Committee on Budgetary Control Joint meeting Ordinary meeting Committee on the Environment, Climate and Food Safety
Legend
Transcript markers
- text Sentence being played
- text Search result
- text Intervention cited by the link you opened
Click a sentence to play the video from that moment. Select text to quote it with the speaker, timestamp and link.
More options
CONT European Parliament
Follow its sittingsSpeaker 2
And then I will tell you about the weaknesses in ensuring the sustainability of project results. So, first of all, the project selection. The key point here is that the projects do not necessarily prioritize the member states' most important environmental and climate needs. When selecting projects for funding, those with the highest impact should be prioritized. But this does not always happen.
The Commission has a lot of knowledge about specific issues that the member states are facing, but these are not taken into account when selecting projects. This is a lost opportunity. Secondly, I mentioned the impact of the Life strategic projects. Our second important finding is about knowing how much these projects contribute. Ideally, we should talk about the evaluation of the contribution made by Life strategic projects to the EU's environmental and climate objectives.
However, this is not possible due to the shortcomings in the monitoring and reporting currently in place. Why is that? The indicators used to evaluate the life program are the same for standard projects and for strategic projects. The indicators can be useful to measure the results of standard projects, such as more tangible outputs.
The impact of an area of land, but they...
Do not measure the key objectives of strategic projects. Therefore, we cannot really say how much they contribute. There are other issues as well. For projects that are not completed, expected values are often used. There are two issues with this.
One is that there is no guarantee that these results will actually occur, and the other is that when estimations are mixed with actual results, the numbers are not comparable. But what about the key objectives of Life's strategic projects? Let's talk about additional funding. That sounds like a tangible and measurable thing to consider. Life strategic projects have to mobilize additional funding, and we found that they do.
But what does it actually mean? What counts as additional funding, and how is it measured? Unfortunately, there is no common definition. Each project can follow a different method to report additional funding. Sometimes, even money spent before the project was approved is counted as additional funding.
This means that we cannot trust or compare the amounts reported as additional funding. And the commission says that billions have been mobilized by these projects, but the truth is that we do not actually know how much money we are talking about. The impact of life strategic projects could also be amplified by the sharing of knowledge. Projects can come up with innovative ways to put a plan into practice, and making this fresh knowledge widely accessible could help others. They could get inspired to replicate or adapt the solutions to their needs.
In fact, many projects have their own websites where they share knowledge and solutions. They network and participate in conferences, but few use or promote EU-wide platforms. Actually, many of the project coordinators we talked to were not even aware that these platforms exist. And here, we see a missed opportunity. Then I come to the third point, and the last of the three things I want to emphasize is the shortcomings in ensuring that project outcomes outlive the funding period.
This is what we call the sustainability of the project results. Life strategic projects must have afterlife plans. That is a good thing. The afterlife plans should ensure that project benefits continue after the funding period. Very good.
However, like the issue with the indicators, the approach for afterlife plans does not distinguish between strategic and standard life projects. And it is not always the bodies that prepare the afterlife plans that are responsible for implementing them. This reduces the accountability for actually putting these plans into practice. And, in reality, the commission does not have any real effective means to enforce these plans once the funding ends. So, these were our main findings.
Based on what we found, we make a number of recommendations to the commission. We recommend putting more focus on member state-specific environmental and climate issues when selecting life strategic projects for funding. We also recommend better guidance and reporting on additional funding, as well as promoting EU-wide platforms for more sharing of good practices. And finally, we also recommend that there should be stronger plans to ensure that results last beyond the funding period. The authorities responsible for strategy implementation should be actively involved in developing and implementing afterlife plans.
So that's it for a brief introduction to what we found in our audit. I would like to thank you once again for the invitation and for your interest, and I'm very happy to answer all your questions, which you may have together with the head of task, Milan Schmidt, who accompanied me today for this meeting. Thank you very much.
Speaker 4
Thank you. Thank you so much. From our perspective, this report is highly relevant. The LIFE program is one of the key instruments for environmental and climate action, and this strategic project is intended to support the effective implementation of our objectives at the national and regional levels. Your remarks are important on the monitoring indications, the way the projects are selected at the national level, and, of course, about the legacy of the post-life.
Speaker 3
And so it's important to know also the position of the commission about this first impulse, and I leave the floor to Miss Alexander Vaccao, DG AMVA.
Speaker 5
Thank you very much. First of all, we would like to thank the Court of Auditors for this timely work that they have executed. We believe that this report is very timely and relevant for two main reasons. First of all, as not many strategic projects have been finalized, the commission has not yet done a full evaluation of this type of project. So, we very much welcome the extensive work that the Court of Auditors has done.
