Transcript see slide 13 [and others] of this presentation about the proposal for a

Commission proposal for a new
LIFE Regulation
(2014-2020)
Committee of the Regions
16 February 2012
1. Context: the Multi annual Financial
Framework (June 2011)
• Environment and Climate Action are integral
part of all interventions and instruments.
• However, mainstreaming does not address all
environment and climate needs.
• Thus, the need for a Specific Instrument –
LIFE.
• Specific budgets for Environment and for
Climate Action.
1. The context: Why LIFE?
LIFE is too small to address all needs but
• LIFE is a catalyst: it provides a platform for the
development and exchange of best practices and knowledge
thereby improving, catalysing and accelerating changes;
• LIFE helps creating synergies across EU Funds:
increasing the effectiveness and impact of the EU
intervention;
• LIFE is the ideal instrument to show to regional and
national authorities the benefits of investing in the
environment sector and incentivising them to develop
strategic frameworks for spending.
1. Context: The LIFE instrument
•
The only EU financial instrument specifically
targeting the environment.
•
Since 1992, financed over 3100 projects
contributing to over €2.7 billion to the
protection of the environment.
•
Public authorities and development agencies
are lead beneficiaries in LIFE+ (42% in 20072008).
1. Context: Impact Assessment
• LIFE is a successful instrument.
• EU Action for Environment & Climate is
necessary.
But…
• Better Thematic Prioritisation is needed.
• Further simplification is possible.
• Management can be improved.
1. Context: Stakeholder consultation &
evaluations
The proposal draws on an extensive analysis and broad
consultation with stakeholders (2010-2011):
• 2 conferences (one on Nature and one on
Environment);
• Ex-post evaluation of the LIFE Programme (1996-2006)
and the Mid-term evaluation of the LIFE+ Programme
(2007-2009);
• studies commissioned from external consultants;
• an open online consultation on 'Your Voice in Europe';
• a consultation conducted by the Committee of the
Regions;
• a consultation of the LIFE+ Committee members and
Member States' environmental attachés, and an ad-hoc
stakeholder meeting.
1. Context: Stakeholder consultation &
evaluations
• CoR consultation:
• Targeting local and regional authorities.
• Received a total of 40 responses, mostly from
Spain (11) and Italy (10).
• The most important problem is the lack of
implementation and inadequate integration.
• Need for LIFE to catalyse and leverage change:
specific support to Integrated Projects.
2. Objectives of the LIFE Programme
• LIFE should be used as a catalyst;
• LIFE should promote implementation and
integration of environment and climate
objectives in other policies and Member State
practice, including mainstreaming;
• Emphasis will also be placed on better
governance;
• Specific link to EU priorities: resource
efficiency, biodiversity loss and climate
adaptation and mitigation.
3. Structure
• Creation of two sub-programmes:
• LIFE sub-programme for Environment
• LIFE sub-programme for Climate Action
3. Structure: the sub-programme for
Environment
LIFE sub-programme for Environment: three priority
areas:
• Environment & Resource Efficiency:
• Development, testing and demonstration of
policy approaches, best practices and solutions to
environmental problems;
• Shift focus towards implementation through
Integrated Projects (waste, water, air);
• Includes a specific objective in relation to Resource
efficiency;
• Private sector oriented market-replication
excluded (to be covered under Horizon 2020).
3. Structure: the sub-programme for
Environment
• Biodiversity:
• Focused on Natura2000 (in particular Integrated
Projects to implement Prioritised Action
Frameworks);
• and the implementation of EU Biodiversity Strategy
2020;
• Best practice and demonstration for nature and
biodiversity
• 50% of resources allocated to projects under the subprogramme for Environment.
3. Structure: the sub-programme for
Environment
• Environmental Governance & Information:
• Supports information and awareness raising
projects and activities and facilitates knowledge
sharing;
• Supports cooperation networks, and best practices
for enforcement and compliance;
• Promotes better governance and supports
environmental NGOs.
