The Official Journal of the European Union has announced on the 7th October the publication of the Special Report No 11/2009 ‘The sustainability and the Commission’s management of the LIFE- Nature projects’  of the European Court of Auditors.

LIFE-Nature co-finance s project s in the Member States, mainly in relation to Natura 2000 sites, in favour of the conservation of species and habitats. Such projects should have demonstrative added value and contribute to the dissemination of best practice conservation methods and approaches. LIFE earmarks at least 78 % of its budget of 300 million euro per year to action grants, of which at least 50 % is allocated to projects supporting the conservation of nature and biodiversity. In financial terms it is the most important European funding that is specially dedicated to the environment and is managed directly by the Commission, being an essential tool with regard to the objectives of the environmental policy of the European Union.

What is LIFE?

LIFE is an acronym which stands the European Programme L’Instrument Financier pour l’Environnement,  ie. Financial Instrument for the Environment . The first projects financed by LIFE started in 1992 and continued under the subsequent specific LIFE instrument s through to the third phase (LIFE III ) for 2000-20063. LIFE was split into three thematic components:

• 'LIFE-Nature'
• 'LIFE -Environment'
• 'LIFE-Third Countries'.

Shortcomings

The following shortcomings were highlighted in relation to the different phases of the management of the projects:

• Procedure: imprecise and reduced weight given to the relevant sustainability factors in project scoring for LIFE+ and a lengthy award granting decision-making process.
• Implementation and monitoring of projects: insufficient focus on the projects’ results (outcomes), management contract s and plans, hindering the expected sustainability of project results.
• Dissemination of results: the potential added value of the individual LIFE-Nature projects is not fully realised since the lessons learnt , the best practices identified and the detailed technical/scientific information acquired are not systematically made available to any interested public outside the immediate project neighbourhood (region or country).
• Long-term management of the project results: since in most cases the results (out comes) of the projects financed can only be perceived after final payment on the projects and there is no ex-post follow-up procedure established for assessing the effectiveness of the actions financed, the Commission has little information in this respect. Accordingly, there is a need to establish a set of appropriate indicators for evaluating the results achieved.

Main recommendations

Recommendation 1

1. The Commission should review its selection model on the basis of an opinion by a panel of experts , including a contribution from the European Environment Agency or the European Topic Centre on Biological Diversity, validate it and make it available to all interested parties.
2. The model should prioritise LIFE-Nature project proposals which can give assurance as to the continuity of results. In this respect the Court stresses that it recommends that the Commission should examine whether it would be expedient to separate the management of the ‘Nature’ and ‘Environment’s trands, in view of their intrinsic differences, thus favouring their long term management.
3. Possible ways of shortening the selection procedure should al so be considered, namely by taking into account solutions inspired by other grant schemes, financed from the EU budget and by reviewing the interinstitutional proceedings currently in force.

Recommendation 2

1. The Commission should take the necessary initiatives to improve project monitoring in respect of the results achieved as well as on the safeguards established on the use given to LIFE funded investments and the reality of the implementation of the management contracts and plans.
2. Appropriate indicators and criteria should be developed by the Commission for monitoring project outcomes on the basis of the expertise available namely in the European Environment Agency and in the European Topic Centre.

Recommendation 3

1. The Commission should review its communication strategy, activities and tools, bearing in mind that particular attention should be paid to the dissemination to interested experts of relevant information and lessons learned. The improvement of the search possibilities offered to access information on the LIFE database should al so be considered.
2. Moreover, the beneficiaries should be required to provide more technical details on the methods used, lessons learnt and identified best practices to ensure wider dissemination.

Recommendation 4

1. The grant agreements should commit beneficiaries — and, if appropriate, the national co-financers — to sustaining the project results for a minimum period after the project closure. Compliance with the corresponding contractual obligations should be enforced through appropriate penalties and recoveries.
2. The introduction of a follow-up scheme for the ' after-LIFE funding' should be considered by the Commission, and may require a change in the legal framework.