And second, as you also mentioned, we are currently discussing the future MFF. We find that the ideas proposed by the court through the recommendations and the areas of improvement identified are giving us valuable tools to implement strategic projects in the future in a better way. We would like to turn to some points raised by the court and underline the following points. First of all, we are very happy with the validation of the concept of the life strategic projects. It gives us more elements to think that this type of life projects are addressing policies, are addressing implementation on the ground, and, above all, they bring a strategic dimension to it.
Speaker 6
These are not small projects. They are projects implemented on a wider scale, with the support of relevant authorities and stakeholders on the ground. They bring this policy mix, and I think, and we think, and I hope also that this is demonstrated by the court's report, that the strong involvement of key stakeholders, the mobilization of additional funding, although we can dispute how much, but also the capacity to ensure continuity of these projects over wider periods, gives us essential elements to demonstrate the effectiveness of these projects and also to demonstrate some long-term impact. With regard to the court's observation on recommendation one, it suggests that the selection process does not take on board member states' important environmental needs, but we consider that the evaluation of a proposal is what it is. And, of course, we will not go and start analyzing and assessing if a national or regional strategy approved by a member state or a regional body is good enough for that.
There are other ways, policies, and forums to do that. These strategies that a strategic project is proposing are already adopted by the member states, and there is no dispute on that. This has been done following the relevant legislation. And, of course, we had identified a point that we do not think that, in the context of an award of a project, an executive agency can do this type of assessment. Considering the complementary funding, we accept the court's recommendations, and we will work to clarify the definition of the additional funding mobilized.
It is because the strategic projects implemented so far have used all programs and funds available. They tried to make the connection. They tried to create synergies. They tried, as I said, to bring stakeholders together in order to also mobilize this additional funding. And we have found out that there are significant differences in the national procedures to access these fundings.
Every member state has different types of programming. So, we will try to bring in some additional criteria. And of course, we fully take on board the recommendation to share good practices and to use standardized European Union platforms to promote the use of these projects and to bring future projects on board. And now, I will turn to Stephanie from DG CLIMA.
Speaker 7
Thank you. Yeah. Allow me to complement what my colleague laid out on two specific aspects. One is the monitoring of the performance at the project level and program levels, where, indeed, we would like to recall that project-level indicators for the strategic projects, like for all life projects, are designed as tailored solutions to complex challenges. And that, for us, by definition, means that there is no one-size-fits-all approach that we can adopt.
But we acknowledge, at the same time, that program-level indicators do.
Capture.
Speaker 7
All project results. However, in our view, this does not affect the robustness of the monitoring and evaluation at the project level, which is carried out by the beneficiaries with the support of the live monitoring team. Indicators related to governance, stakeholder involvement, and capacity building are largely qualitative in nature and cannot be meaningfully aggregated at the program level. This, in our view, leads to an underestimation of life performance at the program level and is an issue that we have been actively trying to address already, including with support from external experts, and we will continue to improve that aspect. With regard to the afterlife plans that you have already referred to, we understand and also share the recommendation of the court because we share the importance of ensuring that the benefits of the strategic projects extend beyond the funding period.
Therefore, we will ask member states to involve the relevant authorities responsible for the plans to the greatest extent possible. At the same time, as is also acknowledged in the court's report, we have to recall that the commission has no legal means to enforce the implementation of these plans, as they take place after the closure of the grant agreement and do not involve additional EU funding. So, in conclusion, the commission wants to reaffirm its strong commitment to implementing the court's recommendations to the best of its ability, in line with the LIFE multi-annual work program, and in close cooperation with the member states through the LIFE Program Committee, as we have done over the past years. And now, we are happy to respond to any questions that you have for the commission. Thank you.
Speaker 4
Thank you so much. So, we move to the counter reporter, Mr. You have 3 minutes.
Jonas Sjöstedt
Thank you so much, Chair. And first of all, I would like to thank Madame Lvinger, as a member of the Court of Auditors, for this very interesting report on the life strategic projects. I'm a member of both the Environment Committee and the Budget Control Committee. And I find this report not only interesting but also very useful because it is concrete and shows a way forward when it comes to this work. First, I think it's important to keep in mind that it's natural for a budget control report to focus on the weaknesses, and of course, that's the job of the Court of Auditors to do that.
But I think one thing has to be clear, and that is also clearly said by Madame Belvinger: this works. These strategic projects do a lot of good, and they meet many targets. And it's an important tool to reach the environmental goals for the European Union in a number of different fields. But I totally agree that with some changes and better follow-up, this could be more efficient, a better use of taxpayers' money, and provide more knowledge about what we actually achieve with what we do. And as has been pointed out here, it's about how we choose the projects and which projects we actually choose.
So it's actually providing maximum benefit to reach the goals. It's about clearer rules regarding the additional financing. So, we have knowledge about how much extra financing there is, from whom, etc. And there has to be a methodology for that. It's about sharing best practices: a lot of information is out there, but it's apparently not used by other projects in a way that could be useful.
