-detail/-/publication/1df19257-aef9-11e7-837e-

01aa75ed71a1/language-en

162

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

gaps in coverage, which means that the information that is available on the climate finance that is

mobilised/leveraged by EU financial instruments is incomplete and inconsistent. There is also a

risk of double counting with other public sources. These problems mean the Commission is

unable to generate a single mobilised/leveraged finance figure for the EU financial instruments.

The problems can be associated with the following issues:



Lack of definition of what constitutes an EU FI

–

no complete list of FIs and no agreed

criteria to populate such a list.

Lack of consistency (or existence) of climate ‘windows’ in FIs

–

no consistent way of

defining how much (if any) of each FI should be directed towards climate relevant action.

This issue is covered in more detail in Annex 3 as it crosses over both programmes and FIs

Lack of consistency (or existence) of procedures to report climate relevant outputs and

impacts

–

this is covered in much more detail in Annex 5 as the issue crosses over both

programmes and FIs

Lack of consistency on measurement and reporting of leverage

–

to indicate the additional

funds made available in addition to those supplied by the EU.



Future synergies

If the IEE/Clean Energy Transition parts of Horizon 2020 are brought into LIFE these include a

number of activities that are of a similar nature to the PF4EE. Care will need to be taken that

these activities are complimentary. In some case this appears to naturally be the case, such as

with the technical assistance type activities for helping potential energy efficiency project

developers make their projects finance ready (e.g. the ELENA programme

145

and the PDA

Horizon 2020

146

There is an ongoing Impact Assessment into the merits and impacts of potentially merging all

centrally managed Financial Instruments and Budgetary Guarantees into a single InvestEU Fund.

This includes an initial analysis on the scope and potential size of the proposed policy windows.

The IA is also exploring the possible inclusion of technical assistance/ project development

assistance (PDA) resources under the policy windows.

This single fund would also include the EFSI. There are also suggestions that the EU-ETS and

NER funds could come within the single fund, or at least more directly within the EU budget (at

EU level rather than MS level

147

The proposed structure of the InvestEU Fund includes the following four windows:



Social, skills and human capital,

SME Window,

Research & Innovation,

Infrastructure & Climate.

145

146

http://www.eib.org/products/advising/elena/index.htm

ELENA, managed by the EIB, supports private and public promoters to develop and launch large-scale

bankable

sustainable energy investments (above €30 million), including in sustainable transport. ELENA

covers up to 90% of project development costs. PDA Horizon 2020, which helps public and private

promoters develop model sustainable energy projects, focusing on small and medium-sized energy

investments of at least €7.5 million and up to €50 million, covering up to 100% of eligible project

development costs.

https://www.euractiv.com/section/future-eu/news/plastic-tax-and-ets-tinkering-could-plug-brexit-hole-

suggests-eu-budget-chief/

147

163

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

The LIFE FIs could potentially fit within the Sustainable Infrastructure window. Available

information on this window indicates that it would need to take account of all the EU’s targets

and objectives in the climate and environment areas, including the need

to address ‘lack of

knowledge of investors in certain areas such as the blue economy’ (also true for the issues

targeted by the NCFF). The following challenge / driver is:



environmental and socio-economic costs and benefits are not (sufficiently) internalised due

for example to pricing related market failures and/or poorly designed or conflicting policy

frameworks (for instance simultaneously subsidising green and grey or brown activities,

contribution to modal shift, air quality improvements, long term biodiversity benefits, GHG

emissions reductions );

The work done by LIFE, is also recognised in this framework given that LIFE Integrated Projects

mobilise complementary finance for major investments including in green infrastructure but also

highlights the relatively small scale of the LIFE programme.

The ability to combine the proposed InvestEU fund with the support offered by programmes such

as LIFE, e.g. to enable blending of grants and loans, is useful as it reflects the variety of needs,

and it should therefore continue.

Therefore, flexible arrangements will be needed in terms of blending and bundling of different

means of support. This will allow building EU experience and best practice with effective and

efficient cost-sharing.”

The exact nature of InvestEU is still under development, and could have a considerable added

value to the existing EU solutions, if it offered as a mix of dedicated thematic products (e.g. CEF

Debt Instrument, PF4EE and the NCFF) as well as broader financial products backed by EU

guarantee (e.g. EFSI). If this approach is adopted it would imply that the present LIFE FIs would

effectively continue to operate, just under a different heading.

There is the willingness to ring fence some funding for issues such as natural capital, the

ambition to improve mainstreaming of climate and environment issues into all spending and a

willingness to make technical assistance available to lenders to help with these (and other) issues.

All of these issues appear positive for retaining and improving the FI offer currently under LIFE.

6.2.6. LIFE and Overseas Aid in the Outermost Countries and Territories

Programme description

The voluntary scheme for Biodiversity and Ecosystem Services in Territories of

European overseas (BEST programme) aims to support the conservation of biodiversity

and sustainable use of ecosystem services including ecosystem-based approaches to

climate change adaptation and mitigation in the EU Outermost Regions (ORs) and

Overseas Countries and Territories (OCTs). BEST is financed under DEVCO's global

goods programme, complemented by finance from REGIO's OR programme and also

from additional EP pilot funds.

The programme offers grants via call for proposals to fund actions on the ground, both at

the local and regional level. Projects can target one or more of the EU OCTs, and the

grant can cover costs related to actions implemented in the OCTs only.

148

Regional

projects involving actions in the OCTs may also involve actions in EU Outermost

Regions and/or independent neighbouring countries, but these actions cannot be covered

by the BEST funds. In this case projects must have additional financing to cover the cost

148

BEST portal,

http://www.best2portal.org/

164

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

of actions implemented in EU Outermost Regions and/or independent neighbouring

countries.

Overlap

There are theoretical overlaps between LIFE and BEST in terms of thematic and

geographical coverage. Art. 6 of LIFE Regulation

149

allows LIFE to finance activities in

OCTs (and outside the EU) provided these activities are necessary to achieve EU

environmental and climate objectives. The obvious example of this is the protection of

migratory birds in their non-European winter locations. With regard to the Outermost

Regions, although LIFE can support actions in these areas, most interventions financed

by BEST do not meet the requirements of article 3. Furthermore, the fact that the BEST

facility offers a higher intervention rate than LIFE, means that projects from Outermost

Regions have not submited to LIFE.

150

As such, in reality there is no overlap as the

applicants are making a clear choice.

Current synergies and mainstreaming

BEST projects contributed to improving biodiversity conservation and climate change

adaptation in Europe overseas through strengthening strategic partnerships, elaborating

on governance and financial mechanisms, mobilising support for action suing targeted

communication and awareness raising events at the EU and international levels.

151

Future synergies

In the future, an instrument for the cooperation with Greenland and OCTs is proposed.

However, no Impact Assessment will be done for them. Overall, the future external

instruments will be regrouped and defined on the basis of geographic rather than thematic

coverage.

149

150

151

Regulation (EC) No 614/2007

Interview with EASME

BEST initiative brochure 2017,

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/best/pdf/BEST_Brochure_2017-

brochure_complete_WEB.pdf

165

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

ANNEX 7: METHODOLOGY

This appendix provides a brief description of the methodology that has been applied in the

preparation of the impact assessment.

The initial step in the process is the identification of the remaining challenges that the LIFE

programme needs to address in the next MFF, and the specific objectives associated with these

needs. For each of these challenges, individual options to address the need were then identified.

Each option was then screened in relation to how effectively and efficiently it would address the

need, along with any coherence issues. The screening allowed the identification of the most

promising options. In the final step, the short-listed options were assessed in more detail,

including the likely economic, environmental and social impacts.

Each of these steps is described more fully below.

7.1.

Step 1: Identification and characterisation of the remaining challenges

A literature review was performed to identify and characterise the remaining challenges that the

LIFE programme needs to address in the next MFF. The starting point was the Mid-Term

Evaluation of the current LIFE programme

152

, which explored the extent to which the current

programme was effective and efficient in delivering its objective. This identified some potential

areas where the programme could be strengthened.

The review of current performance was supplemented with a review of potential new challenges

which may need to be addressed in the next MFF. This considered emerging environmental

issues and new political priorities.

The output from this step was the identification of a series of specific remaining challenges

which the LIFE programme should respond to in the next MFF (see Section 3.1 of the main

report).

7.2.

Step 2: Development of the specific objectives and operational goals

The overall rational for the LIFE programme, as reflected in the

programmes’ intervention logic,

has remained relatively unchanged over the lifetime of the programme, and remains equally

relevant for the next MFF. Likewise, the general objectives of the programme remain relevant.

However, the specific operational objectives of the LIFE programme have been modified over

time, to reflect change in the specific priorities of the programme.

The next step in the impact assessment was to define specific objectives for the programme

which would be relevant for the next MFF. These objectives took into account the need for the

programme to address the remaining challenges in Step 1. The specific objectives are described

in Section 2.3.2 of the main report.

Taking into account the remaining needs and the opportunities for LIFE to enhance its EU added

value, a number of operational goals were defined for the reform of LIFE under the next MFF.

7.3.

Step 3: Identification of the options

For each of the challenges that were identified for the LIFE programme specific options were

identified to address each challenge, taking into account the operational goals. Several individual

options were identified in relation to each challenge, resulting in a long-list of options overall.

Some of these options derive directly from the findings or recommendations of previous

evaluation of the LIFE programme, and others were developed by the study team in discussion

with the European Commission.

152

In addition, the finding from previous evaluation of the LIFE programme, including earlier programming

periods, were also taken into account.

166

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

7.4.

Step 4: Screening of the options

In accordance with Tool 14 of the Commission’s Better Regulations toolbox,

each of the

individual options was screened in qualitative terms in order to provide a first high-level

assessment of the expected performance of the options. The aim of screening was to identify

those options that were most promising, and therefore should be considered for inclusion in the

LIFE programme in the next MFF. Equally, the screening identified those that were less

promising and therefore not worth considering further.

Each of the options was evaluated against a consistent set of criteria. These were:



Effectiveness:

The extent to which the options can achieve the relevant specific operational

objective.

Efficiency:

The resources or effort associated with the delivery of the relevant strategic

objective. It may already be possible to conclude that some options would achieve a worse

cost-benefit balance than others.

Coherence:

Certain options may be ruled out early due to poor coherence with other general

EU policy objectives.



In the case of effectiveness,

each of the options was assessed in relation to the relevant

specific operational goal to which the option relates.

For example, some options were

designed to address the need for further simplification, and therefore effectiveness was assessed

in relation to the objectives “To introduce simplification measures, where possible”. The scoring

of each option against each criterion has used a three-point scale (low

–

medium

–

high, see key

below), with the assessment based on expert judgement. The scores are designed to describe the

performance of the options relative to each other (i.e. to show the most/least effective, efficient

and coherent options) and do not represent absolute estimates (e.g. on the cost of implementing

the options). However, to the extent possible the scores do aim to reflect the expected magnitude

of the impacts on the relevant criterion. Therefore, the scoring is made by firstly reviewing the

performance of all options against the criteria, and then scores are assigned which reflect the

relative performance of the options (so those options that are expected to have a greater impact

will receive a higher score) but also the magnitude of the impact (so those options that have a

very large impact are more likely to be given a score at the upper or lower range).

Table 7-1: Screening scoring system

Key

Low

Medium

High

An example is below

Table 7-2: Screening scoring system: an example

Policy option

Scoring

Potential

for

inclusion?

Coherence

High:

Summary of

assessment

Effectiveness

Business as

usual (BAU)

Low:

Summary of

assessment

Efficiency

Medium:

Summary of

assessment

The output from this step was the identification, for each of the individual challenges, of those

options that were most promising, and therefore worth further consideration.

167

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

7.5.

Step 5: Impact assessment of the short-listed options

The final step in the assessment was the impact assessment of the short-listed option. This was

performed for those options which passed the screening.

Each of the individual options has been assessed against each of the impacts in the impact

assessment framework to determine for each of the impact categories whether an impact is

expected, the direction of the impact, and the significance of the impact. For this exercise, we

used the screening framework presented in the table below.

The impacts were assessed relative to the BAU i.e. they represent the net impacts.

Table 7-3: Impact categories

Impact

Key questions

Economic

Macroeconomic

environment

Regulatory burdens on

businesses

Does is impact economic growth?

Does it contribute to improved conditions for investments?

Does it affect the application process to access LIFE?

What is the impact on reporting?

Does it affect running costs for businesses (e.g. is there an impact on energy

supply or other raw materials)?

Operation/ conduct of

SMEs

Regulatory burdens on

authorities

Innovation and research

Consider the impacts on businesses with particular regard for SMEs

What is the impact on institutions processing, granting and checking

applications?

What is the impact on research and development? Does is facilitate the

introduction and dissemination of new approaches?

What is the impact on resource efficiency?

Social

Employment

Public health and safety

What is the impact on job creation?

What is the impact on life expectancy, mortality and morbidity?

What is driving the impact on health? E.g. noise, air, water, soil, climate,

waste.

Are the impacts targeting particular risk groups (determined by age, gender,

disability, social group, mobility, region, etc.)?

Education and training

What is the impact on training and education outcomes?

What is the impact on skills?

Governance and good

administration

What impact is on public institutions and administrations carrying out their

implementation responsibilities?

What is the impact on public awareness and public access to information?

What is the impact on political parties and civic organisations?

168

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Impact

Key questions

Environmental

The climate

What is the impact on GHG emissions? Or on ozone depleting substances?

What is the impact on economic incentives set up by market based

mechanisms such as the EU ETS?

What is the impact on capacity to adapt to climate change?

Efficient use of resources

What is the impact on renewable resources?

What is the impact on land use?

Quality of natural

resources/ pollution

control

Biodiversity management

What is the impact on: air quality and/ or emission reductions; water quality;

and soil quality?

What is the impact on species count?

What is the impact on endangered species?

What is the impact on landscape (and the protection of green infrastructure

and valuable landscapes)?

Waste management

Minimising environmental

risks

What is the impact on waste generation and disposal of waste?

What is the impact on minimising risks such as fire, explosions, accidental

emissions, etc?

What is the impact on unintentional dissemination of alien organisms or

genetically modified organisms?

International

environmental impact

Source: Tool #19

153

What is the impact on environment in third countries?

An example is provided below

Table 7-4: Impact categories

Economic impacts

Programme coverage

++ Describe significant

positive economic

impacts

Option A

+ Described marginal

positive economic

impacts

- Describe marginal

++ Describe significant

positive social impacts

+ Described marginal

positive social impacts

- Describe marginal

negative social impacts

++ Describe significant

positive environmental

impacts

+ Described marginal

positive environmental

impacts

- Describe marginal

Social impacts

Environmental

impacts

153

European Commission Better Regulation Toolbox: Tool #19

–

Identification/ Screening of Impacts ,

https://ec.europa.eu/info/files/better-regulation-toolbox-19_en

169

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

negative economic

impacts

-- Described significant

negative economic

impacts

-- Described significant

negative social impacts

negative environmental

impacts

-- Described significant

negative environmental

impacts

Where the initial assessment identified significant impact against any assessment area, some

further analysis of the impacts was performed.

7.6.

Step 6: Summary of conclusions

In the final step, conclusions were drawn on the pros and cons option based on the screening but

also the impact assessment

170

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

ANNEX 8: DESCRIPTION AND SCREENING OF OPTIONS

This annex provides a description of all the policy options that were identified as possibilities to

resolve the challenges and address the operational goals described in the main body of the report.

It proceeds with a screening of these options, following the methodology described in annex 7.

8.1.

