Financing options for the Trans-European Nature Network (TEN-N): Factsheets on public, private, and blended financial support options for TEN-N and recommendations for each case study

preprint OA: closed
Full text JSON View at publisher

Abstract

This factsheet series describes the available sources of funding for the Trans-European Nature Network (TEN-N) and characterises their relevance to the costs involved in setting up the network. Each factsheet outlines the relative strengths and limitations of each source of funding or finance in relation to protected areas and connectivity projects. The review looks at both public funding through EU sources and private finance options.Public funding opportunities are available for ecological connectivity, but lack of post-project funding as well as protected area under-resourcing are key challenges. EU funds are often still underdelivering on funding for biodiversity and there are bottlenecks to access to some EU funding opportunities. The suggestions for private finance instruments vary from proven mechanisms such as the “user pays-principle" applied to protected areas, to conceptual instruments in initial stages of development such as resilience bonds. Even though private finance is still in its early stages, it has the potential to considerably scale-up the finance available for nature in Europe. Land management tools, such as strategic and targeted use of conservation easements, land banks, habitat banks, and legal compensation obligations, can be used to repurpose land for nature goals, including the creation of ecological corridors. These tools are being increasingly used for ecological connectivity, but the current small-scale and fragmented initiatives should increase.
Full text 1,097 characters · extracted from oa-doi-fallback · click to expand
Preprint ARPHA Preprints https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e155364 (09 Apr 2025) https://doi.org/10.3897/arphapreprints.e155364 (09 Apr 2025) Submitted to Research Ideas and Outcomes Other versions: - Preprint InfoPreprint Info - CiteCite - MetricsMetrics - CommentComment - RelatedRelated - CitedCited ARPHA Preprints doi: 10.3897/arphapreprints.e155364 First posted 09 Apr 2025 Authors Evelyn Underwood - Corresponding author IEEP, London, United Kingdom Institute for European Environmental Policy, Brussels, Belgium Rewilding Europe, Heilig Landstichting, Netherlands Conflict of interest The authors have declared that no competing interests exist. Supporting agencies NaturaConnect project. NaturaConnect receives funding under the European Union’s Horizon Europe research and innovation programme under grant agreement number 101060429. This is an open access preprint distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License (CC BY 4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Text is read by the "Ask this paper" AI Q&A widget below. Extraction quality varies by source — PMC NXML preserves structure cleanly, OA-HTML may include some navigation residue, and OA-PDF can have broken hyphenation. The publisher copy (via DOI) is the canonical version.

My notes (saved in your browser only)

Ask this paper AI returns verbatim quotes from the full text · source: oa-doi-fallback

Answers must be backed by verbatim quotes from this paper's full text. Hallucinated quotes are dropped automatically; if no verbatim passage answers the question, we say so. How this works

Citation neighborhood (no data yet)

We don't have any in-corpus citations linked to this paper yet. This is a recent paper (2025) — citers typically take a year or two to land, and the OpenAlex reference graph may still be filling in.

Source provenance

europepmc
last seen: 2026-05-20T01:45:00.602351+00:00