LIFE Improving the Conservation Status of Species and Habitats Habitats Directive Article 17 Report

Home , Conservation status, Lynx, Small mountain ringlet

NATURE

LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats Habitats Directive Article 17 report

colours C/M/Y/K 32/49/79/21 LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

European Commission Environment Directorate-General

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

The contents of the publication “LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats: Habitats Directive Article 17 report” do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the institutions of the European Union.

Authors: João Pedro Silva (Nature expert), Justin Toland, Wendy Jones, Jon Eldridge, Tim Hudson, Stephen Gardner, Edward Thorpe, Eamon O’Hara (AEIDL, Communications Team Coordinator). Managing Editor: Angelo Salsi (European Commission, DG Environment, LIFE Unit). LIFE Focus series coordination: Simon Goss (DG Environment, LIFE Communications Coordinator), Evelyne Jussiant (DG Environment, Communications Coordinator). Technical Assistance: Aixa Sopeña, Lubos Halada, Alberto Cozzi, Mikko Tiira, Katerina Raftopoulou, John Houston, Jan Sliva (Astrale EEIG). The following people also worked on this issue: Juan Pérez-Lorenzo, Angelika Rubin (DG Environment), Marita Arvela, Doug Evans (ETC on Biological Diversity -Paris) Production: Monique Braem. Graphic design: Daniel Renders, Anita Cortés (AEIDL). Acknowledgements: Thanks to all LIFE project beneficiaries who contributed comments, photos and other useful material for this report. Photos: Unless otherwise specified; photos are from the respective projects.

Europe Direct is a service to help you find 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 Office of the European Union, 2010

ISBN 978-92-79-13572-9 ISSN 1725-5619 doi 10.2779/18040

Printed in Belgium

Printed on recycled paper that has been awarded the EU Ecolabel for graphic paper (http://ec.europa.eu/ecolabel/)

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats FOREWORD

Ladislav Miko Director Directorate B – Nature, DG Environment

Photo: cassandre sturbois Photo: cassandre European Commission

rticle 17 of the Habitats Directive requires Member States to submit information on its progress in imple- Amentation every six years. The latest reports, covering 2001-2006, contain a first assessment of the conservation status of more than 1182 species and 216 habitat types. This is the most comprehensive survey of EU biodiversity undertaken to date, providing an invaluable reference point for measuring future trends.

The results show that Europe’s biodiversity is still under heavy pressure, and that only a small proportion of the habitats and species of Community interest are in a favourable conservation status. These findings highlight the urgent need to intensify ecological restoration efforts. Where substantial restoration work has been carried out, it often shows measurable and positive impacts on conservation status.

The LIFE programme has been the most visible EU financial instrument dedicated to nature conservation since 1992. LIFE Nature projects are now well-known across the EU (with more than 1100 projects financed) and are favourably perceived at local level. Their positive contribution has been shown beyond doubt for different types of habitat and species. Several specific habitats or species whose conservation status, as reported by the Member States, is improving have been targeted by LIFE Nature projects.

The link between LIFE projects and improved conservation status has been shown in several cases (for example, the Spanish lynx and peatlands and bogs in several Member States). It is also clear that LIFE projects have helped develop and demonstrate best practice that has subsequently been applied to similar situations elsewhere in Europe, and have made a significant contribution to setting in place the Natura 2000 network and its management.

The overall contribution of LIFE Nature projects remains, however, difficult to quantify as it is heavily dependent on the scale and timeframe of the project actions as well as on the distributions of the species and habitats. Most projects only target species and habitats at a local or regional scale, usually on one or a few Natura 2000 sites, although some have covered the complete distribution range (for example, endemic species and habitats with a restricted distribution). For many projects, the full impact will only be seen after several years or even decades.

The objective of this publication is to provide an overview of the contribution LIFE Nature projects have made to improving the conservation status of a considerable range of species and habitats covered by the Habitats Directive. It must be stressed that this brochure does not aim to show that reported improvements in conservation status are necessarily linked to LIFE projects. Nature simply does not often react that fast and LIFE projects are not the only nature restoration projects working on the ground. It is however certain that LIFE Nature and biodiversity projects will continue to play a vital role in reversing the decline of biodiversity in the EU.