Options linked to programme scope and structure

In considering the environmental and climate needs that must be addressed in the next MFF,

several challenges and opportunities were identified in relation to the scope and structure of the

LIFE programme. A series of potential gaps as well as some possibilities to increase coherence

among EU programmes were highlighted. This section describes the relevant issues and the

options that were identified to address them. An initial screening was performed on the

effectiveness, efficiency, and coherence of the options.

8.1.1. Issue: Gaps and opportunities for increasing coherence among programmes

addressing environmental and climate needs inside the EU

An operational goal was established to avoid gaps and ensure coherence with other EU

programmes. Based on the present instruments and considering the existing stage in the

development of proposed instruments under the next MFF, potential gaps were identified in

relation to support for research to address specific environmental and climate policy issues and

also regarding large scale deployment activities for nature. Opportunities to enhance synergies

between programmes were also identified. In each case, specific options were developed to

address the gaps and opportunities, as described below.

Screening of the options

Each of the individual options to address gaps and enhance coherence in relation to the thematic

scope was screened to assess its relative effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. The

effectiveness of the options was assessed in relation to the overall effectiveness of the LIFE

instrument as well as in relation to the specific operational goals to address relevant gaps in

coverage of environment and climate needs within the EU territories and to increase coherence

between EU instruments.

Table 8-1: Screening of options to address gaps and ensure coherence among EU

programmes addressing environmental and climate issues

Policy option Scoring

Effectiveness

Efficiency

Coherence

Potential

for

inclusion

Business as Medium: Current

usual (BAU)

technical scope is

designing the fill

the niche between

“upstream”

research

activities,

and

“downstream”

large-scale

implementation.

It is therefore

effective

addressing

this

Medium: Current

programme

efficient

delivering

its

objectives within

the current scope.

However, there

may

opportunities to

improve

efficiency with an

expanded scope.

Medium: Current scope is No

focussed on catalytic role,

building upon research

activities and project

implementation activities

funded through other

programmes,

coherence is generally

good. However, there is

scope

for

greater

coherence

some

specific

areas

e.g.

171

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

niche, but there

are some areas of

overlap e.g. LIFE

currently

supporting some

sustainable

energy projects

that could be

funded

under

Horizon

2020,

and

some

perceived gaps in

the overall MFF

financing

for

environment and

climate. Limited

influence

over

programming of

research

for

environment

policy.

Extend

the

scope of the

LIFE

programme to

include

capacity

building

projects

energy

efficiency and

renewable

energy

High:

Greater

concentration of

financial

resources would

improve capacity

to have a greater

catalytic effect.

Also easier to

optimise

synergies

between climate

and

energy

thematic areas.

Medium:

Opportunity

align funding and

improve

monitoring

for

projects currently

outside

LIFE.

Some initial costs

arising

from

administration

and alignment of

procedures

but

relatively

straightforward to

incorporate

both

already

managed

EASME.

sustainable energy

High: The extension is Yes

aligned with the rest of

LIFE in that it supports

action facilitating large

scale deployment (like

some

standard

LIFE

action grants) and aims at

contributing

transformation of society

(in line with the catalytic

objectives

LIFE).

Energy policy objectives

are aligned with climate

objectives in existing

policy framework.

It will contribute to the

synergies

between

capacity

building

activities for energy,

environment and climate

High: Internally coherent

Yes

as it would reinforce

coordination

all

targeted nature funding

into one plan, addressing

the gap in financing for

nature and biodiversity.

Extend the

scope of the

LIFE

programme to

improve

mainstreaming

for nature and

biodiversity

High: Funds will

be targeted on

specific objective

and

meet

objectives more

effectively that

the

present

'greening'

approach, while

still

largely

targeting

the

same

end

Medium: some

initial

costs

arising

from

administration,

increased

coordination and

alignment

procedures

but

relatively

straightforward to

incorporate

172

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

recipients

(ie

farmers,

landowners/mana

gers).

Involvement of

the environmental

authorities who

will be better

placed to ensure

uptake

Extend

the

scope of the

LIFE

programme to

include large

scale

deployment

activities for

nature

High: Funds will

be targeted on

specific objective

and

meet

objectives more

effectively that

the

present

'greening'

approach, while

still

largely

targeting

the

same

end

recipients

(ie

farmers,

landowners/mana

gers).

Involvement of

the environmental

authorities who

will be better

placed to ensure

uptake

Smoother transfer

of best practices

from the LIFE

projects to large

scale

implementation

Low: Need to

establish

new

management

authorities, and

requiring

extra

overheads inside

the Commission

for oversight. e

High: Internally coherent No

as it would bring together

all targeted nature funding

into

one

instrument,

addressing the gap in

financing for nature and

biodiversity.

Description of options

Table 8-2: Options to address gaps and ensure coherence among EU programmes

addressing environmental and climate issues

Options

Business as usual

Description

This would involve the continuation of the current thematic scope of

the LIFE programme, i.e. two sub-programmes (Environment and

Climate) supporting catalytic projects that build up and improve

capacity, speed up the development and implementation of EU

environment and climate legislation and policy including through

helping stakeholders to test technologies and methodologies on the

173

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Options

Description

ground.

The type of projects supported under the LIFE programme would be

unchanged. This would include projects that help to mobilise, at a

small scale, new and emerging techniques as well as putting into

practice research. However, research and technology funding per se

in the environment and climate areas would continue to be funded

primarily through the dedicated framework programme for research

and innovation, with large scale deployment funded primarily

through the CAP, ERDF, CF, EMFF, as well as financial instruments

like EFSI (among others).

Some sustainable energy projects would continue to be supported

through

LIFE’s climate sub-programme

(in relation to pioneering a

post carbon society); and to a lesser extent through the environment

sub-programme (in relation to sustainable mobility projects, urban

planning and resource efficiency). However, the primary mechanism

for supporting catalytic projects in the clean energy area would be a

separate dedicated programme funded and managed by DG Energy

under the umbrella of Horizon Europe. Synergies between LIFE and

the DG Energy programme would be maximised, but the

programmes would remain separate.

Extend the scope of the

LIFE programme to

include capacity building

projects

renewable

and

sustainable energy (the

Clean Energy Transition

Programme as far as not

retained

Horizon

Europe,

excluding

market uptake of first of

a kind innovations)

Subject to budget being available, this option would involve an

extension in the scope of projects supported through LIFE to include

capacity building projects related to renewable and sustainable

energy. Horizon 2020 currently supports the implementation on the

ground of energy efficiency and renewable energy policies through

capacity building (project development assistance) and procurement

of products and services. These specific types of projects would be

brought under LIFE except projects concerning market uptake of first

of a kind innovations, which you be under Horizon Europe.

The Horizon 2020 sustainable energy capacity building projects are

currently managed by EASME and currently sit within the Horizon

2020 budget programme

with an allocation of ~€130 million per

year. The option could take into account the planned expansion of

the allocated annual budget for these projects to ~€171 million.

This option would extend the current thematic coverage of LIFE to

explicitly include energy efficiency and renewable resources.

Extend the scope of the

LIFE programme to

improve mainstreaming

for nature and

biodiversity

Subject to budget being available, in this option LIFE would be

restructured to include a specific sub-programme for 'nature and

biodiversity' (in addition to sub-programmes on 'climate action', and

'circular economy and quality of life'). This 'nature and biodiversity'

sub-programme would consist of a reinforced centrally managed

component funding actions similar to those presently implementing

the Nature and Biodiversity priority area of LIFE, as well as strategic

nature projects.

These projects will

implement coherent

programmes of action to mainstream EU nature and

biodiversity objectives and priorities into other policies and

financing instruments, including through coordinated

implementation of the priority action frameworks established

pursuant to Directive 92/43/EEC. As such they will help

174

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Options

Description

ensure that appropriate funds are mobilised for implementing

these policies. Through these SNP’s the programme should in

particular ensure the mobilisation and efficient use of funds

earmarked for nature protection as part of the EARDF

programme.

This option would not obviate the need for actions, particularly under

the second pillar, of the CAP (which presently provides 75% of EU

funding for nature), SF and EMFF that target direct investments in

nature conservation and biodiversity and it would not replace other

elements of these programmes that contribute indirectly to protect

nature and biodiversity, nor remove the need for cross-compliance of

actions under these programmes with environmental and climate

legislation.

Extend the scope of the

LIFE programme to

include

large

scale

deployment activities for

nature

Subject to budget being available, in this option LIFE would be

restructured to include a specific sub-programme for 'nature and

biodiversity' (in addition to sub-programmes on 'climate action', and

'environment'). This 'nature and biodiversity' sub-programme would

consist of a centrally managed component funding actions similar to

those presently implementing the Nature and Biodiversity priority

area of LIFE. In addition, there would be a shared-management

component to address large-scale implementation actions in the

Member States, covering nature and biodiversity objectives, with a

particular focus on N2000 and implementing the Nature Directives.

The dimension of this sub-programme would require a very

significantly larger budget for LIFE. This option would obviate the

need for actions, particularly under the second pillar, of the CAP

(which presently provides 75% of EU funding for nature), SF and

EMFF that target direct investments in nature conservation and

biodiversity. It would not, however, replace other elements of these

programmes that contribute indirectly to protect nature and

biodiversity, nor remove the need for cross-compliance of actions

under these programmes with environmental and climate legislation.

Mainstreaming will therefore still be needed, to ensure policy

coherence and the overall sustainability.

Summary:

This initial screening highlights that the LIFE programme could be effective in

directly addressing potential gaps in the funding landscape post 2020 in relation to large scale

deployment activities for nature, through a shared management component. However, this would

require the programme to significantly broaden the focus of the activities it currently supports,

which would present challenges in terms of the efficiency of delivery, and coherence with the

current project portfolio, as well as with the overall mainstreaming approach. A better approach

is to create the capacity inside LIFE to reinforce and support the mainstreaming process through

strategic nature projects. Extending the scope of the LIFE programme to include capacity

building projects related to renewable and sustainable energy may enhance the catalytic effect of

the programme, and has the potential to increase coherence of funding. In this case the

operational challenges would be few, as the nature of the activities supported are similar to

175

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

projects already financed under LIFE, with the expansion concerning only the thematic subject

of the projects.

8.1.2. Issue: Gaps in meeting needs for financing of biodiversity in Overseas

Countries and Territories (OCTs)

The Overseas Countries and Territories of the EU are rich in biodiversity, and represent a

significant portion of the EU's contribution to the global patrimony of natural capital. The BEST

programme, developed in response to a European Parliament request to establish a pilot project to

finance small scale and demonstrative biodiversity projects in the OCTs and Outermost Regions

(ORs), has a successful track record, but does not clearly fit into any single existing or proposed

EU financing programme as neither the relevant external instrument, nor the Regional Fund

instruments can cover its entire geographic scope.

Description of options

Table 8-3:

Options

Business as usual (BAU)

Options to address gaps in relation to financing for biodiversity in the OCTs

Description

This would involve the continuation of present provisions (Article 6)

allowing LIFE to support activities outside the Union or in overseas

countries and territories (OCTs) and to cooperate with relevant international

organisations (Article 7).

Under Article 6 of the current regulation, financing of the activities in OCTs

is conditional that “those

activities are necessary to achieve Union

environmental and climate objectives and to ensure the effectiveness of

interventions carried out in Member State territories to which the Treaties

apply”.

Therefore, under the BAU scenario some projects would continue to be

supported in OCTs, but only where they directly contribute towards Union

environmental and climate objectives in the territories of the EU that are

subject to the EU Treaties (including the ORs). This means that the BEST

programme per se could not be integrated into the LIFE programme.

Extend full eligibility of

LIFE to the EU's Overseas

Countries and Territories

across all sub-programmes

Subject to budget being available, this would involve a change in the Article

6 provision, modifying the requirement for the projects to make a direct

contribution towards the Union environmental and climate objectives.

Projects would instead need to deliver a catalytic effect with respect to the

LIFE programme priorities, either within the OCTs, or within the territories

to which the Treaties apply.

Subject to budget being available, this would involve a change in the Article

6 provision, modifying the requirement for the projects to make a direct

contribution towards the Union environmental and climate objectives, as in

the previous option. However, the extension of the eligibility would only

apply to nature and biodiversity projects.

Extend eligibility of LIFE

to the EU's Overseas

Countries and Territories

specifically for nature and

biodiversity actions within

the

Environment

sub-

programme

Screening of the options

Each above option to address gaps in relation to financing for biodiversity in the OCTs was

screened to assess its relative effectiveness, efficiency, and coherence. The effectiveness of the

options was assessed in relation to the operational goal to avoid gaps and ensure coherence with

other EU programmes, particularly in relationship to finance for biodiversity in the OCTs, but

also considering the overall effectiveness of the LIFE instrument.

176

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Table 8-4: Screening of options to address gaps in relation to financing for biodiversity in

the OCTs

Policy option Scoring

Effectiveness

Business as

Low:

LIFE

usual (BAU)

funding

can

complement other

funds

OCTs, but scope

is limited by

current Article 6

provisions.

Efficiency

Medium: Cost is

limited,

but

effectiveness is

low

Coherence

Potential

inclusion?

for

High:

OCT No

finance

provided almost

exclusively

through

dedicated external

instrument, while

LIFE focuses on

internal

policies

Medium: Article No

6 would remain

aligned with the

EU’s

domestic

environment and

climate

policy

objectives, while

also contributing

towards

its

international

policy objectives.

Potential overlap

with

dedicated

OCT instrument

although

LIFE

would

only

finance

demonstration

type projects

Medium/High:

Yes

Article 6 would

remain

aligned

with the EU’s

domestic

environment and

climate

policy

objectives,

but

also

better

contribute

towards

its

international

objectives.

Restricting

the

scope of the OCT

eligibility ensures

higher

coherence

with

the

dedicated

Extend

full

eligibility of

LIFE to the

Overseas

Countries and

Territories

across all sub-

programmes

Low:

Would

allow greater use

of LIFE funds in

OCTs, but may

come with a large

risk that funding

would not be

available to other

projects

which

deliver

greater

added value

Low: Additional

management

resources required

to respond to

applications

across all sub-

programme, and

project proposals

may not offer

most added value

Extend

eligibility of

LIFE to the

Overseas

Countries and

Territories

specifically

for nature and

biodiversity

actions within

the

Environment

sub-

programme

Medium: Would

allow greater use

of LIFE funds in

OCTs

for

biodiversity. May

come with a risk

that funding be

less available to

other

projects

which

deliver

greater

added

value, although

restricting scope

to nature and

biodiversity

should limit this

risk

High:

Would allow the

continuation

the

positive

synergies among

the activities in

ORs and OCTs

Management

resources required

for just nature and

biodiversity are in

place

177

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

OCT instrument,

which

could

upscale

the

demonstration

projects

that

would

financed in LIFE.

Summary:

This initial screening highlights that the option to extend eligibility to overseas

countries and territories exclusively for the nature and biodiversity component of the

Environment sub-programme would be most efficient and effective whilst also ensuring

coherence. This option would help address a potential gap in funding in the next MFF. Increasing

accessibility across all sub-programmes would potentially be less targeted and therefore less

effective and efficient overall. The BAU would not address the gap in support for funding for

OCTs adequately.

8.2.

Options linked to delivery mechanisms

Several challenges and opportunities were identified in relation to the effectiveness of the

delivery mechanisms under the present LIFE programme. The relevant issues, and the options

that were identified to address the related operational goals are described below. An initial

screening was performed on the effectiveness, efficiency, and coherence of the options.

8.2.1. Issue: Improving the catalytic effect of LIFE projects and building on

successes

LIFE already plays a catalytic role in financing projects which stimulate further actions to

develop and implement EU environment and climate policy, through demonstration of good

practice, awareness raising and coordination of complementary actions. However, the problem

analysis identified that there are some opportunities to further improve the catalytic effect of the

LIFE projects, and enhance the sustainability and magnitude of impacts of the programme.