And, of course, we have the very complex issue of what happens after life, which we all think about sometimes, and the follow-up of these projects. But I think this core issue study is vital to improve these programs. And I'm also very happy that the Commission clearly states that they are willing to follow all the recommendations from the Court of Auditors. Now, I would like to move on to some questions. First, the court finds that the selection of life strategic projects does not sufficiently take into account Member States' most pressing environmental and climate challenges, and that the geographical balance may dilute the focus on impact.
That's a very important conclusion. And I wonder if you can give some examples of projects that might be good, but it would have been better to choose something else. Something more urgent would have been a better use of taxpayers' money; some would have contributed better to achieving the environmental goals of the Union and of the member states, because I think this is a crucial point. The report also highlights major inconsistencies and a lack of verification regarding their reporting of mobilized additional funding. And, of course, this whole system should be built on catalytic effects, as this is a cooperation between various levels of authorities.
And this, of course, has to do with funding, and you rightly point out the fact that we don't know. We have not enough reporting on the additional funding, so it's hard to measure. But I would just like to add that the effects of this program and of environmental policy, in general, cannot be reduced to an economic issue. The sheer fact that we improve the environment, be it air quality, things that make us more efficient in fighting climate change, or biodiversity, also has a value in itself. And that's the real goal of this.
So, I think it's important. I mean, the Court of Auditors looks at the money, that's fine. But the commission, and we have to also focus on the impact of how we meet the goals of the union's environmental legislation. So I would like to nuance that purpose a little bit. And then we have this big question: what happens after life?
But in the environment committee, we also discuss the future of life. And this, I would say, is one of the most controversial things that we discuss when we see the proposal of the MFF. And if this works, and if we don't know how to improve it, maybe we should not change it too much. Maybe we should just take the conclusions and improve them, because if it's not broken, you don't have to mend it. And I really see a risk with this big reform that they are doing with the new proposal from the MFF, merging all the programs, having a totally new structure, and also with the older budget control aspects that we have, because we have the lessons learned from the RF: we have to have traceability, we have to know where the money is going.
And if you redo everything, you risk being forced to invent the wheel once again. And it might be better just to preserve some things that actually work. A life program with some minor changes and improvements might be one of those things. So, I would like to ask both the Court of Auditors and the Commission: what are the risks of redoing this whole structure? Might we lose projects, structures, and things that we've learned along the way, and have to restart things again, which might actually be less efficient? That being said, both from a general perspective when it comes to how programs are formed, and also from a budgetary control perspective, because there are big differences in the structure of
Jonas Sjöstedt
MFF compared to the present model in terms of the ability of both the Parliament and the Court of Auditors to ensure that the money actually meets the needs it was meant to meet. Those are my questions. Thank you so much, Chair.
Speaker 4
Thank you. Now, we move to the group representatives. We will have 2 minutes each. We start with the current representatives. Let's start with the EPP for Conte Dirk Gottink.
Speaker 10
Thank you, Chair. I like this concept very much, that in Conte, where we mostly look at money and where money is useful, we have the professionals on the policy side who simply join together to discuss the same object. And that is, in this case, a special report. I want to thank the Court of Auditors. We've been working on something in this Cont Committee.
Speaker 9
And actually, we've had the privilege to have access to hundreds of contracts related to life insurance. Although that's my first question. Most of those contracts are not long-lasting. These are eight-year contracts? Or what is the shape of the contract that is then used?
In our discussions about these contracts, we also discussed the role of CINEIA because a lot of this money goes through CINEIA. The role of experts and how you select them. Now I understand that these strategic plans are closely linked to what member states want. To what extent is CINEEA involved, and what is the role of CINEEA in that process exactly? Or is it that they are just rubber-stamping the preference of a member state, or is it a sort of strategic long-term plan of a member state?
Or are they actually doing their own objective evaluation? Because that would lead to what the Court of Auditors is saying: the most optimal project being selected. I would understand. So, with the biggest impact, if CINE were to look only at impact rather than member states' preferences. So, that's one point.
Second is the shape of these contracts, and what we found, at least here, is that—and I'm not talking about a lot of the good stuff that also happens in Member States with Life projects. But there is an element that's about shaping policy, about lobbying, about communicating, about engaging, about being here in this building, having access to, and also influencing the commission. Actually, commission pays money to influence another part of the commission, which is literally sometimes what we run into when looking at some of these projects. How would you describe these strategic projects as different from what we may have had access to in terms of one-year or two-year contracts? And do they also consist of normal operating grants?
So, is the eight-year contract also an operating grant where they simply have a lot of freedom to actually decide what happens afterwards, making it difficult to understand what's actually done with the money? Those are some of the questions I have, Chair. Thank you.