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats CONTENTS

Foreword ...... 1 LIFE and Endangered Heathlands...... 55 Fish Species...... 33 LIFE demonstrates how to Status Reports LIFE support for Italy’s regenerate lowland and alpine Support Action...... 3 endangered Cobice sturgeon... 33 heathlands ...... 55 Conservation status reports Better rivers for healthier fish: Wetlands...... 57 confirm need for greater action... 3 salmon conservation in LIFE helps restore vital wetland LIFE: improving conservation Scotland ...... 35 ecosystems...... 57 status...... 7 LIFE and Mediterranean LIFE supports blanket bog resto- freshwater fish...... 36 ration in the UK and Ireland...... 58 SPECIES...... 11 LIFE Improving Plant Blocking ditches to bring Mammals...... 12 Species...... 38 back aapa mires...... 60 LIFE promotes bat LIFE innovations benefit Raised bog restoration in conservation...... 12 Europe’s flora...... 38 Europe...... 62 LIFE’s contribution to brown LIFE and plant micro-reserves.. 39 Other Wetlands...... 65 bear conservation...... 15 Successful LIFE support for Restoring coastal lagoons to Securing a future for the endangered Italian daisies ...... 40 a favourable status...... 65 Arctic fox...... 18 LIFE aids Mediterranean A viable future for the monk HABITATS...... 40 temporary ponds ...... 66 seal...... 19 Forests...... 42 LIFE conservation of a special LIFE boost for critically Preserving priority palm forest habitat: petrifying springs with endangered Iberian lynx ...... 21 habitat on Crete...... 42 tufa formation...... 68 LIFE support for critically Sustaining the favourable endangered European mink..... 23 conservation status of Italian Wet Forests...... 69 LIFE conserving wet forests...... 69 Amphibians and Mediterranean beech forest Reptiles ...... 24 habitats...... 43 Grasslands...... 71 LIFE helps Europe’s LIFE support for Europe’s Stepping up actions to conserve herpetofauna ...... 24 Atlantic Forests...... 45 pannonic grasslands ...... 71 Loggerhead turtles’ long-term LIFE boosts black pine forest Concerted action to halt the survival through LIFE...... 26 habitats in southern Europe..... 48 decline of Nardus grasslands.. 73 Regeneration and protection LIFE and Less-Known Dune Habitats...... 50 of species-rich dry calcareous Species...... 27 Atlantic coast LIFE projects grasslands...... 75 LIFE benefit for freshwater pearl attempt to reverse dune Safeguarding Fennoscandian mussels ...... 27 deterioration...... 50 wooded pastures and meadows 77 Bolstering butterfly populations A coastline under pressure: through LIFE...... 29 Mediterranean dunes...... 52 Project Index...... 79 The reintroduction of the white- Protecting Posidonia in the List of available LIFE Nature clawed crayfish...... 31 Mediterranean...... 54 publications...... 81 Amphibians (83 species assessed)

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

Conservation status reports confirm need for greater action

Habitats types targeted by LIFE projects (1992-2008) STATUS REPORT Amphibians (83 speciesThe assessed) first-ever systematic assessment of the conservation status of

Europe’s most endangered&ORESTS habitats and species has been carried .ATURALANDSEMI NATURAL out by 25 Member StatesGRASSLANDFORMATIONS (Romania and Bulgaria were not part of

&RESHWATERSHABITATS this reporting exercise), 2AISEDAND"OGS-IRESAND&ENSas part of the regular reporting on the imple- #OASTALAND(ALOPHYTIC(ABITATS mentation of the EU Habitats4EMPERATE(EATHAND3CRUB Directive. The results, covering 2001- 2OCKY(ABITATS!ND#AVES 2006, show that only a small#OASTAL3AND$UNESAND)NLAND$UNES proportion of the habitats and species of 3CLEROPHYLLOUS3CRUB-ATORRAL Community interest are in a ‘favourable’ conservation status. The findings highlight the

critical importance of conservation at EU level for the establishment and development

