Long-Term Impact and Sustainability of LIFE Nature

8/13/2019 Long-Term Impact and Sustainability of LIFE Nature

1/60

Environment

LIFE Nature

LIFELong-term impact

and sustainabilitynatureof


2/60

LIFE NATURE | L o n g t e r m i m p a c t a n d s u s t a i n a b i L i t y o f L i f e n a t u r e

european commissionenVironment directorate-generaL

LIFE (The Financial Instrument for the Environment ) is a programme launched by the EuropeanCommission and coordinated by the Environment Directorate-General (LIFE Units - E.3. and E.4.).

The contents of the publication Long-term impact and sustainability of LIFE Nature do not necessarily re ectthe opinions of the institutions of the European Union.

Authors : Joo Pedro Silva (Nature and Biodiversity Senior Expert) and John Houston (ASTRALE GEIE-HT-SPE UK), Justin Toland (Editor), Wendy Jones, Jon Eldridge, Ed Thorpe, Simona Bacchereti, ChristopheThvignot (ASTRALE GEIE-AEIDL, Communications Team Coordinator)Managing Editors : Angelo Sal-si (Head of unit LIFE E.3, Environment DG, European Commission)LIFE Focus series coordination : Si-mon Goss (LIFE Communications Coordinator), Valerie OBrien (DG Environment Communications Co-ordinator). Technical assistance : Ainhoa Darquistade, Aixa Sopea, Alberto Cozzi, Anne Simang, Audrey

Thnard, Bent Jepsen, Camilla Strandberg, Christina Marouli, Claudia P rrmann, Cornelia Schmitz, Dar-line Velghe, Donald Lunan, Emmanuelle Brunet, Georgia Valaoras, Iigo Ortiz de Urbina, Isabel Silva, IvaRossi, Ivan Norscia, Jan Silva, Jean-Paul Herremans, Joo Salgado, Jorg Bhringer, Katerina Ra opol-ou, ubo Halada, Luule Sinnisov, Lynne Barratt, Mariateresa Calabrese, Maud Latruberce, Michele Lischi,Neil Wilkie, Peter Gajdos, Rolands Ratfelders, Ruth Brauner, Thomas Mayer, and Eric Evrard (Astrale GEIE).The following people also worked on this issue : Maja Mikosiska (Environment DG, LIFE Nature Unit)Production : Monique Braem (ASTRALE GEIE-AEIDL).Graphic design : Daniel Renders and Anita Corts(ASTRALE GEIE-AEIDL).Photos database : Sophie Brynart (ASTRALE GEIE-AEIDL).Acknowledgements :Thanks to all LIFE project bene ciaries who contributed comments, photos and other useful material for this report.Photos: Unless otherwise speci ed; photos are from the respective projects. Cover photo:LIFE04 NAT/IT/000190

HoW to obtain eu pubLications

f l : via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu); at the European Commissions representations or delegations. You can obtain their contact details on the

Internet (http://ec.europa.eu) or by sending a fax to +352 2929-42758.

p l : via EU Bookshop (http://bookshop.europa.eu).

p ( . . l h o l J l h e u h c J h e u ):

via one of the sales agents of the Publications O ce of the European Union (http://publications.europa.eu/ others/agents/index_en.htm).

Europe Direct is a service to help you nd answers to your questions about the European Union.Freephone number (*): 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Publications O ce of the European Union, 2014

ISBN 978-92-79-34698-9ISSN 2314-9329doi:10.2779/65091

European Union, 2014Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Printed in Luxembourg

Printed on recycled paper that has been awarded the EU Ecolabel (http://ec.europa.eu/ecolabel/)
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=2637http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=2637


3/60

LIFE NATURE | L o n g - t e r m i m p a c t a n d s u s t a i n a b i L i t y o f L i f e n a t u r e

1

Angelo SalsiHead of LIFE Nature UnitDirectorate-GeneralEnvironment European Commission

T he end of the EUs Multiannual Financial Framework for 2007-2013 seems like an ap-propriate moment to take stock of the achievements of the LIFE programme to date.Assessing the long-term impact of LIFE Nature projects and the programmes wider impacton nature conservation, implementation of the EU Birds and Habitats directives and the es-

tablishment and functioning of the Natura 2000 network is no easy task. Over 1 400 suchprojects have taken place since 1992 and available resources limit our ability to conduct anin-depth follow-up of every single project a er LIFE.

Ex-post reports by nature conservation experts provide the best means of getting an idea ofthe bigger picture, however incomplete. To date more than 90 ex-post missions have beencarried out by the LIFE programmes external monitoring team. Following the advice of the EUCourt of Auditors - which itself has visited over 30 LIFE Nature projects - missions are typicallyconducted at random, giving an unbiased snapshot of the programmes impact as a whole.

And what the available evidence illustrates is that LIFE does have a positive impact: most ben-e ciaries continue to pursue project actions and aims a er LIFE funding ends and the majorityof LIFE Nature projects assessed have been shown to be sustainable.

Much of this is the result of good project design and the work of LIFE projects in promotingdialogue and creating lasting stakeholder partnerships. LIFE also has helped to build conser-vation capacity across Europe especially important in newer Member States as our casestudies from Romania and Slovenia illustrate (see pp. 33-37). In addition, projects have an in-centive value in attracting additional funding through the EU Rural Development Programme,

INTERREG and so on.

This latter achievement is set to be strengthened in the next Multiannual Financial Framework,with the adoption by the European Parliament and European Council of a regulation that es-tablishes the Environment and Climate Action sub-programmes of the LIFE programme for2014-2020, with a total budget of 3.4 billion. Signi cantly, this includes nancial support fora new category of jointly-funded Integrated Projects that will operate on a large territorialscale and, through their actions, integrate the aims of environmental and climate policy intoother policy areas. With nature and biodiversity con rmed as one of the priority areas of the

Environment strand of the new LIFE, it is clear that lessons learned from ex-post evaluationsof LIFE Nature projects to date have been taken on board to ensure that the LIFE programmewill be stronger, more relevant and hopefully even more successful from 2014-2020.

Foreword


4/60


2

Table of contentsINTRODUCTION .............................................................................................................................................3

LIFEs not over at projects end ..........................................................................................................................

IMPACT ON HABITATS AND SPECIES .................................................................................................. 12

Analysing LIFEs long-term impact on habitats and species ......................................................................12

The case of the Spanish imperial eagle .............................................................................................................16

Laying foundations for sustainable grassland management ....................................................................20

The after-LIFE impact on wetlands....................................................................................................................22

LIFE and forest restoration ..................................................................................................................................24

Long term impact of Large scaLe investments ................................................................ 26

LIFEs large investments pay off ........................................................................................................................26

CAPACITY BUILDING ................................................................................................................................ 30

LIFE the catalyst for action on many levels ........................................................................................................30

LIFE boosts conservation capacity for Romanias large carnivores ......................................................... 33

Capacity building in Slovenia ............................................................................................................................35

LIFEs long-term impact on Madeira .................................................................................................................38

CONCLUSIONS ........................................................................................................................................... 42

Long-term success factors for projects ................................................................................................................42

Lessons learned at project level ..........................................................................................................................46

Lessons learned at LIFE programme level ..........................................................................................................49

Life nature projects that have had an ex post evaLuation ..................................... 54

avaiLabLe Life nature pubLications ......................................................................................... 57


5/60


3

overall objective - normally an EU-wide goal - byimproving the conservation status of targeted spe-cies, habitats and Natura 2000 network sites (as

foreseen in the Habitats and Birds directives). Theproject then sets its own objectives, actions and ex-pected results. It also outlines how it will dissemi-nate the results achieved.

Project bene ciaries are not obliged to sustain theproject activity a er its end. Nevertheless, projectsare obliged to prepare A er-LIFE plans, which wereintroduced in the LIFE III programme (2000-2006)to encourage projects to address sustainability (seebox on p.4). These oblige bene ciaries to set outhow they will continue to develop and promote theproject a er completion and they form part of thenal report. These reports include sections on sus-tainability and continuation of activities and iden-ti cation of long-term monitoring indicators that

S ince 1992, and up to the end of 2012, theEuropean Union has supported 1 424 LIFENature projects with a total budget of 2.75 billion.

