13.9.2012   

EN

Official Journal of the European Union

C 277/61

—

given the substantial challenges that exist in this field, would welcome a substantially greater increase in the programme’s budget, whilst recognising that the exact figure cannot be agreed until the Multi-annual Financial Framework negotiations are concluded;

—

supports the new approach of ‘Integrated Projects’, however requests that accessibility and involvement of stakeholders in integrated projects should be more encouraged; that marine environment, soil and noise as priority should be added as further primarily relevant areas of integrated projects; and that appropriate coordination mechanisms of LIFE with other EU funds in the Common Strategic Framework and with Prioritised Action Frameworks (PAFs) for financing Natura 2000 are put in place;

—

believes that the removal of VAT as eligible expenditure is liable to deter many potential applicants from developing a proposal and suggests that VAT is accepted as eligible costs if the beneficiaries can prove that VAT cannot be recovered;

—

recommends that the cost of permanent staff remain eligible, with the condition that it is proven and documented that the staff in question are formally seconded to the activities of the project, on a full- or part-time basis;

—

proposes that the upper rate co-financing rate should be extended to 85 % in less developed regions (as defined in the Structural Funds Regulations) and in the outermost regions;

—

requests that the LIFE programme shall also be open to Overseas Countries and Territories of the EU which are party to the ‘Overseas Association Decision’ (Council Decision 2001/822/EC), which are responsible for much of the EU’s biodiversity.

Rapporteur

Kay TWITCHEN (UK/NI), Member of Essex County Council

Reference document

Proposal for a regulation of the Council and the European Parliament on the establishment of Programme for the Environment and Climate Action (LIFE)

COM(2011) 874 final – 2011/0428 (COD)

1.

reiterates its view that the LIFE programme constitutes an important instrument in helping to fund local and regional environmental policies and projects with a European added value, and has helped mobilise efforts by local and regional authorities. It has also helped to create partnerships, thus strengthening cooperation structures and facilitating the exchange of experience and information at local and regional level;

2.

welcomes the intention to continue LIFE into the new funding period. Believes that this will ensure a more effective intervention, create synergies by coordinating EU and national activities, and increase the visibility of environmental and climate actions;

3.

shares the Commission’s view that environment and climate action should be an integral element of most EU policies. However the main EU funding instruments do not address all environmental and climate specific needs, hence the continuing need for a separate Programme for the Environment and Climate Action, building upon the achievements the LIFE+ Regulation (EC) No 614/2007 for the period 2007-13. Thus it complements the ‘mainstreaming’ approach to achieving environmental and climate objectives across the EU budget, through the financing of environment and climate projects not eligible for funding elsewhere;

4.

notes that evaluation of the existing LIFE programme has highlighted that its impact is limited by a lack of strategic focus. The new programme would therefore introduce a flexible top-down approach, and establish two discrete sub-programmes, covering Environment and Climate Action with clearly identified priorities;

5.

notes the importance in this regard of maintaining enough flexibility in the programme. Prioritisation must not result in excessive restrictions or overly prescriptive criteria. As in the current programme, the key yardstick should be the quality of the projects proposed;

6.

considers that the LIFE Regulation should make specific reference to the need to seek synergies between the different strands, e.g. to ensure that LIFE-funded climate projects have a beneficial effect on biodiversity, and that LIFE-funded environment projects be climate-proofed. Insofar as the Commission has indicated the potential synergies between the two sub-programmes and for projects to benefit multiple objectives, it will be important to ensure that this is achieved;

7.

reiterates its call (1) for the LIFE programme to continue to support communication and information projects, with an increased focus on awareness, including education for sustainable development and promoting projects which involve local and regional authorities. In this context, welcomes the proposed priority area of governance and information in each of the two sub-programmes;

8.

welcomes the proposal that, in order to ensure coherence of the two LIFE sub-programmes, they will be within the framework of one single Multi-annual Work Programme, with one single set of common implementing rules, one single call for proposals, and dealing with them together in the single LIFE Committee, and expresses concern that there should not be divergent procedures and priorities for different sub-programmes;

9.

welcomes that the European Commission has consulted extensively in developing this proposal and has taken into account many views expressed by stakeholders, and by the CoR (2);

10.

welcomes the emphasis given in Article 3 of the proposal to defining indicators for measuring the success of LIFE. Recommends the addition of indicators that measure and promote good governance and communication within every LIFE project. CoR has urged the LIFE programme to foster targeted - and thus more effective - ways of communication and capacity-building activities in each LIFE project;

11.

notes that the proposal excludes in Article 10 market replication-orientated private sector innovation, since it will be covered by Horizon 2020. This allows for LIFE to focus on eco-innovation by local and regional authorities and on finding solutions that are most often best implemented through public–private partnerships. Therefore CoR welcomes the shift to public-sector innovation and the possibility of public-private partnerships;

12.