of the Natura 2000 network and beyond. If the situation is to improve, ecological res- Habitats types targeted by LIFE projects (1992-2008) Projects toration efforts should be stepped up at both national and European level. "IRDS &ORESTS -AMMALS &ISH .ATURALANDSEMI NATURAL GRASSLANDFORMATIONS !NGIOSPERMAE n 2007, Member States delivered accordance with Article 17 of !RTHROPODthe Habitats 31% of species assessments are classi- &RESHWATERSHABITATS !MPHIBIAN the2AISEDAND"OGS-IRESAND&ENS first comprehensive assessment Directive. fied as ‘unknown’ due to a lack of infor- I 2EPTILE #OASTALAND(ALOPHYTIC(ABITATS of the conservation status of the habi- -OLLUSC mation (see figs 1 and 2). 4EMPERATE(EATHAND3CRUB ,OWERPLANTS tats and species of Community interest The results – compiled and assessed 2OCKY(ABITATS!ND#AVES 0TERYDOPHYTA in ‘Article#OASTAL3AND$UNESAND)NLAND$UNES 17’ reports, named after the by the European Topic Centre'YMNOSPERAMAE on Bio- As the habitats and species listed in relevant3CLEROPHYLLOUS3CRUB-ATORRAL article in the Habitats Directive. logical Diversity (ETC/BD) on behalf of the annexes of the Habitats Directive The aim of this exercise was to assess the European Commission – indicate were chosen largely because they were the conservation status of the habitats that overall, across the different biogeo- known to be&)'52% threatened these results and species at the EU biogeographical graphical zones and marine regions of come as no surprise. They highlight the scale in order to prepare the composite ProjectsEurope, only 17% of habitats and spe- challenges that were faced in halting the report that the Commission published in cies assessments show a ‘favourable loss of biodiversity by 2010, as European "IRDS condition’; while 18% of habitats and governments had committed. This major &AVOURABLE -AMMALS first evaluation effort helps identify habi- 5NFAVOURABLE )NADEQUATE 1 “Report&ISH from the Commission to the !NGIOSPERMAE tats and species that require action. Council and the European Parliament - Com- The web-based Article 17 Technical5NFAVOURABLE BAD Report posite !RTHROPODReport on the Conservation Status (2001-2006) http://biodiversity.eionet.europa. of Habitat!MPHIBIAN Types and Species as required eu/article17 5NKNOWN under 2EPTILEArticle 17 of the Habitats Directive One of the European Topic Centres of the For many of these habitats and species (COM/2009/0358-OLLUSC final) European Environment Agency conservation action is already under- ,OWERPLANTS 0TERYDOPHYTA 'YMNOSPERAMAE

Figure 1: Assessment of conservation status Figure 2: Assessment of conservation status for Annex 1 habitats (the&)'52% percentage relates of species (the percentage relates&)'52% to the number to the number of assessments made) of assessments made)

&AVOURABLE &AVOURABLE

5NFAVOURABLE )NADEQUATE 5NFAVOURABLE )NADEQUATE

5NFAVOURABLE BAD 5NFAVOURABLE BAD 5NKNOWN 5NKNOWN

Source: ETC/BD, Paris 2009 Source: ETC/BD, Paris 2009

&)'52%

&AVOURABLE 5NFAVOURABLE )NADEQUATE

5NFAVOURABLE BAD 5NKNOWN

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

forget-me-not (Mysotis rehsteineri) in Austria; and habitats such as the priority habitat types bog woodland (91D0*) and Caledonian forest (91C0*), both found in the United Kingdom. Many of the plant ‘micro-reserves’ (small botanical reserves) that have been established in several EU countries have also been created as part STATUS REPORT of LIFE projects.

Assessment, monitoring and reporting

The Paris-based ETC/BD has produced regional assessments of conservation status for each habitat and species listed in the directive’s annexes. It has used 25

Photo: LIFE06 NAT/E/000209 Member State’s reported data to assess The Iberian lynx is one of the most endangered felines in the world and has been the target conservation status across seven ter- of many LIFE projects. restrial biogeographical zones and four marine regions of Europe (see Fig. 3). way, and several countries have reported Nature programme. Examples include that the conservation status of some projects in Italy and Spain on the brown particular habitats or species, although bear (Ursus arctos) – once found all over Given Bulgaria and Romania’s recent unfavourable, is improving. Those noted Europe but now extinct in many areas, accession to the EU, the Steppic region and the Black Sea are not included. Four marine include several that have been targeted as well as endemic flora species such as regions were added for the purpose of Article by projects funded by the EU’s LIFE the highly endangered Lake Constance 17 reporting.