The LIFE Nature programme was established toassist with the implementation of EU nature con-servation and biodiversity policy and, in particular,the establishment, protection and management ofthe Natura 2000 network. From the start, LIFE Na-ture projects were intended to be intensive inter-ventions to address particular problems or threats;and to have an impact beyond the project periodeither through incentives, or transfer of good prac-tice. Thus, projects were designed to give impetusto nature conservation programmes and improvetheir long-term success.

LIFE Nature projects generally run for three-to-ve years and are usually designed to meet an

P h o t o :

L I F E 0 9 N A T / P L / 0 0 0 2 5 4 / O l i m p

i u s z

W E R N H R Y N O W I C Z

Nature conservation is a long-term task, yet most LIFE Nature projects only run for a fewyears. In spite of their short duration (in nature terms) a series of follow up or ex-poststudies of projects shows that their impact continues well beyond closure.

I N T R O D U C T I O N

LIFEs not over at projects end


6/60

Obligation on all LIFE Nature projects

to produce A er-LIFE conservationplans and include these in nal reports(although there is no obligation to de-liver the proposed activities).

Requirement to maintain project web-sites for ve years a er closure (al -though there is no obligation to addto the information, so many just gointo hibernation). Older projects had

no obligation to maintain the website

beyond the end of the project. Requirement for bene ciaries to eval-

uate the success of their own projectin their nal report (following guide-lines provided by European Commis-sion).

Evaluation of the nal report by theexternal monitoring team (includingexpected long-term impacts).

Introduction of limited (randomly se-

lected) ex-post project visits missions(currently 20 Nature project visits peryear).

Results published in LIFE web sum-mary publicly available via the LIFEproject database (However, results arenot updated following ex-post visits).

Life n j Life q ll w- ( 2005)


4

highlight elements of importance to be checked tomake a realistic assessment of the projects likelysustainability, as well as its impact.

However, the success of a LIFE Nature project canonly really be evaluated by going back some yearsa er its end (ex-post) to look at its long-lasting im-pact, particularly as there is no obligation to imple-

ment a er-LIFE plans. Ex-post evaluation is the bestmeans of assessing the extent to which the planshave been put into action.

p v

In 2001, the publication Life a er LIFE1 was the rstin-depth look at the sustainability of nine LIFE Na-ture projects funded under LIFE I (1992-1995). Itshows that LIFE was designed to be a catalyst, to beintroduced beyond the stage of basic research andstudy but still at an early stage before large-scaleinvestments would be used.

1 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/generalpublications/documents/lifea erlife.pdf

The report summarised the programme aims as: Pump-priming initial investment costs that

make long-term conservation more a ordable; Promoting dialogue with other land users to

nd ways to conserve an area to the mutual ben -e t of all, or at least not to the detriment of oneor the other;

Providing high-pro ledemonstration models of

how conservation objectives for particular habi-tats and species can be achieved in practice; and

Developingbest-practice methods that can ini-tiate larger-scale and longer-term programmes.

In the Life a er LIFE study, projects success was judged by an assessment of the context in which theyhad to operate, the threats they were addressing, andthe follow up actions a er LIFE funding stopped. Suc-cess of a project was measured in terms of: c : Whether the site was in

better condition than it was at the start, whetherthe threats had been contained, whether the hab-itat/species showed signs of recovery, whetherthere were better protection and managementsystems in place etc.;
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/generalpublications/documents/lifeafterlife.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/generalpublications/documents/lifeafterlife.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/generalpublications/documents/lifeafterlife.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/generalpublications/documents/lifeafterlife.pdf


7/60

Fieldwork during the EECoastal Meadows project inEstonia, one of more than120 LIFE Nature projects tohave received an ex-post visit


5

Demonstration value : Whether the project de-veloped an innovative technique that could be ap-plied elsewhere, whether the project encouragedothers to develop similar projects etc.;

Incentive value : Whether the project succeededin attracting additional funding, whether it kick-started long-term management programmes(e.g. under agri-environment schemes), whetherit led to the integration of conservation with otherpolicy sectors etc.; and

s - : whether the project had an in uence on the local community andstakeholders, whether these groups were moreaware of the conservation needs, whether theywere more sympathetic, whether they had ben-

e ted from the results etc.

The study distinguished between common denomi-nators and elements of success. Common denomi-nators were i) the initial motivation behind the pro-

ject and ii) the continuation of project activity beyondthe EU co-funding period; elements of success weregrouped under the categories of project design, ca-pacity building, relations with local community andinterest groups, long-term funding and networking.

In 2003, a mid-term evaluation of the LIFE III pro-gramme was carried out2. One of the recommenda-tions was that: LIFE Projects should be systemati-

2 AEA Technology (2003) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ funding/life3/background/documents/lifemidtermevaluation_en.pdf

cally followed up several years a er completion tofacilitate evaluation of sustainability and how muchreplication was possible.

As a result, the LIFE external monitoring team as-sessed a second set of 24 projects in 2007 and2008. This highlighted the value of systematic ex-post studies. And in 2009, the European Commis-sion, responding to a report carried out by the Eu-ropean Court of Auditors on the sustainability andmanagement of LIFE Nature projects (see box), con-rmed that ex-post evaluation would become nor-mal practice.

d v l h l

Ex-post monitoring has both a project and a pro-gramme dimension. The project dimension assesseswhether design and implementation was right andwhether the habitats and species targeted are in abetter state than at the start. The programme ele-ment nds common elements of success, or of dif -culty, across a sample of projects, with the projectsthemselves providing case studies.

A questionnaire-based methodology was piloted forthe ex-post evaluation of 24 projects from 2006-2008 and in some cases the answers were provideddirectly by the bene ciary. The assessments includedinformation on dissemination, replication of projectresults, capacity building, impact and sustainability.

P h o t o :

L I F E 0 0 N A T / E E / 0 0 7 0 8 3
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/funding/life3/background/documents/lifemidtermevaluation_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/funding/life3/background/documents/lifemidtermevaluation_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/funding/life3/background/documents/lifemidtermevaluation_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/funding/life3/background/documents/lifemidtermevaluation_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/funding/life3/background/documents/lifemidtermevaluation_en.pdfhttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/funding/life3/background/documents/lifemidtermevaluation_en.pdf


8/60

The sustainability of LIFE projects is aconcern of the EU Court of Auditors. In2007 1, the Court of Auditors evaluated35 projects in terms of issues concern-ing selection procedure, implemen-tation, dissemination and long-termmanagement. The report concludedthat, Although signi cant progresshas been made since the introductionof LIFE in 1992, there is still roomfor improvement in the Commissionsmanagement and control systems toobtain an assurance that the conserva-tion measures nanced by the EU bet-ter meet their objectives and are sus-tained a er the project EU nancing.

With regard to long-term management of the project results, the report stat-ed that, Since in most cases the results (outcomes) of the projects nancedcan only be perceived a er nal payment on the projects and there is noex-post follow-up procedure established for assessing the e ectiveness ofthe actions nanced, the Commission has little information in this respect.Accordingly, there is a need to establish a set of appropriate indicators forevaluating the results achieved.

Therefore, under the LIFE+ programme funding period (2007-2013) theCommission introduced project output indicators to collect this information.These are proposed by project applicants and the nal outputs are used asa measure of overall success. Although an ex-post visit can re-check projectoutputs, its main focus is on outcomes and impacts.

1 The sustainability and the Commissions management of the LIFE Nature projects (Spe-cial Report No 11/2009)

th c a


6

In response to the Court of Auditors report, the Com-mission - with the assistance of the Astrale externalmonitoring team - developed a revised ex-post mon-itoring methodology in 2009. The depth of study was

increased by making contact with stakeholders andseeking di erent perspectives on project success. Aswell as the ad-hoc selection of projects a number ofthematic studies were carried out.

These thematic studies looked at the impact of projects in Spain concerned with the Spanish Imperialeagle (see pp. 16-19), the value of supporting sev-eral projects with one bene ciary, the contribution of

LIFE projects on large carnivores to EU conservationobjectives and case studies of projects addressingendangered plant species.

