24 Amendments of Gerben-Jan GERBRANDY related to 2018/2597(RSP)
Amendment 9 #
Recital C
C. whereas the mid-term evaluation reports recognises that most projects have yet to begin and few projects have been completed (the average duration of a LIFE project is 4 to 5 years), claimmeaning that a full analysis of the long-term effect of LIFE, as required byunder Article 27 of the LIFE Regulation on Article 15(2) and 9, is premature at this stage; which has led to the fact thatas a consequence the mid-term evaluation has focused mainly on the processes put in place, ongoing activities (such as projects already financed) and, where relevant their anticipated results;
Amendment 13 #
Paragraph 1
1. Stresses that final conclusions cannot be properly drawn as there an insufficient amount of information and data available within the mid-term evaluation report; looks forward to the preparation of an impact assessment on a continued LIFE programme post-2020; Stresses that final conclusions about the implementation of the LIFE programme cannot yet be properly drawn as there is an insufficient amount of information and data available within the mid-term evaluation report; therefore calls on the Commission to continue to regularly monitor and report on the implementation and to inform Parliament about the conclusions; looks forward to a proposal for a continued LIFE programme post-2020 based on an impact assessment and on the lessons drawn from the previous programmes;
Amendment 18 #
Paragraph 1 a (new)
1a. Welcomes the conclusions of the mid-term evaluation showing that based on the available information the LIFE programme is well on track to deliver its objectives, in particular in terms of delivering EU added value, providing value for money, and achieving concrete and measurable environmental impacts;
Amendment 20 #
Paragraph 1 b (new)
1b. Underlines that LIFE is the only programme dedicated specifically to environment and climate action and that it plays an important role in supporting the implementation of Union legislation in these areas;
Amendment 21 #
Paragraph 1 c (new)
1c. Calls on the Commission to propose a new LIFE programme for 2021 onwards specifically dedicated to environment and climate change and building on the long experience of previous LIFE programmes;
Amendment 22 #
Paragraph 1 d (new)
1d. Supports the conclusions of the mid-term evaluation that LIFE can provide a positive contribution to the EU economy by supporting the development of best practices, incentivising sustainable technologies and delivering close-to- market solutions that can be up-scaled; calls on the Commission to keep a continued focus on projects that can be replicated and transferred in order to maximise the EU added value, and to encourage projects that are investment- ready and economically viable;
Amendment 24 #
Paragraph 2
2. Regrets that two Member States share more than a third of the entire LIFE budget for traditional grants for 2014 and 2015, leading to an uneven distribution of funds among Member States and confirming that national allocations arhave not been effective in ensuring a more balanced distribution of projects; Considers it therefore necessary that new,welcomes the phasing out of national allocations in the second multiannual work programme as foreseen by the LIFE Regulation; considers it necessary to develop more effective mechanisms are to ensure a more equitable distribution and greater effectiveness of LIFE funds between Member States aneed to be further developed in order to boost Member States’ capacity to submit more goodhigh quality projects ands well as to provide a better geographical balance of the integrated projects;
Amendment 28 #
Paragraph 3
3. Recognises the importance of the integrated projects, which support the implementation of EU environmental legislation and serve as a catalyst to implement environmental orand climate plans orand strategies at regional, multi- regional or national level. Highlights also the importance of having international projects included in LIFE as environmental and climate issues often have a transboundary dimension. Considers that the scope and number of these projects should be increased in the future and that the Commission should ensure that integrated projects are selected on the basis of merit and should give an equal chance to all applicants;
Amendment 33 #
Paragraph 4 a (new)
4a. Notes that the demand for funding traditional projects is very high, with a ratio of submitted proposals to projects awarded reaching 9 to 1, and that the demand for integrated projects has also significantly exceeded the available resources; believes that this shows the continued relevance of the LIFE programme;
Amendment 39 #
Paragraph 6
6. Agrees with the report that ‘after- LIFE’ plans are a positive improvement and that a systematic follow-up of all projects to identify best practices, cost- saving measures and a comprehensive customised support for the most promising ones could allow the replication/sustainability potential to be further elaboratestrengthened;
