Addressing the "less visible" aspects of biodiversity

[LIFE Unit]

LIFE Nature has carried out a good deal of work on the conservation of flagship species and habitats, but has only been used in a limited way to address directly the less visible aspects of biodiversity, such as is the case for arthropods and molluscs. How could we address this issue?

[Uwe Friedel]

Uwe Friedel from German Environmental Aid (Department Communal Environmental Protection).

I'm not working in this field, but I think it's mainly a question of a shift of thinking in our heads.
Somehow we fear that the public won't be interested if we don't present "interesting" species like the Iberian Lynx, wolfes, black stork....

But it's mainly a question of communication. Remember the success of the film "Mikrokosmos" for example.
The "small biodiversity world" is fascinating!

One possibility could be to link a very well known species with a small one and use the two of them as a "communication pair".

By the way: I had not been very much interested in herbs and grasses and mosses, but in my first university course in plant identification a big passion for all these little details and coulours and forms (and smells and tastes) awoke.

[jan.sliva]

Up to now LIFE NAT indeed folowed the concept of biodiversity conservation via flagship species chosen not only for their endangerment or vulnerability but also attractiveness for the public at large. However, these  leverage conservation effects do not function in many cases, especially for the "invisible species/organisms".
This critical issue should be targeted in the next LIFE+ otherwise we will celebrate the return of great Bustard or Imperial Eagle in all TV channels while losing numerous less spectacular species (fungi, mosses, arthropods, molluscs year by year, which are crucial for the ecosystem functioning.
New LIFE concepts are necessary and closer cooperation with academia and research. There is an enormous potential for applied research in LIFE program but this opportunity it is still less known among researchers. What about LIFE INF projects on filling deep gaps between conservation practitioners and science? They can mutualy profit from each orher with lot of positive synergy effects.

[LIFE Unit]

Jan is right! This is why we decided not to wait till the next regulation. The new LIFE+ call for proposals that has just been published clearly underlines this gap. It also invites applicants to take this into due consideration when preparing their project (see the LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity application guide page 22 of EN version). This is just a signal I know, but we hope this may start a reflection leading to more investements in this area in due term.
Angelo Salsi

[nickfolkard]

Good question. There are plenty of SACs for these "less visible" species - so there's no fundamental reason why people shouldn't propose projects on them.

One problem may be that NGOs focusing on less visible taxa tend to be much smaller than those working on mammals, birds, etc. LIFE+ is a difficult instrument for small NGOs to access, because of the preference for large projects, the 50% co-funding rate (in most cases) and the 40:30:30 grant disbursal pattern. The only solution to this is obviously to make some pretty fundamental changes to the way the programme operates!

Other, related, problems may be that projects focused on inverts (for example) tend to fall below the unofficial "well into six figures" size threshold for LIFE - and that raising co-funding for such projects may be harder than for projects focused on more familiar species.     

None of this really explains why you don't get more proposals for less visible taxa from statutory conservation agencies, though. Co-funding and cash flow shouldn't be so problematic for them. It'll be interesting to see if you get any replies from this sector!     

Overall, the best approach may simply be to include a note in the guidelines emphasising that projects targeting less visible taxa will be especially welcome - and perhaps to give such projects 5 points in the evalaution process, as you do for multinational projects. Given that I work for a bird-focused NGO, though, I wouldn't want to see too much weighting given to "less visible" projects! It's important to remember that most projects focusing on mammals and birds also do a great deal to help other taxa, through habitat improvements etc - this is the whole point of the "flagship" approach. The rules are pretty fair as they stand, and it would be a big mistake to introduce a strong bias in favour of certain taxa.                 

   

[fidlojo]

I think it has two reasons.
One of it is that very few people are interested about them. The birds are more attractive therefore people are more interested about them than spiders or mollusc. And probably this is the situation not just among the general public but among the nature conservation officials too. Therefore much less is known about them and about their conservation. The applied research is excluded from LIFE application. Enthusiastic rangers who may want to work with them cannot access to research founds because these are occupied by the large research institutions.
The other reason is what one mollusc researcher said that he did not mind for what purpose the area became protected because the fact that it is protected would be favour for the molluscs.
József Fidlóczky

[Fundacion FRF]

From my opinion it is due to the social view of flagship species opposite to the other less visible biodiversity. Historically we have done several mistakes in ecological education and comunication. Actually the most part of the population in a country have no idea about a general status of species, ecosystems and resources as important as the soil in their territories. For people who are working in ecology, biology, systematics or any other topic on invertebrates (concretely insects in my case) it is very interesting to remark that we are obligated to disguise the aims of the projects because for example Hymenoptera are not an attractive focus group to get funds.
Perhaps we are facing a new oportunity to implement a new future for the less visible biodiversity in Europe in the framework of the importance of invertebrates, plant species or any other organisms which develop crucial functions in ecosystems and even have a very important role in productive use of the territory.

Jose F. Gómez
Fundación Félix Rodríguez de la Fuente.

[Maria Stoumboudi]

As it is now, “flagship” species are either mammals, or birds. However, it is possible to make a “flagship” species out of an originally unnoticed, unattractive, humble species that does not belong to either of the aforementioned taxonomic groups; this possibility should certainly be further exploited in the frame of Life projects. The above can be done, if the characteristics that make the given species ‘special’ can be determined and publicized intensively, if the importance of the survival of the species for the protection of its environment can be stressed and if the feeling of ownership by the locals of a unique species that has to be protected can be established (e.g., in the case of endemics). It was done, quite successfully, with a small, gray, freshwater fish, endemic to Rhodes Island, Greece (http://www.life-gizani.gr/). Why not try with an arthropod or a mollusc? It may worth it.

Still, to my view, biodiversity conservation should be aiming (as far as possible) at the whole aggregation of organisms that live in a specific habitat, with a bottom-up approach, namely starting from microbes and ending to vertebrates and not vice versa. The approach that says “by protecting a “flagship” species we protect all species” doesn’t seem to have worked so well so far or at least it doesn’t seem to be working in all cases, although it may be serving the funding needs of several of us (Life beneficiaries that is) pretty well. However, to be able to use a more holistic approach in protecting the biodiversity of an ecosystem, we need to know its structure and function in depth. For the latter, more research is needed (as in most cases we do not have this knowledge) and certainly closer cooperation between researchers and conservation practitioners is absolutely necessary, as mentioned by Jan Sliva above. A step is being taken in this direction in the new LIFE+ call (as Angelo Salsi mentions), let’s hope it will work and more steps will follow.

A last issue that I would like to raise here is that except from the ‘visible’ and the ‘less visible’ aspects of biodiversity there is also an ‘invisible’ aspect of it, which is genetic diversity. There seems to be no concern/action for conserving different ‘evolutionary significant units’ (ESUs), although this could be of great importance for a series of reasons (please see http://www.epbrs.org/PDF/Evolution%20and%20Biodiversity_shortversion_final.pdf). I would very much like to see this topic discussed in the first place and taken into account in the future Life+ calls.

[Maria]

There are very few “less visible species” in Sweden listed in the Habitat Directive. This makes it difficult to work with this kind of species.
It may also be very difficult to reach a measurable result of conservation status for such species during the time of a project. As this is important for the evaluation of a project you may better not choose that kind of species for a project.
To halt the loss of biodiversity in Europe it would be very valuable to be able to work with species on the National Red List in LIFE projects, as well as species in the Directives. In Sweden lichens, mosses and fungi are very important for nature conservation work but very few of the threatened species are on the Habitat directives list.