Description of options

Table 8-5: Options to improve the catalytic effectiveness/sustainability of projects

Options

Business as usual

Description

This would involve a continuation of the current delivery mechanisms,

at the same scope and scale as the current programming period.

With respect to

strategic integrated projects,

the indicative allocation

that was introduced in the current LIFE programme was established to

pilot the concept; under the regulation a maximum of 30% of the

budgetary resources allocated to action grants may go to integrated

projects, with an indicative allocation of three integrated projects per

Member State.

In practice, integrated projects have been introduced gradually since

2014 under the environment sub-programme and since 2015 under the

climate action sub-programme. The 30% ceiling is expected to be

attained in 2017 and the remain stable during the period 2018-2020 in

view of reaching the indicative allocation of three integrated projects

per Member States.

The proposals received for integrated projects for 2014-2016 represent a

combined total of LIFE and non-LIFE co-financing of EUR 437,5

million.

178

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Under the environment sub-programme, integrated projects have been

supported in relation to water, waste, air and nature and for the climate

sub-programme in relation to climate mitigation and adaptation. This

thematic distribution is assumed to remain the same in the business as

usual scenario.

With respect to

sustainability,

within the current LIFE Programme,

project sustainability and the potential for replicability are considered in

the project selection process through a specific award criterion. While

this has resulted in a shift towards “close-to-market” projects, in

particular for environment and climate mitigation projects, there is a

need to provide comprehensive support for the most successful projects

and more systematic follow-up to develop replication and upscaling

possibilities for all types of successful LIFE projects. At present, during

the implementation phase, platform meetings are held to foster

replication, and sustainability and replicability are also checked during

the monitoring phase before projects end. Sustainability and

replicability are also highly correlated.

154

The BAU is a continuation of

the level of targeted support during project implementation, but no

subsequent follow up support to successful LIFE projects

Expand the scope and

scale of strategic

integrated

projects

(SIPs)

The proposed option is an expansion in both the scope and scale of the

strategic integrated projects in the post-2020 programming period.

This option would acknowledge that the IPs have shown an extremely

good potential for catalytic effect, facilitate the coordinated use of funds

and stakeholders ownership and have a strong demonstration effect.

Subject to budget being available, strategic integrated projects should

therefore be reinforced through both an expansion of their number for

the presently eligible thematic areas, as well as an increase in the scope

of eligible topics for strategic integrated projects (to include indicatively

also plans for national emissions ceilings, noise, marine environment

and nitrates in accordance with the relevant legislation). Specifically to

respond to the considerable needs for financing in the area of nature as

identified in the Nature Fitness check, and to ensure that LIFE SIPs can

play the necessary role in coordinating actions related to nature and

biodiversity under the mainstream EU funds, the number of SIPs for

nature should be significantly increased. While the funds allocated for

integrated projects in the current programming period has been at a

level appropriate to piloting the concept, the level is not sufficient for

recognising the full potential of the mechanism. This option therefore

requires a significant increase in the funds available for SIPs. This

would require an overall increase in the LIFE budget.

Systematically define This option concerns development of more systematic mechanisms to

and develop synergies define and develop synergies will other EU programmes that can

with other instruments support sustainability, upscaling and replication of relevant LIFE

results. This includes, for example, synergies with structural funds and

rural development programmes which can support the large scale

implementation of project results, and synergies with European

Innovation Council (EIC) who can support the up-scaling of

innovations. This option would not require any specific modifications

154

EC (2017) Report on the Mid-term Evaluation of the Programme for Environment and Climate Action

(LIFE). SWD(2017) 355 final.

179

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

to the LIFE legal base, but would require coordination at the level of

programming. This option would also continue the present practice of

giving preferential treatment in standard LIFE project applications to

projects which build on the result of Horizon 2020 project results.

Furthermore, the results of Horizon Europe projects would continue to

influence the development of EU environment and climate policy and

therefore of the steering of the LIFE programme orientation.

Targeted support (e.g.

technical assistance)

upscale

and

replicate

successful

results

This option would involve targeted support which would strengthen the

overall impact of the LIFE programme. It would consist of a range of

mechanisms to be defined subject to budget being made available,

including follow-up technical assistance grants to provide coaching and

finance to develop plans and undertake measures to ensure the

upscaling and replication of successful LIFE project results.

Targeted support could help to facilitate access to grants or blending

with financial instruments under mainstream instruments as a means of

enhancing project results sustainability. Attention would be taken to

ensure that this option does not have unintended adverse effects for

decreasing actions to ensure project sustainability during the project

duration (where it encourages projects to deprioritise sustainability in

the knowledge that additional funding will be made available if the

project is successful in other ways).

Screening of options

Each of the individual options to improve the catalytic effectiveness/sustainability of projects was

screened to assess its relative effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. The effectiveness of the

options was assessed in relation to the overall effectiveness of the LIFE instrument as well as in

relation to the operational goal to improve the performance and catalytic role of LIFE.

Table 8-6: Screening of options to improve the catalytic effectiveness/sustainability of

projects

Scoring

Policy option

Effectiveness

Low: Unmet need

for

sustainability and

upscale of LIFE

results. Greater

strategic

focus

needed to step up

to this challenge.

Efficiency

Coherence

Potential

inclusion?

for

Business

usual

Medium:

additional effort

required,

but

since

effectiveness is

low, efficiency is

medium

High: Process for

SIPs

established

least at a pilot

scale.

Overall

cost-effectiveness

expecting

good, particularly

Low:

Strategic

focus is needed to

ensure

LIFE

funding

mobilised in line

with wider policy

objectives

High: Facilitates

strategic

focus

allowing

LIFE

funding to be Yes

mobilised in line

with wider policy

objectives, and in

synergy

with

Expand

the

scope

and

High: Piloting of

scale of SIPs

SIPs

suggests

they are being

effective.

180

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

considering

leverage effect.

Systematically

define

and

develop

synergies with

other

instruments

Targeted

support (e.g.

technical

assistance) to

upscale and

replicate

successful

results

Medium: Activity

likely

increase catalytic

effect, but scale is

uncertain

High: Since focus

in enhancing the

replicability

good projects, the

catalytic

effect

should be strong.

Medium:

Additional

process may need

to set up to

develop

the

synergies

Medium:

Resources

required

overall

benefits

uncertain.

other

instruments.

High: Will build

coherence with

Yes

other

funding

programmes

High:

Contributing to

and enhanced

Yes

cost- synergies

with

is other

budget

programmes

Summary: This initial screening highlights that all of the alternative options have merits. In

particular the option to expand the scope and scale of SIPs would support the ongoing evolution

of LIFE as a support to compliance with EU legislation and policies, in a constantly evolving

environmental and climate policy landscape. It also provides an efficient option to improving the

catalytic effect of LIFE projects and is well aligned to options improving the strategic focus of

LIFE. The option to systematically define and develop synergies with other programmes scores

well in relation to coherence. The overall effectiveness of this option, and the relative cost-

effectiveness is though unproven. The package of targeted support is expected to be effective in

enhancing the replicability of projects, and would also provide strong coherence.

8.2.2. Issue: Positioning of financial instruments to best leverage finance

While LIFE grants support a large range of catalytic actions, and are complemented through

grant financing for large scale implementation under mainstream EU instruments, there is a

potential for large scale implementation of certain environmental and climate objectives through

alternative financial mechanisms including loans, guarantees and equity. The financial

instruments presently operating under LIFE are starting to show the potential of such

mechanisms, and should be continued in order to reach their full potential in supporting revenue-

generating actions. There is however a question of the best positioning of these instruments

within the MFF.

8.2.3. Issue: Unbalanced accessibility for beneficiaries in different Member States

According to the mid-term evaluation, more than a third of the financed LIFE projects have a co-

ordinating beneficiary situated in only two Member States. The share of project proposals

received from beneficiaries from these Member States is even higher.

However, the strong concentration of project proposals from two Member States and the absence

of project proposals from beneficiaries in other Member States indicate that the accessibility to

the LIFE Programme is unequal.

The Final Evaluation of LIFE+ underlined that the efforts from the national contact points play a

role in the level of participation registered from some Member States and concluded on the need

to develop their capacity.

According to the results of the public consultation undertaken in the framework of the mid-term

evaluation, the high demand in the two Member States is also partly linked to the difficulties to

get environmental and climate initiatives funded by other sources at national/local level.

181

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

In several countries, the difficulty in getting the needed co-financing, which is relatively high in

LIFE, represents an important obstacle to their participation, particularly in countries from

Eastern European.

In terms of reaching environmental and climate policy objectives of the LIFE programme, it is

not necessarily decisive where the coordinating beneficiary is situated. LIFE projects have per

definition an EU-added value. They aim at demonstrating new solutions that can be replicated as

well as catalysing action at a broader scale. Their benefits are not confined and in some cases not

even related to the beneficiary (see example in the box). Furthermore, 30% of LIFE projects have

co-beneficiaries in one or more of the other Member States

Box 8-7: Example of a LIFE traditional project

REAL Alternatives 4 LIFE - Refrigerant Emissions Alternatives and Leakage - blended learning for

low GWP refrigerants L I F E 1 6 G I C / U K / 0 0 0 0 0 7

EU contribution: € 422,076.00 €

Thematic priority: Climate Governance and Information

Coordinating beneficiary: Institute of

External link: http://www.realalternatives.eu/partners

Refrigeration

The European F Gas Regulation encourages wider adoption of alternatives to high GWP HFC

refrigerants. Industry groups are joining to gether to help provide information on the safe use of

alternatives such as ammonia, hydrocarbon, carbon dioxide and low flammables though the REAL

Alternatives learning programme.

The lack of training of personnel handling climate friendly equipment is considered a barrier for achieving

the EU phase-down of hydrofluorocarbons

155

, which are highly warming climate gases that traditionally

have been used in refrigeration.

Resources developed as part of the project offer innovative blended learning - a mix of e-learning, face-to-

face training materials, practical exercises, assessments and an e-library of learning resources - the

programme has brought together industry knowledge and expertise from across Europe about alternative

refrigerants.

Industry stakeholders drawn from employers, manufacturers, trade associations and professional institutes

have contributed learning material, advised on content, helped to pilot and to promote the programme as it

developed.

The free multi-lingual learning materials are available for individual development or use as classroom

training materials. They include e-learning content, electronic tools, a comprehensive library gathered from

existing resources. The e-library contains over 100 useful industry resources.

Moreover, aiming at an equal Member State distribution during the selection phase would

jeopardise the competition between the projects and would undermine the effectiveness of the

programme, given that the best projects having the highest EU-added value will not necessarily

be selected).

Nevertheless, having a broader geographic distribution is important for some types of projects,

including nature projects which bring concrete conservation benefits to the project sites, as well

as demonstrating methods or techniques which are specific to certain geographical or climatic

conditions. Furthermore, the co-benefits of the LIFE programme in terms of communications

and outreach on environment and climate policy issues are better delivered through a less

concentrated geographical location of the projects.

These are the reasons why an improved geographical participation is expected to improve the

catalytic effect of the programme

Description of options

155

http://ec.europa.eu/transparency/regdoc/rep/1/2016/EN/COM-2016-748-F1-EN-MAIN-PART-1.PDF

182

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Table 8-8: Options to enhance participation for beneficiaries in different Member States

Options

BAU

Description

This would involve a continuation of the current delivery mechanisms,

including the on-going use of capacity building projects to address the

imbalance between Member States.

Capacity building projects are action grants that are used to finance

training, capacity-building activities, external expertise, the

dissemination of information and administrative support. They were put

in place in anticipation of the phasing-out of the national allocations by

2018.

Under the first multi-annual work programme (MAWP) of the current

LIFE programming period, 15 Member States were eligible to receive

funds for capacity building projects In 2014 and 2015 the Commission

financed 14 capacity building; one Member State did not submit any

proposal.

In the business as usual scenario it is assumed that capacity building

projects will continue at the same scope and scale as in the 2014-2020

programming period, as described above.

Replace

capacity

building projects with

a reinforced network

LIFE

contact

points

In this option the current capacity building projects will no longer be

supported, and instead the budget allocated to these projects at present

would instead be reallocated to support a reinforced network of LIFE

contact points.

The funding for the network would be managed centrally by the

European Commission or EASME, and participation would be open to

all Member States. The funding would be used to target the specific

capacity building needs of the National Contact Points (NCPs),

including bringing together NCPs to facilitate mutual learning. It would

also include a component targeting barriers to uptake specifically in

Member States with a low absorption rate.

Increase

the

financing rate

co- In this option the maximum EU co-financing rates that are included in

the LIFE Regulation are increased subject to budget being made

available. Project beneficiaries are therefore required to provide less co-

financing.

This will alleviate one of the barriers to participation, and thereby

encourage projects from some of those countries that currently have low

participation rates.

Screening of options

Each of the individual options to enhance accessibility for beneficiaries in different Member

States was screened to assess its relative effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. The

effectiveness of the options was assessed in relation to the overall effectiveness of the LIFE

instrument as well as in relation to improve the performance and catalytic role of LIFE,

particularly as regards enhancing accessibility for beneficiaries in different Member States.

Table 8-9: Screening of policy options to enhance accessibility for beneficiaries in different

Member States

Policy option

Scoring

Effectiveness

Efficiency

Coherence

Potential

for

183

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

inclusion?

Business

usual

Low:

Limited

evidence

suggest that the

existing

mechanisms (i.e.

Capacity

Building projects)

are improving the

quality

applications

amount

funding awarded

to countries with

low

absorption

rate.

High: Based on

lessons learned

from

IPs,

stakeholders have

identified

the

high level of

capacity

and

engagement as an

important feature

contributing

improved

effectiveness

(improving

project

design,

quality

projects

and

capacity).

Effectiveness is

also linked to the

possibility

customise

the

action to the

need.

It will depend to

some extent on

the willingness of

participants

engage.

The

overall

effectiveness of

the

LIFE

programme

would

increased

addressing

broader set of

environmental

Low:

Each

concerned

has to submit an

application which

is evaluated by

the Commission

Medium:

it No

contributes

wider

policy

objectives

concerning

regional

development

(external

coherence)

Replace

capacity

building

projects with

a reinforced

network

LIFE contact

points

Medium: Some

additional effort

required

consolidate

networks

and

ongoing effort to

maintain network

and

ensure

working

effectively.

However,

expenditure

more effective,

then overall cost-

efficiency will be

good.

High: Contributes Yes

internal

coherence (leran

from

good

practices

balanced

territorial

coverage

contributes

achieving

catalytic effect).

Contributes

wider

policy

objectives

concerning

regional

development

(external

coherence)

184

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

conditions on the

ground.

Option

may

address all the

barriers

participation.

Increase the Medium: More

co-financing

EU co-financing

rate

will help address

one

the

barriers

participation, but

may not address

them

all.

Increasing the co-

financing means

that

fewer

projects can be

supported in total

unless the overall

budget

increased.

Medium: Higher

contribution per

project. In some

cases,

higher

rates might also

artificially inflate

the

demand,

increasing

the

number of less

relevant

applications,

which

nevertheless need

to be evaluated.

Less management

costs

involved

with the decrease

in the number of

projects

Medium/High: If Yes

increased

co-

financing

rate

ensure

greater

harmonisation

financing similar

projects in other

fields

Summary:

This initial screening highlights that no single option is likely to be fully effective in

addressing the problem, but the replacement of capacity building projects with a reinforced

network of LIFE contact points and an increase in co-financing rates, would address two specific

barriers. The most efficient option is expected to be the replacement of capacity building projects

with a reinforced network of LIFE contact points. This will be more effective in improving

geographic distribution of LIFE projects, but would not require any more resources than the

current capacity building projects. An increase in the co-financing rates could also help to

address a barrier to participation in some Member States, but its main limitation is that would

mean that fewer projects would be supported in total, as high co-financing would mean the

budget is spread across fewer projects.