welcomes that, as requested by the CoR (3), the proposal in Article 11 allows for recurring activities provided that projects operate on the basis of exemplary procedures which can be applied to other regions and that they will be subject to standards for monitoring and communicating results to the public;

13.

believes that support via integrated projects for Prioritised Action Frameworks (PAFs) for financing Natura 2000 will be a key future element under the LIFE’s Biodiversity priority area. The CoR requests that, in keeping with the institutional framework of each Member State, regional authorities should be in charge of developing PAFs and takes note of the recent initiatives launched by the European Commission on financing Natura 2000 (4);

14.

strongly welcomes that LIFE support for environment governance has been strengthened by making it a priority area in the proposed regulation (Article 12). The CoR believes that this will increase visibility of potential governance projects and that local and regional authorities will become important beneficiaries of this new priority area. The CoR has urged LIFE to contribute to the strengthening of local and regional authorities’ administrative capacities and to give an increased focus on awareness, including education for sustainable development and promoting projects which involve LRA and have significant impact at EU level (5);

15.

considers that this priority area should promote knowledge sharing on the implementation and enforcement of EU environmental law by supporting networks, training, and best practice sharing projects, in particular of local and regional authorities active in the field, at European level;

16.

welcomes the creation of a new sub-programme on climate action, which can play a role in promoting low-carbon, resource-efficient and climate-proofed actions and investment. Welcomes this in view of the EU’s international commitments to reducing GHGs in the framework of the Kyoto Protocol and the future global climate agreement to be negotiated by 2015, as well as of the EU’s objectives under the Climate and Energy Package, the Europe 2020 Strategy and the Roadmap for moving to a low carbon economy 2050 (6);

17.

notes however that the proposed budget is a rather small part of the overall LIFE programme (25 %). Thus LIFE Climate has a very limited potential to significantly reduce greenhouse gases. It should therefore promote multiple environmental benefits, such as natural areas, which are essential for ensuring good air quality and display considerable biodiversity (peatlands and forests) or contribute to the creation of green infrastructure, as an integrated approach to maintaining biodiversity and to keeping the repercussions of climate change in check;

18.

welcomes that the main focus of Integrated Projects will be on climate mitigation and adaptation strategies and action plans;

19.

welcomes the objectives listed under the priority area ‘climate governance and information’ (Article 16), and could see a clear role for the CoR in promoting awareness-raising on climate matters;

20.

as indicated in its earlier opinion (7), welcomes the proposal for introducing long-duration ‘Integrated Projects’ on a large territorial scale (in particular regional, multi-regional or national), as a means of addressing a wide variety of issues through a strategic, structured relationship with other EU funding streams. The LIFE projects would continue to have an important catalytic value;

21.

believes that Integrated Projects will improve the implementation of environment and climate policy and their integration into other policies, in application of the principle of multi-level governance, by ensuring a coordinated mobilisation of other EU, national and private funds towards environmental or climate objectives. They will focus on the implementation of environmental and climate plans and strategies on a larger territorial scale than is normally the case in LIFE+;

22.

welcomes that the list of primarily relevant areas for Integrated Projects in Article 18 (d) to a large extent reflects previous recommendations of the CoR (water management, nature and biodiversity conservation, sustainable resource use and waste management). Believes however that marine environment, soil and noise should be added as further primarily relevant areas;

23.

expresses concern that the Integrated Projects may be complex to prepare and manage, especially given the range of deadlines, selection criteria, application procedures and formats, management conditions and reporting arrangements. This will be especially daunting for smaller local authorities, therefore welcomes the technical assistance envisaged in the proposal to help prepare and submit Integrated Projects;

24.

calls for appropriate coordination mechanisms of LIFE with other EU funds in the Common Strategic Framework, in particular within the partnership contracts as provided for by Article 14 of the draft regulation laying down general provisions as well as with the proposed new approach of Community-led local development and Local development strategies for all CSF Funds as provided for by Articles 28 and 29 of the draft regulation laying down general provisions;

25.

expects this new category of larger-scale LIFE projects to include the framework and guidance for development of individual LIFE projects and other projects, including a plan explaining how other EU, national, regional, local and private funding is combined to finance the activities proposed. In certain cases, these projects could be of a longer duration, during which individual related LIFE projects can be developed and implemented;

26.

at the same time, places value on traditional, smaller-scale projects that are accessible to smaller authorities less able to develop an Integrated Project. Accordingly, welcomes that these will still have a place in the new programme and requests that the global budgets allocated to them should not be reduced;

27.

recognises the need for an approximate geographical basis, but considers that this should not be a primary driver that could lead to funding being diverted from essential projects simply to achieve a notional national quota elsewhere. Welcomes the possibility to include neighbouring countries in these projects;

28.

believes that the involvement of stakeholders in integrated projects should be more encouraged;

29.

