LIFE+ financing and other EU financial instruments

[LIFE Unit]

Article 9 of the LIFE+ Regulation presently excludes financing for any action that could potentially be financed by other EU financial instruments. The objective of this Article is to avoid any chance of overlap between LIFE+ and other EU financial instruments. Yet, its application has proven to be very difficult both for the applicants and for the Commission. Do you think there might be better ways to ensure complementarities and integrated use of the available financial resources? And do you consider there are actions for which LIFE is clearly the only instrument that can provide the necessary support? Could you provide some examples?

[nickfolkard]

You're right to say that the complementarity question is a difficult one - but it's also an important one, and I think it should be retained. LIFE+ is a relatively small instrument and needs to be focused on problems that can't be addressed through other, much bigger instruments.

A crucial point is that the people who evaluate LIFE+ proposals seem to take a very sensible and pragmatic approach to this. What they look for is evidence that actions cannot be funded through other instruments IN PRACTICE (rather than in theory).

For example - in the UK, a huge range of work can be funded through agri-environment schemes in theory - but only a small proportion of this work is funded in practice, because of the way in which the schemes are implemented "on the ground". The evaluators quite rightly want to know what money is actually available under the schemes, rather than what might be available if the schemes were infinitely large. They understand that, if you need spend £1 million restoring active blanket bog in an SAC in north Wales, the fact that you might be able to get £20,000 from the Welsh agri-env scheme isn't terribly helpful!   

In response to the bit of the question that asks whether there are any cases in which LIFE+ is the only option - the answer is yes, lots! In fact, almost by definition, everything that's been funded under LIFE-Nature and LIFE+ Nature to date falls into this category. More specifically, there are lots of habitats and species that aren't well covered by agricultural or fisheries funds, and lots of areas that aren't well covered by Structural or Cohesion Funds. (And in any case, most other instruments require that projects have clear social and/or economic benefits - LIFE+ is just about the only one that will fund "pure" biodiversity conservation , for its own sake. This is hugely important!)

Examples of LIFE+ Nature projects that I know about and that couldn't have been funded through any other instruments include the blanket bog project mentioned above, a project to conserve machair in western Scotland (which, interestingly, aims to test and develop NEW agri-env options so that its impact can be sustained and built upon in the long term), and a project to carry out major civil engineering works to protect important freshwater habitats in an SPA threatened by coastal erosion and sea level rise.

[fidlojo]

I agree with Nick nothing should be double financed, but some flexibility is needed however according my experience when it was needed LIFE unit understood it. For example in case of habitat management of repatriated suslik where some mulching what was especially needed for the susliks on the repatriation site was approved. We always could make division between actions what cannot be financed by other instrument and could justify it.
In our latest application we planned insulation of electric pylons which is basically can be financed by the Environment & Energy Operative Program, but our conditions (large cross border consortium, participation of corporate who are contributing) ineligible for that instrument.
József Fidlóczky

[LIFE Unit]

Nick's comment is simple and easy to understand: "LIFE+ is just about the only one that will fund "pure" biodiversity conservation , for its own sake. "  This is indeed an essential feature of LIFE to be saveguarded. Angelo Salsi

[Fundacion FRF]

Of course nothing should be double financed as someone has remarked before. But the dimensions and reality of the projects sometimes overcomes the previous structure designed. Even in the case of the main and specific aims of the proposal will be able to get with the LIFE+ funds, it is very important to take into account that LIFE+ only supports the 50% of the total cost of a determined project. Moreover some proposals in biodiversity and environmental topics are really mixed with other interesting topics which could help to complement the purposes in biodiversity protection.
It should be neccesary to have a look into the convergent future of Biodivesrity and Environmental policies cojoint with the ones oriented to rural and territorial development. This fact could be more important in the future taking into account that ACP, EARDF and other european funds should be oriented also to conservation and promotion of local biodiversity arising a new reality in territories management.
Jose F. Gomez
Fundación Félix Rodríguez de la Fuente.