3. Structure: the Sub-programme for
Climate Action
• Multiannual Financial Framework for 2014-2020
sets out budgetary framework and main
orientations for delivering Europe 2020 strategy
• Climate as integral part of all main instruments
and interventions
 “Mainstreaming”
Commission’s intention to increase the
proportion of climate related expenditure to at
least 20% in the next EU budget (2014-2020)
 Also LIFE should contribute to that goal
3. Structure: the sub-programme for
Climate Action
LIFE sub-programme for Climate
Action
Three priority areas
 Climate Change Mitigation
 Climate Change Adaptation
 Climate Governance and Information
translated into
Specific objectives
3. Structure: the sub-programme
for Climate Action
Priority areas and their objectives:
• Climate Change Mitigation contributes to the reduction of
greenhouse gas emissions
• Climate Change Adaptation supports efforts leading to increased
resilience to climate change
Specific objectives:
 implement and develop Union policy and legislation and
mainstream activities across policy areas
 improving and apply knowledge base in practice
 develop and implement integrated strategies and action plans
 Develop and demonstrate innovative technologies, systems,
methods and instruments for replication, transfer or mainstreaming
3. Structure: the sub-programme for
Climate Action
• LIFE Climate Governance and Information
contributes to raising awareness, communication,
networks, cooperation platforms, raise compliance
and enforcement of legislation, better governance
and dissemination on climate mitigation and
adaptation actions
Example: awareness raising project
currently funded under LIFE+
• A Member State with a large GHG emission, large
renewable energy potential, and in need of adaptation
strategies
• NGO raises awareness of climate impacts
Among leading politicians and businesses
Stimulates initiatives to support practical local climate measures
Network of 220 people, training for 1400 local managers
Pilot low carbon development programme
Mainstreaming of climate action at local level
 Increased knowledge and awareness of climate threats
and of ways to protect the climate.
4. The tools to achieve the objectives:
Types of Funding
• Action Grants, both traditional and larger,
Integrated Projects;
• Operating Grants;
• Other types of funding (e.g., studies,
conferences, etc.);
• Possibility to make contributions to innovative
financial instruments.
4. Types of Funding: Integrated Projects
• Aiming at implementation of plans, programmes or
strategies required by EU environmental or climate legislation
or pursuant to other acts or developed by MS authorities;
• Larger scale, e.g., regional, multiregional, national;
• Primarily in the areas of nature, water, waste, air, climate
mitigation and adaptation;
• They are inclusive: stakeholders should be involved;
• Sustainability will be important as well as mobilisation of
other EU funds;
• Integrated Projects shall ensure geographical balance in line
with the principles of responsibility sharing and solidarity.
4. Types of Funding: Integrated Projects
What do stakeholders think?
• 55% of YVIE respondents supported Integrated Projects.
More specifically:
• 42% support the approach for Natura2000;
• 50% for other sectors such as water, marine and waste;
• Only 16% of respondents were opposed
• CoR
• 85% of the respondents liked the idea of Integrated
Project, appreciating their high added value;
• 74% consider them quite feasible and 21% very feasible;
• Only 5% thought the concept not feasible;
• 45% respondents indicated they will be submitting
Integrated Projects proposals in the future.
4. Proposed targets for Integrated
Projects
• 10% River basin district brought to adequate management
• 12% Regions adequately managing waste
• 10% of EU population benefiting from improved air quality
• 25% habitats targeted by projects improved conservation
status
• 25% species targeted by projects improved conservation status
• 3% ecosystem services restored
• 15% Natura2000 network adequately managed.
4. Examples: IP - Nature
A Region develops a Regional Programme
for Natura2000 covering all 10 sites under its
jurisdiction
It identifies a range of management and
conservation activities.
The region then identifies the financial needs
for the implementation of these activities and
submits a proposal for a LIFE Integrated
Project.
This project clearly specifies the activities or
group of activities among those included in the
programme that will be financed by LIFE
•
e.g. the restoration and connectivity activities,
capacity building, awareness raising.
In addition, it presents evidence on how it will
use other funds (EARDF, ERDF, private) to
implement the complementary measures
•
compensation payments, correction of power
lines, infrastructure etc.
4. Examples: IP Nature
Drafts
Competent
Body
Programme &
Financial plan
Land
purchase
IAS Habitat
restoration
Competent body
submits proposal
for an Integrated
Project under
LIFE covering
specific activities
Education & Monitoring
awareness
Management plans
LIFE
Proposal shows
how other Funds
will be used to
finance
complementary
activities
Species
Conservation
Large
infrastructure
Cohesion
Fund
Agricultural
measures
Others
Training farmers
EARDF
Scientific
studies
Horizon
2020
Risk
management
Recurrent
management
Tourism
promotion
Management bodies
Institutional capacity
ESF
Decontamination
Visitors facilities
National and regional fund, private sector funds
ERDF
Other funds are
mobilised at
national/ regional
level to finance
complementary
activities included
in the plan
4. Examples: IP – Nature
A real example: Combining EU Funds in Laplaand
The aim of this project was to help the five largest protected areas
in central Lapland so that ecotourism and recreational use can be
organised on a sustainable basis.