8.2.4. Issue: Improving the leverage effect through financial instruments

Description of options

Table 8-10: Options to improve the leverage of additional finance

Options

Business as usual

Description

This would involve a continuation of the current delivery mechanisms.

Specifically, the current or similar FIs will continue to be under the

umbrella of the LIFE programme and budget, and will continue to be

managed indirectly by EIB.

185

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Financial

Under this option the current or similar FIs would be delivered through a

Instruments

central funding instrument. They would continue to be managed indirectly

delivered through a by the EIB.

central fund

Technical assistance to relevant stakeholder could be provided through

LIFE.

Screening of options

Each of the individual options to leverage additional finance through financial instruments was

screened to assess its relative effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. The effectiveness of the

options was assessed in relation to the overall effectiveness of the LIFE instrument as well as in

relation to the relevant specific objective to improve the performance and catalytic role of LIFE.

Table 8-11:

Policy option

Screening of policy options to improve the leverage of additional finance

Scoring

Effectiveness

Efficiency

Coherence

Potential

inclusion?

for

Business

usual

High: Need for

ongoing funding

to support large

scale deployment

even if slow

uptake

has

affected capacity

FIs

contribute to this.

High: Need for

ongoing funding

to support large

scale deployment

even if slow

uptake has

affected capacity

of FIs to

contribute to this.

Medium: A big

investment

necessary for the

setting up of a

pilot instrument

Low: Increased

risk of overlap

Operational

expertise

available in house

to define the

conditions

Medium:

specificity of the

financial

instruments but

offset in the long

run by improved

economy of scale

in the use of FIs.

High: Economies

of scale. Single

entry point across

the EU for project

promoters

and

potential

investors.

Medium: Risk of

NCFF not fitting

with other FIs.

Risk of PF4EE

being

lost

amongst other EE

focussed FIs.

Financial

Instruments

delivered

through EU

Invest fund

Yes

Summary:

Maintaining the FIs within the scope of the LIFE programme would provide some

internal coherence with the other programme activities. Conversely, delivering the FIs through a

central fund would enhance coherence with other FIs and would facilitate upscaling of the

approaches tested through the present pilot FIs under LIFE. At the same time it might reduce the

synergies between the LIFE grants and the FIs on similar technical issues.

186

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

8.2.5. Issues: Limited flexibility to target new and key environmental and climate

priorities

The bottom-up design of LIFE facilitates a process whereby the best ideas and projects, across all

topics, are financed, maximising the overall impact of the sum of the individual projects.

However, this process has resulted in a dispersion of effort and the inability to target effort on

key or emerging priorities. Under the present programme, for the environment sub-programme, a

set of priority areas were established in the annex to the Regulation, and project topics, which

were favoured in the evaluation process, were defined in the multi-annual work programmes.

This allowed a certain focussing of effort, however, neither has it had sufficient focussing effect,

nor has it allowed the flexibility to introduce new priorities in a timely manner.

Description of options

Table 8-12: Options to increase the capacity of the programme to target new and key

environmental and climate priorities

Options

Business as usual

Description

This would involve the continuation of the current approach in which

priorities are set within the programme.

Specifically:



The LIFE Regulation sets out the two sub-programmes -

Environment and Climate Action

–

and three priority areas under

both sub-programmes (e.g. priority area for Nature and Biodiversity

under the Environment sub-programme). The LIFE Regulation sets

the budget lines for the two sub-programmes, while the budgetary

envelopes devoted to the priority areas are set out in the MAWP.



The LIFE Regulation also establishes thematic priorities for each of

the three priority areas of the Environment sub-programme (Annex

9) and Annex III sets out these thematic priorities in more details

and establishes relevant actions. For instance, under the priority area

for Nature and Biodiversity one of the thematic priorities are for

Nature, and one of the activities is to provide support for the Natura

200 network bio-geographical seminars.



Annex 9 of the LIFE Regulation provides a list of criteria according

to which the Commissions is empowered to amend these thematic

priorities.



No thematic priorities and activities are set under the Climate Action

sub-programme.



The LIFE Regulation identifies the eligibility and awarded criteria in

Article 19 one of which is “being of Union interest by making a

significant contribution to the achievement of one of the general

objectives of the LIFE Programme set out in Article 3 as well as the

specific objectives for the priority areas listed in Article 9, the

thematic priorities for the Environment sub-programme are set out in

Annex III, or the specific objectives for the priority areas listed in

Article 13”.



Other than the allocation of funds for the nature and biodiversity

priority areas under the Environment sub-programme, and between

the types of funding within each sub-programme, Article 24.2(a) of

the LIFE Regulation prohibits any further pre-allocation for project

action grants between or within each priority area.

187

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel



There are numerous ceilings on the portion of the budget that may

be allocated to specific delivery mechanisms or project types.



The MAWP contains a non-exhaustive list of project topics

implementing the thematic priorities and activities under the sub-

programme for the Environment. For instance, under the Nature and

Biodiversity priority area within the Nature thematic priority one of

the project topics is to support projects implementing one or several

actions foreseen in the relevant Prioritised Action Framework

(PAF). As the list is non-exhaustive project applicants are allowed to

deviate from the project topics but they need to be in line with the

thematic priorities and activities established in Annex III of the

Regulation. For the Climate Action sub-programme, relevant policy

areas are listed.



The yearly calls for projects include a list of project topics, which

are prioritised during the project selection. The calls under the

Climate Action sub-programme specifies key priorities closely

linked to the current policy needs and projects proposals addressing

these key priorities to a large extent are rewarded with higher points

within the project selection process.

Reduce

areas

the

priority Reduce the number of priority areas covered by the programme to

allow focus on a limited number of key priorities, in order to focus the

effort.

This would involve the removal of the current list of thematic priorities

and related activities under the Environment sub-programme from the

Annex of the LIFE Regulation.

The thematic priorities could be included in the MAWP which would

provide increased flexibility for the LIFE Programme to address new

and key environmental challenges.

This option would remove most restrictions on specific delivery

mechanism and thematic areas in the Regulation while allowing for

further earmarking within the MAWP and/or in yearly calls for

proposals. It would create the opportunity to increase the strategic

focus of the programme and align its priorities with new and emerging

challenges. In order to retain the benefits of the bottom-up approach

in rewarding excellence, only a limited portion of the budget would be

thus pre-allocated.

Removal of thematic

priorities and activities

from Annex III of the

Regulation for the

Environment

sub-

programme

Remove prohibition of

further pre-allocation

in the MAWP or

annual calls and reduce

number of budget

ceilings

the

Regulation

Screening of options

The tables below present the screening of the options identified above. The effectiveness of the

identified options was assessed in relation to the overall effectiveness of the LIFE instrument as

well as in relation to the operational goal to improve the strategic focus of LIFE.

Table 8-13: Screening of options to increase strategic flexibility in providing funds for new

and key environmental and climate challenges

Scoring

Policy

Potential

for

option

Effectiveness

Efficiency

Coherence

inclusion?

Business as

Low:

Limited Low:

usual

flexibility

to additional

Medium:

effort

Maintains

the

188

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

address new and required, but does

current level of

emerging issues.

not fully achieve

coherence

with

the objective so

other EU policies.

low efficiency.

Low:

Reduces

overall impact of

the programme in

terms of its global

objectives

Low:

additional effort

required, but does

not fully achieve

the objective so

low efficiency.

Medium: Change

in the structure of

the Regulation but

with

details

potentially

included in the

MAWP;

significant

administrative

burden.

Low:

Reduces

coherence

and

compromises the

integrity of the

LIFE Programme.

Reduce

priority areas

Removal of

thematic

priorities and

activities

from Annex

III of the

Regulation

for

the

Environment

sub-

programme

Remove

prohibition

further

pre-

allocation in

the MAWP

annual

calls

and

reduce

number of

budget

ceilings in

the

Regulation

High: Introduces

strategic

flexibility

and

ensures

the

alignment of the

MAWP with new

and

emerging

policy priorities.

High: Increases

coherence

with

other EU policies

as it creates more Yes

room for flexible

response

priorities.

High: Introduces a

delivery

mechanism

ensure strategic

flexibility within

the MAWP for

yearly calls on

specific

challenges.

Medium:

Additional effort

is required and

creates

some

administrative

burden.

High: Ensures an

option to align the

focus of the LIFE

Programme

Yes

within the MAWP

with the most

pressing priorities.

Summary:

This initial screening highlights that two of the options would each contribute, in

complementary manners, to improving the strategic focus on the programme on key and

emerging priorities. These options involves the removal of thematic priorities and activities from

Annex III of the Regulation for the Environment sub-programme which would ensure the right

level of flexibility and provide an option for the MAWP to align the thematic priorities of the

Environment sub-programme with the most topical environmental challenges. In addition, the

option to introduce the possibility for targeted calls for proposals would introduce delivery

mechanisms within which the LIFE Programme’s current

bottom-up approach could be

complemented with a top-down process to target key policy priorities. In the current LIFE

Programme, there is no option to introduce further pre-allocations and hence the business as

usual scenario would not be able to address the lack of flexibility to steer funding with a strategic

focus.

189

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

8.3.

Options related to programme management

Several remaining challenges and opportunities were identified in relation to the management of

the LIFE programme. Options were identified to address the operational goal to optimise the

programme management. An initial screening was performed on the effectiveness, efficiency,

and coherence of the options.

8.3.1. Issue: Opportunities may still exist to improve specific elements of the

programme management arrangements

While the MTE concluded that the present programme management arrangements are suitable,

the problem analysis identified that there may be opportunities to improve the effectiveness and

efficiency of the management of the programme in the post-2020 framework.

Description of options

Several options were identified to explore where the management of the programme could be

made more effective or efficient post-2020.

Table 8-14: Options relating to the programme management arrangements

Options

Business as usual

Description

This would involve a continuation of the current management

arrangements.

Specifically:



DG Environment to manage the preparatory projects and procurement

under the environment sub-programme as well as the ongoing LIFE+

projects.

DG Climate Action to manage the preparatory projects and

procurement under the climate action sub-programme.

EASME to manage the call for proposals, all of the operating grants,

the standard, integrated and technical assistance projects under the two

sub-programmes.



For the Clean Energy projects transferred to the LIFE programme from

the Horizon 2020 programme the responsibility for the management of the

projects will remain with EASME, as is the case under Horizon 2020

156

Further delegation

management

responsibilities to

EASME

Retraction

management

responsibilities

from EASME

This would be similar to the business as usual scenario, but with the further

delegation of management, as responsibility for the preparatory projects

and the procurement would move from DG Environment and DG Climate

Action to EASME.

of This would involve bringing the management responsibilities for all

elements of the programme back in-house to the Commission. DG

Environment would be responsible for the nature and biodiversity elements

and DG Climate Action the climate-related projects

For the Clean Energy projects transferred to the LIFE programme from

the Horizon 2020 programme the responsibility for the management of the

projects would be transferred to DG Energy.

156

This is only relevant where the new programme is expanded to include these projects.

190

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Screening of options

Each of the individual options to improve the programme management arrangements was

screened to assess its relative effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. The effectiveness of the

options was assessed in relation to the overall effectiveness of the LIFE instrument as well as in

relation to the operational goal to increase the efficiency of the management of LIFE.

Table 8-15: Screening of policy options relating to the programme management

arrangements

Policy option

Scoring

Effectiveness

Business as usual

High:

The

current

management

arrangements

received

positive

assessment

the MTE, and

are

currently

effective

Efficiency

High:

The

management

costs of the

programme are

already low in

comparison to

other

programmes and

allow

for

economies

scale

when

implementing a

large number of

homogenous and

standardised

operations

manage grants.

Medium: Some

further

cost-

efficiencies may

be achieved but

these are likely

to be small as

these grants and

contracts

represent only a

small proportion

the

total

administrative

effort.

Coherence

Potential

inclusion?

for

Medium:

The Yes

majority

grants

are

already managed

EASME

which provides

internal

coherence

Further delegation

management

responsibilities to

EASME

Low:

The

further

delegation of the

preparatory

projects and the

procurement to

EASME

may

restrict

the

Commission’s

oversight

these

projects

and

therefore

limit

their

relevance to the

policy making

process. This is

particularly

relevant for the

preparatory

projects given

their

policy

focus.

High: Coherence No

may

increased

slightly as an

even

greater

share of the

grants will be

managed

EASME.

Retraction

management

of Medium:

Provided

Low: This will

Medium:

The No

result in an

Commissions

191

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

responsibilities

from EASME

adequate human

resources were

made available,

this

option

would be at least

as effective as

the status quo.

increase in the

cost

managing

the

programme This

will result in the

Commission’s

time being taken

up by grant

management

activities, which

will limit their

inputs to the

development,

implementation

and enforcement

of policies

will be more

directly involved

in grants, so in

theory

will

provide greater

coherence with

policy making.

However,

the

possibility

ensure synergies

between LIFE

grants and those

other

programmes

managed

EASME would

decrease,

reducing

coherence.

Summary:

This initial screening identified that the current business as usual scenario is the

strongest option. This is consistent with the finding from the MTE, where the existing

arrangement received a favourable evaluation. There may be some scope for further efficiencies

by further delegating the management responsibility for the preparatory projects and the

procurement to EASME, however, there will be a trade-off here in relation to effectiveness. In

particular, the preparatory projects have a strong policy focus, so it is particularly important that

the Commission continues to have a strong input into these projects to ensure they are most

effective. The further delegation of responsibility to EASME is therefore also a potential option,

but would require an additional process to be introduced to ensure that the Commission is able to

receive the necessary inputs from the preparatory projects and vice versa. The retraction of

management responsibilities from EASME is not considered a feasible option, on the basis that it

will incur additional costs.

8.3.2. Issue: Opportunities may still exist to improve specific elements of budgetary

and administrative procedures

While the existing procedures respect all of the relevant financial rules and regulations, the

problem analysis indicated that there were opportunities for changes that would meet the

operational goal to simplify the administration of the LIFE programme.

Description of options

Table 8-16: Options relating to the use of simplified financial and budgetary procedures

Options

Business as usual

Description

This would involve a continuation of the current procedures.

Specifically:

Grant management:

The current procedures allow for the award of

grants to be made without the need for a call for proposals in

exceptional cases (see Commission Delegated Regulation (EU) No

1268/2012 of 29 October 2012 on the financial rules applicable to the

general budget of the Union, Article 190 thereof). However, this

requires an annual financing decision, even for recurrent cases (e.g.

IMPEL).

192

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Budget lines:

Individual budget lines are specified at a relatively

granular level for different areas of expenditure. In cases where the full

location of funding to a budget line has not been spent, an

administrative process has to be followed to reallocate the unspent

budget to another budget line.

Application and reporting procedures:

For standard LIFE grants, the

call for proposals is a one-step process, with a two-steps process being

piloted from 2018. The reporting requirements (textual, financial and

indicators) are the same for all projects regardless of their size or

complexity, providing a maximum amount of information.

Allocation of grants to

selected organisation

without the need for a

call for proposals

This option is designed to reduce the administrative burden for selected

organisations by naming in the regulation those organisations where

grants can be offered without the need for a call for proposals. This will

be restricted to a few organisations who have been funded on a

recurrent basis under the current programme, such as the IMPEL

network.