HABITATS DIRECTIVE – THE BACKGROUND The Habitats Directive, adopted in 1992, together with the earlier Birds Directive, forms the cornerstone of Europe’s nature conservation policy. It is also a key component of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan, which aims to halt the decline of EU biodiversity by 2010 and beyond. The directive is built upon two pillars: the Natura 2000 network of protected sites (which also includes sites under the Birds Directive) and a strict system of species protection. Its objective is for more than 200 habitats and 1 000 species to reach and be maintained at ‘favourable conservation status’ thus securing their long-term survival. The directive is made up of a series of articles and annexes. The articles outline the aim of conserving biodiversity and the means to achieve it. The annexes are lists of habitats and species of Community interest in need of different forms of protection. Article 1 defines ‘conservation status’ as the sum of the influences on habitats or species that affect their long-term distribution, structure and function, or abundance. It defines ‘favourable’ conservation status in terms of stability of range and viability. Article 11 specifies that the habitats and species of Community importance must be monitored to provide a clear picture of their actual conservation status and trends. Article 17 specifies – among others - that reports must be made every six years based on such monitoring. The first Article 17 reports, which covered the period 1994-2000, prioritised the transposition of the directive into national laws. The current reports, covering 2001-2006, are the first to include conservation status assessments of the habitats and species of Community interest. The Article 17 reports can be viewed as a ‘health check’ for the habitats and species covered by the directive – showing where the greatest need for action is and whether the directive is effective.

Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22 July 1992, p. 7) Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (OJ L 103, 5 April 1979, p. 1) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/index_en.htm

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

The overall conservation status is These were to cover 216 Annex I habitat as ‘favourable’ and the Atlantic the lowest. assessed by combining the results of the types and 1 180 species (including sub- The Pannonian and Atlantic biogeograhi- following parameters in accordance with species and genera) in Annexes II, IV, cal regions have the highest proportion of an agreed method. and V of the Habitats Directive. The data ‘unfavourable-bad’ assessments. presented in the Member States’ reports Species Habitats and in the biogeographical analysis are It is possible to analyse conservation for Range Range based on the number of assessments of groups of related habitat types, such as habitats and species, not the number of forests or grasslands (see Fig. 4). Dunes, Population Area STATUS REPORT habitats and species themselves. bogs/mires/fens and grasslands are the Suitable Structure & habitat groups with the worst conserva- habitat functions For further details, see: tion status. Rocky habitats, such as scree Future prospects Future prospects http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/ slopes or caves have the best conserva- article17. tion status. A higher percentage of ‘prior- Each of these parameters is reported as ity’ habitats were evaluated as having a one of the following classes: Habitat assessments bad status, compared with non-priority habitats. This was most noticeable for Favourable Overall, 37% of the 701 habitat assess- coastal habitats. ‘Future prospects’ is one ments indicate an unfavourable-bad of the four parameters of conservation Unfavourable - inadequate condition, and a further 28% indicate status. It was ‘unfavourable’ for more than Unfavourable - bad an ‘unfavourable-inadequate’ condition 50% of the habitat assessments. Habitat Unknown (see Fig. 1). Only 17% of assessments area trends were negative in over 20% of are ‘favourable’. Underlying this figure the assessments. For further details, see: are substantial variations across the bio- http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ geographical regions. For example, three For more information, see: knowledge/rep_habitats/index_en.htm of the four marine regions and one ter- http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/ restrial region don’t have any habitats in article17/habitatsreport. In total, 2 756 separate reports were ‘favourable’ condition. submitted electronically by national Species assessments authorities for habitat types and 6 064 for The Alpine biogeographical region has the species, with 16 000 associated maps. highest proportion of habitats assessed Of the 2 240 species assessments, 22% indicate an ‘unfavourable-bad’ condition and a further 30% indicate ‘unfa- Based on the parameters given in the Habi- Further habitats and species were added tats Directive and agreed with the Habitats to the annexes in January 2007, see http:// Committee, made up of experts from the ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/ Habitats for which the need for conservation Member States. habitatsdirective/index_en.htm action is thought to be particularly high.