It combined LIFE (for planning), ERDF for construction of the
tourism infrastructure and national funds (for construction of barns
on the hay meadows)
Lessons learned: the combination of funds
• Provided the opportunity to make environmental objectives more
ambitious without significant additional administrative costs
• Provided confidence in the approach; and it will be used in the
future
4. Examples: IP- Nature
A real example: NATURA 2000 in Slovenia
• Slovenia has developed a national Management Plan for Natura
2000. It is considering the idea of an IP, building on a previous LIFE
project:
• A previous LIFE project led to a transnational co-operation between different
actors and different sectors
• Slovenia is developing legislation to ensure that IP are feasible
• Benefits:
• Combining activities and different funding sources is considered to provide a
real opportunity to bring together economic, social and environmental
objectives leading to enhanced results.
• Practicalities:
• One single regulation and one set of guidelines would be required to cover
administrative and reporting aspects across all funding instruments.
• To ensure IP are feasible it is essential that there is a strong project
design phase with rigorous and detailed preparation which agree priorities
across funding instruments.
4. Examples: IP- Water
A RBD Competent Authority develops a
River Basin Management Plan as per
WFD
The CA submits a proposal for a LIFE IP.
This project clearly specifies the
measures/activities or group of
measures/activities among those included in
the RBMP (and programme of measures)
that will be financed by LIFE
•
e.g. removal of obstacles for river
connectivity to improve fish migration,
development of monitoring methods,
awareness raising, partnerships etc.)
In addition, it presents evidence on how it
will use other available Funds (e.g.ERDF,
EARDF, public, private) to implement the
complementary measures included in the
programme
•
compensations payments,
infrastructure etc.
4. Examples: IP –Air
PM10 control in urban areas PM10 a precursor of IP
• Four Austrian LIFE projects are interconnected and all have PM10
control in urban areas as a main objective.
• Each project has been used as a further step in developing a more holistic
approach and contributing to a long term plan.
• The four projects could theoretically have been combined into a single
IP which drew on several funding sources
• Potential benefits
• The larger project would have greater impacts;
• The project would enable partners from different sectors to work together
and allow a more effective; Combination of different priorities such as
climate change, health and air pollution;
• IP would help to achieve economic development alongside environmental
protection; Greater scope for innovation
• Practicalities:
• The project suggested a two-step application approach
4. Example IP- Climate Mitigation: Integrated Urban plan to reduce GHG Emissions
Funding Examples of individual projects funded under the Integrated Project:
Regional strategy
identifies needs
and objectives and
an action plan
• Competitions on reducing carbon footprint
• Facilitate introduction of low carbon
accounting tools
• Demonstration of innovative energy efficiency
technology
• Refuelling stations for electric cars
• Raising awareness for energy efficiency
• Develop energy efficiency action plan
Cohesion
Research
Life action can be replicated and scaled up through EU instruments
National and regional funds, private sector funds
Coordination
(EC)
Other funds
are mobilised
at national/regional level to finance
comple-mentary
activities included in
the plan
EU Cofunding
Develops a local
or regional
strategy or action
plan with transregional elements.
LIFE co-funding of Integrated
Project
Integrated Project
Governance
Local/regional management and implementation
and supervision of projects
Regional
authority/PPP:
4. Example IP- Climate Adaptation: Sustainable Water Management in Rural Area
Funding
Examples of individual projects funded under the Integrated Project:
Regional strategy
identifies needs
and objectives and
an action plan
• Interregional cooperation to develop and
implement joint flood insurance scheme
• Ecosystem services
• Test new systems to reduce water pollution
• Renaturalise riverbeds
• Bio algae research to improve wastewater
treatment
• Awareness raising of farmers on climate impacts
and resilient crops
• Discourage use of chemical pesticides
and fertilizers
Cohesion
CAP
Research
Life action can be replicated and scaled up through EU instruments
National and regional funds, private sector funds
Coordination
(EC)
Other funds
are mobilised
at national/regional level to finance
comple-mentary
activities included in
the plan
EU Cofunding
Develops a local or
regional strategy
or action plan with
trans-regional
elements.