Since 2009, ex-post evaluations seek to measure thesuccess of projects in six main categories: relevanceof design, quality of design, e ciency, e ectiveness,impact to date and sustainability to date.

Whilst the focus of the ex-post monitoring is primar-ily directed at aspects of sustainability, it also looksat short-term results, intermediate outcomes andlonger-term impacts. These can be grouped underthe de nition of e ects 3 (see Table 1).

This current ex-post monitoring methodology in-cludes sections on: Relevance and design : The appropriateness

of project objectives to the problems, and to thephysical and policy environment within which itoperated;

e y : The fact that project results havebeen achieved at reasonable cost, i.e. how well

inputs/means have been converted into activities,in terms of quality, quantity and time, and thequality of the results achieved;

e : The contribution made by resultsto achievement of the project purpose, and howassumptions have a ected project achievements;

Impact : The e ect of the project on its wider en-vironment, and its contribution to the wider policyor sector objectives (as summarised in the pro-

jects Overall Objective); and Sustainability: The likelihood of benefits pro-

duced by the project continuing to flow afterexternal funding has ended, with particular

3 Study on the establishment of indicators to assist themonitoring of measures nanced by LIFE+ (EPEC & GHKConsulting 2007).

Table 1 - t Life n

Short-term Medium-term Long-term

Inputs Activities Outputs Results Outcomes Impacts

Funds / resourcesavailable to supportplanned activities

Things you do-activities you plan toconduct to achievedesired outcomes

Count of productsand / or servicesdelivered, e.g. work-shops, publications,demonstrations

Change in:KnowledgeSkillsAwarenessAttitudeMotivation

Change in:BehavioursPracticesPoliciesProcedures

Change in:SituationEnvironmentEconomic conditionsSocial conditions


9/60


7

reference to factors of ownership by the bene -ciary and partners, policy support and other con-cerned stakeholders, economic and nancial fac-tors and institutional and management capacity.

The ex-post studies assessed the extent to whichbene ts continued a er the project with referenceto the sustainability of outputs and results (to whatextent were the results of the project still current,relevant or used), speci c objective and overall ob-

jective, environmental sustainability (e.g. green jobs),project sustainability (maintenance of project struc-ture or way of working) and dissemination. Sustain-ability includes the project legacy: to what extenthave relevant bodies continued to support the pro-

ject, whether su cient capacity (technical and nan -

Figure 1 shows the changes of perspective from Mission 1where the initial situation can be seen (i.e. raised bogs dam-aged by drainage and a orestation), Mission 2 where work isunderway and actions can be assessed (i.e. removal of conifersand ditch blocking) and the ex-post visit where the success ofthe longer term objectives can be assessed (i.e. reactivation ofbog-forming processes).

In an active project, whilst the criteria of relevance, e ciencyand e ectiveness can be assessed, the criteria of impact andsustainability are generally not yet evident. Consequently, anyassessment from this point of view is based on opinion ratherthan on observation.

An ex-post monitor faces a di erent situation in terms of thequantity and quality of information available. Where the visit isseveral years a er project completion the monitor can, for therst time, assess the impact and sustainability of the project. Atthat stage, e ciency and e ectiveness are no longer measure -able as real values, but can be assessed retrospectively.

The change in perspective between ongoing and ex-post moni-toring also allows the quality of the design to be assessedwith the bene t of hindsight as a measure of the projectsoverall success. Contact with project stakeholders is an im-portant aspect of an ex-post visit as it helps build a morecomprehensive picture of sustainability and impact.

PROJECT

START

PROJECT

END

PROJECT

END

Mission 1

Mission 2 Ex-post Mission

Ex-post Mission

Relevance & Design

Efficiency

Effectiveness

Impact

Sustainabillity

Relevance & Design

Efficiency

Effectiveness

Impact

Sustainabillity

Extrapolation(future/past)

Observationof real values

Mission 1

Ex-post monitoringdi ers from ongoingmonitoring in terms of

perspective, emphasisand methodology

cial) was developed to continue the work and wheth-er stakeholders still bene t from the project results.

H hl l v

The overall conclusion from the most recent (2009-2013) ex-post exercise is that the LIFE Nature pro-gramme is proven to be highly relevant in supportingEU nature policies, projects are generally e ectiveand that their impact and sustainability is high.

An ongoing study4 re-confirms a number of com-mon elements and success factors already identi-

4 Synthesis of ex-post evaluations of LIFE projects 2009-2013 ( Astrale Internal Report to EC)

Figure 1.How ex-post monitoring works


10/60

This series of three photos shows the results of water engineering measures to create a meadow pond at one of the sites of the LIFE Schtt-Dobratsch project

in Austria: the first image (February 2003) shows the work in progress; the second photo shows the site four months later when work is completed; the third photoshows the situation eight years later habitat recovery


8

ed in previous reviews of LIFE projects. The initialmotivation for preparing a project remains highand objectives are well described. In many exam-ples LIFE is much more than simply a co- nancinginstrument. LIFE projects have been used to meeturgent threats to habitats and species, to developthe capacity of NGOs and eld sta , to act as acatalyst for conservation action, to communicatewith local communities, to gain acceptance for na-

ture conservation and as a means to develop bestpractice guidance.

Successful LIFE Nature projects engage people, raiseawareness about European nature values and formpartnerships built on trust between di erent sectors.The LIFE programme has supported the implemen-tation of the Habitats and Birds directives and hashelped to demonstrate in practice that the Natura2000 network does not unduly restrict sustainableland use activity. However, awareness about Natura2000 remains low in most project areas and the LIFEprogramme on its own has not been able to dissemi-nate its experience as far as it could or to supportlasting networks. Public opinion in many areas is ac-cepting rather than supporting nature.

Wh l x-v l ?

Most conservation programmes are long-term in-vestments in e ort. LIFE projects can give a sig-ni cant boost to already-established objectives.However, at the end of the EU-funding stage theresults will only just be beginning to show and, inmost cases, the medium to long-term outcomes

and impacts will not be known.

Therefore, the ex-post assessment may be therst time to focus on results, outcomes and im-pacts. The results of the project can be described interms of changes in knowledge, skills, awareness,attitudes and motivation. Some examples from ex-post reports are shown in Table 2.

This new situation can in turn lead to desirable out-comes where there is a real change in behaviour,practices, policies and procedures (see Table 3).

Ex-post monitoring should be able to identify suchshort-term results and medium-term outcomeswhilst looking for long-term impacts where the

P h o t o :

L I F E 0 0 N A T / A / 0 0 7 0 5 5 / K l a u s

K r a i n e r

f 2003

J 2003 J l 2011


11/60


9

sum of changes in attitudes and practices leads toan improvement in the conservation status of thehabitats or species targeted by the project.

The long-term e ect of a project - its impact - shouldbe measureable by a change in environmental, eco-nomic or social conditions. For nature projects thisgenerally implies a signi cant improvement in theconservation status of a habitat or species with theaim of securing favourable conservation status.

The conservation status of Habitats Directive habi-tats and species is reported every six years throughArticle 17 reports prepared by Member States atthe level of biogeographical regions. Whilst somereports acknowledge the impact of LIFE projects inimproving the overall status of habitats or species,it is recognised that, in most cases, more overallinvestment is required to improve the conservationstatus of a species or a habitat at EU level than theLIFE programme alone can provide.

Table 2 Results of LIFE projects

ex l p j

Knowledge Learning about the special habi-tats and species of the Natura2000 area

WWF-Greece developed an understanding of the habitat requirements of raptorspecies in the forest wetlands of the Dadia National Park

Information, for the rst time, on the distribution of the Pygmy cormorant inGreece

Projects in Madeira increased the knowledge on several species and even pro-vided evidence for a new species, Bugios petrel

All projects on large carnivores have provided useful information on populations,ecology and behaviour.