Figure 3: Biogeographical zones and marine regions used for Article 17 reporting

ALP (Alpine)

ATL (Atlantic)

BOR (Boreal)

CON (Continental)

MAC (Macaronesia)

MED (Mediterranean)

PAN (Pannonian)

MMED (marine Mediterranean)

MMAC (marine Macaronesian)

MBAL (marine Baltic)

MATL (marine Atlantic) Source: ETC/BD, Paris 2009 Source:

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

vourable inadequate’ (see Fig. 2). The There is less variation between the bio- ‘unknown’ assessments limits evaluation proportion of species assessments indi- geographical and marine regions for at the biogeographical level. cating ‘unfavourable-bad’ is more than species than for habitats. Of the terres- 20% in most biogeographical regions trial biogeographical regions, the Boreal See http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/ and is more than 30% for the molluscs has the highest proportion of species article17/speciesreport and arthropods, with molluscs the worst assessments indicating ‘favourable’ and (see Fig. 5). Half of the assessments of the Atlantic the lowest. Molluscs and Marine assessments the subgroups of marine and freshwa- arthropods are among the most threat- STATUS REPORT ter molluscs are ‘unfavourable-bad’; the ened groups in most regions. In the Mac- Marine conservation is still very much a conservation status of terrestrial snails aronesian region, the highest percentage developing area. According to the ETC/BD, seems to be better. of ‘unfavourable-bad’ assessments is in the lack of data on marine habitats and spe- the mammal group, whereas in the Pan- cies has lead to a much higher percentage Note, however, that the mollusc group nonian region the highest are vascular of ‘unknowns’ for their assessments than is relatively small (81 assessments). and non-vascular plants. The proportion for the terrestrial assessments. (For terres- The highest percentage of the favoura- of ‘unknowns’ is higher for species than trial species there are 27% compared with ble assessments is for vascular plants. for habitats, notably in the Mediterranean 57% for marine species.) In addition, data In general there are negligible differ- and marine biogeographical regions. For quality for marine populations is noted as ences between the conservation sta- the parameter ‘future prospects’ and poor almost twice as often as for marine tus of priority and non-priority Annex analysis of trends of species assess- species (60% for marine species, 35% for II species. ments, the relatively high proportion of terrestrial species).

Assessment of conservationFigure status 4: ofAssessment habitats byof conservation habitat group status (the of numberhabitats byin habitat group (the number in brackets indicates the number of assessments in each group)

Assessment of conservationRocky habitats (64) status of habitats by habitat group (the number in Sclerophyllous scrub (32)

Rocky habitatsForest (181) (64)

SclerophyllousHeath & scrubscrub (36)(32)

Freshwater habitatsForest (181) (84)

CoastalHeath habitats& scrub (84)(36)

FreshwaterBogs, mires habitats & fens (56)(84)

CoastalGrasslands habitats (102) (84)

Bogs,Dunes mires habitats & fens (62)(56)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Grasslands (102) Favourable Unfavourable - inadequate Unfavourable - bad Unknown Dunes habitats (62) Source: ETC/BD, Paris 2009 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Vascular plants (799) Figure 5: Assessment of conservation status of species by species group

Non-vascular plants (92)(the number in brackets indicates the number of assessments in each group)

Reptiles (149) Vascular plants (799) Fish (242) Non-vascular plants (92) Molluscs (81) Reptiles (149) Amphibians (152) Fish (242) Mammals (381) Molluscs (81) Arthropods (336) Amphibians (152) Others (8) Mammals (381) 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Arthropods (336)

Others (8)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% Favourable Unfavourable - inadequate Unfavourable - bad Unknown

Source: ETC/BD, Paris 2009

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

LIFE: improving conservation status STATUS REPORT Across the EU, the positive contribution of the LIFE Nature programme to nature con-

servation has been demonstrated in different types of habitats and species, under dif-

ferent pressures and threats. The conservation status assessment reports confirm the

contribution of dedicated conservation and restoration projects funded by LIFE.