LIFE co-funding of Integrated
Project
Integrated Project
Governance
Local/regional management and implementation
and supervision of projects
Regional
authority/ PPP:
4. Types of Funding:
Ensuring success of Integrated Projects
• At EU level:
• Ensure better link and coordination with other EU Funds
- Common Strategic Framework
• Simplify selection process for IP: the 2-step approach
• Simplify reporting obligations for IP
• Active dissemination of examples and good practices by
LIFE and in the specific working groups and committees for
the sectors concerned
• Technical assistance for MS facing problems to prepare
an IP
• For Natura2000: LIFE+ is already financing Prioritised
Action Frameworks (PAFs) that will serve as a basis for IP.
4. Types of Funding:
Ensuring success of Integrated Projects
• At National and Regional level:
• Better mainstreaming
• Provide the necessary legislative/institutional
framework to allow the combination of Funds
• Help to promote this proposed new approach
• We need to work together to make it easier at
national or regional level to mobilise various funding
sources to complement LIFE IP.
5. Multi Annual Work Programmes
• Shift from a pure bottom-up approach to a flexible top-down
approach;
• Prepared by the Commission in consultation with the MS.
• These will cover e.g., priorities, allocation of resources between
interventions, and targets for the period – not exhaustive. Closer
links to EU policy priorities and possibility to create critical
mass in specific areas.
• They set priorities for at least 2 years ensuring stability for
potential applicants.
• Priorities are not exhaustive: a proposal may be submitted if it
falls within the priority areas included in the Regulation.
• Limitation: Integrated Projects primarily in areas referred to by
the Regulation.
6. Territorial Scope
Possible participation of Third Countries (as per current
LIFE+).
Possible co-operation with International Organisations
(e.g., international studies such as TEEB).
Activities outside the Union possible in exceptional cases:
• Action outside the EU is indispensable to achieve EU
environmental/climate objectives; or
• To ensure the effectiveness of interventions carried out in the
MS; and
• The coordinating beneficiary is based in the EU.
7. Simplification and complementarity
Lighter Procedures, improved use of IT tools and larger
projects, simplified rules on eligibility of costs.
LIFE+ negative complementarity, whereas LIFE (2014-2020)
proposes a positive complementarity:
• Consistency with other EU priorities;
• Commission and MS shall ensure coordination between
the LIFE Programme and Common Strategic Framework
instruments (EARDF, ERDF, ESF, CF, EMFF), particularly
in the context of Integrated Projects;
• Take up of solutions developed under LIFE (“multiplier
effect”).
7. Simplification and complementarity
Impact of permament staff not eligible
• To compensate
for the loss of these
categories, there is
an increase in the
co-financing rate
(from 50 to 70% to 80% for IPs).
80%
70%
69%
65%
61%
60%
50%
Gain
37%
40%
Neutral
30%
20%
Loose
28%
16% 15%
8%
10%
2%
0%
worst
scenario all
at 70%
best
scenario all
at 80%
scenario
2014-2020
Impact of permanent staff not eligible - n° projects
loosing/type beneficiary
35
30
25
n° projects
• Most problematic
categories of cost
for beneficiaries to
be considered
ineligible (VAT,
permanent staff
costs).
at 70%
20
at 80%
15
10
5
0
se
Re
ch
ar
e
niv
/U
ity
rs
SM
E
O
NG
Lo
la
ca
h
ut
itie
or
t
Na
s
ion
a
al
h
ut
itie
or
s
Ot
r
he
8. A budget for achieving LIFE objectives
• €3.6 billion for 2014-2020
(only 0.3% of EU budget):
160
600
140
557,20
120
390,20
80
300
60
200
100
• The budget has been
calculated in a bottom-up
manner as the minimum to
achieve objectives and
targets.
100
400
40
151
120
8
119
24
29
0
20
0
2014
2015
2016
2017
2018
2019
2020
Years
Trad n. projects
IP n. projects
IP
Trad
Total LIFE
n. projects
700
500
€ million
• €2.7 billion for the subprogramme for
Environment.
• €0.9 billion for the subprogramme for Climate
Action
Progression LIFE Budget and type of projects
(2014-2020)
Thank you for your attention
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/index.htm