The financial statement attached to the LIFE Regulation establishes the

budget lines. It takes administrative effort to move any unspent money

between budget lines, so reducing the number of budget lines to one

line per parent DG would simplify this process.

Reducing budget lines

Package of measures to This package includes changing some of the processes and systems that

simplify the life of are used in the programme management, including

applicants/beneficiaries

waiving for all applicants the requirement to submit at the start of

(e.g. simplified costs

the process a complete proposal by introducing a two-step award

options, output based

procedure for standard projects. This would reduce administrative

payments,

two-step

for applicants.

approach,

cascading

adapting reporting requirements in proportion to the length and

grants, etc.)

complexity of projects and the value of the grant.

simplifying the indicators database, based on project focus

use of Simplified Cost Options, payments based on output,

limitation of eligible costs for grants.

use of cascading grants with limited reporting, with the

involvement of the monitoring team

simplification of the application process, including rationalised

forms and supporting documents

Screening of policy options

Each of the individual options to simplify the procedures was screened to assess its relative

effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. The effectiveness of the options was assessed in relation

to the overall effectiveness of the LIFE instrument as well as in relation to the operational goal to

introduce simplification measures, where possible.

Table 8-17: Screening of policy options relating to the application procedures for certain

beneficiaries

Policy option

Scoring

193

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Effectiveness

Efficiency

Coherence

Potential for

inclusion?

Business as usual

Medium: Some

High: Current unnecessary

procedures

administration

allow for the effort

for

High: Coherent

effective

applicants/bene

Yes

procedure

management

ficiaries

and reporting of associated with

projects

the

current

arrangements

High:

reducing

the

need for an

annual

financing

decision,

High:

same reduces

the

effectiveness as administrative

for the status burden; some

quo

cost reduction

for the selected

organisations as

there is no

more need to

prepare

proposal

Allocation of grants to

selected organisation

without the need for a

call for proposals

Medium:

Would

treat

certain

organisations

Yes

differently to

others

–

albeit a

very

small

number

Reducing budget lines

Medium:

Coherence with

High:

same

High:

Low other

effectiveness as

effort

to programme will Yes

for the status

implement

depend on how

quo

they approach

the issue

High: Similar

to the status

quo, although

particular

cascading

grants

would

Package of measure to improve

the

simplify the life of effectiveness of

applicants/beneficiarie the programme

by expanding

the type of

actions

that

could

financed

include small

scale actions

Medium: Some

effort

develop

and

implement the

procedures in

short

term.

Admin burden

for

some

applicants (and

EASME) will

go down.

Medium: More

complexity in

the variety of

procedures but

opportunities to Yes

align

procedures with

other

programmes.,

194

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Summary:

The business as usual scenario allows the relevant organisation to be funded on a

recurring basis, but requires for an annual financing decision. The allocation of grants to selected

organisations without the need for a call for proposals would achieve the same outcome, whilst

reducing administration burden. However, there may be some difficulties naming specific

organisations in the regulation, as it gives them preferential treatment. Reducing budget lines is a

very simple measure that will reduce effort required when any reallocation of budgets is required.

The final package of measure to simplify the life of applicants/beneficiaries, involves a number

of simplification options. There may be some initial effort to put in place the procedures.

Being not mutually alternative options, these measures can and will, as far as possible, be

introduced to simplify the programme's management independently from the budget size which

will be assigned to the Programme.

8.3.3. Issue: Opportunities may still exist to improve specific elements of the

monitoring and evaluation processes

While the MTE concluded that the present project monitoring arrangements are suitable, the

problem analysis identified that there may be opportunities to improve the effectiveness and

efficiency of the overall monitoring and evaluation processes in the post-2020 framework.

Description of options

In view of the main challenges identified in the sections above, the following options was

identified to address the issues around monitoring and evaluation. The below tables first

describes the baseline, i.e. the approach in the current LIFE Programme, and then provides a

description of the identified options.

Table 8-18: Policy options relating to the monitoring and evaluation processes

Issue

Options

Description

as This would involve a continuation of the current

monitoring and evaluation arrangements. Specifically:



External contractors provide support to evaluation,

monitoring and communication services to the

Commission and EASME.

The evaluation team provides a pre-assessment of the

proposals

The evaluation team has experts per country and per

sector

The monitoring team closely monitors each ongoing

LIFE project, and is the interface between the LIFE

projects and the Commission/EASME.

The external monitoring team has experts per country

The communication team supports the Commission

and EASME for all communication activities related

to the LIFE programme and its projects (web-site,

brochures, …).

Opportunities may Business

still

exist

to usual

improve specific

elements of the

monitoring

and

evaluation

processes



For the Clean Energy projects transferred to the LIFE

programme from the Horizon 2020 programme the

responsibility for the monitoring and evaluation of the

195

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

projects will remain with EASME, as is the case under

Horizon 2020

157

Retraction of

monitoring

and evaluation

activities into

EASME

Retraction of

monitoring

and evaluation

activities

the

Commission

This would involve the monitoring and evaluation

activities for all elements of the programme being brought

into EASME. This will require the recruitment of relevant

experts to support the monitoring and evaluation.

Country-level visits would not be possible without

additional resources being made available.

This would involve the monitoring and evaluation

activities for all elements of the programme being brought

back in-house by the Commission. DG Environment

would be responsible for the nature and biodiversity

elements and DG Climate Action the climate-related

projects. This will require the recruitment of relevant

experts to support the monitoring and evaluation.

Country-level visits would not be possible without

additional resources being made available.

For the Clean Energy projects transferred to the LIFE

programme from the Horizon 2020 programme the

responsibility for the monitoring and evaluation of the

projects will be transferred to DG Energy.

Alignment of

LIFE project

and

programme

indicators

with

Commission-

wide

indicators for

EU financial

programmes

This would involve revision of the existing project

indicator database and the definition of programme

indicators that would align with cross-programme

indicators which are under development.

Screening of policy options

Each of the individual options to improve the programme management arrangements was

screened to assess its relative effectiveness, efficiency and coherence. The effectiveness of the

options was assessed in relation to the overall effectiveness of the LIFE instrument as well as in

relation to the operational goal to increase the efficiency of the management of LIFE.

Table 8-19: Screening of policy options relating to the monitoring and evaluation processes

Policy option

Scoring

Effectiveness

Business as usual

High:

Current

arrangements

enable

the

monitoring and

Efficiency

Medium:

External

monitoring

contractors were

Coherence

Potential

inclusion?

for

Medium: Using Yes

eparate

contractors for

monitoring and

157

This is only relevant if the new programme is expanded to include these projects.

196

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

evaluation

requirements of

the programme

to be fulfilled,

and

were

generally well

received in the

MTE

perceived

some

stakeholders as

a kind of “third”

layer

management in

the

MTE,

suggesting the

potential

for

improvements in

efficiency

Low: The costs

of delivering the

evaluation

activities

are

likely to be

greater than the

business as usual

due to the higher

staff

and

overhead costs,

as well as the

travel required to

maintain

the

same level of

monitoring.

evaluation and

communication,

while

management

responsibility

lies

with

EASME

may

create

some

incoherence of

monitoring with

programme

aims.

High:

Should No

lead to greater

coherence

between

monitoring and

evaluation and

general

grant

management.

Retraction

monitoring

evaluation

activities

EASME

Low: Providing

and

EASME has the

necessary skills

into

(thematic,

geographic and

linguistic) and

resources,

the

current

monitoring and

evaluation

arrangements

could be largely

fulfilled inside

EASME.

However,

EASME

does

not have local

offices, so the

regular site visits

would be more

difficult

implement.

Retraction

Low: Providing

monitoring and

the Commission

evaluation

has

the

activities in the

necessary skills

Commission

(thematic,

geographic and

linguistic) and

resources,

the

current

monitoring and

evaluation

arrangements

could be largely

fulfilled.

However,

the

Commission

does not have

local offices, so

the regular site

visits would be

Low: The costs

of delivering the

evaluation

activities

are

likely to be

greater than the

other

options

due to the higher

staff

and

overhead costs.

Low: Unlikely

to lead to greater

coherence

EASME

will

still

responsible for

grant

management.

197

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

more difficult to

implement.

Summary:

The business as usual scenario currently delivers on monitoring and evaluation

requirements. Even though some issues were identified in the MTE with respect to the perceived

efficiency and coherence, the alternative option related to 'repatriating' the monitoring

responsibilities to either EASME or the Commission services are not expected to greatly improve

these elements. The retraction of monitoring and evaluation activities in the Commission is not

considered to be feasible due to the costs of doing so, and issues with coherence would remain.

Retraction of monitoring and evaluation activities into EASME may be more feasible, but would

require the recruitment of additional staff with new expertise to support the monitoring, and

unless further resources are made available, in-country site visits would no longer be part of the

monitoring. The option to align the indicators with Commission-wide indicators is a promising

option for the future that would ensure effectiveness and efficiency while increasing coherence,

although it is not immediately applicable.

198

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

ANNEX 9:

Introduction

IMPACT ASSESSMENT OF OPTION 1 - INTEGRATION OF

CLEAN ENERGY TRANSITION PROGRAMME IN LIFE

The Commission is facilitating a clean energy transition, which is at the heart of climate

and energy policies and leads towards a competitive and sustainable European economy.

This transition requires new technologies and infrastructure, but also socio-economic

adjustments, mobilisation of investments and preparation of actors in private and public

sectors. It has a systemic nature and its success depends on synergetic actions on all the

underlying elements: policy, markets and finances, society, infrastructure and

technology.

The enabling framework supporting the clean energy transition requires a

comprehensive approach and synergetic actions through a coherent set of

programmes and instruments.

Despite significant progress in implementing clean energy policies that support the

overall EU’s energy and climate objectives for 2050, the energy system of the EU

remains fossil fuel-locked. Throughout all regions and sectors,

barriers

impede the up-

take of energy efficiency solutions and the deployment of renewable energies (a

systematic overview of these barriers is included in the table in Appendix 1).

In the absence of further action, the barriers will continue to hamper the economic, social

and environmental benefits of the clean energy transition. This is especially relevant with

public and private actors not having the institutional capacity or the financial means to

implement clean energy solutions. The reasons for these impediments are multi-fold: a

persisting lack of public finance as a consequence of the economic crisis; structural lock-

ins on the use of fossil energy carriers hinder taking up clean energy solutions. Especially

vulnerable citizens do not have the financial capacity to improve energy performance of

their houses and experience the 'vicious cycle' of fuel poverty.

Already today frontrunner cities at all sizes engage to zero carbon emissions within the

next decade for individual town quarters

158

or the city environment as a whole.

159

The

technology for implementing this already exists on the market. This demonstrates that

there is a need to focus on rolling-out these clean energy technologies and solutions. This

is especially important for these actors, communities and territories which at present do

not belong to this frontrunner group.

There

is a need to tailor support for energy efficiency and distributed renewable

energies to those who are in the phase of catching-up with the frontrunners of the

clean energy transition.

158

See for example the Amsterdam Zuidoost project;

https://www.smartcities-

infosystem.eu/newsroom/news/how-amsterdam-building-zero-emissions-city

The Danish

town of Sonderborg already launched in 2007 its “Project Zero” plan aiming at a zero-carbon

municipality by 2029.

http://www.projectzero.dk/da-DK/Forside.aspx

159

199

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

9.1.

Needs analysis

9.1.1. Clean energy transition: problems and needs

The Communication “Clean Energy for all Europeans”

160

(CE4AE) and the Third

Report on the State of the Energy Union

161

and its supporting analyses

162

comprehensively review and assess the status quo of clean energy policies and the

progress made by the Member States. The current energy system is largely based on

fossil fuels. This entails CO

emissions and thus climate change, together with multi-fold

negative socio-economic and geopolitical consequences and macroeconomic import-

dependence. On the other hand, the fossil-fuel energies remain cheap. Not acting on this

carbon-lock-in of the European energy system would entail substantive opportunity costs,

not only in terms of environmental damage but also in terms of losses for national and

local economies.

The energy transition requires large investments in order to mitigate climate change,

reduce import and fossil fuels dependency, and support the transition. The latest

estimates put the annual investment gap associated with the achievement of the 2030

energy and climate goals at EUR 177 billion between 2021 and 2030, totalling EUR 1.77

trillion for the period

163

. If mobilised, this investment in clean energies, mostly in energy

efficiency and distributed renewable energy sources, would trigger up to 1% GDP

increase over the next decade. The Impact Assessment for the revised EED and its

supporting background studies show that especially in the case of energy efficiency the

synergies between clean energy policies and overall environmental improvement are

substantive (a detailed description of synergies is in point 3.1.

Increased synergies and

impacts).

Unlocking these potentials does not only require new technologies or

techniques but rather a massive up-take of existing good practices throughout Europe.

Especially disadvantaged actors or territories such as energy poor households need

special attention to enable them to catch up with the frontrunners in Europe.

9.1.2. Overall failures and specific barriers impeding a clean energy transition

As discussed in Annex 4, there are several overall failures and specific barriers of the

aforementioned persistent problems. Many of the failures concerning climate and

environmental policies similarly exist with the deployment of clean energy solutions, but

there are also the specific barriers to energy efficiency and small-scale renewables, which

require a distinctive approach.

9.1.2.1.

Overall failures against a clean energy transition, which are in common with

climate and environmental policies

Overall failures against a clean energy transition exist at the level of individuals and

communities and/or at the overarching governance levels. These failures are especially

pronounced with catching-up actors and territories, which do not have the institutional

capacity or the financial leverage to roll out existing clean energy blueprints. This

underlines the need for public intervention to support a clean energy transformation

160

161

162

163

COM(2016) 860 final

COM(2017) 688 final

COM(2017) 688 final Annexes 2-4

Financing A Sustainable European Economy, Interim Report, High-Level Expert Group on Sustainable Finance

200

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

especially with these stakeholders. Clean energy problems are driven by several market

and institutional failures, for example:



Public goods failure:

As discussed above, diverse and healthy nature and good

environmental status are considered as public goods since their preservation

benefits all, while without intervention the costs of preserving them would be

borne unequally only by some. This is especially true in combination with the

external effects caused by the use of fossil fuels (see below). Without public

intervention such as policy, legislation or financial incentives, there would be no

incentive to internalise the external costs. This failure is especially pronounced

with regions facing a lock-in on fossil fuels where additional social and economic

concerns cement the barriers against clean energy.

Negative externalities:

Unintended negative impacts of production and

consumption of energy are often not fully internalised into the market price. This

lack of pricing results in the inability of the market to value the full social and

economic benefits of clean energy solutions. Local pollution caused by fossil fuel

use is a classic example for this case. Often the external effects occur in cross-

border situations, necessitating intervention on EU level.

Imperfect information:

Insufficient or asymmetric distribution of

comprehensive information on available clean energy solutions leads to

behavioural bias through incorrect signals. This barrier against clean energy both

acts on the macroeconomic as well as on the individual, microeconomic level.

Creating networks and sharing information on best practices on energy efficiency

can strongly mitigate this failure.

Government, institutional, regulatory or policy failure:

As described in Annex

4, this failure refers to the imperfect nature of intervention by governance actors.

In the case of poor enforcement or non-uniform implementation of rules at the

Member State level the clean energy transition and the EU’s clean energy and

climate objectives are hampered. Sub-optimal or delayed implementation of the

clean energy policy framework might lead to missing up to 1% increase in GDP

over the next decade.

164

A clear support with capacity building and deployment

can facilitate the setting and implementation of clean energy policies. This type of

failure can be avoided at EU-level by ensuring strong and coordinated policy

action, with effective monitoring and enforcement. Furthermore, capacity-

building, best practice sharing and financial support for market-uptake are needed

to address this failure.