Speaker 12
Miss Elvinger, thank you very much for presenting this special report, first and foremost. And I think, together with other committee members here, that there's a serious shortfall when it comes to transparency. The accusation that farmers should be funded by this is something that many of my constituents are worried about because we're not sure what's going on. And the question is trying to protect livestock products projects and see what is actually implementable and what's being funded through the LIFE program. This is often done without the farmers being on board, which leads to a large extent of dissatisfaction.
It's certainly problematic that money is being spent on providing funding for organizations that don't need to provide much, if any, proof. And yet, when farmers have to claim money that they should have a right to, it is linked to serious amounts of red tape.
Speaker 12
The correct use of taxpayers' money and European funding should surely be essential. So, how do you make sure that this will be guaranteed in the future? Thank you.
Speaker 4
Thank you. Inform us if somebody wants to participate in Catch the Eye. And I leave the floor to S and D, Count Thomas Pelevin.
Thank you.
Speaker 14
You, Mr. President. We are seeing the greatest extinction of living species since an asteroid hit the Earth, killing off most of the dinosaurs. Protecting biodiversity is one of the fundamental objectives of the Life program. Today, 80% of biodiversity is in Europe, here in our outermost regions. Yet, these outermost regions do not appear in your report.
Speaker 13
Like you, I want to use European public money well. So, I have two questions. One is for the commission. Out of the 22 strategic projects that you analyzed, how many concern the outermost regions? Second question: do you think it is still possible to enrich your report by adding a fifth recommendation?
If 80% of our biodiversity is in our outermost regions, to use public money well, we should invest more money in these regions where the biodiversity is. I'd like to finish with a message for my colleagues who are on the other side of the parliament and who say they want to defend the outermost regions. We know that defending the LIFE program means more money going to protect biodiversity, and this will protect the quality of life in our outermost regions. And so, I hope you'll vote to save the life program and that you'll be coherent on this point. The Saving the Life program is a way of protecting the Europeans who live in these outermost regions.
Thank you.
Speaker 15
I think it's important to read the report carefully because its content is very clear. What does it say? The life strategic programs work, and they work very well. The report recognizes that the programs facilitate and help member states to implement environmental and climate programs that help them to mobilize additional financing, involve stakeholders, and something else very important. It says that they guarantee continuity and financial stability over 8 years.
So these projects outlive changes of governments, and this is what we need to apply all the European legislation, but particularly legislation that needs to be implemented in the long term, like environmental legislation. What other improvements are needed? Yes. We need to select programs better, for example. Yes.
Speaker 16
But none of this actually calls into question the value of the instrument; on the contrary. In fact, it shows that it works and that it has to be strengthened, not weakened. We don't want to see these attacks, climate negotiationists. We see the right, the extreme right, doing this. We get these attacks.
Speaker 15
So, what we need is more of this life program. So if we want environmental legislation to continue and be strengthened, we need these instruments that are long-term, that are predictable, and that's exactly what life is. So I would ask that the next, the future MFF, continues to have the LIFE program as an autonomous and strengthened program within the MFF because that is what we need. Thank you very much, Chair.
Speaker 4
We move to the ECR. I don't have a question from Con. Sorry. From. I don't have a care; we don't have a request from Con, but from MV, mister.
I will get a call.
I didn't know.
Speaker 18
It's not a case of being against NGOs, but of being pro-transparency and pro-concrete results for the environment. The 7,400,000,000 euros paid to the NGOs, actually, the total of that could be much higher. The concentration is concerning around 4,000 NGOs financed. A small number of them took up a large part of the funding, and their identity wasn't communicated to us. Apparently, certain contracts were reviewed, but in most cases, the contracts had already finished and the NGOs didn't actually respond.
Speaker 17
Too often, this control relies on self-declarations, so we demand that traceability is improved and that financing lobbying is prohibited.
Speaker 19
Thank you, Chair. I'll speak Spanish. I'd like to summarize what I've heard and read. Thousands of millions say the commission would have been mobilized through additional financing, but the Court of Auditors can't verify this. The methodology established to calculate the money taken in is defective when we can't verify the projects or the achievement of climatic objectives.
Think.
Speaker 20
My colleagues don't seem to care about this for ideological reasons. If one of our member states were a business and it got a grant, and we can identify where that money came from or what was done with that money, then immediately our national courts or auditors would issue recommendations and would ask the authorities to start processes against these companies. The money has to be given back. Yet all of this seems okay to you for ideological reasons, but we need to check it. If we can identify the money. We have to check this.
Is there traceability? And, of course, we need to ensure the objectives are being met. But for you, this seems irrelevant. The Court of Auditors has also said that there's no mention in the report about the lack of transparency in the well-known scandal about the financing of lobbies. And this was used to change the votes of members in the parliament.
So this program, life, it doesn't work. I think this is what we are saying. The Court of Auditors itself has issued recommendations on this point. And I think that the worst thing that the members can do for our taxpayers is to continue doing whatever we want with this money. And I think that my colleagues here who are laughing from the Socialist Party, I think that's what they want to continue doing.
