{"id":118428,"date":"2025-07-16T16:15:05","date_gmt":"2025-07-16T14:15:05","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/eeb.org\/?p=118428"},"modified":"2025-07-16T18:47:58","modified_gmt":"2025-07-16T16:47:58","slug":"whats-left-of-life-commissions-mff-proposal-risks-quiet-rollback-of-eu-environmental-funding-through-budget-lines-not-headlines","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/eeb.org\/fr\/whats-left-of-life-commissions-mff-proposal-risks-quiet-rollback-of-eu-environmental-funding-through-budget-lines-not-headlines\/","title":{"rendered":"A LIFE-threatening budget: Commission\u2019s MFF proposal risks quiet rollback of EU environmental funding \u2013 through budget lines, not headlines"},"content":{"rendered":"

The European Commission\u2019s proposal for the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) suggests that the EU LIFE Programme \u2013 the Union\u2019s only dedicated fund for environment, nature and climate action \u2013 would be repealed, with only some elements absorbed into a new European Competitiveness Fund, undermining LIFE\u2019s proven return on investment and contributions to climate, nature and people.<\/b><\/p>\n

Instead of maintaining a comprehensive approach to environmental protection, climate action and the circular economy \u2013 as LIFE has done for more than 30 years \u2013 the text refers only to the competitiveness of the circular economy, decarbonisation and energy transition. This signals a deeply worrying narrowing of scope, just as the Commission\u2019s own <\/span>Environmental Implementation Review<\/span><\/a> shows that most Member States are not meeting existing EU environmental obligations, with society bearing the costs. The findings make one thing very clear: more <\/span>dedicated<\/span><\/i> funding is needed, not less. Investing now is far cheaper than paying for ecological collapse later.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201c<\/span>The loss of LIFE as we know it in the new MFF is not simplification \u2013 it\u2019s sabotage. The LIFE Programme exists for a reason. It delivers targeted, cost-effective results for nature, climate and public health. Repealing it and folding what’s left into a broader competitiveness fund, stripping out biodiversity and environment, would gut one of the EU\u2019s most effective tools just when we need it most<\/span><\/i>, <\/span>despite the enormous costs of inaction<\/span><\/i>,\u201d said <\/span>Patrick ten Brink, Secretary General<\/b> at the <\/span>European Environmental Bureau<\/b>.\u00a0<\/span><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

The European Parliament has explicitly called for \u2018<\/span>increased directly managed support for environment and biodiversity protection and climate action, building on the current LIFE programme<\/span><\/i>\u2019. The Commission\u2019s proposal goes in the opposite direction, fragmenting LIFE and reducing its clarity, accessibility and legal weight.<\/span><\/p>\n

This development also follows months of political attacks on environmental NGOs and civil society organisations funded through LIFE \u2013 attacks which were repeatedly <\/span>debunked<\/span><\/a>. At the time, we warned that these smears were not just about discrediting civil society, but about softening the ground for a broader rollback. That rollback now appears to be taking shape \u2013 not through headlines, but through budget lines.\u00a0<\/span><\/p>\n

Without a standalone, dedicated LIFE fund, there is a serious risk that cross-border cooperation for the best solutions to address the increasing risks related to climate change and biodiversity collapse, as well as the sharing of best practices at the local level, will vanish. Additionally, by repealing LIFE, core funding for environmental NGOs could disappear, leaving civil society under-resourced to support necessary implementation, enforcement, and public engagement.<\/span><\/p>\n

For more than three decades, LIFE has enabled thousands of stakeholders \u2013 from small NGOs to local authorities \u2013 to work together to deliver concrete solutions. It helps implement and enforce EU environmental law, supports nature-based solutions to climate change, and ensures best practices are replicated across Member States.<\/span><\/p>\n

\u201cA long-term budget based on short-term thinking is a dangerous mistake. There is no competitiveness, security or prosperity on a dead planet. This isn\u2019t just about repealing and merging what\u2019s left of LIFE into a catch-all fund \u2013 it\u2019s about dismantling Europe\u2019s only dedicated tool for nature and climate action. The absence of earmarked funding for climate and biodiversity is deeply concerning. How can we claim that the next budget is \u2018protecting Europe\u2019 when it ignores one of the most urgent threats EU citizens face: the climate, nature, and pollution crises? Clearly identifiable funding for these areas is not a \u2018nice to have\u2019 \u2013 it\u2019s a necessity for securing our shared future,\u201d said <\/span><\/i>Faustine Bas-Defossez<\/b>, <\/span>Policy Director<\/b> at the <\/span>European Environmental Bureau.\u00a0<\/b><\/p><\/blockquote>\n

Diluting or splitting LIFE risks turning environmental funding into a political bargaining chip at the national level and between Member States in the Commission, with a risk of undermining legal obligations, weakening democratic oversight and breaking faith with citizens who expect action, not rollback.<\/span><\/p>\n

We urge Member States to step in and rectify this massive step backwards and ensure LIFE as a standalone, ring-fenced instrument focused on environmental, climate, and biodiversity action, nature restoration is adequately funded, and civil society\u2019s effective participation in the development, implementation and enforcement of EU policies in line with Parliament\u2019s mandate and the EU\u2019s legal responsibilities is effectively supported.<\/b><\/p>\n

ENDS<\/p>","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The European Commission\u2019s proposal for the next Multiannual Financial Framework (MFF) suggests that the EU LIFE Programme \u2013 the Union\u2019s only dedicated fund for environment, nature [\u2026]<\/span><\/p>","protected":false},"author":104,"featured_media":780,"comment_status":"closed","ping_status":"closed","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_acf_changed":false,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[3,4],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-118428","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-news","category-press-release"],"acf":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/eeb.org\/wp-content\/uploads\/2017\/02\/Aarhus-and-Enforcement-16-web.jpg","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/eeb.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118428","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/eeb.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/eeb.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eeb.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/104"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eeb.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=118428"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/eeb.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/118428\/revisions"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eeb.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/780"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/eeb.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=118428"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eeb.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=118428"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/eeb.org\/fr\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=118428"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}