Innovation up-take failure:

By failing to take up existing good practices on

clean energy solutions, governments and economic agents miss out on cost-

savings, growth incentives and the related environmental and social benefits.

Tailored support such as the Clean Energy Transition programme can ensure the

systematic and comprehensive up-take of these solutions at European level.

Socio-cultural failure:

The lack of societal acceptance of the need to change

behaviour, reduce consumption and/or improve sustainability. This is particularly



164

This economic growth would be achieved by mobilising up to an additional 177 billion euro of public and

private investment per year from 2021, as estimated in the impact assessments of the revised legislation and

indicated in the Communication on the CE4AE.

201

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

visible in cases where financial or welfare gains are dominant in producer and

consumer choices.



Infrastructure lock-in

and investment failure: Lack of capacity to scale up the

investment in energy efficiency and small-scale renewables to leverage finance

and to improve access and de-risk financing for the energy transition. Clean

energy financing is often seen as high-risk investment or the institutional capacity

for the up-take of finance is missing.

Specific barriers against energy efficiency and distributed renewable energy

solutions, which require a dedicated approach

9.1.2.2

The table included in Appendix 1 reviews the specific market barriers acting against

taking up energy efficiency or distributed renewable energy. This review complements

the overall review performed in Annex 4 to mirror the additional needs regarding the

clean energy transition. It should be noted that only major barriers have been taken up in

the following review. In many cases, a combination of the barriers identified exists,

especially in situations where territories or actors are still in the process of catching up.

9.1.3. Who is affected by barriers against the clean energy transition

As identified in Annex 4 of this Impact Assessment, running short on implementing

environmental and climate policies seriously affects several groups in the EU. The same

is true for not acting on the impediments that stand against the clean energy transition.

The following analysis complements the need analysis presented above from the clean

energy perspective. As is the case with the other two policy fields, acting on the uptake

of clean energy solutions can contribute to comprehensive positive effects on individuals,

businesses, civil society, and governments. It should be noted that these effects are often

addressing environmental and climate change problems in a synergetic way.

165

(For a

detailed description of synergies see point 3.1.

Increased synergies and impacts.)



Individuals

are affected by low level of deployment of clean energy solutions in

multiple ways. They face the environmental degradation and local pollution from

the use of fossil fuels, exposing them to health risks and damages. The

environmental and climate hazards described above in Annex 4 are largely caused

by the use of fossil fuels. Energy poverty creates a lock-in effect for low-income

households who spend a large part of their income on energy costs leaving in low

energy performance houses, whereas energy efficiency improvements could

provide a solution and improve both economic situation and living conditions.

Lowering households’ energy demand and the share of energy costs in

households' budgets through improved buildings’ energy performance

166

will

contribute to reduce energy poverty and support Europe’s most vulnerable

consumers.

Businesses

depend on the use of energy to produce goods or services, but they

also provide on the market energy related products and services. The clean energy

business (such as EE and RES technology and services providers) is still

underdeveloped. Missing awareness, skills, and lacking access to capital impede a



165

166

IEA (2014): Capturing the Multiple Benefits of Energy Efficiency.

COM(2016) 860 final. Accelerating clean energy in buildings.

202

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

stronger up-take of energy efficiency and small-scale renewables. Regulatory

barriers persist in MS to develop and scale-up sustainable clean energy business

models. Taking up business models in these fields would translate into economic

growth and additional creation of jobs.

167

European companies can improve their

competitiveness by further developing local sustainable energy business and

improving energy efficiency of their own business operation to protect

themselves against energy price differentials that occur with importing fossil

fuels. This is especially relevant for SMEs with a high share of energy costs

related to total production costs.



Local communities

are affected strongly by the absence of clean energy

solutions. Air pollution from fossil fuel use causes damages with the local

population and infrastructure alike, provoking out-migration or making it harder

to attract new inhabitants, thereby safeguarding a balanced age structure in the

community. Applying energy efficiency and distributed renewable energies

reduces local pollutants and greenhouse gas emissions. They create locally

available jobs in the high-quality segment. These jobs are not subject to increased

pressure of global economic competition. The savings on fossil fuel imports can

be channelled to projects supporting a further up-take of clean energy. By this,

they can create economic multiplier effects and socially inclusive growth. With

high-skilled jobs available throughout Europe, the social fabric of especially

vulnerable territories can be expected to improve, leading to synergies with

environmental and climate policy issues as well as economic and social benefits.

As has been described above with the environmental and climate effects, a strong

and active local community can ensure accountability, sustainable natural

resource governance, environmental protection, and inclusive economic growth.

Thus, empowering local communities helps governments to obtain effective and

democratic policy-making and is critical to achieve sustainable development.

Governments

can benefit from lowering energy imports and macroeconomic

effects of global energy price instability by supporting energy transition to benefit

from energy efficiency and locally available renewable energy resources. This

leads to overall positive effects on employment and improved energy security of

supply.

Financial sector actors and institutional investors

increasingly face the risk of

investing in stranded assets such as fossil-based infrastructure. Shareholders are

increasingly reluctant to support non-clean energy financing. With the

development of sustainable finance properly valuating the green value of clean

energy investments, these investors can add new type of investments, attract

additional shareholders and create an overall green investment portfolio. A

broader move towards clean energy finance allows to develop methods of de-

risking, increasing investment security and broad public support. This in turn will

attract new clients, enlarging the business area for the sustainable finance sector.



167

Without stringent energy efficiency deployment, up to 900,000 new jobs would not be created, as estimated in the

impact assessments of the revised legislation and indicated in Communication on the CE4AE. In particular, industrial

production could increase in the construction sector by up to 5%, in the engineering, iron and steel sectors by up to

3.8 and 3.5% respectively, translating into 700.000 additional jobs in construction, 230,000 in engineering and

27,000 in the iron and steel sectors. Impact Assessment for the amendment of the Energy Efficiency Directive,

SWD(2016) 405 (detailed results derived from the macroeconomic analysis).

203

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

9.1.4. Addressing the barriers - intervention logic of the Clean Energy Transition

Programme

There are multiple ways of addressing the identified problems and needs as well as

failures concerning the implementation of clean energy solutions. Further to the options

discussed above in Annex 4, the Clean Energy Transition Programme will continue the

successful approach of Intelligent Energy Europe programme by acting on the:



Political and regulatory environment:

Facilitating Clean Energy policy setting

and implementation can provide different governance levels with the non-

financial capacity to clean energy policy-making; ambitious political

commitment, strategic planning and policy development; support at different

levels for developing and spreading good practice in clean energy policy

implementation; support for a continuous dialogue with Member States’

authorities on the question related to EU legislation transposition and

implementation; and support to joint surveillance actions for market surveillance

by the Member states with the aim to strengthen coordination between the

relevant authorities, explore synergies in product testing and improve compliance

with legislation.

Financial environment:

Developing and mainstreaming financing for Clean

Energy to leverage finance and improve access to finance for energy transition by

acting on both: clean energy financing supply and demand; public investment

mainstreaming through Technical Assistance Grants, with or without leverage

obligation, which aim at supporting development of technical and financial

expertise of public authorities; Private investment mainstreaming through

Technical Assistance Grants, which aim at supporting development of technical

and financial expertise of project promoters to launch large-scale investments in

sustainable energy; developing a large offer of Clean Energy financing products

to help financiers and investors consider sustainable energy investments as a

specific market segment offering clear incentives and new business opportunities;

installing a de-risking framework with new valuation methods and new risk

assessment methods.

Business environment:

Developing Clean Energy business to prepare the market

players to the new conditions required for the clean energy transition; developing

new markets for Clean Energy services and business models; improving existing

business processes and value chains; improving skills of the workforce;

empowering and engaging 'influencers'

Socio-cultural environment:

There is a clear need to enable societal

transformation for the clean energy transition. This can be supported by:

Awareness raising, targeted education; consumers' activation and engagement to

change their energy consumption behaviour and increase their uptake of different

forms of active demand solutions and services, including collective actions;

addressing energy poverty by applying existing good practices

168

throughout

Europe.



168

For example the Irish pilot action of the project EPISCOPE has produced an interactive map of north Dublin that

combines data from Energy Performance Certificates with other data from the population census. In this way it is

possible to map areas of fuel poverty, by identifying districts that overlap poor energy performance with low income

204

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

9.2. Lessons learnt from the current and past programmes and assessment of the

next MFF proposal

9.2.1. Current and past programmes and their results

Intelligent Energy Europe III (IEE III) programme is a part of Horizon 2020- Energy

Challenge (Societal Challenge 3)

representing 15% of overall energy challenge

budget,

according to Declarations of the Commission (2013/C 373/02) annexed to

Horizon 2020 regulation (EU) N°1291/2013

169

Intelligent Energy Europe II (IEE II) programme, which was part of the CIP, ran from

2007-2013. The programme supported sustainable energy policy development and

implementation to create right market conditions for energy transition. The results were

monitored using common KPIs based on EU 2020 targets for EE and RES (primary

energy savings compared to projections (GWh/year); reduction of greenhouse gas

emissions (t CO2e/year); renewable energy production triggered (GWh/year); cumulative

investment made by European stakeholders in sustainable energy (M Euro). The results

reported under IEE II programme regarding the common KPIs are shown in the table

included in Appendix 2.

To ensure coherence and continuity of monitoring with the predecessor programme, the

following indicators are reported in Horizon 2020-SC3-Energy Efficiency market uptake

(IEE III) by the beneficiaries after the end of a project and in the mid-term reporting:

Primary energy savings triggered by the market uptake project (GWh/year per

EUR million)

Total amount of money invested by the stakeholders in sustainable energy as

direct or indirect result from the measures developed by the market uptake project

(amount in EUR million)

These indicators will only be available after the mid-term reporting has been

accomplished.

However, at the proposal stage, the market uptake projects indicate the estimated values

for the indicators (see the figures reported in Horizon 2020 Monitoring report 2015, page

148).

170

9.2.2. Lessons learnt from the current MFF

The integration of IEE III in Horizon 2020 followed the logic of installing a

comprehensive programme covering all steps from basic research to market uptake and

households. Additionally, the UK partner BRE supported the annual UK housing surveys, which track both energy

performance and fuel poverty. In ACHIEVE project over 150 people were trained and carried out about 3000 home

visits in Bulgaria, Germany, France, Slovenia, United Kingdom where they provided free-of-cost installation of

devices to save water and energy and gave advice on energy saving behaviour. The project achieved primary energy

savings of just under 250 toe/year, with an average decrease of 10% for electricity, 6% for heating, and 18% for

water consumption per household. Some 920 kWh were saved annually by each household in electricity and heating.

169

The Commission will endeavour to ensure that at least 85 %, of the energy challenge budget of Horizon 2020 is

spent in non-fossil fuels areas, within which

at least 15 %

of the overall energy challenge budget is spent on market

up-take activities of existing renewable and energy efficiency technologies in the

Intelligent Energy Europe III

Programme.

This Programme will be implemented by a dedicated management structure and will also include

support for sustainable energy policy implementation, capacity building and mobilisation of financing for

investment, as been undertaken until today.

https://ec.europa.eu/programmes/horizon2020/en/news/horizon-2020-monitoring-report-2015

170

205

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

deployment. However, delivering capacity building under the R&I framework, with

different intervention logic, clients and delivery modes, proved to be difficult. In the

report on the first results of Horizon 2020 on energy efficiency

171

the evaluators point out

that mainly large consortia are funded. Especially higher barriers to participate in

Horizon 2020 than in IEE actions are mentioned. As one of them the evaluators see the

need to include a larger number of stakeholders into the funding actions and a complex

application process. These impediments can be expected to be significantly higher with

disfavoured actors and territories.

9.2.3. Rationale of the proposal to integrate the Clean Energy Transition Programme

in LIFE

9.2.3.1.

The Horizon Europe programme does not specifically cover 'capacity

building' activities in its scope

The R&I programme objective is to

fund excellent research and innovation,

supporting pioneers

who will show the way. But the EU has also the responsibility to

help laggards and followers 'catching up' by

building the capacity

in order to quickly

narrow the gap. There is also a need to address specific

barriers hampering the wide

uptake

of the existing clean energy solutions. For the massive

market roll-out,

'expected impact' and 'quality of implementation' criteria should outweigh the criterion of

'scientific excellence', which has less of relevance for capacity building.

As stated in the Horizon Europe impact assessment improving market uptake of

innovative solutions is a broad concept encompassing various activities, which help R&I-

driven innovation to succeed on the market and create new value for market players and

consumers/citizens alike. However, market uptake goes beyond research and innovation.

Therefore, activities under the Framework Programme alone cannot suffice to incentivise

broad market uptake and dissemination of innovative solutions. Other EU programmes

need to also play a key role (see Horizon Europe Impact Assessment Annex 7 on

Synergies).

9.2.3.2. LIFE provides the best suitable framework, while the differences in the

implementation know-how will be mutually enriching when integrating the

Clean Energy Transition window.

Integrating the Clean Energy Transition Programme into LIFE would address the key

shortcoming of the current approach and increase the coherence of the intervention logic.

LIFE has a suitable nature, objectives and delivery mechanisms aiming to support the

transition processes by building capacity, removing barriers and addressing

environmental and climate related vulnerabilities. As the development of clean energy

solutions would rest with Horizon Europe, the clear distinction between excellent

research and innovation, including technology development, socio-economic innovation

and first of a kind approaches on the one side, and supporting capacity building for the

rolling-out and catching-up processes, barriers removal and market shaping on the other

side, leads to

improving the coherence of EU funding landscape.

This coherence will

allow the Clean Energy Transition Programme to tailor its interventions more closely to

the often limited capacity of catch-up actors and territories and lower the barriers for

participation in the programme. Finally, it would enable

comprehensive multiplier

171

Ricardo AEA, CE Delft (2017): Report on the first results of Horizon 2020 on energy efficiency and system

integration

–

Final report

206

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

effects,

which can be triggered by the projects implemented under the common

framework (tackling energy efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions and local air pollutants

at the same time). The potential synergies are assessed in detail in the chapter below and

appendix 3.

The integration of the clean energy transition capacity building actions would extend the

current thematic coverage of LIFE to explicitly include: energy efficiency and small-

scale renewable energy sources. These funding priorities will be included in as a

dedicated window of LIFE, complementing the environment and climate change sub-

programmes.

The objective of the clean energy transition capacity building actions is to enable socio-

economic transformation for the clean energy transition in Europe, especially with those

regions, sectors and actors who need to catch up. This objective is fully aligned and

contributing to LIFE programme objectives of supporting and catalysing the transition

towards sustainable and low-carbon economy. In line with the LIFE intervention logic,

the Clean Energy Transition Programme's activities address four elements of the market

environment by developing and spreading best practice in policy implementation,

mobilising investments, improving skills, creating market conditions for technology

deployment and providing support to address underperformance.

However these actions funded under IEE and continued under H2020 have developed

their own specific implementation intelligence, know-how and close interactions with

policy-making, which are unique and exemplary across all the centrally-managed EU

funding activities. This precious experience luggage needs to be preserved, while the

implementation modalities and instruments available in LIFE are definitely worth

exploring.

Implementation knowledge cross-fertilization

would be facilitated by the fact that both

LIFE and IEE/H2020 EE are implemented by EASME and the frequent interactions and

common initiatives (e.g. common projects feedback workshops) are already in place

between the units implementing both programmes.

9.3. Assessment of impacts of the Clean Energy Transition Programme in LIFE

9.3.1. Assessment of increased synergies and impacts

The proposed integration of the Clean Energy Transition Programme in LIFE would

produce synergies between the funded actions enabling a multiplier effect of

environmental, climate and clean energy policies on the ground. Such a synergetic action

between the projects and the underlying policies is already observed and will be further

strengthened

172

. Some examples of such synergies are described in Appendix 3

Examples

of synergies in the projects and initiatives for environment, climate and clean energy.