ince 1992, 1107 nature con- projects funded since 1992 had some bird vation status of all species and habitats Sservation projects have been conservation actions. However, the scope included in the annexes of the Habitats funded by the LIFE programme, with a of the Article 17 report is restricted to spe- Directive, especially the habitats and total budget of more than e1700 mil- cies and habitats included in the annexes species that are in need of recurring lion. These projects have targeted a of the Habitats directive. Therefore, bird Amphibiansmanagement (83 (not species eligible assessed) for co-financ- wide range of species and habitats species were not part of the Article 17 ing under LIFE). However, LIFE has made included in the annexes of the Birds report exercise and are the subject of a a significant contribution to implement- and Habitats Directives. separate reporting exercise, within the ing Natura 2000 in the Member States. framework of the Birds Directive. According to the ex post evaluation of Forest, grasslands and freshwater habi- the LIFE programme. LIFE projects are tats were the habitat types most often Mammals are the second most targeted estimated to have covered 8-9% of targeted by LIFE, and dune and coastal, species group, with 145 projects. Of the all Natura 2000 sites and a significant and rocky habitats the least targeted. species included in the annexes of the share of the habitats and species listed Habitats Directive, the brown bear (Ursus in the Annexes to the Birds and Habitats The habitat most often targeted by LIFE arctos) is that most often targeted by LIFE Directives. In terms of the area covered, projects has been the 91E0 - Alluvial for- projects since 1992, with 31 projects. it is estimated to be approximately 3-6% ests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus Next come the otter (Lutra lutra) and the of the entire Natura 2000 network area excelsior (Alno-Padion,Amphibians Alnion incanae, (83 species fire-bellied assessed) toad (Bombina bombinaHabitats), with types of targetedthe EU-15.The by LIFE findings projects indicate (1992-2008) that Salicion albae), which has been targeted 21 and 20 projects respectively. an area of approximately 320,000 hec- directly or indirectly by a total of 191 LIFE tares in Natura 2000 sites was restored &ORESTS projects. This is followed by the Hydrophil- The following pages show.ATURALANDSEMI NATURAL a selection as a result of LIFE projects in the evalu- ous tall herb fringe communities of plains of habitats and species whoseGRASSLANDFORMATIONS conser- ation period. The projects focusing on &RESHWATERSHABITATS (6430) and the montane to alpine level vation status has benefited2AISEDAND"OGS-IRESAND&ENS from LIFE habitats, with 120 projects. project actions. However,#OASTALAND(ALOPHYTIC(ABITATS this simple Ex-Post Evaluation of Projects and Activities 4EMPERATE(EATHAND3CRUBFinanced under the LIFE Programme, COWI exercise shows that LIFE, because of its 2OCKY(ABITATS!ND#AVES (2009) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ Birds are the species most targeted by resource and mandate limitations,#OASTAL3AND$UNESAND)NLAND$UNES is not publications/lifepublications/evaluation/docu- LIFE projects. More than one-third of the enough to improve by itself3CLEROPHYLLOUS3CRUB-ATORRAL the conser- ments/lifeval_nature.pdf

HabitatsFigure types 6: Habitats targeted types by LIFE targeted projects (1992-2008) Figure 7: Species groups targeted by LIFE projects (1992-2008) by LIFE projects (1992-2008)Projects

&ORESTS "IRDS -AMMALS .ATURALANDSEMI NATURAL GRASSLANDFORMATIONS &ISH !NGIOSPERMAE &RESHWATERSHABITATS !RTHROPOD 2AISEDAND"OGS-IRESAND&ENS !MPHIBIAN #OASTALAND(ALOPHYTIC(ABITATS 2EPTILE 4EMPERATE(EATHAND3CRUB -OLLUSC 2OCKY(ABITATS!ND#AVES ,OWERPLANTS #OASTAL3AND$UNESAND)NLAND$UNES 0TERYDOPHYTA 3CLEROPHYLLOUS3CRUB-ATORRAL 'YMNOSPERAMAE

Source: LIFE projects database &)'52% Projects

"IRDS -AMMALS &AVOURABLE &ISH !NGIOSPERMAE 5NFAVOURABLE )NADEQUATE !RTHROPOD 5NFAVOURABLE BAD !MPHIBIAN 2EPTILE 5NKNOWN -OLLUSC ,OWERPLANTS 0TERYDOPHYTA 'YMNOSPERAMAE

&)'52% &)'52%

&AVOURABLE

5NFAVOURABLE )NADEQUATE &AVOURABLE 5NFAVOURABLE BAD 5NFAVOURABLE )NADEQUATE

5NKNOWN 5NFAVOURABLE BAD 5NKNOWN

&)'52%

&AVOURABLE 5NFAVOURABLE )NADEQUATE

5NFAVOURABLE BAD 5NKNOWN Habitats included on the Annex I of the Habitats Directive targeted by LIFE

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

FigureHabitats 8: includedHabitats includedon the Annex in A nnexI of the I of Habitats the Habitats Directive Directive targeted targeted by LIFE by LIFE

