Italy and three other EU countries are calling for the LIFE programme to be safeguarded in the next budget

Brussels – Merging the  LIFE programme, the European Union’s financial instrument for the environment and climate, into broader budget expenditure headings could result in a loss of visibility, funding, and on-the-ground action. In short, there is a risk of subordinating “environmental objectives to other priorities.” This is the point that Italy, Austria, Luxembourg, and Spain (together with their respective regional governments and autonomous communities) will raise tomorrow (25 June) at the meeting of the European Union’s Environment Council to be held in Luxembourg. There are two main concerns: on the one hand, the funding allocations set out in the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) for 2028–2034; on the other, the integration of the programme into broader sections of the European Union budget. 

The four countries will therefore call for a discussion on the continuation of the LIFE programme in the future MFF for 2028–2034 and on the structure of the EU’s financial instruments “to ensure the effective implementation of environmental policy,” in the areas of biodiversity and nature restoration. The funding initially earmarked in the 2028–2034 MFF “is lower than the current levels,” and this takes account of “the diversity of perspectives regarding its design, funding, and coordination with other programmes.” Furthermore, in the debate on the EU’s next multiannual financial framework, “there is a clear risk that specialised instruments and environmental ambition will be weakened” because “the proposal to integrate the LIFE programme into broader financial frameworks, such as the European Competitiveness Fund, could lead to a loss of visibility, specific funding and the capacity for effective implementation on the ground, subordinating environmental objectives to other priorities,” the four countries state in a joint document. 

According to the four countries, the EU is facing “a threefold environmental crisis”—biodiversity loss, climate change, and pollution—which directly affects both the well-being of its citizens and the sustainability of its economic model. Initially, Brussels had shown itself to be ambitious, promoting financial instruments capable of translating objectives into concrete results. These included, for example, the European Green Deal, that is, the package of strategic initiatives that set the EU on the path to a green transition, with the ultimate aim of achieving climate neutrality by 2050. 

The LIFE programme has also proved to be “a key instrument for the effective implementation of the Union’s environmental and climate policy.” Since its creation in 1992, the regulation has “co-financed over 6,000 projects and mobilised more than €12 billion,” generating tangible solutions on the ground and contributing to the implementation of EU legislation for over thirty-four years. “Its added value is clear” for countries, for whom LIFE represents “the EU’s only financial instrument dedicated exclusively to the environment and climate action.” Its structure, “based on sub-programmes covering biodiversity, the circular economy, climate change, and the energy transition,” also enables it to tackle complex and interlinked challenges. By combining “funding, regulatory implementation, capacity building, and cooperation between stakeholders,” the programme thus becomes “a genuine driving force behind the implementation of European policies on the ground.” LIFE has therefore served as “a pillar of multilevel governance, facilitating the participation of regional and local authorities, strengthening technical capacities and promoting the exchange of good practices between Member States,” with an approach that has made it possible to “validate innovative solutions at real-world scale and ensure their replicability, helping to bridge the gap between political ambition and the reality of implementation.” 

Therefore, in the current debate on the MFF for the period 2028–2034, which aims to simplify and streamline the EU budget, there is a real risk “that specialised instruments and environmental ambition will be watered down.” In this context, other institutions, such as the European Parliament, and a range of stakeholders at the regional and local levels, have also emphasised its importance and the need to ensure its continued presence in the future European budget.