The assessment of the proposed integration of the Clean Energy Transition Programme

into LIFE in comparison to the business as usual scenario showed the following pros and

cons:

172

With the implementation of clean energy policies, environmental vulnerabilities such as local air pollutants are

addressed as well. The same is true for economic synergies, such as the creation of jobs. Whereas these economic

and environmental indicators have not been systematically addressed by the present programmes KPIs, several

projects have identified these co-benefits.

207

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

+ Increased synergies in energy, environmental and climate policies implementation on

the ground and improved coherence of the EU funding landscape.

+ Expanded range of beneficiaries, reaching out to those who are currently discouraged

by difficulties to form large-size consortia and a complex application process under

Horizon 2020.

+ Better tailored interventions to the limited capacity of catch-up regions and actors,

thereby fostering social, economic and environmental inclusion.

+ Increased coherence in the overall MFF structure since the actions to be financed under

this extension correspond better to the other actions financed by LIFE, as compared to

projects financed under the R&I framework.

- A transition period for necessary adjustments and harmonisation of rules and

procedures, however leaving a sufficient degree of flexibility in implementation

modalities to ensure effectiveness of the actions and the continuity in their modus

operandi. Creating a dedicated sub-programme or delimited part for clean energy with

clearly attributed budgets will allow the required flexibility in implementation modes.

- Increased communication efforts and close coordination with other sub-programmes

will also have to be made to provide clear and coherent information to external

stakeholders on the funding opportunities under LIFE.

Overall the positive expected impacts, resulting from synergies and increased

coherence of the intervention logic, largely outweigh the potential risk factors.

Therefore the impacts in the following areas are expected to be strengthened in

comparison to the business as usual scenario:

1) Economic impacts

The Clean Energy Transition Programme will contribute to timely and effective

implementation of the Clean Energy policy package and, as a consequence, achieving its

economic impacts estimated in the policy impact assessment up to 1% increase in GDP

over the next decade by mobilising up to an additional 177 billion euro of public and

private investment per year from 2021. Greater energy efficiency will help European

companies improve their competitiveness by keeping their costs down, with electricity

prices for household and industry expected to be reduced on average from 161 to 157

€/MWh. It will create local business opportunities and jobs, with an estimated 400,000

additional jobs in all sectors by 2030, especially in the construction sector, including by

increasing the demand for skilled manual labour. Finally, pollution control costs & health

damage costs should be reduced by €4.5 –

8.3 billion and energy security will be greatly

improved, reducing gas imports by 12% in 2030.

173

Specifically the contribution of the Clean Energy Transition programme to achieving

these results can be quantified based on the positive experience of the Intelligent Energy

Europe programme. Based on IEE projects reporting it can be estimated that each year

calls of total 100 M€ EU funding generated around EUR 500 million investments in

sustainable energy. Specifically the project development assistance grants were required

to secure a minimum of EUR 15 of investments for each euro of public support

173

Impact Assessment for the amendment of the Energy Efficiency Directive, SWD(2016) 405 (detailed results

derived from the macroeconomic analysis).

208

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

provided

174

. These grants turned out to be very effective to mobilise large scale

investments in sustainable efficiency. ELENA reaches a leverage ratio largely above 20,

it means that each euro spent from European funds triggers more than 20 euro investment

into clean energy.

175

2) Social impacts

The Clean Energy Transition programme will contribute to timely and effective

implementation of the Clean Energy policy package and, as a consequence, achieving its

social impacts of up to 900,000 new jobs, as estimated in the impact assessments of the

revised legislation and indicated in Communication on the CE4AE. In particular,

buildings renovation could increase employment in the construction sector by up to 5%,

translating into 700.000 additional jobs.

Specifically the social impacts of the Clean Energy Transition Programme can be

estimated based on the past experience of its predecessor IEE. Skills improvement was

supported through the projects belonging to the BUILD UP Skills initiative. The BUILD

UP Skills target group (craftsmen and on-site workers) in the participating countries can

be estimated at a total of about 7.6 million workers and make up for around 57% of the

construction sector.

In terms of awareness-raising among consumers/market actors, the outreach of these

projects was of 1 300 000 people reached through media and 5000 organisations.

3) Environmental impacts

The Clean Energy Transition Programme will contribute to timely and effective

implementation of the Clean Energy policy package and, as a consequence, achieving its

environmental impacts: the carbon intensity of the EU's economy will be 43% lower in

2030 than now and renewable electricity representing about half of the EU's electricity

generation mix. The 30% energy efficiency target represents a drop in final energy

consumption of 17% compared to 2005. It will contribute to reduction of CO2 emissions

and will also lead to improvements in air quality.

Specifically the contribution of the Clean Energy Transition programme to achieving

these results can be quantified based on the IEE project results in this area presented in

the table in Appendix 2.

4) Impacts on fundamental rights

Energy is the first necessity service and not a commodity as others. Therefore the

services provided by energy, which are an inherent part of our modern lifestyle, should

be affordable to all the citizens.

The Clean Energy package not only empowers the energy consumers and strengthen their

rights, but also protects the consumers, specifically their vulnerable groups. Therefore the

174

Between 2011 and 2017 a total of 33 projects were supported with a total EU contribution of EUR

27.685.068 which are committed to mobilise EUR 782.613.739 of energy related investment.

According to the evaluation study requested by the Commission and carried out by PWC in 2016:

At the time of this evaluation, EIB-ELENA counted 41 signed projects with a total contribution of

72.865.683 euro which are committed to mobilise 4.663.727.736 euro of investments. The planned

investments are expected to generate 2.860.369 MWh/y of energy saving and 618.580 MWh/y of renewable

energy production leading to a GHG reduction of 875.565 t CO2/y. This spectacular result in terms of

investment mobilisation of ELENA shows the leverage over 1:60.

175

209

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

proper implementation of these policies will strengthen the energy consumers in their

rights for clean and affordable energy services.

The ambitious target on energy efficiency will specifically contribute to addressing

energy poverty issues by lowering energy consumption and the energy cost share in

household's budget.

9.3.2. EU added value

The Clean Energy Transition Programme follows the successful intervention logic of the

Intelligent Energy Europe I and II as well as IEE III in Horizon 2020 Energy Efficiency

programmes, which have demonstrated the EU added value of supporting the

achievement of the EU sustainable energy policy goals (see point 2.1 and Annex 3.3 for

evaluation results). The feedback obtained from participant surveys (successful and

unsuccessful participants as well as national contact points) highlights the clear value-

added of the projects. This positive feedback comprises the fact that without EU funding

almost 70% of the implemented projects would not have been initiated.

176

These projects

have led to a successful spread and up-take of best practices in energy efficiency policy

implementation by supporting their pan-European outreach while tailoring to

national/regional or local conditions

177

. The EU-added value consists in more harmonised

approaches to clean energy transition across Europe: 1) in terms of supporting a swift and

effective implementation of EU policies in the Member States; 2) in supporting the

national level in legislation transposition and enforcement through networks (Concerted

Actions on the Energy Efficiency Directive; Energy Performance of Buildings Directive

and on the Renewable Energy Directive; support to Market Surveillance Authorities) and

engaging local level by developing policy dialogue and experience exchange through

projects and initiatives (Covenant of Mayors, projects for Sustainable Energy

Communities

178

). Both aspects combined ensure that solutions and successful approaches

are transferred across borders to all EU Member States in order to accelerate the uptake

and scaling up of good practices.

In terms of mobilising investment, IEE/Horizon 2020 projects generate high quality

solutions and good practices and trigger additional financing from the side of the

Member States and private actors. This is demonstrated by the high co-financing rates

that help to attract numerous beneficiaries.

Finally, an indirect EU value-added occurs: with the grassroot feedback on barriers and

impediments to clean energy solutions and markets development, EU policies can be

fine-tuned to address these barriers and tailor support for actors, regions and Member

States in line with the subsidiarity principle.

176

177

Ricardo AEA, CE Delft (2017

It should be noted that this intervention logic is distinct to the one of the

Programme in comparison to the present approach taken in LIFE.

Clean Energy Transition

178

The IEE programme and its continuation under Horizon 2020 supported projects focusing on developing

Sustainable Energy Communities across the continent in order to build institutional capacity at a local and

regional level. Support has been given by associations or active networks such as Local Governments for

Sustainability in the 1990’s, Climate Alliance and Energy Cities. Projects influenced 650 local authorities to

join the Covenant of Mayors and helped to develop more than 500 SEAPs (Mayors in Action, 50000&1

SEAPs, CASCADE, BEAST, ManagEnergy

210

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

9.3.3. Simplification efforts

The impact reviews of the IEE I-III programmes

179

suggest that there is a clear potential

for simplifying the presently complex Horizon 2020 application procedures. The reviews

showed that the Horizon 2020 framework favours bigger projects and large consortia,

putting forward resource-intensive research and innovation efforts. This crowds out

smaller participants and projects. In consequence there is not only a need for simplified

administration on the side of the Commission, but also the need to guarantee simple and

open access to the programmes for the potential beneficiaries, especially catching-up

actors with limited capacities.

Surveyed simplification measures address reduction of administrative costs during

application and during project. The reviewers recommended to reconsider lowering the

level of EU support provided to some types of projects in order to increase the

availability of funds to support more projects.

It was suggested to simplify the application procedure while at the same time

reintroducing the possibility to negotiate project framing through the executive agency in

order to recalibrate project proposals and guarantee a successful implementation.

In line with the overall efforts to streamline LIFE (see Annex 9), the following

simplification measures are foreseen for the implementation of the Clean Energy

Transition Programme:



Simplification of the application process, including rationalised forms and

supporting documents

Adapting reporting requirements in proportion to the length and complexity of

projects and the value of the grant.

Simplifying the indicators database, based on project focus with clearly traceable

indicators (primary energy savings, installed capacity of renewable energy,

investments triggered) that still follow a clear linking to the Sustainable

Development Goals.

The detailed assessment of the impact of these measures in comparison to the business as

usual scenario follows the overall assessment for the LIFE programme presented in

Annex 5.

9.3.4. Complementarities with other EU programmes

The Clean Energy Transition Programme and LIFE

As discussed above, the proposed integration of the Clean Energy Transition Programme

into LIFE, a multitude of synergies and complementarities between the three sub-

programmes on environment, climate change and clean energy can be activated.

The Clean Energy Transition Programme and Horizon Europe

A clear complementarity exists to the funding of research and innovation action in the

clean energy field under Horizon Europe. The research and innovative solutions

developed in Horizon Europe through the support of front-runners will provide the next

generation of technologies and good practices that at a later stage can be replicated with

the capacity-building support of the Clean Energy Transition Programme.

179

Ricardo AEA, CE Delft (2017)

211

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

The Clean Energy Transition Programme and ESIF

IEE/Horizon 2020 support helped to absorb ESIF funds directing them towards the clean

energy investments, also, in some cases, developing successfully financial instruments

180

Especially the project development assistance grants are the example where IEE/the

Clean Energy Transition Programme activities can trigger a considerable leverage to

mobilise investments in clean energy at a very high level.

Please see the examples of IEE projects which developed synergies with ESIF funding in

Appendix 4

The Clean Energy Transition Programme and InvestEU

In the same manner the Clean Energy Transition Programme will not overlap with the

Financial Instruments provided under InvestEU, but will catalyse the investments in

clean energy, which then could use InvestEU funds. Capital needs to be channelled

towards sustainable energy investments often of highly distributed nature (EE and small-

scale RES), in which context the key bottleneck is projects' development and aggregation

capacity. This has been highlighted at a number of fora, and is an important message of

the High-Level Expert Group on Sustainable Finance, whose recommendations the

Commission has expressed its willingness to take into strong consideration.

Please see the examples of IEE projects which developed synergies with EFSI funding in

Appendix 4.

The Clean Energy Transition Programme and CEF

There is no overlap between the Clean Energy Transition sub-programme and CEF,

neither in terms of nature and size of projects funded nor the underlying intervention

logic. CEF supports the investment stage, its scope addresses large-scale trans-European

energy infrastructure projects. The Clean Energy Transition sub-programme aims at

mobilising and preparing the investments or aggregating small-scale energy efficiency

and RES related projects mainly in buildings or local infrastructure. The possible

integration of RES window under CEF will not increase the risk of overlaps, because still

the focus under CEF will remain on the cross-border projects in the field of planning,

development and cost-effective exploitation of renewable energy sources.

9.4.

Conclusion

The enabling framework supporting the energy transition requires a

systemic approach

and

synergetic actions

through a

coherent set of programmes and instruments.

In this

process the EU will support front-runners in showing the way and providing new

solutions. But the EU has also the responsibility to help those 'lagging behind', by

building the capacity, where there is underperformance, in order to help quickly narrow

the gap.

The Clean Energy Transition Programme, building on the positive experiences of the

former programmes, Intelligent Energy Europe (IEE), is proposed to build capacity,

stimulate investments and support policy implementation in the most challenging fields

and areas of clean energy transition.

180

For example the IEE project MLEI MARTE helped the Italian Region of Marche to set up the Energy and Mobility

Fund, blending in ERDF and private funds. (http://www.marteproject.eu/en)

212

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

The proposed integration of the Clean Energy Transition Programme into LIFE would

trigger numerous economic, environmental and social benefits by addressing key barriers

which presently stand against the up-take of clean energy solutions. The main arguments

can be summarized as follows:



LIFE follows the same objectives, intervention logic and delivery mechanisms as

the Clean Energy Transition Programme, building capacity, removing barriers

and addressing environmental and climate related vulnerabilities.

This coherence would allow The Clean Energy Transition Programme to tailor its

interventions more closely to the often limited capacity of catch-up regions and

actors and lower the barriers for their participation in the programme.

The proposed integration would allow developing stronger synergies in energy,

environmental and climate policies implementation on the ground.

Finally, it would enable comprehensive multiplier effects, which can be triggered

by the projects implemented under the common framework (tackling energy

efficiency, greenhouse gas emissions and local air pollutants at the same time).



Appendices

(1.) Energy efficiency barriers

181

Appendix 1: Barriers against energy efficiency and distributed renewable energies

*Legend: I

–

individuals; B

–

business; C

–

communities; G

–

governments; F

–

Financial sector and investors

Environment/

barrier

Economic

Information barriers

Market fails to operate properly due to: imperfect

information, incomplete markets (lack of

knowledge, awareness, information

Limited suppliers of energy efficiency solutions,

such as ESCOs

Imperfect competition and uncertainty; Difficulty

I/B/C/G/F

Feature/description

Who is

affected ?

Lack of appropriate

market structure

Principal-agent-

I/B/C/G/F

I/B/C/F

181

Literature review based on: Kowalska-Pyzalska (2018): What makes consumers adopt to innovative energy services

in the energy market? A review of incentives and barriers Renewable and Sustainable Energy Reviews 82, pp. 3570–

3581; Sorrell S. Reducing energy demand: a review of issues, challenges and approaches. Renew Sust Energy Rev

2015;47:74–82; Nygren AN, Kontio P, Lyytimaki J, Varho V, Tapio P. Early adopters boosting the diffusion of

sustainable small-scale energy solutions. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2015;46, pp.:79–87; Hu Z, Kim JH, Wang JH,

Byrne J. Review of dynamic pricing programs in the U.S. and Europe: status quo and policy recommendations.

