LIFE+ Biodiversity: its role and its future?

[LIFE Unit]

Since 1992, LIFE Nature has focused its limited resources on supporting the NATURA 2000 network. With LIFE+ a new component, LIFE Biodiversity has been introduced. While the main pillar of the financing is still focused on supporting "best practice" nature conservation projects, this new strand is being tested to identify its most efficient use for themes such as ecosystems services, invasive alien species, etc.
What are your thoughts on LIFE+ Biodiversity?
Should the focus of LIFE Nature & Biodiversity remain on supporting the NATURA 2000 network or should its ‘biodiversity’ approach be further expanded to encompass a wider geographical and thematic spectrum of activities? If you favour further expansion, please share any concrete ideas you may have.

[Hammerl]

Dear LIFE Moderator,
In our opinion, the biodiversity approach of LIFE Nature & Biodiversity should be further expanded to encompass a wider geographical and thematic spectrum of activities. Special importance should be given to the creation of corridors to connect Natura2000 sites and to corridors to allow the transfer of species of the Article IV of the Habitat Directive.

The creation of corridors is mentioned in the current LIFE Programme, but when it comes to concrete projects there are serious barriers within the LIFE criteria. For example regarding investments and land purchase:

"Where the creation of corridors or "stepping stones" between existing Natura 2000 sites is foreseen, investments may exceptionally be considered on areas that will not be designated under Natura 2000. In such cases, evidence must be provided that the investments foreseen contribute to an improvement of the "ecological coherence of the Natura 2000 network". A guarantee must also be provided for the sustainability of these investments, in the form of a commitment for giving these sites the highest possible protection status at the national/regional level before the end of the project. Note also that any such actions will only be accepted where the national Natura 2000 network of sites is considered as sufficient for the species/habitats targeted by the project".

"The eligibility of conservation actions for species listed in Annex IV of the Habitats Directive (that are not listed in Annex II) is not dependant on the Natura 2000 status of the areas concerned. However, the long-term sustainability of any such investments will have to be secured by an appropriate legal conservation status of these areas, to be achieved at the latest by the end date of the project. Land purchase is not possible in this context."

In case of the creation of corridors, sometimes it could be very useful to buy small pieces of land outsite Natura2000 sites and NGOs have the possibility to get financial support for land purchase by private donors. But land purchase for corridors for species listed in Annex IV is not possible.
Furthermore, specially in densely populated areas it is extremly difficult to get the " the highest possible legal protection status" for these stepping stones. The FFH Directive does not require a legal protection of the corridors and the criteria for the declaration of a protected area are not coherent with the objective of the corridor = not the protection of a piece of land is the objective but to allow the transfer of migrating species!

In our opinion, land purchase should be possible when it proofs to be useful for the creation of corridors for Annex IV species, such as wild cat. We understand the aim of LIFE to guarantee the longterm sustainability of investments. The purchase of land by an environmental charitable NGO offers the same or even more long term protection than an regional or national protection status and should be accepted by the Commission.

Kind regards, Marion Hammerl

[LIFE Unit]

Dear Marion,
I fully agree with you that more needs to be done for the "connectivity" of Natura 2000. No use calling it a a network if sites are not interconnected and if species are isolated. For this purpose we have decided this year to give it a push. The new call, that has just been published, states very clearly that the Commission would welcome projects aimed at the connectivity ("green infrastructures") of Natura 2000 (meaning corridors, stepping stones, buffer zones etc).
With regards to the "barriers" you mention these have not changed in the new call. Yet, I would like to point out a couple of things: 1 Land purchase is possible for connectivity projects, it is only excluded for Annex IV species projects, 2 The "highest possible protection status" should be read as the "most appropriate" meaning that it is up to the applicant to decide and justify which status is the best in the given context to ensure long term durability of the investement made.
To conclude, the connectivity element is an essential element of LIFE+ Nature projects and should, by my point of view, be a key target of any future LIFE program.
Angelo Salsi

[LIFE Unit]

Corrigendum!
My apologies, but my keyboard went faster than it should in my previous message addressed to Marion. She is right: land purchase outside Natura 2000 sites is excluded for projects aimed at the connectivity (eg land purchase to create a corridor). Sorry for this. The point she raised still remains and we will look at it in the light of the next call.
Angelo Salsi

[nickfolkard]

My impression is that LIFE+ Biodiversity hasn't been a great success - and that this has been for two main reasons. Firstly, there's been a lack of clarity as to exactly what it's intended to fund. And, secondly, there's been a very strong emphasis on innovation - which has meant that many good proposals have been rejected. Focusing on innovation sounds fine in theory - but the problem is that biodiversity conservation isn't quantum physics - there's a relatively well-defined "toolkit" of tried and tested methods and no great need or pressure to keep coming up with something completely new. There's certainly scope for making adjustments to existing techniques, or trying existing techniques in new settings - but the idea that there are lots of brand new techniques and approaches waiting to be discovered isn't really correct.

