How should the EU co-financing for nature and biodiversity be done?

[LIFE Unit]

How should EU co-financing for nature and biodiversity conservation be carried out? Please indicate one of the following options:
•   through the main existing financial instruments, such as rural development, regional development, research, fisheries, CAP, etc.;
•   through a dedicated financial instrument; or
•   through a combination of both?

[Comunità Ambiente]

Through a combination of both.
A dedicated financial instrument allows for the aquisition of knowledge and expertise related to nature conservation. However, LIFE has a sense only if there is a constant exchange with other financial instruments both at EU and local level and a degree of flexibility in deciding if an action within a project is to be financed through LIFE or other instruments. We are going towards in an always greater degree of interdisciplinarity and this should be reflected also in financing mechanisms.
Comunità Ambiente

[Barbara Di Giovanni]

We agree on a combination of both. Nevertheless, special attention should be paid to allow an effective integration of different financial instruments. Sometime, in the finalization of a LIFE project it is necessary to give up on some conservation actions since they are eligible under a different financial line (for instance, CAP) and this, in our opinion, might be a limit to the effectiveness of the submitted LIFE project ideas.

Barbara Di Giovanni - Paola Carrabba
ENEA - Italian National Agency for New Technologies, Energy and Sustainable Economic Development

[nickfolkard]

Through a combination of both. Relying entirely on 'mainstream' instruments such as the agriculture and fisheries funds is not an option, as these instruments will always leave significant gaps - they're simply not designed to ensure the protection of all biodiversity. Equally, depending exclusively on a separate, dedicated instrument would be difficult and very unwise - it's essential that the mainstream instruments continue to take full account of the need to conserve biodiversity.   

[fidlojo]

I agree a combination of both. But a much more biodiversity friendly RDF, a revised CAP and CFP should be supplemented by a dedicated instrument like LIFE.
József Fidlóczky

[Phil Denham]

Integration into other programmes has not, in my view, been very successful to date.  Whilst I agree that theoretically this is the correct way to finance the natural environment, in reality the environment is the poor relation in the sustainable development triangle.  You can get projects funded that have a primary economic focus, you can get projects funded that have a primary social focus, but it is very hard- if not impossible to get a project funded if it has a primary nature or biodiversity purpose. 

Therefore a specific fund for nature and biodiversity continues to be required and in my view should be enlarged in future to take account of the lack of true integration that should have happened across the other programmes.