Skills Developing good practicetechniques

Developing (and disseminating) best practices for the restoration of blanket boghabitat in Scotland

Demonstrating river restoration techniques in Austria

Awareness Local stakeholders becoming

aware of the importance of localnature

Awareness of large carnivores in all countries with projects addressing wolf,

bear and lynx Increasing support for the conservation of blanket bog in Scotland shown inrepeat surveys

Awareness of endemic species in Madeira

Attitude Local stakeholders changing fromhostility to benign indi erenceto positive support for natureconservation

Local communities in Finnish Lapland accepting Natura 2000 as a non-threat-ening, even positive, development

Hunters supporting conservation programmes in Spain and Romania The presence of bears in Italy helps support new eco-tourism businesses

Motivation Landowners being inspired tocarry out conservation work

Farmers encouraged to return to traditional management practices to maintainBaltic coastal meadows and local cultural traditions

Farmers in Denmark opting in to a voluntary agri-environment scheme

Table 3 Outcomes of LIFE projects

ex l p j

Behaviour Visitors avoiding damage/distur-bance to nature (using paths etc)

Tourists respecting dune restoration works at Laida Dunes, northern Spain Tourists respecting sanctuary areas for large carnivores

Practices Changing management practices(e.g. forestry) to accommodatenature interests

Working with private hunting estates in Spain to support the conservation of theSpanish imperial eagle

Shepherds using electric fences to protect livestock and specially bred guarddogs in areas with large carnivores.

Policy Adopting new local/regional/national legislation to protecthabitats or species

Developing national plans for large carnivores in Romania Developing Species Action Plans for endangered species in Madeira

Procedure Delivering a policy for land pur-chase to protect nature

Ongoing budget for land purchase in the Trento region of Italy Land purchase policies in Madeira to create a continuum of forest habitat


12/60

Clearing bushes from a mirein Finland to enable habitatrecovery

The Nebrodensis projecttook important actions tohelp preserve the criticallyendangered Sicilian fir (Abiesnebrodensis)


0

All the projects assessed in ex-post studies show adegree of impact. However, it would be unrealisticto expect a single LIFE Nature project to addressall the threats to all of any one habitat type orspecies. Some projects are one-o restoration ac-tions (some mire restoration projects, for example)

whereas others may require several phases or na-tional/international programmes.

Some examples of impacts include: The support for rural employment in Finnish

Lapland; The measured increase in the population of the

Spanish imperial eagle in Spain (pp. 16-19); Increase in populations of endemic seabirds in

the Madeira Archipelago (see pp. 38-41); Re-establishment of traditional, and sustain-

able, land management, including grazing, onStora Alvaret in Sweden (see pp. 20-21); and

Re-establishment of traditional farming prac-tices in the meadows of the Varde Estuary in

Denmark.

Nature does not always respond as planned and theex-post evaluations give several examples whereexpected population increases have not happenedor where restored habitats have not been used bytarget species. This reinforces the need for contin-ued monitoring at project sites so that, if neces-sary, new approaches can be tried.

In terms of ongoing management, the ex-post as-sessments look to see whether monitoring contin-ued, whether Natura 2000 areas were enlarged asa result of the project, what was done to ensurethe continuity of project activity and whether theproject had any other positive results.

P h o t o :

L I F E 0 0 N A T / F I N / 0 0 7 0 5 9

P h o t o :

L I F E 0 0 N A T / I T / 0 0 7 2 2 8


13/60


11

c l

In summary, a total of 93 projects have been ex-posted across 17 countries and covering a numberof di erent themes. Projects targeting large carni-vores (bear, wolf and lynx) and bird species rep-resent approximately half of those to receive anex-post visit. Spain, Italy and France have been themost visited Member States; other Member States,such as Poland and Cyprus, are yet to receive anex-post visit.

With a further 35 projects having been evaluated bythe Court of Auditors, that means a total of 128 pro-

jects have been subject to follow-up. This represents

some 9% of the total number of LIFE Nature projects.

The overall conclusion of the ex-posts is that the LIFENature programme has been proven to be highly rel-evant in supporting EU nature conservation policy, inparticular the implementation of the Birds and Habi-tats directives and the Natura 2000 network. Natureprojects actions are generally e ective and their im-pact and sustainability is high.

Ex-post monitoring visits show that most project part-ners voluntarily continue to disseminate lessons learntand detailed technical information. This continued driveand motivation beyond the project is to LIFEs credit.

The aim of this publication is to summarise andcompile the ndings of the ex-post evaluations,

and to highlight the long-term impact and sus-tainability of LIFE Nature project actions, includingthrough new interviews with selected stakeholdersfrom a number of Member States (Cyprus, Finland,Italy, Romania, Slovenia, Spain and the UK). Les-sons learned and recommendations will be takeninto account by the new LIFE programme for theEnvironment and Climate Action (2014-2020).

25

22

12

9 9

6

43

21

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

L a r g e

C a r n i v o r e s

B i r

d s

W e t l a n d s

F o r e s t s

G r a s s l a n d s / f a r m

e r s

M a r i n e

P l a n t s

R e p t i l e s

C o a s t a l

H e a t h l a n

d

Note: out of 22 birds projects visited, 15 targeted the Spanish imperial eagle

Figure 2. Ex-post visits by project type (2006-2012)

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

ES IT FR PT GR AT UK RO FI DE SE EE DK SL HR BE HU

Figure 3. Ex-post missions by Member State


14/60

Ex-post evaluations demonstrate that the positive effects on species and habitat conserva-tion can resonate well beyond the timeframe of an individual project. They also show thelimitations of LIFE and indicate possible improvements for the future.


I M P A C T O N H A B I T A T S A N D S P E C I E S

process. But such projects (e.g. aapa mires, blan-ket bogs) also need a good scienti c follow up withpermanent vegetation sampling points so that in10, 20 or 50 years time the success can be re-evaluated.

The broad follow up monitoring of most habitatand species projects can be incorporated into thegeneral work of the national authority throughHabitats Directive Article 17 habitats and speciesconservations status assessments. But LIFE projectscan o en gather additional vital knowledge on theprocesses of habitat restoration or species recovery.More detailed monitoring schemes, established by

I

n ex-post evaluations, most projects report agood impact on targeted habitats or species.

However, many also make the comment that re-covery takes time and it may take years - andfurther projects - before the project can declareitself a total success. There can also be problemsin sustaining the level of resources deployed dur-ing the project period.

There are some habitats where a single large con-servation action may be all that is required. Insome mire restoration projects it is possible toblock drainage ditches to recover natural hydrol-ogy then leave nature to provide the slow recovery

P h o t o :

A S T R A L E E E I G / A l b e r

t o C o z z

i

Analysing LIFEs long-termimpact on habitats and species

The Corpo Forestale projectremoved marsh vegeta-tion to restore the natural

functioning of Lesina Lakein Italy

2


15/60

The continuation of actions

initiated by LIFE has helpedto conserve the fire-belliedtoad (Bombina bombina) inDenmark


13

projects, can contribute to ecological applied sci-ence.

In Finland, for example, the rst LIFE peatlands projects started in the 1990s. Now, with the experienceof over 20 projects, a best practice guide for habitatrestoration is being produced. So, the cumulative ex-perience of several LIFE projects in one country or onebiogeographical region can set out, with some con-dence, the best practice that others should follow. Fin-land has also published a guide to ecological restora-tion and management of the Boreal forests 1 drawingupon the experience of LIFE projects.

These examples show that whilst LIFE projects make a

signi cant contribution to knowledge and best practicethis cannot always be delivered in the framework ofa single project. Ex-post visits can assess the widerimpact of project activity over a longer period.

Habitat restoration

Many natural and semi-natural habitats in Europehave su ered signi cant damage and loss since themid-20th Century. Natural habitats have o en beendamaged by drainage, a orestation and conversionto intensive agricultural use whilst semi-naturalhabitats have frequently su ered from abandon -ment and neglect, leading to the loss of species-richgrasslands and woodlands.

LIFE projects are designed to address these threatsby restoring the physical and biological processesthat underpin natural habitats and by re-establishingsustainable forms of land management that main-tain semi-natural habitats. For success, it is impor-tant to set out the overall (i.e. EU) objective and aproject objective. Project design has to identify the

reasons for the problem to be addressed and, havingset objectives, to decide what measures will be ap-propriate and how progress will be monitored. Oncethese steps of project design have been thoroughlyassessed then the actual delivery of project actionsis likely to be more successful.