Having said all that, I certainly don't think that LIFE+ Biodiversity should be thrown open to ALL conservation projects outside Natura sites - if it was, you'd be completely swamped! I'd suggest that the main needs are (a) to make it as clear as possible in the guidelines what is and is not eligible, and (b) to relax the requirement that methods used in Biodiversity projects must be completely novel.

This latter point is perhaps best illustrated through an example. Back in 2007 we submitted a proposal to LIFE+ Biodiversity for a project to test different ways of getting rid of green and woody waste arising from nature reserve management, focusing on various types of composting and conversion to biofuel. The project was rejected on the grounds that neither composting nor biofuel production are innovative (and admittedly, for one other reason). However, we know for a fact that waste disposal is a major problem for nature reserve managers throughout Europe, that the project would therefore have been of major demonstration value, and that composting and biofuel production on the scale we had in mind WERE pretty innovative - at least in the context of nature reserve management.

As far as LIFE+ Nature goes, I think that continuing to focus on Natura sites makes a lot of sense. After all, these sites cover more than 20% of the EU's land surface. However, the one big area that I think is neglected under LIFE+ Nature is habitat creation and restoration outside existing Natura sites. This is going to be increasingly important as climate change proceeds, as many existing sites will become climatically unsuitable for the species and habitats for which they were designated and some (i.e. those on low-lying coasts) may disappear completely! Habitat restoration and creation IS possible under LIFE+ Nature, of course - but it's not at all easy to get this sort of work funded, and it's clear that it's not what the programme is really intended for. It would be a big step forward if the Commission was able to take a more forward-looking and visionary approach and acknowledge through the LIFE guidelines that, if we want to conserve the species and habitats of the Directives in the medium to long term, we need to work outside as well as inside the current Natura network.   

[matti_hovi]

Hello all,

I agree that LIFE + Biodiversity should not support ANY conservation project outside Natura - but sometimes there are clearly needed in order to improve and safeguard the protected values on N2000 sites. Many of the threats towards biotopes or species take place outside N2000 sites, but their impacts however are seen inside the sites. Moreover, some management actions need to be taken outside the N2000 borders, to make sure that the expected outcome is achieved. A good example is restoration of mires and other wetlands, which suffer from past land use (usually ditching). To restore the desired water balance means that the catchment area surrounding the focal N200 site is managed as a whole.

Matti Hovi

[Andy Read]

This may need a separate thread.
I believe that we also need to consider whether the Life+ instruments are receiving sufficient publicity in the correct areas at the correct time.  I think that this can be summarised into two areas:
1) Are successful projects being publicised to similar organisations across the EU to encourage future bids,?  This would be particularly useful when we are encouraging bids for less visible taxa.
2) Are the general public aware that this funding exists and that EU funds are having a positive effect in their local area?  Although funding is signposted at the site, post project, we should not lose this great opportunity to demonstrate EU action at local level, including encouraging bidders to consider engaging with local/ regional media at a suitable milestone in their project.

[fidlojo]

Although I was contributed to one of the successful LIFE+ Biodiversity project preparation my thought about it that this category was created under compulsion to do something more for biodiversity instead of doing the necessary steps what is really needed for example in policy level.
I would draw to your attention http://www.birdlife.org/news/news/2010/05/biodiversity-assessment.html
Because the biodiversity cannot be maintained only by the LIFE initiatives and only on the Natura 2000 sites itself. For maintaining biodiversity a more holistic approach and more political will is needed. Unfortunately when politicians are referring to sustainable development they are usually considering more concrete surface.
There are serious contradiction sometimes between environment approaches and biodiversity. Can you really believe that the bio-fuel or wind energy initiatives would help to maintain biodiversity?
Naturally LIFE and LIFE+ projects have very important contribution to halt the loss of biodiversity but as we can see it is not enough. I am confident that the speed of loss was considerably reduced thanks to LIFE and LIFE+Nature projects even if it is difficult to clearly certify this. Don’t you agree that LIFE and LIFE+ projects themselves contribute to this? When I read the table about the key differences in the Guideline for applicants I cannot see real characteristic difference. This is why I believe that LIFE+Biodiversity category was rather created under compulsion to do something more for biodiversity.
József Fidlóczky

[Maria]

We can never halt the loss of biodiversity only by nature funds like Life-Nature. I think we, who are working with nature conservation, have to find another approach of the problem. We have to work together with the business market and find solutions by production where you gain biodiversity at the same time. With that approach it is important to be able to work outside Natura 2000 sites to strengthen conservation in the Natura 2000 sites. That kind of projects I hope can fit in LIFE+ biodiversity. To work with innovative solutions you have to be able to be flexible. Today it is quite difficult to be flexible in a LIFE project.