It is unclear if strategic projects funded by EU’s LIFE programme have contributed to building a greener Europe, according to a new audit report published on Thursday by the European Court of Auditors (ECA).
The LIFE programme, founded in 1992, provided €701 million for 70 strategic projects in the 2014-2020 budget period and €436 million to 25 projects in next period.
The projects were designed to help EU Member States to implement environmental and climate plans and strategies by involving key stakeholders, mobilising additional funding, and spanning multiple political cycles.
The ECA published its first report on the LIFE programme 12 years ago. In this follow-up audit, the auditors examined 22 strategic projects out of the 95 funded by LIFE as of April 2025.
The projects aimed to help the EU “to bridge the gap between strategy and implementation”. They are expected to mobilise additional funding from at least one other EU, national or private fund.
While all 22 projects in the audit sample engaged in this activity, the auditors concluded that the lack of clear guidance on what qualifies as “mobilised funding” makes it impossible to assess how the additional funding that is mobilised contributes to strategy implementation. Furthermore, there was no standard methodology for tracking additional funding.
The auditors also found that projects do not always address the most important environmental or climate needs known to be facing Member States, thus potentially limiting benefits for the countries and regions they target.
The report further highlights that lessons learned and good practices are rarely shared on EU-wide platforms, reducing opportunities for replication and broader impact.
Who is responsible for the shortcomings found in the audit?
“Contrary to EU’s structural funds, where management is shared by the European Commission and the Member States, the LIFE programme is directly managed by the Commission together with one of its executive agencies (CINEA),” a senior ECA auditor leading the audit assignment told The Brussels Times. “All our recommendations are addressed to the Commission.”
The auditors recommend the Commission to ensure that projects are more closely aligned with the specific environmental and climate needs of the Member States, to provide clearer guidance on mobilising additional funding, and to promote the use of EU-wide platforms for sharing good practices. The stakeholders should also ensure that projects continue to deliver results beyond the funding period.
In its reply, the Commission accepted all ECA’s recommendations. Regarding the mobilisation of additional funding, the Commission disagreed with the findings in the report and asserted that the strategic projects had achieved successful results and demonstrated an even greater capacity by securing multiple funding streams.
Is EU funding conditional on national co-financing?
The lead auditor confirmed that the EU funding is conditional on national public or private funding. “The EU co-financing is usually 60%, so the member states need to provide own funding to cover up the remaining part”. The report does not include any breakdown of additional funds mobilised by the projects in the sample.
Before any EU funding is granted, the project proposals are evaluated. Were the projects also evaluated or audited during and after implementation?
“During the implementation phase, LIFE strategic projects need to submit interim implementation reports and final implementation report once fully implemented. Interim implementation reports are submitted by LIFE strategic projects usually every 3-4 years and are reviewed by CINEA.”
Did ECA’s assessment of the projects differ by Member State?
“Our sample of 22 LIFE strategic projects came from a number of Member States; sometimes only one project from a given Member State. So, while the assessment of all the sampled projects allowed us to conclude on the concept overall, it was not really meant to conclude on country level.”
That said, the auditors observed that the approach to the concept of LIFE strategic projects differed by country. Asked to highlight best practice, they mentioned Finland. This Member State applied a more structured approach and drafted a road map of which environmental and climate strategies should be supported by LIFE strategic projects and when.
Has there been any improvement since the previous audit?
“We have to bear in mind that our previous audit covered the environmental component of the entire LIFE programme. The concept of LIFE strategic projects did not exist then. Our current audit focused on LIFE strategic projects only but across multiple components covering for instance also climate and nature.”
“From what we can say in our new audit, weaknesses remain in the selection process which may not take into account Member States’ most important environmental and climate needs, the way strategic projects report on mobilising additional funding and how they are disseminated on EU-wide platforms.”
“During the audit, numerous topics were discussed with the Commission, and we engaged in our usual in-depth exchanges,” the lead auditor added. “The audit report contains recommendations derived from the findings in the audit. It is now the Commission’s responsibility to implement these recommendations within the specified deadlines.”
As previously reported, the Commission presented last July the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2028 – 2034. The new budget differs from previous ones as regards how it is designed and how the money will be spent. Among others, the number of stand-alone programmes will be reduced and merged into broader funds.
Asked how this will affect the LIFE programme, a Commission spokesperson replied that the programme has been integrated into the Competitiveness Fund and the National and Regional Partnership Plans. The objectives and actions previously financed by LIFE will continue to be funded through these two funds.