Thank you.
Speaker 4
Thank you. We move to ECR. I have a request only from the MV side: Anna Zelenska.
Speaker 21
I would suggest that we look at this carefully. Here, we're talking about a program which is 30 years old, and the Court of Auditors has said that there are improvements that can be made. But, for thirty years, we've been told that there's no way of actually checking this program. We can't check if it's sustainable or follow through. Obviously, perhaps it shouldn't be quite so complicated when we're talking about the environment.
It's impossible to check where funds are being transferred to. Now, secondly, the Court of Auditors has also set things out quite delicately. Perhaps they could have been a bit stronger, and the commission said that they will implement these recommendations. But for years and years, they haven't been implemented. But what do citizens actually want?
That's what we should be looking at. And journalists have been highlighting key points for months now. We've been hearing about money laundering and illegal activity as well. We've been hearing that money is not being used for what it is supposed to be used for. Know that monies that have been allocated for certain purposes are not being used for those purposes.
Obviously, in the NFF, this program may disappear. If it's so difficult to control this program, then we can say this costs x amount, and people can say that it's sustainable. But you know, we need to look at the reality that this is not an easy situation. We need not to fall into ideological traps. We need to make sure that we have major challenges here, and obviously, we need to support biodiversity as we continue this.
Michel Lovisek.
Speaker 24
Thank you very much for the floor and for this meeting. Dear colleagues, let us be very clear from the outset. Despite what we hear from ECR and Patriots, the report of the European Court of Auditors does not put into question the environmental impact of these strategic projects. As such, it does not conclude that the life program fails to protect nature; quite the contrary. What it highlights is actually a familiar problem that we see all around the projects that are being financed by the European Union.
Speaker 25
If one would mention one that is really very pronounced in this pattern, it's actually the common agriculture policy, but a huge amount of money is being spent without any measurable outcomes or very few measurable outcomes. So, as I mentioned, the problem is very familiar and widespread, and it's the weakness in the monitoring, reporting, and verification framework. The auditors themselves recognize that live strategic projects help bridge the gap between strategy and implementation and support member states in delivering the EU environmental and climate objectives. That is very clear. And this is really the European added value in practice.
Speaker 24
And in this regard, I really consider the life project to be a huge success story, very cheap and very effective in that regard. The core question for us in the con committee, but also in the envy committee, is not whether life works. It is whether the current results-based act architecture allows us to demonstrate convincingly how well it actually works. And that is really a story to be told. And here, we must also look at ourselves, the members of this very house.
Speaker 25
This is not solely a commission issue. As legislators, we have repeatedly endorsed ambitious performance-based models without always ensuring that indicators are measurable, harmonized, and proportionate. We saw this challenge in the Recovery and Resilience Facility, and we risk repeating it in the next multiannual financial framework. In renewal, that's why we have already started this transition within the new MMF to ensure EU money is spent in areas with real results. But as you all know for sure, it is a very long and thorny road to go.
Speaker 24
I can tell you that. And maybe to echo on life itself, I very much agree that it is a very effective, well-established, and successful program in that sense. And on behalf of the next MFF, I would definitely advise that it is not wise to change a winning team. So let's stick to the LIFE program because it's really a very good platform for protecting nature and climate, and it's also very well welcomed by the public. Thank you very much.
Speaker 26
Thank you very much, sir. Well, one more thing: the extreme right is pro-life, and they're not. And equally, you know, it's very clear that there is ideology on their side and a lack of comprehension in terms of reading. Because, yes, the major conclusion is, and we heard it in the first words from the Court of Auditors, life works. The specific strategic part of the audit includes strategic projects, work, and deliverables.
And I have to say, seeing the beneficiary in Spain looking at the strategic project on cross-border, which is, honestly, public authorities, not NGOs, dear colleague, you know, €11,897,000 going to the public authorities from the cross-border life project in the Pyrenees, delivering the results. Since when are public authorities NGOs? So you can deduct this from that. There are millions going to public authorities, millions going to companies. And I think this is something which we have talked about. Equally, the project in Poland on the Podkarpacie Voivodeship, which is actually about protecting life, like the real lives of people who are dying from air pollution and addressing energy poverty.
Maybe that's not what the ECR, at least to be specific, cares about; it's more about having some of its former ministers seeking asylum with Orban because of corruption proceedings, talking about corruption and transparency. Now, I have to say that, for me, the findings of the audit are something really important. And as colleague Giesig said, I see there's something which is a broader cross-cutting recommendation because we should indeed be better in looking at how we follow up. There are certain limits there because, honestly, the follow-up on the EUR 700,000,000,000 of the RFF is something which is equally limited. Having visited recently, discussions in the Court of Auditors are going to be a challenge for us in the EU. The follow-up on the funding to companies and agriculture everywhere is a challenge.