By the end of a project it is sometimes possible toconclude that the habitat is recovering or at least theconditions have been established for recovery. It istherefore only by revisiting the project that the rateof recovery and the quality of restored habitat canbe assessed. Examples from grassland, wetland andforest habitat restoration are given on pages 20-25.

1 http://julkaisut.metsa. /julkaisut/show/1111

th l k l

Projects that require the establishment of new landmanagement practices always run the risk that thesewill not be supported in the medium-to-long-term.The best result that can be achieved by a project isto establish new land management schemes and tohave these supported by 5-10 year incentives. Veryfew projects could hope to achieve a longer guaran-tee of continuity.

So, when revisiting areas a measure of successwill be the continuity of land management practiceestablished by the projects. Despite the uncertain-ties of changes in payment rates and prescriptionsin successive agri-environment schemes and therelatively poor economic returns from conservationmanagement there are good examples of successfulprojects, such as the Stora Alvaret project in Sweden(see pp. 20-21).

The challenge in working with farmers, however, is

how to restore semi-natural habitats that may bethe result of centuries of land management using aseries of short-term incentive schemes. Perhaps as aconsequence, land purchase by conservation bodiesis an attractive option, since it enables full controlover land management to allow slow and steadyhabitat restoration.

A particular success of LIFE Nature projects acrossEurope is the restoration of mires and fens, withalmost 300 projects funded since 1992. This rep-resents a huge investment in e ort and yet, eventhe earliest projects are still at the recovery stage.Monitoring, however, is showing that many of thesehabitats are responding well to restoration work (seepp. 22-23).

P h o t o :

L I F E 9 9 N A T / D K / 0 0 6 4 5 4 / A m p h

i C o n s u

l t / N i e l s D a m m
http://julkaisut.metsa.fi/julkaisut/show/1111http://julkaisut.metsa.fi/julkaisut/show/1111


16/60

The giant lizard of El Hierro (Gallotia simonyi ), thought to be extinct, was re-

discovered in 1974 with a population of some 1 000 individuals. A er furtherlosses, two LIFE projects have helped stabilise the population, controlling pred-ators and competitors and establishing a successful captive-breeding centre torear up to 100 lizards per year. The projects were supported by the CanarianGovernment and searches were extended to other islands. In 1999, to the sur-prise of scientists and managers, a new species (Gallotia bravoana ) was foundon La Gomera. The species had a population of only about 20 individuals andwas highly threatened. Recovery plans have been supported by two further LIFEprojects. The bene ciary also established a captive-breeding programme in acentre built with other EU funds (EAGGF). Together with the centre on El Hierro,these lagartarios are the only single species lizard-breeding centres in Europe.On both islands the populations have stabilised thanks to the help of the LIFEprojects, with the conservation programmes continuing through the breedingcentres - IUCN estimates the current population of the giant lizard of El Hierroat 300-400 individuals, whilst the La Gomera giant lizard numbers some 90individuals. The giant lizards are iconic species and the conservation work at-tracts interest from locals and tourists.

g l z v

Gallotia bravoana

Continuous habitat management actions after LIFE haveimproved populations of protected bird species, such as thebittern (Botaurus stellaris)


4

A good example would be the projects that have un-doubtedly saved two species of giant lizard in theCanary Islands (see box).

Life

A number of Annex I bird species are a priority forLIFE funding. Examples addressed by projects acrossEurope include the Spanish imperial eagle ( Aquilaadalberti - see pp. 16-19), the bittern (Botaurus stel-laris ) and the corncrake ( Crex crex ).

In Slovenia the corncrake population was in declinebut it has now stabilised thanks to LIFE project ac-tions (LIFE03 NAT/SLO/000077 ). According to Juli-

jana Lebez-Lozej, the National Contact Point for LIFEin Slovenia, LIFE funding was a catalyst for support-ing corncrake habitat management through agri-environment schemes. The area now covered bymanagement agreements is more than three timeslarger than during the project, she notes.

In the UK, the RSPB has delivered two projects focusedon providing suitable breeding and feeding habitat forthe bittern. As the head of the NGOs Internationalfunding unit, Nick Folkard, points out, the second pro-

ject in particular (LIFE02 NAT/UK/008527 ) helpedto reverse a decline in breeding numbers from a lowpoint of 11 booming males in the mid-1990s to cur-rent levels of over 100 booming males. There hasbeen a tenfold increase in that very rare species anda lot of it is due to that [LIFE] project, he says.

th

The scale of a project may have some in uence onits impact and sustainability. This is particularly anissue with river projects where causes of threats may

be better addressed at a sub-catchment scale. It is

Projects concerning forests also have to considerlong time frames. Will planted trees provide a viablesecond generation of self-sown trees? Only time willtell. The forest projects also have to work with for-est practice and timescales so long term plans and

monitoring are again important (see pp. 25-26).

s v

Projects targeting species recovery have to be ex-tremely well planned to look not just at how to im-prove breeding success but also to ensure that thehabitat is right and that threats such as predatorscan be controlled.

LIFE projects have brought several species backfrom the brink and helped many more to establishviable populations. It is also quite normal for speciesprojects to have at least two stages, the rst being tostabilise a very precarious situation and the secondto begin to recover populations.

P h o t o :

L I F E 0 2 N A T / E / 0 0 8 6 1 4 / M

i g u e

l n g e l

R o d r g u e z

D o m

n g u e z

P h o t o : L

I F E 0 7 N A T / I T / 0 0 0 5 0 7 / M a t

t e o

C a l d a r e l

l a
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=2466http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=1971http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=1971http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=2466


17/60

LIFE was crucial in saving from extinction critically

endangered Canary Islands flora such as the plantDorycnium spectabile


15

clearly di cult to monitor the impact of river res-toration work on sh species unless this is done forthe whole system. River habitat restoration thereforerequires a strategic approach.

Species conservation projects o en show a dra-matic recovery during the project phase but somelack follow-up monitoring. Also, there is a tendencyin conservation work to invest in short-term spe-cies recovery actions before moving on to otherspecies on the at risk register. This was the casein the project ora conservation in the Canary is-

lands (LIFE97 NAT/E/004165 ), which focused onve rare endemic species. Although the project wassuccessful in increasing the populations of the tar-geted species, the Canary Islands hosts 141 spe-cies of plants and animals considered in some waythreatened, and it is understandable that conserva-tion e orts then move on to other species on thered lists. It is likely that there will always be limitedresources for conservation.

Whilst LIFE projects can be important for mappingand surveying the distribution of habitats and the lo-cation and populations of species, it is quite commonto nd that the costs for follow-up surveys or moni-toring are not provided a er the end of the project.This is a weakness identi ed in several evaluations.

It is perhaps less critical for habitat monitoringwhere the periods between surveys do not haveto follow a xed timetable but for species recoveryprojects, valuable information can be lost. However,it is important not to lose the investment in base-line studies carried out by projects. These includeinventories, maps and permanent recording points.Projects should not invest in expensive monitoringprogrammes unless they are of direct value to anongoing project or that the resources to maintainthe programmes are guaranteed.

In Finland, for example, the Aapa & Avi project(LIFE00 NAT/FIN/007060 ) mapped habitats andkey species on 47 000 ha of land, but without re-sources for follow-up monitoring there could be noevidence of a positive impact on populations ofwild geese.

However, there are also examples of projects withexcellent monitoring built in from the start that haveadded to scienti c knowledge and provided the ba-sis for habitat and species management advice. Therestoration of lichen and coastal heaths on the islandof Anholt in Denmark (LIFE94 NAT/DK/000492 ) al-lowed the knowledge gained to be applied to a muchlarger project to restore dune habitats along theDanish west coast (LIFE02 NAT/DK/008584 ).

