Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the 'Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) concerning the financial instrument for the environment (LIFE)'
C 209/14 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 7. 1999 Opinion of the Economic and Social Committee on the ‘Proposal for a Council Regulation (EC) concerning the financial instrument for the environment (LIFE)’ (1) (1999/C 209/05) On 9 February 1999 the Council decided to consult the Economic and Social Committee, under Article 130s of the Treaty establishing the European Community, on the above-mentioned proposal. The Section for Agriculture, Rural Development and the Environment, which was responsible for preparing the Committee’s work on the subject, adopted its opinion on 4 May 1999. The rapporteur was Mr Ribbe and the co-rapporteurs were Mr Chiriaco and Mr Linssen. At its 364th plenary session (meeting of 26 May 1999), the Economic and Social Committee adopted the following opinion with 118 votes in favour, no dissenting votes and three abstentions. 1. Introduction The abovementioned external evaluation set out a 1. 4. number of conclusions and recommendations, including the following: 1. 1. The second phase of implementation of the EU finan- cial instrument for the environment (LIFE II) (2), which covers the period 1996-1999, comes to an end on 31 December 1999. The Commission is therefore proposing that a third phase (LIFE III) be introduced with a provisional funding of 613 million euros; this phase is to expire on 31 December 2004. The overarching aim of the LIFE programme, which comprises three thematic components (LIFE-Nature, LIFE- Environment and LIFE-Third Countries), remains the develop- ment and implementation of the EU environmental policy. the report of December 1998 provided for 1. 2. The new proposal takes account of the experience gained with LIFE II. It is based partly on two evaluation reports drawn up in accordance with the provisions of LIFE-II, namely: i) the report of December 1997 provided for in Article 7(3) (3) and ii) in Article 14 (4). The first of these two reports examined the case for increasing the reference amount of 450 million euros allocated to LIFE II. The report pointed out that, whilst extra funding over and above the reference amount of 450 million euros could have been put to good effect in LIFE II, it was not, however, possible, in the light of the tight budgetary situation, even to make full use of the proposed reference amount. 1. 3. The second report evaluated the track record of LIFE II and put forward proposals for a series of improvements. The report was drawn up on the basis of an external evaluation of the implementation of LIFE II (5), linked to the SME 2000 project (6). (1) OJ C 15, 20. 1. 1999, p. 65. (2) Council Regulation (EC) No 1973/92, as amended by Council Regulation (EC) 1404/96. (3) COM(97) 633 final, 12. 12. 1997 (4) COM(98) 721 final, 4. 12. 1998. (5) Assessment of the financial instrument for the environment (LIFE) (Final Report), Arthur Andersen, July 1998. (6) Sound and Efficient Management Project (SME 2000); this project called for a systematic assessment to be made of all programmes benefiting from EU funding. — LIFE has made only a limited contribution to the develop- ment (i. e. preparation) of new environmental policy and legislation (see the general objective set out in Article 1 of the LIFE II regulation). The results of individual projects do not in most cases point the way towards general EU-level solutions or provide practical know-how for use by the political players. There is therefore a need to define a clear strategy for identifying in advance the extent to which individual LIFE projects further the formulation of EU environmental measures. — Partly in this context, two criticisms were levelled: the dissemination of project findings within DG XI (‘internal dissemination’) was not up to par; and there was a failure to take adequate account of the priorities of the various EU environmental measures. One of the reasons for these failings was the organisational structure of DG XI: the departments responsible for the LIFE programme were working on a far too independent basis. There was hardly any (horizontal) communication with other departments in DG XI with a result that the necessary exchange of an experience was absent. Internal communications needed to be improved and the organisational structure of the LIFE programme should be revised to enable the juxtapo- sition of three autonomous instruments within DG XI to give rise to one real instrument for use by this DG. — The conclusion that the LIFE programme concentrated too much on the projects and not enough on disseminating the results of the projects also applies as regards the dissemination and utilisation of the results of the projects in the Member States (‘external dissemination’). To this end it is essential to adopt a communication strategy targeted much more on external communication, to develop a ‘know-how’ management system and to group individual projects in order to enable practical, sectoral recommendations to be derived from the projects. The 3 % of funding earmarked for such communication measures should be considerably increased. 22. 7. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 209/15 1. 5. The proposed LIFE III Regulation seeks to take account of the conclusions drawn in the abovementioned reports. Individual projects funded by the EU are, for example, to be more strongly linked to the priorities of EU environmental policy and steps are to be taken to improve the dissemination of the results of projects. The existing provisions are also to be defined in the articles in a more effective and more readily comprehensible form. 1. 6. The Committee will first address the Commission’s proposal, in particular in the light of the conclusions set out in the evaluation reports. It will also put forward observations on other aspects of the proposal. 2. General comments The general comments made below should be read in conjunc- tion with the specific remarks made under point 3, which contains a number of concrete suggestions for amending the draft regulation. 2. 1. Need for the LIFE programme and key features of the programme The LIFE programme has a special and very valuable 2. 1. 1. role to play as it is the sole EU financial instrument dedicated exclusively to promoting and developing EU environmental policy. The programme could thus make a special contribution towards implementing the EU’s commitment to a sustainable development and to incorporating environmental protection into other policy areas. The Committee expressly underlines the need and justification for this instrument and welcomes the proposal for a third phase. 2. 1. 2. The quality of the projects supported by the LIFE programme has reached a remarkably high level. LIFE projects are therefore able to provide a great variety of valuable ideas for environmental, agricultural and structural policy. The LIFE programme can, however, only provide examples of the action which may be taken. The actual translation into concrete action of experience gained in demonstration projects carried out under the LIFE programme has to be put into effect by other EU policies and by developing EU environmental law. In this context the Committee would emphasise that the main objective of the LIFE programme is not the actual funding of projects but rather the further development and implemen- tation of environmental policy and environmental laws by virtue of the experience acquired from LIFE projects funded by the EU. The dissemination (both internal and external dissemination) and utilisation of the results of the projects has a key role to play in this context. In the Committee’s view, it is very important that (potential) applicants for project funding be made firmly aware of these essential features of the LIFE programme. 2. 2. The development of new EU environmental policy — one of the main objectives of the LIFE programme the Commission, arguing that 2. 2. 1. In response to the limited contribution which LIFE II has been seen to have made to the development of new EU environmental policy, the ‘development’ and the ‘implementation’ objectives are not separable and should thus be retained, proposes a number of changes to the LIFE-Regulation. These include reformulation of LIFE’s general objective as set out in Article 1 and a new definition of ‘preparatory actions’ (for LIFE-Environment) in Article 4. 2. b in conjunction with Article 4. 1. b. to meet 2. 2. 2. The Committee, whilst agreeing that LIFE’s twin objective should be retained, has misgivings about whether the proposed changes are sufficient the particularly ambitious ‘development’ objective, which is primarily a Com- mission responsibility. The reasons for these doubts are threefold. First, the Committee believes that the proposed new definitions in Articles 1 and 4 are ambiguous, thus prompting the question as to how these terms will be understood by applicants for project funding. Secondly, it is hard to discern from the proposal in what concrete ways the ‘development’ objective will be put into practice, as the definition of the most important parameters (priority areas, specific selection criteria, budgetary aspects) has been postponed (1) (in the form of future ‘calls for expression of interest’ and ‘guidelines’). Thirdly, the proposed Regulation does not contain an explicit reference to the need for an underlying strategy — based on adequate, horizontal communication between the different DG XI departments as well as between the LIFE Units and other Commission DGs — capable of anticipating how project results can be used to develop new EU environmental policy. Such horizontal communication is all the more important in the light of the integration principle prominently enshrined in the Treaty. 2. 3. Optimising LIFE’s contribution to the implementation of EU environmental policy 2. 3. 1. Whereas the Commission is the main body respon- sible for the development of new EU environmental policy and legislation, its implementation should be considered the shared responsibility of a great number of actors: the Commission, Member States, regional and local authorities, industry, trade unions, NGOs etc. Therefore, to make LIFE fully contribute to the implementation of EU environmental policy, it is essential that these actors act on LIFE-project results as much as possible. As acknowledged by the Commission, this requires among other considered external- dissemination strategy. As the measures that the Commission carefully things a (1) In contrast to the LIFE II Regulation, which spelled out the priority areas as regards the preparatory measures, namely the protection of coastal areas, reducing the amount of waste, protection of water resources and measures to tackle air pollution and acidification. C 209/16 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 7. 1999 has undertaken in recent years to step up its action in this respect (1) were considered insufficient, it is now making a number of additional suggestions (2). Most importantly, the Commission proposes increasing the funds for ‘accompanying’ (including ‘dissemination’) measures from 3 % to 5 % of the planned appropriations. 2. 3. 2. Whilst fully supporting the Commission in its efforts to improve the external diffusion and exploitation of project results, the Committee thinks that still more can be done. 2. 3. 2. 1. At a number of points, the draft Regulation should be strengthened by including an explicit reference to the importance of disseminating project results. The Committee underlines the importance of ident- 2. 3. 2. 2. ifying well-defined target groups such as national and European umbrella organisations (branch organisations, forms of coop- eration between local or regional authorities, environmental NGOs, district water boards, etc. ), which can play a major role in disseminating relevant project results among their members. Obviously, this role would be further strengthened if such organisations were also involved in the preparation and submission of project proposals. in appropriations In addition, the question could be asked as to 2. 3. 2. 3. whether for the proposed increase accompanying measures — which the Committee already called for in its opinion on LIFE II (3) — is sufficient. Given the crucial importance of disseminating and acting on results, and the fact that only a part of the proposed increase will directly benefit dissemination measures, a further increase might be justified. The Committee also proposes making one official within the LIFE departments exclusively responsible for intensi- fication and overall co-ordination of dissemination activities. 2. 3. 2. 4. The Committee would also draw attention to the fact that financial incentives are very important from the point of view of the utilisation of the results of projects. In this context national and EU funding instruments operating in the fields of regional policy and agricultural policy (such as the Structural Funds and the Cohesion Funds) should play a much greater and more innovative role than has hitherto been the case. Above all, national and regional authorities should pursue a dynamic, coordinated strategy in respect of the establishment and implementation of new framework programmes, e. g. the operational programmes linked to the Structural Funds, including cross-frontier programmes. This strategy should involve defining particular areas of operation, appropriate selection criteria, differential rates of assistance, etc. as the basis for promoting, as a matter of priority, innovative projects, including projects which have already proved their worth under the LIFE programme. Cooperation between administrat- ive bodies (including environmental bodies) involved in the preparation and implementation of such framework pro- grammes is of major importance. The Commission depart- ments concerned should also play a more active role than has hitherto been the case in linking LIFE projects to other programmes benefiting from EU assistance. In this context the Committee welcomes the Commission’s proposal that national and regional authorities participate in the projected LIFE seminars on specific themes; the administrators of the agricul- tural and regional funds (e. g. the Structural Fund managers) and the environmental authorities concerned should also take part in these seminars. 2. 3. 2. 5. With a view to promoting a systematic exchange of information on innovative projects in the EU, there is, in the Committee’s view, also an urgent need to extend the LIFE database and to network with other European or worldwide databases covering innovative projects and best practice (4). Such a network of Europe-wide comparable databases — in respect of which the European Environmental Agency could play a coordinating role — would also help with the selection procedure for LIFE projects by making it possible to prevent the double funding of projects. The Committee would finally point out that a 2. 3. 2. 6. distinction should be made between ‘dissemination on paper’ and ‘replication in practice’ (i. e. the final result of dissemination activities, which is one of the most important measures of LIFE’s success). The Commission is asked to create mechanisms to monitor this latter aspect and to pay due attention to it in the report to be submitted under Article 12 of the draft Regulation. 2. 4. LIFE-Nature 2. 4. 1. The Committee welcomes the absolute concentration in this part of the programme on the establishment and operation of the Natura 2000 European network, drawn up in the wake of the implementation of Directives 79/409/EEC and 92/43/EEC; this network also represents a contribution towards EU implementation of the UN Convention on Bio- diversity. The LIFE programme which, by virtue of its very practical and ‘tangible’ form, is able to demonstrate to people living in the project areas that nature protection and economic development are not mutually exclusive, can play an important role in bringing about a higher level of acceptance of measures to safeguard valuable habitats; in this way the LIFE programme also has an important role to play in countering the extremely disturbing major delay in announcing the Natura 2000 regions. 2. 4. 2. The Committee welcomes the fact that LIFE-Nature is also to be used to a greater extent for the purpose of protecting habitats and species in the accession states which have an endangered status throughout Europe. In this context the Committee recommends that LIFE should cover pro- grammes for protecting species listed in Annex IV of Directi- ve 92/43/EEC; Article 3(5)(b) should be amplified accordingly. (1) See Point 25 of the Explanatory Memorandum. (2) See Point 26 of the Explanatory Memorandum. (3) OJ C 18, 22. 1. 1996. (4) e. g. databases such as that of the German Federal Institute for the Environment, UNEP and the Clearing House Mechanism of the Convention on Bio-diversity. 22. 7. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 209/17 2. 5. LIFE-Environment The Committee’s comments under this heading concern three main aspects: i) the relation between LIFE’s ‘development’ and ‘implementation’ objectives on the one hand and the planned ‘demonstration’ and ‘preparatory’ projects on the other; ii) the proposed priority areas for demonstration projects; and iii) the proposed specific selection criteria. 2. 5. 1. With respect to the first aspect, the Committee would stress that the draft Regulation would gain in consistency and clearness if a more clear-cut distinction were made between demonstration projects (Art. 4. 2. a in conjunction with Art. 4. 1a), which should be explicitly linked to and confined to the ‘implementation’ objective, and preparatory actions (Art. 4. 2. b and 4. 1. b), which should solely serve the ‘development’ objective. In the present wording, the difference between the two types of projects is unclear. 2. 5. 2. As regards demonstration projects, the Committee welcomes the fact that, in the case of LIFE-Environment, too, the scope of the programme is to continue to be limited to given priority areas. The Committee would, however, stress that the list of priorities set out in Article 4(1) will not be readily understood unless more detailed explanations are provided. It is noticeable that the abovementioned list of priorities does not include the three sectors pinpointed at the Cardiff Summit, namely agriculture, energy and transport, in respect of which the respective meetings of the Council of Ministers were to draw up strategies for incorporating environmental considerations. Equally, no reference is made to a series of fields referred to in the revision of the fifth environmental action programme (1). More precise reasons should be set out in the recitals to the draft Regulation in respect of forward by the Commission; this list should also be expanded to include the abovementioned sectors and fields. the list of priority areas put 2. 5. 3. In the case of the specific selection criteria set out in Article 4(6), the Committee would suggest underlining the importance of giving priority to promoting the innovation capacity of SMEs. The criterion of ‘promoting cooperation’ (Article 4(6)(f)) should also be defined more precisely by, for example, drawing attention to the role which could be played by employees and by local or regional cooperation between authorities, members of the public, industry, trade unions and environmental associations. 2. 6. Application of LIFE programme in the CEEC seeking to join the EU 2. 6. 1. The situation as regards environmental protection in the associated states is characterised by a great need for innovative (and cost-efficient) solutions, involving the use of environmental technology, to the problem of reducing the most blatant environmental pollution, whilst at the same time bringing environmental standards and environmental laws in the states concerned into line with the existing body of EU law. The associated states still possess many natural heritage areas the like of which has ceased to exist in western Europe. (1) Decision No. 2179/98/EC of the European Parliament and the Council — OJ L 275, 10. 10. 1998. These areas, which are of fundamental importance to the establishment of the Natura 2000 network, must be safeguard- ed on a lasting basis as soon as possible. It is, however, well known that in view of the difficult economic situation facing many of the associated states and because of the large number of other problems which need to be resolved, protection of nature and the environment in these states often plays only a marginal role. This makes it all the more important for ‘bottom-up’ projects to be launched with the help of assistance from the LIFE programme. 2. 6. 2. is that The problem which arises here, however, under the Association Agreements and the relevant additional protocols, the accession states were only eligible to take part in the LIFE programme on condition that they made contributions to the programme, the amount of which was subject to negotiation (the so-called ‘entry ticket’). This meant that the associated states were treated in a completely different way to both the EU Member States and the ‘third countries’. The fact that so far only Rumania has decided to take part in the LIFE programme demonstrates how difficult is to convince the governments of the associated states of the advisability of participating in the LIFE programme and that they should be ready to pay for such participation. As long as the associated states remain to be convinced of these benefits, interested parties (business, private individuals, associations) — i. e. the LIFE blood of the programme — will be denied access to it. it 2. 6. 3. It is a matter of great concern to the Committee that these ‘hurdles’ are preventing a start being made on applying the LIFE programme in the associated states; this assistance is both potentially beneficial and urgently required. The Com- mittee therefore calls upon the Commission and Member States to examine, without delay, how these hurdles can be removed, e. g. by increasing the level of participation of Phare funding in the ‘entry ticket’ and/or by using assistance received from other relevant financial instruments, such as ISPA or the Pre-accession Measures for Agriculture and Rural Develop- ment, for this purpose. 2. 7. Duration of the third phase and budgetary resources The Committee believes that there is an urgent need 2. 7. 1. to increase the proposed level of funding for LIFE III, i. e. 613 million euros. In this context the Committee fully sup- ports the stand taken by the European Parliament in its first reading of the Proposal for a Regulation on 15 April 1999. The Committee proposes that funding of at least 850 million euros be earmarked for the implementation for LIFE III. 2. 7. 1. 1. The Committee would point out in this context that, once the figures have been converted, less funding is to be available for projects in the EU Member States under LIFE III than was the case under LIFE I. (2) The need for environmental protection is still more pressing today than it was in 1992 when the LIFE I programme was established. Furthermore, in the wake of the Amsterdam Treaty, the incorporation of environmental protection measures into other areas of EU policy has become a binding requirement; in reality, however, considerable shortcomings still exist in this field. In view of (2) Under LIFE I, average annual funding available to the 12 Member States was 100 million euros, i. e. 8. 3 million euros per Member State per year. Under LIFE III, the average sum available per year is to be 122. 6 million euros, which, when divided by 15, makes 8. 2 million euros per Member State per year. C 209/18 EN Official Journal of the European Communities 22. 7. 1999 the above factors, it is hardly conducive to promoting the credibility of EU environmental policy if the ‘Environment’ and ‘Nature’ sections of the Community’s very own financial instrument for the environment are allocated less funding than, for example, the promotion of the audio-visual production industry (1). In this context, it should be borne in mind that the distribution of funding under the LIFE programme has so far been very effective (see the report referred to in point 1. 2 above, drawn up in pursuance of Article 7(3)). Furthermore, assistance could have been provided to many more projects if a higher level of funding had been available. Attention is also drawn to the fact that studies have shown that several billion euros will be required each year to set up the Natura-2000 network, a project to which LIFE-Nature is to contribute. 2. 7. 2. As regards the proposed duration of LIFE III, the Committee takes the view that the third phase of the pro- gramme should come to an end — in parallel with Agen- da 2000 and the Structural Funds — on 31 December 2006 (rather than 31 December 2004, as proposed by the Com- mission). There are two reasons for this proposed extension; it would undoubtedly enhance the very important firstly, synergies between the LIFE programme and other EU funding instruments; secondly, the evaluation of the third phase of the LIFE programme would embrace many more (completed) projects, thereby enhancing the significance of the evaluation report provided for under Article 12. Should the duration of the third phase be extended, the proposed level of funding would of course have to be correspondingly increased, over and above the level suggested in point 2. 7. 1 above. it would help to ensure that and ‘dissemination’), on which observations have been made by the Committee in this opinion. This would imply, inter alia, that the report would also deal with the impact and the value of the LIFE programme as regards the major sources of EU funding (agricultural policy, structural policy, including the Cohesion Fund) (2). 3. Specific comments The Committee wishes to propose the following amendments to the individual recitals and articles of the Proposal for a Regulation, on the basis of the general comments made in point 2 above: 3. 1. Recitals Add at the end of the first recital: …; whereas, to that the dissemination and replication of project results 3. 1. 1. end, financed by LIFE is essential; Add recital 1a (new): 3. 1. 2. ‘Whereas a dissemination strategy has to be based, inter alia, on a well-defined target group approach and whereas the potential financial incentives for project dissemination and replication offered by other national and Community financing instruments have to be fully exploited;’ 2. 8. Procedure for selecting projects and the administration of projects Fourth recital: 3. 1. 3. ‘Whereas (…) a third phase for a period of seven years ending on 31 December 2006 should be set in motion;’ The way in which projects are selected and adminis- 2. 8. 1. in the Committee’s view, both transparent and tered is, appropriate. In view of the prime objectives of the LIFE programme, it is vital that Commission officials are closely involved in the selection and monitoring of projects and the implementation of the results. It is therefore right to exclude the possibility of giving outside experts full responsibility for running the project; these experts can and must only play a supporting role. 2. 8. 2. The Committee requests the Commission to examine whether there is further scope for cutting back on the time and money spent on drawing up applications for assistance in particular in the case of SMEs and small for projects, organisations, and enabling such bodies to prepare project applications by themselves. With this aim in view, it is also important to harmonise, as far as possible, the document requirements laid down for the various EU financial instru- ments. 2. 9. Drawing-up of reports The Committee takes the view that 2. 9. 1. the report provided for under Article 12 of the Proposal for a Regulation should address, above all, the general objectives of the LIFE ‘integration’, programme (‘development’, ‘implementation’, (1) See budgetary heading B3-201 MEDIA-Programme. 3. 1. 4. Add recital 6(a) (new): ‘Whereas demonstration pro- jects should concern the implementation of existing Com- munity environmental policy and legislation;’ 3. 1. 5. Seventh recital: ‘Whereas preparatory projects should concern the development of new Community environmental policy and legislation;’ 3. 1. 6. Add to the end of the ninth recital: (…) and whereas the LIFE programme should be used to contribute to increased environmental and nature protection in these countries; 3. 2. Article 1 — General objective Second paragraph: amend to read as follows: ‘The 3. 2. 1. general objective of LIFE shall be to contribute to the development of new or to the implementation of existing Community environmental policy and legislation in particular as regards the integration of the environment into other policies. To this end, LIFE shall also contribute towards the dissemination of the results obtained from measures financed by this instrument. ’ (2) See in this context also the Committee’s Opinion, 24. 2. 1999 on the Annual Report on the Cohesion Fund (1997) — OJ C 101, 12. 4. 1999. 22. 7. 1999 EN Official Journal of the European Communities C 209/19 3. 3. Article 2 — Thematic components and general criteria Second paragraph, indent a): amend to read as fol- 3. 3. 1. lows: ‘be of Community interest by making a significant contribution to the development of new or to the implemen- tation of existing Community environmental policy and legislation, as well as to the dissemination of the results obtained from measures financed by this instrument. ’ 3. 4. Article 4 — LIFE-Environment 3. 4. 1. (1) The specific objective of LIFE-Environment shall be to contribute to: a) b) the implementation of existing Community environ- mental policy and legislation; the development of new Community environmental policy and legislation (2) (unchanged) (3) Demonstration projects referred to in paragraph 2 (a) specifically contribute to: (include text of Art. 1 (a) as proposed by the Commission). (4) As regards projects to be financed pursuant to the objec- tives of LIFE-Environment set out in Article 4(1) and with a view to the definition of the guidelines referred to in Article 4. 4 as well as to the calls for expression of interest to be published pursuant to Article 4. 8, account will also be taken of: — the need to integrate environmental considerations into EU policy regarding agriculture, transport and energy; 3. 4. 2. Article 4. 4 — ‘As far as demonstration projects are concerned, on the basis of a strategy anticipating how project results can be used to meet the general objective of LIFE set out in Article 1, guidelines will be established by the Commission (. )’ (rest unchanged). 3. 4. 3. Article 4. 6. f) — ‘Involving, where appropriate, vari- ous socio-economic players (members of the public, and representatives of trade unions, environmental associations and authorities) from the area covered by the project concerned. ’ industry, Add new paragraph to the end of Article 4. 6: ‘As 3. 4. 4. regards proposals related to industrial activities, consideration will be given, in particular, to project proposals submitted by small and medium-sized enterprises. ’ Article 4. 8 — ‘At the Commission’s initiative and on 3. 4. 5. the basis of a strategy anticipating how project results can be used to meet the general objective of LIFE set out in Article 1 (. )’ (rest unchanged). 3. 5. Article 8 — Duration of the third phase and budgetary resources 3. 5. 1. Article 8. 1 ‘LIFE shall be implemented in phases. The third phase shall start on 1 January 2000 and shall end of 31 December 2006. ’ 3. 6. Article 12 — Evaluation of the third phase and continuation of LIFE Article 12. 1 — ‘Not later than 31 December 2004, 3. 6. 1. the Commission shall submit a report to the European Parliament, the Council, the Economic and Social Committee and the Committee of the Regions on the implementation of this regulation, in particular in the light of the general objective of LIFE set out in Article 1 and the benefits of the programme to EU agricultural policy and cohesion policy. The report shall also cover the use made (. ). ’ (rest unchanged). — the priorities established in Decision No. 2179/98/EC on the review of the European Community programme of policy and action in relation to the environment and sustainable development ‘Towards sustainability’. 3. 6. 2. Article 12. 2 — ‘The Council and the European Parliament, acting in accordance with the Treaty, shall decide on the implementation of the fourth phase as from 1 January 2007. ’ Brussels, 26 May 1999. The President of the Economic and Social Committee Beatrice RANGONI MACHIAVELLI