And we should look at it, but at the same time, we should not create massive red tape because simplification is the order of the day. So, we have to actually choose and find the right balance, which is not going to be easy. And last but not least, the farmers. I have to say that the colleagues from EPP left, but this is something where indeed the structural projects, because this is what we're talking about, from LIFE are helping, for example, in the Netherlands to protect the precious water that the farmers are missing. And this is something which is fundamental equally in Slovakia: protection from the carnivores is thanks to LIFE and helping the farmers.
And to conclude, I could not resist. I'm sorry. As Opus said, life is life. No. No.
No. No. Thank you.
Speaker 28
Yeah. Thank you so much, and thank you also for presenting the report. And this very funny debate, that, no surprise, turned again into an anti-NGO debate. And there, I have a question for the far right. I don't quite understand why you are so afraid of NGOs, even if it's not the topic here, but maybe we can stay with the facts, and that's quite a good beginning.
Speaker 29
We have to talk about biodiversity. We have to talk about the situation we are in at the moment in Europe, but also worldwide. And when we have to protect our own land, our own country, and the European Union, that maybe should also be in your own interest. But okay. If it is not, everything has been said on that.
Speaker 28
And then we talk about, and my colleague Martin Huysik just said it, the resources we all need. We talk about issues that are much broader than just wetlands. It is a matter of public health. It is a matter that is also tackled by public authorities and companies, as he said, and I think we should be very clear. And I want to be very clear.
We need a strong life program. We need to secure the life program, and I'm very thankful to have all the funding here that you were just telling us, because one thing is clear. In times like these, where nature protection is constantly under attack from the far right, we need to make sure that this stays on the agenda. And for whom? For the citizens of Europe and also for the next generations, for the farmers, for the real people living here, and not just debating in this room and trying to make a populist move as you do.
And I really, as a young woman sitting here, can't hear it anymore, but maybe let's go back to the live program. I think what's also good are the recommendations you gave, and I'm very happy to hear from the commission side that you also agree with them. I think talking about afterlife plans is quite clever, a platform for sharing projects that are useful. I think that's also something we can look into. There are so many good examples where life money really affected Europe in a very good way.
And therefore, I think also discussing the MFF and how we can secure funding, there is something we all need to do in this room, and that's fighting for nature protection, fighting for life. So, I also have a question for you, Mrs. Elvinger. What would your suggestion be to foster the positive impact in the coming MFF, and how to best tackle your recommendations in a standalone LIFE program for the next MFF? Because one thing is clear: this will still be something we need to secure. Thank you so much for being here today.
Jonas Sjöstedt
Thank you, Chair. When I listen to the right and the far right, I get the impression that they care more about attacking NGOs than about the environment. And I think there is also a fundamental misunderstanding here. This report is not about the life program in general. This is about the strategic part of it, which is actually a minor part of the LIFE program.
And I think you're mixing things up a bit here about what money is used for. And ECA has actually made a special report on NGOs as well, and they found nothing. I mean, the NGOs haven't issued a single euro as much as I. But if you read a report from ECA, they made recommendations to the commissions about how to cooperate with NGOs, but that's a different story. We were working on it in the body control committee. We have made reports about it, and there is nothing there. There's no smoking gun.
This is a political campaign against NGOs. So, instead of speaking about the actual topic, you speak about something entirely else. And look who's talking. I mean, sentenced in court for misuse of the European Parliament's funds. Again, returning to court for misuse of the group money.
And a number of other parties inside the Patriots are also now under investigation for embezzling the European Parliament's money. You have to point fingers at NGOs that have done nothing wrong. You cannot prove the misuse of a single euro, but you yourself end up in court for misusing EU money. I think you should discuss something else.
Speaker 4
Thank you. I don't have any request from the ESN. We have two requests for. We start with the Sanders Mitte from APP.
Speaker 30
I'll speak in English, I think, because there's no Dutch interpretation provided. Dear Ms. Elfinger, the EU spends more than €1,000,000 on strategic life projects for nature and climate. You would expect us to know whether that money is working. Yet, the Court of Audit concludes in paragraph 52 that, more than 11 years after strategic projects were introduced, the monitoring and reporting system still fails to accurately reflect the contribution they make to the EU's environmental and climate objectives.
Thirty-three years ago, we saw a similar statement that there should be more attention to the definite effects of the programs and actions. So I really do want a reflection from the court on how you assess it after eleven years and after 32 years of life fund. Still, these effects are not really clear and cannot be accurately reflected in their contribution. And what are your expectations regarding the new MFF? And finally, we had an objection here in the ENVY committee, at least on the transparency and guarantee clause to prevent violation of the trias politica or the inter-institutional balance.
How does the court see this? Do you think that a future working program of the Life Fund should contain guarantees regarding transparency and assurances that introducing balance is not violated? Because the commission actually admitted, in a declaration at the beginning of this year, that undue lobbying activities were financed. This is a statement from the European Commission. There was a DG Klima official refusing to read it out, but the statement was adopted by the College of Commissioners.
So, do you agree with the Commission and with me that we should, at least in the next working program, have a transparency clause and a clause preventing abuse for lobbying activities directed towards us as members of the European Parliament? Thank you very much.
Friese.
Speaker 31
Thank you, and I welcome this debate on an important report since it underlines one thing very clearly. And I think that these measures deserve to be repeated because apparently not everyone in the room seems to have caught on to this point. The life program works. And yes, the ECA identifies operational challenges with strategic projects, particularly in monitoring and guidance. But let's be clear: the report does not question the value of life.
Quite contrary, it confirms that life strategic projects are essential. They prove how member states implement environmental law. They bring the stakeholders together. They mobilize additional funding, and they provide something that is very crucial and that environmental policy desperately needs right now: stability and continuity. Environmental legislation only matters if it's implemented on the ground, and the real political takeaway from this report should not be to weaken it.
It's the opposite. It should be that predictable, dedicated, long-term funding is indispensable. As we approach the next MFF, I think it's important not to undermine this, colleagues. I think it's very important that Europe needs and should value a strong standalone life program to help the member states deliver on the environmental commitments that we have collectively agreed on politically. I think ECA has shown us how we can improve life, and now it's our political responsibility to protect it, to value it, and to strengthen it.
Speaker 14
I've been listening to our debate. I'm a bit disappointed, to be honest. Maybe just to refer to the three interventions by the PFE and the BBB speakers. We are not talking about the live program in general today. We are not talking about NGO advocacy funding.
Speaker 32
We're talking about strategic projects, which you would know if you had just taken the time, not even to read, just to skim through the bloody report and look at figure two. There is a drawing explaining it. There is a drawing, sir, that explains what we are talking about. So, of course, the ECA projects, because they focus on governance and the softer dimension, the governance dimension, are more difficult to assess. And I say that as a former researcher who was involved in similar work on non-life-related elements.
So, I think it would be good for the next time that we have discussions that we all collectively make an effort to ensure our discussions are a bit more informed than they were today.
Speaker 4
Thank you. Now it's time to reply. We start with Mrs. Joel Elbinga. 5 minutes.
Speaker 2
Yes. Thank you very much for your interest and for all your questions. I mean, it was just said by Mr. Pelerin Carlinck: Actually, yes, it's true that here we did not audit the Life program as such, but we really audited strategic projects, which is a very specific instrument funded by Life and which accounts for 20% of the envelope, both in 2014-2020 as well as for the 2021-2027 period. And also, as regards all the questions on the NGOs, the NGOs were not focused on, were not part of our audit, and they were not included.
But I can nevertheless do some publicity for our ECA special report No. 11 of 2025 on the transparency of EU funding granted to NGOs. Despite progress, the overview is still not reliable. It's a report which was published on April 25, and where we focused on the effectiveness of the Commission's implementing bodies and member states' assessment of the transparency requirements for the NGOs receiving EU funds, as well as the reliability and completeness of related financial data. So then, there were some comments and statements as well on the next MFF. I mean, by definition, Nordic is looking into the past and not into the future.
So I'm here not in a position to make political statements, but I need to focus on our audit. And here, we actually assessed the life strategic projects from 2014 until 2025. And we aim to formulate the recommendations in such a way that they could be relevant as well in the next MFF, should the concept of life strategic projects continue post-2027, which we don't know yet. And it's not up to us at the ECA to decide this. Then there were also questions on the outermost regions.
I mean, in this audit, we visited Spain, Poland, and Finland to perform detailed reviews of 22 projects, and we talked to the national contact points. All three selected member states actually have a very high number of projects. We also wanted to have a balanced sample of projects across different EU member states and across different LIFE sub-programs, for instance, on nature, environment, and climate, as well as the various strategy levels: national, regional, or local, and the stages of implementation and maturity. So that's the reason why we selected those three member states: Spain, Poland, and Finland. Then, yeah, actually, as regards this, the audit found that the selection process does not systematically assess the objectives of the underlying strategies against the known environmental issues or infringement procedures.
Consequently, the funding is also not always directed towards the most impactful projects. And it's also true that it's not always the right structure or the right people running the projects. And the audit sample: actually, six out of the 22 projects were not coordinated by the entity that was in charge of the underlying strategy, which means that we are missing the natural link between the projects, activities, and the actual long-term implementation of the strategy. Furthermore, I think there was a question on how much Life strategic projects contribute to the implementation of the underlying plans and strategy, which is currently impossible to say because the monitoring and reporting systems are inadequate. These projects use the same indicators as the standard Life projects, which track physical outputs like land area but fail to capture the strategic achievements in the government's stakeholder involvement or capacity building. And it is also currently not possible to precisely determine how much the LIFE strategic projects contribute to EU environmental and climate objectives because the overall impact remains unclear.