recognises that the European Commission has sought to respond to the calls in an earlier opinion (8) for greater administrative simplification, including multi-annual programming and the greater use of IT tools. The use of flat rates and lump sums can reduce bureaucracy, and is welcomed. Is concerned however, that the commitment towards simplification is mainly expressed in the broadest of terms as an aspiration in recital 26;

30.

strongly welcomes the introduction of a ‘2 step’ approach for the selection of Integrated Projects, whereby potential applicants can provide a concept note to the Commission for pre-approval, meaning fewer resources are wasted by bidders who are unlikely to be successful. This also corresponds to a CoR recommendation. (9);

31.

welcomes multi-annual work programmes of at least two years’ duration as proposed in Article 24. Believes that these multi-annual work programmes can ensure that LIFE responds to EU priorities in a more strategic and political manner. It asks the Commission to involve local and regional authorities in drafting the work programmes so that they properly reflect practice on the ground;

32.

is however concerned that the possibility of mid-term revision of multi-annual programmes as provided for by Article 24 (3) could lead to unpredictability for beneficiaries. The extent of revision changes should therefore be minimal;

33.

recognises that in the current programme, the performance of national contact points has been variable and in some cases a weakness leading to under-utilisation of national allocations (the CoR has previously called for better training of the national contact points (10));

34.

insists that the examination procedure and the LIFE Committee (Article 29) should operate in a transparent and inclusive manner;

35.

notes that the draft regulation foresees delegated acts on the performance indicators applicable to the specific thematic priorities (Article 3), on the application of the criterion ‘being of Union interest’ (Article 19(1)) and on the application of criteria for the ‘application of geographical balance’ for integrated projects (Article 19(3)). The CoR has taken a critical stand on an increased use of comitology in environmental policy, as it lacks transparency in the EU decision-making and operational process for local and regional authorities (11). Therefore recommends that the European Commission undertakes appropriate consultations with local and regional authorities during its preparatory work for the delegated acts;

36.

recognises that the European Commission has responded to the calls in an earlier opinion (12) for the maximum co-financing rate to be raised from the existing up to 50 % to up to 70 % (rising to up to 80 % for integrated and preparatory projects);

37.

proposes that the upper rate should be extended to 85 % in less developed regions (as defined in the Structural Funds Regulations (13)) and in the outermost regions. These regions are often vital in the objective of halting biodiversity loss;

38.

regrets that the European Commission did not respond to the calls in an earlier opinion (14) that local and regional authorities should continue to be able to count the cost of permanent staff as own resources. The exclusion of permanent staff cost would have fundamental negative impacts on the quality and feasibility of projects especially of smaller governmental and non-governmental organisations, who depend on continuity of permanent staff and their expertise, and whose staff members often work part-time in several projects at a time;

39.

believes that this, together with the removal of VAT as eligible expenditure, as proposed in Article 20, is liable to deter many potential applicants from developing a proposal. It recalls that in other EU funds VAT is accepted as eligible costs if the beneficiaries can prove that VAT cannot be recovered;

40.

notes however, the findings of a study that appear to demonstrate that the effect of the much higher co-financing rates proposed by the Commission will offset the removal of some elements of eligible funding for most projects. Is aware, moreover, that the question of staff time is the cause of much dispute between the Commission auditors and beneficiaries and leads to large sums being recovered by the Commission, sometimes long after the project has been completed;

41.

nevertheless, recommends that the cost of permanent staff remain eligible, with the condition that it is proven and documented that the staff in question are formally seconded to the activities of the project;

42.

notes the proposed increase in budget for the LIFE programme from, EUR 2 100 m to EUR 3 600 m which although being a substantial increase for the Programme, remains comparatively modest at only 0,3 % of the overall EU budget;

43.

however given the substantial challenges that exist in this field, the CoR would welcome a substantially greater increase in this budget. Recognises that the exact figure cannot be agreed until the Multi-annual Financial Framework negotiations are concluded;

44.

although greater coherence and complementarity with other funding streams is welcomed, the financing of the LIFE programme should not impact on those funds (e.g. structural funds);

45.

welcomes that 50 % of the sub-programme Environment is to be devoted to biodiversity, thereby corresponding to a request from the CoR (15);

46.

welcomes the new provision in Article 17 that LIFE can be combined with innovative financial instruments. Considers this to be of particular relevance for the priority area Environment and Resource Efficiency. Reiterates that these tools should only be used in addition to, and not in place of, action grants;

47.

reaffirms that environmental policy is an area where the exercise of competences is shared between the European Union and the Member States. Therefore, the subsidiarity principle applies. Believes however, that since the proposed regulation is essentially a continuation of the LIFE programme which has existed since 1992, there is no need for a thorough evaluation of its compliance with the principle of subsidiarity and proportionality. Subsidiarity and proportionality are reaffirmed in the recital 34 of the draft regulation;

48.

however: