LIFE rahoitus Suomessa

Transkriptio

1 LIFE rahoitus Suomessa 1. Yleistä Lifestä 2. Suomen menestys Lifessä 3. Vuoden 2016 tulokset 4. LIFE haku Life MAWP Life Infotilaisuus, Suomi Helsinki, Säätytalo Pekka Harju-Autti Ympäristöministeriö

2 LIFE Euroopan Unionin rahoitusjärjestelmä, jonka tarkoituksena on kehittää yhteisön ympäristöpolitiikkaa ja lainsäädäntöä, tukemalla luonnonsuojelu- ja ympäristöhankkeita. Life-hankkeet edustavat suurimpia kansallisia ympäristöhankkeita. Hankkeen kokonaiskustannukset vaihtelevat yl. välillä 1-8 M (keskiarvo n. 2 M. Ei ala/ylärajaa) 2 2

3 LIFE Objectives contributing towards a resource-efficient, low-carbon and climate-resilient economy; protecting and improving the environment; maintaining and improving biodiversity, ecosystems and, in particular, the Natura 2000 network improving the development, implementation and enforcement of Union environmental and climate policy and legislation integrating and mainstreaming of environmental and climate objectives into other Union policies improving environmental and climate governance Implementing the 7th Environment Action Programme

4 LIFE Priority Areas Environment sub-programme Environment & Resource Efficiency (ENV) Nature & Biodiversity (NAT, BIO) Environmental Governance & Information (GIE) Climate Action sub-programme Climate Change Mitigation (CMM) Climate Change Adaptation (CCA) Climate Change Governance & Information (GIC)

5 LIFEn tärkeimmät dokumentit LIFE Regulaatio (EU Regulation 1293/2013 of 20/12/2013) LIFE Multiannual Work Programme Tähän tulee uusi ohjelma vuosille

6 LIFE Budget Total budget of 3.5 billion For projects funded by action grants and financial instruments: 2.8 billion (81% of total) Sub-programme for environment 2.1 billion for projects Nature & Biodiversity including related governance and information 1.22 billion (more than 55% of subprogramme ENV minus financial instruments) Sub-programme for climate action 0.69 billion for projects Operating grants to environmental and climate NGOs 63 million

7 LIFE - General features Applicants - SME, NGO, public administrations active in the field of environment and climate protection Emphasis on replicability/transferability, longterm sustainability, and an EU added value of the project results Not focussed on research ( H2020) No large infrastructure; not focussed on rural or regional development ( agricultural, structural funds) Support and monitoring: From Contracting Authority (EASME or Commission) and external monitoring team

8 Activities outside of the EU May be included if: Necessary to achieve Union environmental or climate objectives Necessary to ensure the effectiveness of interventions carried out in the Member States territories to which the Treaties apply The Coordinating Beneficiary is established in the EU

9 For whom? The "traditional" projects Mainly SME, NGO, public administrations active in the field of environment and climate protection Average size? 3 to 6 beneficiaries; EU contribution: approx. 1.5 million Co-funding rate? 60%; NAT: for priority habitat/species: 75% National Allocations: Only for environment sub-programme, only until 2017

10 LIFE rakenne ja budjetti LIFE Programme 3,456.7 ( ) 2,592.5 (75% of LIFE budget) 1,155 min (55% of ENV Sub-progrm) Nature & Biodiversity (25% of LIFE budget) Climate Change Mitigation Sub-programme for Environment Environment & Resource Efficiency Sub-programme for Climate Action Climate Change Adaptation Information & Governance Information & Governance NPOs NPOs 05/06/

11 Key differences between priority areas in the both sub-programmes Policy link Sub-programme for Environment Sub-programme for CA LIFE NAT LIFE ENV LIFE CCM, LIFE CCA Linked to the objectives of the Birds and Habitats Directives, or to the EU Biodiversity Strategy 2020 Linked to a range of environmental policy and legislation, including with respect to the link between the environment and health, and in support of the Roadmap to a Resource Efficient Europe Work towards a low carbon and climate resilient economy in the EU; underpinning the implementation of the 2020 climate and energy package and the EU strategy on adaptation to climate change 11

12 Typical project and actions Sub-programme for Environment Sub-programme for CA LIFE NAT LIFE ENV LIFE CCM, LIFE CCA Implementing a Natura 2000 management plan or biodiversity strategy Implementing a pilot or demonstrative project tackling one of project topics including development of innovative technologies suitable for replication, transfer or mainstreaming Demonstrate or pilot innovative climate technologies, systems, methods or instruments related to climate change mitigation or adaptation strategy as well as best practice projects. Most actions geared towards nature conservation Actions linked to solving the environmental problem tackled Most actions linked to greenhouse gas emissions reductions or to addressing the current or projected impacts of climate change 12

13 LIFE Programme 3,456.7 ( ) 2,592.5 (75% of LIFE budget) 1,155 min (55% of ENV Sub-progrm) Nature & Biodiversity (25% of LIFE budget) Climate Change Mitigation Sub-programme for Environment Environment & Resource Efficiency Sub-programme for Climate Action Climate Change Adaptation Information & Governance Information & Governance NPOs NPOs 05/06/

14 LIFE ENVIRONMENT & RESOURCE EFFICIENCY Objective: Implementation, updating and development of various EU environmental policy and legislation Approach: Must be demonstration and/or pilot actions related to Union policy on water, air, soil, urban environment, noise, chemicals, environment and health, waste and natural resources, forests. Focus: To bridge the gap between research and development results and widespread implementation, and to promote innovative solutions with a public dimension 14

15 Pilot Project applies a technique or method that has not been applied or tested before, or elsewhere, that offers potential environmental or climate advantages compared to current best practice and that can subsequently be applied on a larger scale to similar situations. 15

16 Demonstration Puts into practice, tests, evaluates and disseminates actions, methods or approaches that are to new or unknown in the project s specific (geographical, ecological, socio-economic) context and that could be applied elsewhere in similar circumstances. 16

17 LIFE Programme 3,456.7 ( ) 2,592.5 (75% of LIFE budget) 1,155 min (55% of ENV Sub-progrm) Nature & Biodiversity (25% of LIFE budget) Climate Change Mitigation Sub-programme for Environment Environment & Resource Efficiency Sub-programme for Climate Action Climate Change Adaptation Information & Governance Information & Governance NPOs NPOs 05/06/

18 Information & Governance Information information/communication/ awareness raising campaigns in line with 7th Environment Action Programme priorities Governance effective control processes/ measures to promote compliance in relation to Union environmental legislation/support of information systems and tools on the implementation of Union environmental legislation. 05/06/

19 2. Suomen menestys Lifessä

20 Perinteiset Life-hankkeet Since the launch of the LIFE programme in Finland in 1995, a total of 130 projects were financed in Finland. These projects represented a total investment of 212 million, almost 100 million was contributed by the European Union. Perinteisesti Suomi on pärjännyt hyvin. Olemme saaneet kotiutettua indikatiiviset maaallokaatiomme. Uuden Life asetuksen myötä tilanne on hieman muuttunut

21 Perinteiset Life-hankkeet Life hakemusten määrä Eussa Pirkko Heikinheimo

22 Perinteiset Life-hankkeet Suomella on käyttämättä n 10 M kansallista allokaatiotaan vuoden 2017 hakuun Viime vuonna suomalaishakemuksissa kokonaiskustannukset olivat yli 80 M, haettiin yli 40M EU:lta

23 Integroidut Life-hankkeet Suomella ollut hieno menestys Klo 11-12

24 3. Vuoden 2016 tulokset: kts Angelo Salsin kalvot

25 4. LIFE haku 2017

26 2017 haun aikataulu Life 2017 infoseminaari (Säätytalo, klo 9:00-15) Kansall. osarahoituksen hakemukset tulee toimittaa YM:öön Päätökset kansallisista osarahoituksista. Kts www-sivut 9/2017 Life 2017 hakemukset tulee esittää komissioon 10/2017-4/2018 Komission arviointi ehdotetuista hakemusaihioista 6/2018 sopimusten allekirjoitus ja hankkeet voivat alkaa

27 Ympäristöministeriön kansallista osarahoitusta Life 2017 hakuun Kilpailukykyiselle Life 2016 hankkeille. Jos kyseisen hankkeen varsinainen Life 2017 rahoitushakemus hyväksytään komissiossa, ympäristöministeriö valmistautuu myöntämään hankkeelle osarahoitusta tai euroa (+ alv). Tämä osarahoitus jakaantuu hankkeen koko keston (tyypillisesti 4-5 vuotta) ajalle. Life 2017 hakukierroksen hankkeet tulee toimittaa syyskuussa komissioon. Osarahoitusta haettaessa tulee esittää noin 8-10 sivun hankesuunnitelma, josta tulee ilmetä hankkeen aihepiiri, tavoitteet ja sisältö, hankkeen vastuuhenkilön nimi ja yhteystiedot, yhteistyötahot, aikataulu, kustannusarvio, suunnitellut rahoittajatahot ja alustava rahoitussuunnitelma. Arvioinnissa käytetään seuraavia kriteereitä: 1. Sopivuus LIFE:n yleisiin tavoitteisiin; 2. Hankkeen EU-lisäarvo 3. Hankkeen merkittävyys kansallisesti (konkreettinen ympäristöhyöty ja vaikutus ympäristöpolitiikkaan /lainsäädäntöön) 4. Yhteistyöverkoston laajuus ja laatu (käsiteltävän ympäristöongelman parantamiseksi) 5. Hankkeen tekninen ja taloudellinen johdonmukaisuus ja laatu Kansall. osarahoituksen hakemukset tulee toimittaa klo 16:15 mennessä

28 What's new in 2017 The last call of the current MAWP : no major changes. However: Transferability and replicability becoming more and more important In order to receive the point for the uptake of results from EU financed research projects, the applicant must briefly but comprehensively describe what are the specific FPs/H2020 project results relevant for the uptake and how these results will be used for the implementation of the LIFE project (see Form B3).

29 5. MAWP 2018-

30 MAWP 2018: main changes Increase of percentage for Nature and Biodiversity related projects (55%->60.5%) EU funding rate down from 60% to 55% Desired project topics updates Revamp forms in e-proposal (better structured, better linked to selection and award criteria)? Improve clarity of the criteria and transparency of the procedure a two phase approach: Slides of Angelo Salsi 30