And the assessment is further hindered by reliance on the unified forecast and unreliable reporting of mobilized funding rather than on actual results, meaning that the true added value of these projects is not accurately captured. Yeah. I think, I hope, yeah. There was a question as well regarding the shape of the contract. The length is generally between 6 and 10 years.
The role of senior, I would maybe leave the question to the commission, as well as the shape of the contracts. And yes, maybe as a conclusion, I would just like to thank you and sum up. We would like to repeat our main message that LIFE strategic projects are an effective tool to support member states in implementing strategies to face environmental and climate challenges, but the impact and usefulness of LIFE strategic projects can be even greater if more focus is put on the specific environmental and climate issues that member states are facing, with stronger plans for ensuring the sustainability of the project's results. And if anybody has different questions or if I did not reply to all the questions, I'm happy to discuss them separately also after the meeting. But I think my 5 minutes are over.
Speaker 6
Thank you. I would like, first of all, to indicate that there have been two different discussions here. We heard about the strategic projects, which are the core of our discussion, and there have been a lot of interventions about NGO funding, which is a different opportunity of life grants inside the life regulation, a regulation that allows for both of these distinct types of life projects. The strategic projects are not operating grants. They are action grants.
So the beneficiaries are getting money, to which they are also adding additional resources to implement the strategies on the ground. Strategy on air quality, strategy on water management, strategy on biodiversity protection, strategy for climate mitigation, and climate adaptation. And we have quite a lot of big projects like that. They have a longer horizon. They have been running for between 6 and 8 years.
Some of them continue running. And, of course, they continue reporting. 20% of the life funds are devoted to strategic projects, which have been developed over the years at the request of the member states. The member states' representatives in the LIFE program committee have asked for this type of project because they are giving them the opportunity to have bigger programs on the ground to implement a specific strategy. The moment that climate and environmental policy came up with the request to construct and implement plans to address these policies. NGO operating grants have a totally different philosophy: annual grants get only 2% of the available life envelope.
The CNEA agency is an executive agency. As you know, in the last two MFFs, the Commission has established executive agencies in order to help the Commission implement all these programs and funds. So practically, he is the administrator of these calls. They facilitate the selection. They are monitoring the programs thereafter.
And they do not select the projects, nor do they say what policy will be implemented on the ground. The projects are awarded according to the quality of the proposals. We can have good proposals. We can have some countries with more proposals than others. We can have countries proposing things in one area, and others proposing in other areas.
I'm coming a little bit here on the element of why we do not have strategic projects from the outermost regions. Simply, it has not happened. I don't. We have only one or two. But we also have life support for outermost regions, particularly through a grant called BEST. The European Parliament has started some initiatives with some BEST projects, and then we continue with that in the new regulation.
There is a specific article requesting the commission to set in place these projects to help outermost regions with a tailor-made approach according to their specificities. The strategic projects have success because, as I said, they bring up a lot of beneficiaries. So they are not grants given to NGOs, as we heard. In the report, you can see that the projects analyzed have between 10 and 18 beneficiaries, something like that. We can sometimes see even more.
And it means that the governance there is working because all the people are coming together, whether as the responsible organization or other authorities, maybe working at the regional or local level, to bring all these elements on board. And for sure, when the project is being implemented in Moncton, full and sound financial monitoring is taking place, and only eligible costs for the actions executed are being paid. There is a full audit trail, and all these things are documented. What else? We are trying to enhance our transparency efforts.
We have taken note not only of the recommendation of this report. We will try to emphasize the best practices. We will try to promote through platforms the appropriate projects that are good promoters of the policies on the ground. We will try to share experiences between different member states. But importantly, through the report on NGO transparency, we will try to improve, with a focus on the new MFF, how communication of such information about the financial support of the Commission is given and how it is accessible to the public.
So I will try to focus on the four things that we plan to do. So, yes, we have to work on the indicators to be able to report better and to capture the impacts. Yes. Also, we will try to work more on the promotion of best practices and on communicating the information. We will continue working with the member states because the strategic projects are the ones that help the member states implement their policy and European legislation.
And, of course, yes, we can do better, and we are closely looking forward to implementing the recommendations that we have accepted and also looking forward to seeing what will come up from the discussions, the inter-institutional discussion. The discussion is in her hands on the MFF and how we will further develop the best experience that we can accommodate from the life strategic projects. Thank you very much.
Speaker 4
Thank you. Thank you to Mrs. Elvinga. Thank you to the commission representatives and all the colleagues for this debate. We will go on for the AMV members tomorrow morning. Thank you.
Ask anything about this video — I analyse its transcript to answer.