P h o t o :

L I F E 9 7 N A T / E / 0 0 4 1 6 5 / E l i z a b e t

h O j e d a L a n d
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=232http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=1707http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=134http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=1985http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=1985http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=134http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=1707http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=232


18/60

A coordinated set of LIFE projects from 1992-2000 helped establish a formal NationalConservation Strategy for the Spanish imperial eagle. The species has since gone fromstrength to strength. Further LIFE projects have also been able to address specific addi-tional threats.

Typical habitat favoured bythe Spanish imperial eagle



6

niques. Given the right environment, the productiv-ity of the Spanish imperial eagle is relatively highwhen compared with that of other large eagles. Itspreferred habitat is Mediterranean woodland of ev-ergreen oak and cork oak alternating with pastureland where rabbits are abundant.

However, land-use changes over the past centuryhave destroyed a considerable part of its preferredhabitats. Habitat changes that have signi cantlyreduced the availability of its key prey, the rabbit,

T he Spanish imperial eagle ( Aquila adalberti ) isan endangered species included in Annex I ofthe Birds Directive. Almost all of its breeding popula-tion is in Spain, with the rest in Portugal. In 1995 inSpain there were just 147 nesting pairs across veautonomous regions: Castilla La Mancha, Castilla yLen, Extremadura, Madrid, and Andalusia.

The success of the species is closely linked to ru-ral habitats, created and maintained by people overcenturies through traditional management tech-

P h o t o :

L I F E 0 3 N A T / E / 0 0 0 0 5 0

The case of the Spanishimperial eagle


19/60

Spanish imperial eagle(Aquila adalberti)


17

have impacted dramatically on the birds breedingsuccess. Further speci c threats to the bird have in-cluded additional human disturbances in breedingareas, infrastructure development and associatedhabitat loss, electrocution from power lines and useof poisoned baits to control predation.

c v h hLife

In the early 1990s, the ve Regional Governments ofthe Spanish imperial eagles population area cametogether with the Directorate-General for NatureConservation of the National Environment Ministryto agree a Coordinated Recovery Plan for the spe-

cies. They developed a set of linked LIFE projects inthree stages across the ve regions. The rst set ofprojects started in 1992, with the third stages all n-ishing by 2000 at the latest. LIFE projects enabledus to bring together the di erent autonomous com -munities where species were present, along with, forexample, NGOs and other stakeholders, which gavemomentum to the development of [a national strate-gy], explains Maria Jesus Palacios, Head of Service ofNature Conservation projects in Extremadura, Spain.

In each of the ve regions, the LIFE projects aimedto develop a joined-up approach to: a) reduce thenon-natural mortality rate of the species; b) improvethe feeding habitat; and c) increase the breedingsuccess. However, there was a strong emphasis oncoordination and information sharing across the pro-

jects. To this end, the di erent Regional Authoritiesand national government departments establisheda LIFE programme Steering Committee. From 1997,the group became known as the Imperial Eagle TaskForce.

Each region wrote its own recovery plan for the spe-cies. However, one of the most obvious successes tocome from the joint work was the agreement of aNational Conservation Strategy, which was formallyapproved in July 2001. The ex-post evaluation ndsthat the status and protection of the species seemsmuch more strongly ensured through this strategy,which has been evaluated by Spains EnvironmentMinistry as an unprecedented success.

i v k wl w

One of the most important contributions of the LIFEprojects was to generate improved understandingand awareness of the target species and its threats.This work covered monitoring of several inter-related

elements, including bird numbers, species populationdynamics and causes of mortality. This informationwas essential for planning the strategies and inter-ventions that followed.

Awareness-raising actions also targeted landownersand electricity companies to prevent activities thatcould threaten the species. Stakeholder engagementled to several agreements to recognise the interestsof the eagles within planning, electricity and infra-structure procedures and processes in the di erentregions.

In Extremadura, the ex-post evaluation found thatone of the most remarkable achievements of three

connected LIFE projects was to change the percep-tion of the species amongst the predominantly ru-ral population from being a pest to being a nationalicon that needs to be protected. LIFE projects giveyou the opportunity to do a lot of work on awarenessraising and education. Thanks to this I believe therehas been a change in attitudes and behaviour in so-ciety in general towards certain species, such as theSpanish imperial eagle, that before, if people saw,they killed, says Ms Palacios. As a result of all theregions LIFE projects (not just those targeting eagleconservation), Extremaduras education service cre-ated an environmental education department thattoday employs ve people for LIFE-related commu-nications, plus a further 22 people working on theNatura 2000 network.

P h o t o :

L I F E 0 7 N A T / E / 0 0 0 7 4 2


20/60

The CBD 2003 projectcreated artificial burrowsin the traditional mannerto boost rabbit stocks, animportant source of prey forthe threatened eagle

Releasing rabbits: Increasing the population of this prey spe-cies in the target area was essential to the long-term sustain-ability of the eagle population


8

It must nevertheless be observed that above and be-yond communications e orts, attitudes to the Span-ish imperial eagle have been improved because of theincrease in the number of permanent jobs created forthe protection of the species, the employment gener-ated by the increase of tourism in the area, and thecompensatory measures for damage to livestock.

L hrestoration

The LIFE projects had to address the fact that mostof the territory of the Spanish imperial eagle was onprivately owned or privately managed land. Some LIFEprojects, including one focusing on Cabaneros Nation-

al Park (LIFE99 NAT/E/006327 ) saw the purchase ofland for conservation purposes. However, evaluationsuggests that in this particular context reachingland stewardship agreements with landowners shouldbe preferred to land purchase. It is both cheaper and abetter means of engaging local stakeholders.

In 2010, the Regional Government of Madrid o eredcompensation to landowners with eagle nests on thebasis of 10 000 for the rst nest and 2 500 foreach additional nest. However, there is growing con-sensus that public administrations should use moresustainable systems of incentives to achieve conser-vation objectives. These could include tax bene ts,new sources of revenues, enhancement of local prod-

ucts or the creation of new commercial networks.

Several projects developed successful land manage-ment agreements. However, habitat restoration ef -forts focused on increasing rabbit populations werenot always very successful. Approaches tried includ-ed the creation of ex-situ breeding centres, restock-ing, construction of arti cial warrens, use of enclo-sures, scrub clearance, and provision of feedlots andwater troughs. The projects found that none of theseactions could sustainably restore rabbit numberson their own, but need to be combined e ectivelythrough an overall strategic approach.

The projects highlighted the importance of workingclosely with small hunting estates where the eaglesfeed particularly given the increasing prevalence ofpoisoned bait in hunting areas. Finally, regions suchas Castilla y Leon had some success with the use offeeding stations. However, it is largely agreed thatthis approach should be limited to urgent situationsin the short-to-medium-term only.

r l w l

The initial LIFE projects starting in 1992 carried outa lot of monitoring work to survey power lines andtheir impact on bird mortality. This work informedinterventions to reduce the threat posed to birds.It also contributed directly to the establishment in1997 of a dedicated Power Lines Task Force.

The impact of this work has been signi cant. Inmost regions, the LIFE projects led to agreementswith public electricity companies on amending powerlines to reduce their threat to birds. Furthermore, by2008, a Spanish Royal Decree was published govern-ing technical regulations for high tension power linesto protect birdlife.

P h o t o :

A S T R A L E E E I G / A i x a S o p e

a

P h o t o :

L I F E 0 2 N A T / E / 0 0 8 6 0 2


21/60

LIFE has had an importantimpact on Spanish policy on

power lines, one of the maincauses of eagle mortality


19

The best available techniques were found to be themodi cation of dangerous lines and the installationof supports for birds which were more cost-e ec-tive and sustainable in the longer run than cable insu-lation. However, given the expense of intervention, itis essential that it be based on an accurate inventoryof power lines and their relative threat to birds.

The success of modifying dangerous cables wasused to leverage some 12 million from the Na-tional Government and Community funds such asthe ERDF to fund further modi cation of powerlines, 2004-2007. This has had a positive short,medium and long-term impact. Nevertheless, theLIFE projects still identi ed the need for further re-

search into even better solutions.

The success of interventions and the direct impactrealised through legal instruments that ensure newinstallations pose much less danger to birds providesan excellent example for the rest of Europe. Coun-tries such as Romania and Bulgaria which havesimilar problems with large raptors can bene tsigni cantly from the experience gained through theLIFE projects in Spain.