Amendment 45 #
Paragraph 8 a (new)
8a. Welcomes the new pilot financial instruments under LIFE but takes note of the challenges highlighted by the mid- term evaluation; encourages the Commission to make further efforts to support the development of these innovative projects as a means of promoting models for sustainable finance;
Amendment 46 #
Paragraph 8 b (new)
8b. Emphasises that one of the strengths of the LIFE programme has always been its flexible structure and the involvement of a range of different stakeholders including SMEs, civil society, universities and national, regional and local authorities; welcomes the conclusion of the mid-term evaluation that these strengths have been maintained and calls on the Commission to further develop and strengthen these aspects in its upcoming proposal for a new LIFE programme after 2020;
Amendment 48 #
Subheading 2
Effectivenessiciency of the programme
Amendment 50 #
Paragraph 9
9. CWelcomes the conclusion that LIFE is significantly less costly to manage than other comparable programmes; however considers that the grant management procedures, in particular the application and reporting processes not only need to be further simplified but also significantly acceleratedand streamlined to reduce the administrative burden of applicants and accelerate the procedures;
Amendment 54 #
Paragraph 9 a (new)
9a. Notes the simplifications to the grant management procedures introduced in the 2018-2020 multiannual work programme, based on the outcome of the mid-term evaluation, and expects the Commission to report to the Parliament about the effects of these revisions;
Amendment 55 #
Paragraph 9 b (new)
9b. Welcomes the conclusion of the mid-term evaluation that the LIFE programme is well managed with a very low error rate; notes that this finding is preliminary and insists on the importance of a continued strict monitoring of funds;
Amendment 56 #
Paragraph 10
10. Calls on the Commission to improve communication about, and the access to, information regarding LIFE programme application and management at the national, regional and local level; encourages the Commission to strengthen the national contact points;
Amendment 61 #
Paragraph 12
12. Regrets that at present the existing monitoring and reporting systems are focused exclusively at the project level, and recognises the importance of increasing the programme performancestrategic focus of the programme in order to strengthen the coherence of the LIFE programme objectives of LIFE;
Amendment 63 #
Subheading 3
Efficiencyectiveness of the programme
Amendment 65 #
Paragraph 13
13. Calls for further evidenceon the Commission to further monitor and report ofn the effectiveness and efficiency of the projects, especially with regard to costs and savings, as they are expected to provide value for moneyusing both qualitative and quantitative indicators, and carefully examining the possibilities for cost savings, with a focus on the delivery of value for money and environmental improvements as set out in Article 3 of the LIFE Regulation;
Amendment 68 #
Paragraph 13 a (new)
13a. Notes that concrete results about the effectiveness of LIFE are not available at this stage; nevertheless welcomes the fact that preliminary analyses indicate that the programme is effective in delivering towards its objectives and that the target milestones are set to be achieved;
Amendment 69 #
Paragraph 13 b (new)
13b. Supports an enhancement of the results-orientation including through a requirement to produce measurable effects on the environment and climate change in all projects under all priority areas; in this regard welcomes the changes included in the 2018-2020 multiannual work programme;
Amendment 70 #
Paragraph 14
14. Underlines that in order to achieve maximum output of the EU financing, a similar project in a same place should not be financed from other EU budgetary sources. Programmes receiving financial assistance under the LIFE Programme shall not receive assistance fromEU added value of LIFE funding, the Commission must ensure complementarity with other EU funds and avoid overlaps with other Union financial instruments;
Amendment 71 #
Paragraph 14 a (new)
14a. Recalls the general need to step up financing for biodiversity and for the Natura 2000 network; underlines that LIFE is the only EU programme investing directly in the protection of natural capital and an important instrument for the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives and the EU biodiversity strategy; calls on the Commission to increase funding within LIFE to these objectives through the sub- programme for Environment and through the integrated projects, as highlighted inter alia in the Commission's Action Plan for nature, people and the economy (COM(2017)198);