The Council adopted the regulation for a second phase (1996-1999), the first having expired on 31 December 1995. The five amendments tabled by Parliament and taken over by the Commission in its revised proposal had all been incorporated into the text of the regulation.

The rapporteur, Mrs MARINUCCI, stated that the appropriations allocated to LIFE should increase from the ECU 400 million for the period 1992-1995 to ECU 800 million for the second phase. The Commission’s proposal of ECU 450 million was unreasonable given the additional weight of the new Member States and inflation. As regards the scope of the programme within the Union, but also within the bordering regions of the Mediterranean and the Baltic, the rapporteur highlighted its transnational scale, demonstrated by the fact that it was due to be opened up to the CEECs. The experience of the first phase showed that it was vital to improve the definition of LIFE’s objectives, priorities and selection criteria in order to facilitate its implementation and avoid disappointing so many applicants. As a result, a new Article 8a was proposed in which the Commission established every two years a reference framework aimed at directing those interested in LIFE towards sectors of particular interest to the Union. In conclusion, the rapporteur regretted the lack of proportion between the paltry appropriations allocated to LIFE and the Structural Funds. It was true that several initiatives in the environmental field were financed under the Structural Funds, but the projects implemented under the LIFE programme set an example, more so than any others. The Commissioner, Mrs Ritt BJERREGAARD, stated that the Commission could take over most of the amendments tabled by the EP at first reading, in particular: - the amendment on preparatory measures (Amendment No 5), - the amendments allowing the CEECs to participate in the LIFE programme on an equal footing with the Member States (Amendments Nos 7 and 28), - the amendment on increasing from 5% to 7% the measures implemented under LIFE concerning the Mediterranean and the Baltic Sea (Amendment No 18), - the amendment aimed at laying down a reference framework for certain measures (Amendment No 22). Only around 10 amendments were rejected, notably the amendments on the budget for the LIFE programme (Amendment No 17), on comitology (Amendment No 32) and on the official reports on the programme (Amendments Nos 1 and 33). In conclusion, Mrs BJERREGAARD stated that every effort should be made to improve the information available on the LIFE project. She also believed that it was important to involve local authorities in the project.

In analysing the proposal to amend the LIFE Regulation, the ESC stressed the critical importance of the following: an adequate level of funding, long-term coherence and conformity with the strategy of sustainable development. It was also important, given the participatory approach and the principle of sharing out responsibilities under the fifth Action Programme, to evaluate the stimulus given to partnership schemes involving socio-economic actors and non-governmental organisations and producing multiplier effects. Areas of activity The ESC was in agreement with the general principle of reducing the number of areas of activity and defining them more carefully, but believed that the Commission’s current choice was too restrictive and did not adequately highlight at least two areas where Community action was necessary and opportune (the prevention and reduction of atmospheric emissions and the protection of soil quality). Project selection criteria The ESC considered that these criteria were spelt out with sufficient clarity. To be effective, however, the priority actions and strategies within each area of activity - which applicants had to take into account and adhere to when preparing their projects - should be clearly defined at an early stage of the annual publication of the invitation to submit applications. Dissemination of information If the aim of the LIFE instrument was to support demonstration projects and projects setting examples for the transfer and dissemination of findings, then strong, on-going action to ensure the dissemination of know-how and information was crucial. Account should also be taken of the need to set in motion systematic procedures for monitoring and checking the progress of projects receiving financial support so that appropriate preventive action could be taken to limit the failure rate. The ESC therefore stressed that the various financial instruments needed to be closely coordinated, with uniform aims, strategies and concrete decisions, so that Community action was not contradictory and did not lead to duplication. Even though its budget was relatively modest, the LIFE programme should play a dynamic role in stimulating and guiding all other environmental funding from a variety of Community instruments.

Pending delivery of Parliament’s opinion the Council carried out a detailed examination of the proposal for a regulation defining the mode of operation of the LIFE financial instrument for a second phase (1996 to 1999) as the first phase ends on 31 December 1995. On the basis of the experience gained since mid-­1992 and in view of the development of the financial instruments, in particular the structural instruments, that has since occurred to the benefit of the environment, the proposal seeks to amend Regulation (EEC) No 1973/92. The Council’s discussion made it possible to define a favourable approach to all the provisions included in the proposal. As regards the financial package for the programme, the amount proposed by the Commission (ECU 450 million) was adopted but it will have to be reviewed in 1997 in the light of the financial prospects and on the basis of the applications made. It should be recalled that LIFE is the only specific Community financial instrument relating to the environment. The Community’s financial support may be granted, through LIFE, to pilot projects or demonstration projects or take the form of technical assistance to non-­member Mediterranean or Baltic countries.

The Committee of the Regions welcomed the Council proposal presented by the Commission to amend the LIFE Regulation and reiterated the need to include the environment in economic spatial development planning in the Community. Measures under LIFE should not go against the principle of concentration, which was a matter for the Structural Funds policy. LIFE should target specific areas of action following simple, transparent procedures. Priority should be given to local projects with a transnational dimension. The Committee estimated that the proposed figure of ECU 450 million fell short of the programme’s ambitions. Concerning the selection criteria, the Committee called for the LIFE information brochure to be readily accessible to applicants and invited the Commission and the Member States to involve the regions and local authorities in the dissemination of information to project partners. Concerning procedure, the Committee considered that the regions and local authorities should participate in the compilation and submission of project proposals in order to reduce effectively the number of projects submitted that were not eligible for financing under LIFE and improve the overall quality of proposals and the transparency of the procedure. Measures to accompany the implementation of the LIFE programme were required for the preparation, analysis or promotion of information in this area. The Committee stressed that representatives of the regional and local authorities should be able to participate in the decision-making process by proposing projects for financial support to the European Commission. LIFE could provide a basis for securing greater cohesion in the actions of Member States with regard to environmental problems and ensure a better balance between environmental policy and the other Community policies.

The Council noted the Commission’s presentation of its proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) amending Council Regulation (EEC) No 1973/92 establishing a financial instrument for the environment (LIFE). The amendments proposed stem from experience of the first three years’ implementation of the instrument. They are designed to make the instrument more effective, having regard to its specific nature, the principle of subsidiarity, greater transparency in procedures and the simplification of administrative burdens. The Council noted the resolve of the incoming Spanish Presidency to expedite examination of the proposal, so that it can be adopted rapidly.