Nevertheless, electrocution is still the biggest causeof mortality and many - particularly private - pylonsstill require urgent measures. Along with researchinto new techniques, additional training of techni-cians is important. A more recent LIFE project, Pri-orimancha (LIFE07/NAT/E/000742 ), has developeda Geographic Information System (GIS) to improveinformation about cases of death by electrocution orcollision with power lines.

c l /s l

LIFE projects have been fundamental in deliveringa sustainable improvement in the conservation sta-tus of the Spanish imperial eagle. The populationacross the ve regions more than doubled in the 10years following the completion of the main projects from 130 in 2000 to 280 individuals by 2010.

The ex-post evaluation identi ed the National Con-servation Strategy as an important component ofthe sustainability of these projects. The projectsalso appear to have had a signi cant catalytic roleon public administrations. For example, the SpanishMinistry of Environment has gone on to co-fund aGuide for the Conservation of the Spanish impe-rial eagle on private estates. In Extremadura, MsPalacios points out that a budget line for sustain-

able development that started with LIFE projectson eagles and vultures, is now being nanced bythe EAFRD programme, which provides funding ofup to 30 000 for landowners for the protection ofpriority species: To be eligible at least 50% of yourland has to be inside the Natura 2000 networkSowere starting to see small steps by landowners oreven whole municipalities who want to be insidethe Natura 2000 network.

Despite the positives, the situation of the Spanishimperial eagle is still critical and active conserva-tion measures continue to be necessary. Whilstmuch has been done to tackle electrocution frompower lines, even greater cooperation with elec-tricity companies is desirable. The use of poisonedbaits for predator control remains a particularly

signi cant problem for this eagle and other priorityspecies.

Interestingly, the relative success of eagle con-servation measures is expanding its range outsideNatura 2000 network sites protected under theBirds Directive.

Most participants in the ex-post evaluation felt thatexpanding the network to cover all the relevant ter-ritories would be impractical. A more appropriatefocus should be on improving management plansfor the existing Natura 2000 sites and establishingagreements with landowners, hunters and electric-ity companies to protect the species both withinand outside the network.

P h o t o :

L I F E 0 4 N A T / E / 0 0 0 0 3 4


22/60

Building trust and developing partnerships with stakeholders, notably farmers, is an essen-tial part of successful grassland restoration and this work highlighted under ex-postfarming projects needs to continue well beyond LIFE co-funding.

Located on the Baltic island of land,Stora Alvaret is a 25 000 ha open alvargrassland on a limestone plateau.

Where soils are shallow the open land-scape is largely the result of natural fac-tors regulating plant cover, but where soil isdeeper humans and their grazing animalshave been the most important in uencingfactors over the last thousand years. Untilrecently, the spread of scrub and woodlandwas kept in check by the constant grazingactivities of cattle, sheep and horses, aswell as by cutting for rewood. However,

in the late twentieth century, faced withcompetition from intensive farming, manyof lands small-scale farmers abandonedthese practices. When the agri-environ-

ment regulation entered into force in Swe-den, there was an opportunity for landsfarmers to regain part of their livelihoodswhile preserving this unique habitat. How-ever, the invading scrub rst had to be re-moved.

Supported by LIFE co- nance (LIFE96 NAT/S/003185 ), the County of Kalmar re-stored sites of high conservation potentialto a level where they were attractive forgrazing and eligible for agri-environmentsupport. To do this, the project cleared1 500 ha of scrub (using local labour as

part of a job creation scheme), establishedconservation grazing and provided infor-mation to raise awareness amongst localsand visitors.

The LIFE project was the turning point forthis cultural landscape. The actions weretaken at the landscape scale and over3 000 ha was incorporated into agri-envi-ronment schemes. The impetus of the pro-

ject also contributed to the alvar receivingUNESCO World Heritage Site status.

p s alv



0

trust and to build robust partnerships. Good exam-ples from the reports include Baltic coastal mead-ows (important for the natterjack toad Epidaleacalamita ), the management of dry grasslands inItaly in an agricultural area and the Swedish al-vars (see box).

t l b ll w

A second example of LIFE partnership work withfarmers sowing the seeds for the re-establishmentof traditional management comes from Estonia.Some 80% of the countrys coastal grassland waslost in the second half of the twentieth century,

F armers remain some of the most importantstakeholders in implementing nature conserva-tion actions in Europe. LIFE Nature has been instru-mental in developing partnerships with farmers andin providing valuable information and experience onhow agri-environment schemes can be deployed andadapted to nature conservation. Once demonstrated byLIFE projects, these innovations can then be rolled outon a more comprehensive basis by mainstream RuralDevelopment Programme (RDP) support measures.

b l

A common theme among the several ex-post projects involving farmers is the vital need to develop

P h o t o :

A l l i e C a u l

e l d

, u n d e r

C r e a

t i v e

C o m m o n s

L i c e n s e

Laying foundations for sustainable grasslandmanagement
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=90http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=90http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=90http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=90


23/60

Highland cattle on a coastalmeadow. The support of

farmers has been essentialto the long-term continuityof project actions after LIFE

Monitoring the water levelsin a well during the WaddenSea project in Denmark


21

largely as a result of the abandonment of agricul-tural practices such as mowing, reed cutting andextensive grazing. The LIFE Nature Silma project(LIFE03 NAT/EE/000181 ) worked with farmers tore-establish livestock grazing on 1 000 ha of wetmeadows in the Silma nature reserve and Osmus-saar and Vormsi landscape reserves.

Livestock and machinery were purchased to helpfarmers reinstate mowing and grazing fundedthrough an annual management fee with co- nanc -ing from the Ministry of the Environment. Interest inrestoring and managing coastal meadows was high,partly for a return to former conditions and partly totake up opportunities for agri-environment support.Several local NGOs and landowners signed ve-yearframework contracts (2006-2011) for the restora-tion of the habitats.

The ex-post mission found that the local farmersinvolved from the beginning were still maintainingthe restored semi-natural habitats. In addition, some

new farmers had joined the scheme. The work is be-ing supported by EU agri-environment schemes andto a higher value than during the project, giving ad-ditional motivation to the farmers to continue habi-tat management. The management of the coastalhabitats is e ective and the state of the habitats isimproving. The project was used as an example ofgood practice in the development the Rural Develop-ment Plan for Estonia for the period 2007-2013.

i v

This and other examples illustrate that LIFE can playa key role in establishing an integrated, long-termapproach to the restoration of Europes protectedgrasslands. However, as shown by the success of

the farmer-led Wadden Sea project ( LIFE99 NAT/DK/006456 ), the economics must be in place. ThisDanish project signed up more than 250 farmers to20-year management agreements to maintain theinternal hydrological processes of 2 488 ha of re-stored habitats. Linking the project to a rural landconsolidation process added an important economicincentive that helped persuade the farmers to partic-ipate by restoring extensive mowing and grazing onthe freshwater and brackish meadows in the estuaryof the Varde River.

LIFE projects can only succeed in the long term ifthe agricultural activities (and relevant subsidies)are sustained. Changes to the Common AgriculturalPolicy (CAP) are a risk to projects that seek to estab-lish ongoing management over many years.

P h o t o :

L I F E 0 0 N A T / E E / 0 0 7 0 8 3 / V o l

d e m a r

R a n n a p

P h o t o : L

I F E 9 9 N A T / D K / 0 0 6 4 5 6
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=2490http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=402http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=402http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=402http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=402http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=2490


24/60

From bogs to salt marshes, the diversity of wetland habitats addressed by LIFE projectsacross the EU is impressive: since 1992, more than 600 projects have focused directly, orindirectly, on wetlands. Of these, 12 targeting wetlands were visited and evaluated afterclosure.



2

to achieve these, the projects typically carried outrestoration works, such as the construction of dykesand re-wetting of dried-out areas as well as the re-naturalisation of other wetlands. Active manage-ment measures ranged from mowing and /or grazingof reed beds to the control and elimination of inva-sive non-native plants.

The sustainability of many of these actions is highlydependent on their degree of continuity a er theend of the project. Moreover, in order to measure

T he majority of the wetland ex-post reportsconcern projects that targeted rare or threat-ened bird species requiring conservation under theEU Birds Directive. Such projects - for example, the2002 bittern project in the UK, or 1997 corncrakeproject in Germany - aimed at both improving thewetlands habitats and reducing threats to the spe-cies concerned.

Their main actions involved improving water man-agement, mostly of water levels and quality. In order

P h o t o :

L I F E 0 7 N A T / L T / 0 0 0 5 3 0 /

y d r u n a s

S i n k e v

i c i u s

The after-LIFEimpacton wetlands

Flooded meadows arounduvintas Lake, Lithuania


25/60

The 2000 Finnish Aapa & Avi project (LIFE00 NAT/FIN/007060 ) targeteda signi cant area of the priority aapa mires habitat found in some 90% ofthe project area (in central Lapland); and also addressed the main threats toavifauna. It followed two earlier projects and paved the way for another, aspart of a series of projects in Finland to demonstrate how damaged mirescan be restored.

The projects design was realistic and manageable and involved two partnerswho had already worked closely together. It was successful in combiningseveral EU and national funds to widen the project scope to include tourism

infrastructure (structural funds) and agricultural buildings (national funds).

The project also helped to swing public opinion in favour of conservation andhighlighted the opportunities for combining nature conservation with eco-tourism. Speci cally, the project created ve jobs and these were still in placein 2010 i.e. ve years a er the project ended. More generally, it also helpedto generate employment in construction in the region; and, albeit from asmall base, has also encouraged some nature tourism.

The initial LIFE investment (of just under 1.6 million) in the region, togetherwith some 3.2 million of state co- nancing appears to have triggered in-creased interest from the public sector in investment in the region, whichtoday is 10 times higher than it was when the project began. Thus, it is possi-ble to conclude that the LIFE programme has contributed to this gearing-upe ect across the region.

Life v f l


23

their real impact, monitoring - for example of waterquality or of vegetation to assess habitat changes- should be a part of the a er-LIFE activities. It isimportant also to bear in mind that mires and bogstake a long time to recover a er restoration actionshave been carried out: sphagnum mosses, a mainbog-builder, take decades to recover and enable abog to attain a favourable conservation status. Insuch cases long-term monitoring is vital in order tofully appreciate the impact and sustainability of pro-

ject actions.

Several wetland projects had a major impact on thedesignation (and subsequent management) of Nat-ura 2000 network sites. These projects successfully

devised and approved management plans for thesites and also helped raise awareness locally aboutthe EUs Natura 2000 network.

Gains and losses

As one example, the NEMOS project (LIFE00 NAT/IT/007281 ) helped to consolidate and enlarge a se-ries of Natura 2000 southern Alpine wetland sitesfound within the Italian province of Trento with newsites approved a er the end of the project. Disap-pointingly, however, the a er-LIFE monitoring hasnot shown any increase in the populations of thespecies linked with water found there ( sh, amphib-ians and birds). Closer analysis reveals that eventhough the water quality is improving across therivers, streams and drainage channels of the wet-lands (thanks to the LIFE measures) there has been ageneral increase in pollution in the region, so speci cthreats to the species remain.

In other areas of the NEMOS project, however, thea er-LIFE monitoring has highlighted some very

positive results. These include an increased ac-ceptance of the Natura 2000 sites by local peo-ple as evidenced by the fact that there is nolonger a problem of vandalism and poaching hasdecreased. The tourism infrastructure constructedas part of the project has increased visitor num-bers, both of tourists and the local community.Moreover, on the wet meadowlands, farmers haveadopted more bird-friendly farm practices, withthe support of EU agri-environmental incentives(at least until the end of 2013). Encouragingly,nature protection continues today in the province,supported by regional funding for land-purchaseand also for recurring management. Other long-termthreats remain however, as the area also faces de -velopment pressures.

m

Concerning the conservation of mires in Europe, asearly as 1998 it was possible to make an assess -ment of the positive contribution of the LIFE pro-gramme; and the work continues with several LIFEprojects featuring in the IUCN programme report UKpeatland restoration-demonstrating success. In Fin-land alone, some 20 000 ha of peatlands have beenrestored, 14 000 ha of which have been completedwith LIFE funding for a number of projects theretargeting the restoration of the rare and threatenedhabitats (see box).

P h o t o :

L I F E 0 0 N A T / F I N / 0 0 7 0 6 0
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=1707http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=1772http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=1772http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=1772http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=1772http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=1707


26/60

Since 1992, LIFE Nature projects have been targeting the 71 forest habitats that areincluded in Annex I of the Habitats Directive. To date, more than 500 projects have focuseddirectly or indirectly on Annex I-listed forest habitats.

LIFE has played an impor-tant role in establishing theNatura 2000 network innew Member States, such asRomania



4

LIFE ex-post visits to forest projects are thereforeessential to assess the recovery of forest habitats

a er the implementation of the project actions andto con rm any improvement in conservation statusof the targeted habitats and Natura 2000 sites.

Out of the 93 projects visited by the Astrale LIFEmonitoring team, seven projects targeted mainlyforest habitats. These projects focused on rare hab-itat forest types, such as Cretes Vai palm forests(see box) and habitat types of exclusive forest spe-cies (e.g. Taxus baccata ). These forest types havebeen damaged by such silvicultural practices as theplanting of non-native species and the favouringof one species over another (e.g. in monoculturalforestry plantations). In the case of Vai, the palmgroves also face intense tourism pressure and arethreatened further by the slow recovery rates of thenative species.

Alluvial forest has been targeted by more LIFE projects than any other forest habitat, however only twoof these projects have received an ex-post follow-up.

f

Many LIFE projects involving trees and forests havefocused on the restoration of the natural processesresponsible for the habitats development. Thus,projects have addressed the rewetting of alluvialforests, the use of controlled re to regenerate bo -real forests, the creation of deadwood and structur-al diversity for forest biodiversity and the recoveryof rare and isolated forest types. In general, LIFEforest projects emphasise the need to work withforest management plans for the targeted foresthabitats and, in a broader sense, for the entire Nat-ura 2000 site. These plans foresee long-term man-agement actions and, in some cases, they establishthe source of funding for management as well asmonitoring plans.

O ne of the issues that projects face is thedependency of forest restoration on forestlife span/cycles. The recovery period is always muchlonger than the duration of the LIFE project. O en itwill take years for the bene ciaries to know for surethat their projects have been a success.

P h o t o :

L I F E 0 5 N A T / R O / 0 0 0 1 7 6 / T u d o r

S t a n c i o i u

LIFE and forest restoration


27/60

In 2006, an ex-post visit was made to the Vai 31/12/2002 project (LIFE98 NAT/GR/005264 ), which ran from 1999-2002. It revealed that the actionsstarted by the LIFE project were continuing at both local and national level andwere having a positive impact on the conservation status of the palm forest.Furthermore, the Goulandris Natural History Museum, the project bene ciary,had retained its interest in the conservation of the area.

The main actions undertaken by the bene ciary since the project have includ-ed monitoring developments in the area, consulting with other stakeholders,seeking nancing for conservation actions and raising public awareness. It hasmaintained its presence in the project area through a local coordinator, NikosKifonidis, who is based permanently in Sitia. Moreover, since the end of theproject, the bene ciary has restored a further 13.4 ha of palm forest.

The Forestry Directorate of Lasithi, which manages the forest, is continuing toremove competing species and dead biomass for the bene t of the existingand the extended forest, a task carried out by seasonal workers each summer.The directorate also employs two permanent guards to avert forest res andother threats. In summer, voluntary organisations and other services providewardens for additional protection, while the municipality of Itanos, which man-ages visitor access, has brought all parties together to draw up an action planon the issue.

The projects land exchange activities have also continued in partnership withthe Holy Monastery of Toplou, the landowner of the wider area. These hadextended the forested area by 0.5 ha at the time of the ex-post, with further ex-

changes expect

Documents

Long-Term Impact and Sustainability of LIFE Nature