Renew Sust Energy Rev 42. 2015, pp. 743-51; Good N, Ellis KA, Mancarella P. Review and classification of barriers

and enablers of demand response in the smart grid. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2017;72, pp. 57–72; Bukarica V, Tomsic

Z. Energy efficiency policy evaluation by moving from techno-economic towards whole society perspective on

energy efficiency market. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2017;70; pp. 968–75; Karakaya E, Hidalgo A, Nuur C. Diffusion

of eco-innovations: a review. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2014;33:pp. 392–9; Gadenne D, Sharma B, Kerr D, Smith T.

The influence of consumers’ environmental beliefs

and attitudes on energy saving behaviors. Energy Policy 2011;39,

pp. 7684–94; Bertoldi, P., Boza-Kiss, B. (JRC) (2017): Analysis of barriers and drivers for the development of the

ESCO markets in Europe. Energy Policy, 107, pp. 345-355.

213

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Environment/

barrier

problems

Limited access to

capital and high

transaction costs

Financial cost

Perceived high risks

Feature/description

in proper pricing of energy efficiency services

Lack of appropriate long-lasting financial and

legal support; high costs for negotiating and

enforcing energy efficiency solutions

High up-front investment costs; fear of additional

service and maintenance costs

Energy efficiency seen as high-risk investment,

thereby leading to high interest rates to cover risk

factor.

Who is

affected ?

I/B/C

I/B/C/F

High uncertainty on

payback

Up-front investments occur directly, whereas

benefits only refinance these investments in future

periods. This leads to high discount rates for future I/B/C/F

benefits, making energy efficiency investments

less attractive.

Landlord-tenant problem: Investment costs for e.g.

building refurbishment would need to be

shouldered by landlord, whereas benefits (energy

cost savings) would be fully on the tenant side.

Split

incentives/investor

user dilemma

Organizational

barriers

Lack of agreement

Lack of supporting

networks/structures

Missing

qualifications or

knowledge

management

Political and

regulatory barriers

Missing or

insufficient capacity

to implement energy

efficiency solutions

Limited availability

(e.g. program

unavailability,

inaccessibility)

I/B/C

E.g. how dedicated provision of energy service

should be measured and remunerated

Missing fora/formats for gaining access to best

practices in terms of technologies, policies or

solutions

Unavailability of trained and qualified experts to

implement energy efficiency solutions.

I/B/C/G

B/C/G

E.g. insufficient staffing

B/C/G

Missing or insufficient support structures (e.g.

energy agencies) to implement capacity building.

I/B/C/G/F

214

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Environment/

barrier

Lack of supply

chains, services and

conventions

Technological

barriers

Limited supply of

energy efficiency

technologies

Technological ‘lock-

in’

Need of

technological

standardization

Communication and

private data security

Behavioral barriers

Cognitive biases in

decision-making

process

Credibility and trust

Feature/description

Missing standardization of applying, measuring or

monitoring energy efficiency; missing standards

on training and qualification schemes

Who is

affected ?

I/B/C/G/F

Limited availability of technological choice.

I/B/C/

Path-dependency on fossil fuels.

Missing technological solutions for metering and

computing the large number of data to determine

energy savings.

Delay in taking up energy efficiency solutions

based on smart metering.

I/B/C/G

I/B/C/

I/B/C/G

Potential factors are bounded rationality,

resistance to change, confusion of choice (lack of

professional advice)

Unwillingness to adopt unknown energy

efficiency solution.

I/B/C/G/F

Negative perceptions

Perceived idea that energy efficiency necessarily

(negative values, not

implies sufficiency or reduction of comfort

understanding)

Negative word-of-

mouth (i.e. negative

information shared

within a social

network about the

innovation)

Lacking information

I/B/C

E.g. negative press reports on energy efficiency

solutions (energy-efficient lighting, building

refurbishment options)

I/B/C/G/F

non-awareness of saving options leading to

suboptimal consumer choices

I/B/C

(2.) Barriers against distributed renewable energy sources

182

Literature review based on: Pirlogea, C. (2011): Barriers to Investment in Energy from Renewable Sources.

http://www.management.ase.ro/reveconomia/2011-1/12.pdf; Negro SO, Alkemade F, Hekkert MP. Why does

215

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

*Legend: I

–

individuals; B

–

business; C

–

communities; G

–

governments; F

–

Financial sector and investors

Field/barrier

Economic barriers

High upfront

investment costs

High economic risk

Investment costs occur at the beginning of the

project, benefits to cover up-front investments

only with following periods.

Several distributed RES installations are still seen

as high-risk projects, leading to higher interest

rates to compensate for this higher risk.

Costs of assembling project partners, information

on project or approval procedures.

Lack of financial support, especially in catching-

up regions; missing capacity to provide financial

support

Sharing of distributed renewables between

neighboring buildings/among tenants of the same

building is a relatively new concept with limited

experience in catching-up regions.

I/B/C

Feature/description

Who is

affected

I/B/C/ F

High transaction

costs

Missing finance

I/B/C/ F

I/B/C/G

Missing information

on business models

to deploy distributed

renewables

Missing supply

structure, market

imperfections

Market barriers for

new competitors

Missing/imperfect

information on cost-

sharing models

Lack of possibility

to achieve

economies of scale

I/B/C

Especially in catching-up regions limited choice of

I/B/C/G

suppliers of distributed RES options.

Market access can be blocked for newcomers by

incumbent energy companies.

E.g. with the use of distributed renewables in

multi-owner buildings where cost-sharing

agreements have to be found.

Depending on the technology, solutions have to be

adapted to the individual situation. This makes

installations overly costly, compared to standard

solutions where economies of scale in the

production can be achieved.

I/B/C

I/B/C/G/F

I/B/C

Political/regulatory

renewable energy diffuse so slowly? A review of innovation system problems. Renew Sust Energy Rev 2012;16, pp.

3836–46;

Hobman EV, Frederiks ER. Barriers to green electricity subscription in Australia: “love the environment,

Love renewable energy…but why should I pay more?”. Energy Res Soc Sci 2014;3, pp. 78–88;

Nygren AN, Kontio

P, Lyytimaki J, Varho V, Tapio P. Early adopters boosting the diffusion of sustainable small-scale energy solutions.

Renew Sust Energy Rev 2015;46, pp. 79–87; Ma Ch, Rogers AA, Kragt ME, Zhang F, Polyakov M, et al.

Consumers' willingness to pay for renewable energy: a meta-regression analysis. Resour. Energy Econ 2015;42, pp.

93–109.

216

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Field/barrier

/ barriers

Imperfect/missing

framework for

deploying

distributed RES

solutions

Insufficient spatial

planning

Lack of experience

Feature/description

Who is

affected

E.g. political preference for centralized RES

installations as this fits better with the existing

centralized production structure.

Duration and procedures for installing e.g. wind

turbines; barriers against solar PV use on multi-

owner buildings.

Lack of experience on good practice regulation on

deploying distributed RES or adopting a financing

framework scheme allowing private investors to

take this up as a business model

Resistance due to considerations of local interest

such as tourism, landscape, or reluctant attitude to

take up project of general interest (NIMBY

–

not

in my backyard)

Too many authorities involved in implementation

of project (licensing etc.)

Lack of information/transparency about

administrative procedures

Different legal provisions depending on territory

where the installation is set up

I/B/C/G/F

Appreciation against

other values

I/B/C

Shattered actor

barrier

Information barriers

Uneven application

of law

Technological

barriers

Infrastructure needs

I/B

Need to invest/find technological solutions for

supporting infrastructure for distributed

renewables energies (storage, smart grid)

Missing qualification/specialization of smaller

distributed renewable energy projects

Missing/inadequate information on available

schemes especially in catching-up territories

I/B/C/G

Lack of technical

skills

Lack of information

on best available

technology

Inadequate

supporting

technologies/technol

ogical skills

Lock-in effects

I/B/C

I/B/C/G

E.g. incorrect measurements of solar radiation

with disfavoured sites leading to lower yields.

Path dependency on past choices such as fossil

fuels for energy generation or heating systems

217

I/B/C

I/B/C/G/F

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

Field/barrier

Behavioural

barriers

Credibility and trust

Lacking information

Feature/description

Who is

affected

Unwillingness to adopt unknown RES solution

Non-awareness of installation options leading to

suboptimal consumer choices

I/B/C/G/F

I/B/C

Appendix 2 IEE impacts

IEE Project data/ Indicator

Number of projects funded

EU funding (Million Euro)

Call

2009

54,10

Call

2010

57,30

500

Call

2011

64,80

491

Call

2012

71,60

498

498.000

Call

2013

73,00

530

458.423

Total investment in sustainable energy

triggered by the projects (Million 500

Euro)

Cumulative reductions of GHG 350.000 400.000 496.000

emissions by the projects (tCO2e/yr)

Renewable

energy

production 11

triggered per million Euro funding

(GWh/year)

Primary energy savings triggered per 13

million Euro funding (GWh/year)

Appendix 3: Examples of synergies in the projects and initiatives for environment,

climate and clean energy

Enhancing Energy efficiency to improve the Air Quality in Małopolskie i

Śląskie regions under the 'Poland Catching-Up

Regions' TA programme-

building on the project 'LIFE IP MALOPOLSKIE'

The project 'IP MALOPOLSKIE' funded from LIFE aimed to support the

Małopolskie

region, the neighbouring Śląskie region and adjacent regions in Slovakia and Czech

Republic in the development and implementation of the regional air quality plans and the

regional and local air quality policies. This project provided also 'a mine' of useful

technical and statistical recent data from the surveys conducted in 2016 on number and

218

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

type of individual heating systems based on coal in single family houses, as well as a

thorough analysis of their impact on air pollution and energy consumption

183

The analysis carried out by the project has provided a meaningful input to the initiative

run by DG REGIO in partnership with the World Bank:

Enhancing Energy efficiency to

improve the Air Quality in Małopolskie i Śląskie regions under the Poland

Catching-Up

Regions TA programme.

This initiative is strongly supported by DG ENER for the

potential synergies it can develop with the Smart Finance for Smart Buildings initiative.

Indeed, this large-scale support initiative is designed to deliver its ultimate objective,

which is the improvement of air quality, by carrying out deep renovation of single family

houses in Poland together with incentives for installing cleaner heating sources. This

initiative, designed on the conclusions of the LIFE-funded project, fully applies the

'energy efficiency first' principle. 'IP MALOPOLSKIE' developed also the scientific

evidence of the environmental benefits of the EE Ecodesign legalisation

184

2. Covenant of Mayors

Many local authorities have adopted ambitious sustainable energy strategies and, in many

instances, this was done through voluntary commitments to the Covenant of Mayors, an

initiative launched by the European Commission in 2008. As of today, this successful

initiative counts over 7700 local authorities and 6000 Sustainable Energy Action Plans

submitted. The IEE programme overall supported more than 34 projects focusing on

developing Sustainable Energy Communities across the continent in order to build

institutional capacity at a local and regional level. Projects influenced at least 650 local

authorities to join the Covenant of Mayors and helped to develop more than 500

SEAPs

185

. This support continues to be provided under Horizon 2020- Energy Efficiency

calls focusing on capacity building of local public authorities.

As of 2015 Covenant of Mayors integrated climate & energy policies under one

initiative, which became the “world’s biggest urban climate and energy initiative”

bringing together thousands of local and regional authorities voluntarily committed to

implementing EU climate and energy objectives on their territory.

Future projects and initiatives supporting Covenant of Mayors should aim at

strengthening the synergetic action of energy and climate policies at the local level and

therefore should be provided under a common capacity-building EU framework

programme for energy and climate.

Appendix 4: Synergies of IEE projects and ESIF and ESFI

IEE II and its continuation under Horizon 2020 developed the following links with ESIF

and EFSI funding:

The project "LEMON" (Less Energy More OpportuNities) funded under Horizon

2020/EE/PDA focuses on the energy retrofit of 622 dwellings in the social housing sector

of two regions of Emilia-Romagna to achieve 40% energy savings guaranteed by ESCOs

(Energy Service Companies). The envisaged investment volume amounts to

approximately EUR 15 million. The financing structure involves loans to be repaid, inter

183

Also taking into consideration of the upcoming entering into forces of the Ecodesign regulations for solid fuel

boilers (EU) 2015/1189

Ecodesign for solid fuel boilers (EU) 2015/1189

ICF International (2015) Evaluation of Intelligent Energy Europe Support for Sustainable Energy Communities

184

185

219

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

alia, within the framework of 'Energy Performance Tenancy Agreements' and combines

different financing instruments available at National and Regional level (ERDF funds,

National

financing,

National

incentive

'Conto

termico'

and

loans).

Website: http://www.lemon-project.eu

The project "SUNShINE" (Save your bUildiNg by SavINg Energy) funded under

Horizon 2020/EE/PDA addresses the poor conditions of the around 28 000 multi-family

buildings in Latvia which have a huge untapped energy savings potential. To support

owners in renovating, the project offers a solution by bundling the renovations in 'Energy

Performance Contracts'. The project aims at boosting the ESCO market for deep retrofit

by building a pipeline of 80 refurbished multifamily buildings and establishing a

forfeiting fund in support of ESCOs cash flows. Projects are eligible for ERDF

(European Regional Development Fund) support which reduces the payback time of the

investment

for

deep

refurbishment.

Website: http://sharex.lv/en

The project "Transition Zero" funded under Horizon 2020/EE aims at establishing the

right market conditions for the wide-scale introduction of net zero energy homes across

Europe. It builds on the success of Energiesprong in the Netherlands and intends to kick-

start net-zero energy refurbishment markets in the UK and France, using the social

housing sector as a catalyst. The Energiesprong initiative has also secured EUR 5.4

million of European funding through the Interreg Northwest Europe (NEW) programme,

with a view to further spread concept. The grant will be used in the UK, France,

Luxemburg and the Netherlands to stimulate the market for net-zero energy

refurbishments. Website: http://sharex.lv/en

Energies POSIT’IF was one of the first projects validated under EFSI, along with

Picardie Pass Renovation, both projects were developed through technical assistance

grants provided by IEE II and scaled up by EFSI.

Energies POSIT’IF acts as a one-stop-shop

for deep energy renovation. Just finalised, it

supported the Ile-de-France Region in launching a semi-public Energy Service Company,

Energies POSIT'IF, which developed an all-inclusive "Design-Implement-Operate"

package with guaranteed energy savings and provision of Third Party Finance through

Energy Performance Contracting. The delivered

€37m of investments for the

refurbishment of 8 condominiums comprising 2.000+ dwellings and created nearly 600

jobs. By 2020, Energies POSIT'IF plans to renovate 10,000 dwellings triggering an

investment of €175m.

Energies POSIT'IF was first to benefit

from a €400m support programme for energy

refurbishment in France set up under the European Fund for Strategic Investment (ESFI).

EFSI provided a guarantee for a €100m loan from the European Investment Bank used to

implement the Third Party Finance offer. The project has been a showcase across Europe

and particularly in France where several regions replicated the project's approach.

Website:

http://www.energiespositif.fr

The project MLEI MARTE has supported the set-up of an innovative financial

instrument - Energy and Mobility Fund (EMF) - in the Region of Marche, Italy. The

EMF combines private financing by energy service companies (ESCOs) based on energy

performance contracting (EPC) and public financial resources provided, in particular,

under the Regional Operational Programme of the European Regional Development

Fund 2014-2020 (ROP Marche ERDF 2014-2020

–

Intervention 13.1.1) in the form of

grants by the Managing Authority and further public (budgetary) resources; and soft

220

kom (2018) 0385 - Ingen titel

loans by the revolving Energy and Mobility Fund (EMF) established. At least energy

investments of EUR 10.6 m are documented by signed contracts with ESCOs.

Website:

http://www.marteproject.eu/en

221