STATUS REPORT % (ABITAT4YPE(ABITATS$IRECTIVE#ODE

% Source: LIFE projects database (ABITAT4YPE(ABITATS$IRECTIVE#ODE * denotes priority for conservation Species most targeted by LIFE Figure 9: Species most targeted by LIFE

Species most targeted by LIFE

,UTRALUTRA 5RSUSARCTOS #OTTUSGOBIO -YOTISMYOTIS #ARETTACARETTA 4RITURUSCRISTATUS %MYSORBICULARIS -USTELALUTREOLA "OMBINAVARIEGATA %UPHYDRYASAURINIA

2HINOLOPHUSHIPPOSIDEROS

Source: LIFE projects database

habitat restoration most often resulted regional level for one or more species applied in other European regions with

in achieving favourable conservation in the long term. similar problems. status and ensured the continued man-

agement of the sites’,UTRALUTRA area. Thus, fol- LIFE and Article 17 Importantly, the results of the first 5RSUSARCTOS #OTTUSGOBIO -YOTISMYOTIS #ARETTACARETTA 4RITURUSCRISTATUS %MYSORBICULARIS -USTELALUTREOLA lowing the projects, the "OMBINAVARIEGATAareas targeted reporting %UPHYDRYASAURINIA assessment of the conservation status remained in restored condition in the of species and habitats (the Article 17 2HINOLOPHUSHIPPOSIDEROS long term, or the restored area was Several countries have reported that the report) highlight the importance of the enlarged. Regarding coverage of spe- conservation status of particular habi- LIFE programme, and in particular LIFE cies listed in Annex II of the Habitats tats or species, although unfavourable, Nature projects, as the sole source of Directive, about half of the animals spe- is improving. This includes several habi- funding for the conservation, restoration cies (especially mammals) have been tats and species targeted by LIFE Nature and management of certain species and targeted by LIFE projects, whereas the projects. Not only do LIFE projects have habitats at EU level. coverage for plants is lower. The evalu- a direct impact via the measures they ation shows that approximately half of implement, but dedicated project man- This brochure is a first attempt to bet- the projects aiming at species protec- agers (and beneficiaries in general) have ter understand the contribution of LIFE tion or reintroduction achieved favour- shown that best practices in species/ projects to improving the conservation able conservation status at local and habitat conservation can be successfully status of species and habitats included

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

in the annexes of the Habitats Direc- the Trodos grasslands in Cyprus, and campaigns, stakeholder meetings and tive. This exercise is not intended to more recently, the machairs habitats in conservation training for stakeholders be exhaustive. The primary objective Scotland. In these cases, some conclu- such as farmers and fishermen. is to identify examples of LIFE projects sions can indeed be drawn in relation to that have made a contribution and to the contribution at EU level. Helping to define examine the lessons, if any, that can be the Natura 2000 network learned from the project actions. Therefore, this publication cannot and does not attempt to show that improve- LIFE, and especially LIFE I and II, had a STATUS REPORT At this stage, it is impossible to assess ments in conservation status reported significant impact on Natura 2000 site the overall impact of LIFE on the conser- under Article 17 are a direct result of LIFE proposal and/or delimitation, site man- vation status of species and habitats at projects. It merely provides examples of agement plans, species conservation EU level. Moreover, LIFE project actions, LIFE projects that have helped improve plans, new regional/national legislation although often successful in achieving the conservation status of habitats and etc; these kinds of actions, although their objectives, generally only cover a species referred to in the report. While they do not contribute directly to the very restricted area of the species or this may indicate that LIFE projects did improvement of conservation status, habitat’s EU range and, in many cases, contribute to reported improvements, create a basis and framework for future it is often only after the project finishes the ETC/BD concise report on Article conservation actions. For example, on that the real benefits can be identified 17 concludes that further analysis is request from the Estonian Ministry of the and measured. Such results are there- required to determine to what extent Environment, the project LIFE00 NAT/ fore not reflected in the LIFE reporting such reported improvements in conser- EE/007081 presented a proposal for ten process. vation status are a direct result of the core Natura 2000 sites for the European work funded by LIFE. mink on Hiiumaa Island. In this way, the However, for some species LIFE has project had a clear impact on the Natura provided funding for conservation LIFE: creating 2000 process in Estonia, with reference actions covering the entire distribution the conditions for to the proposal of pSCI sites for the tar- range, as has been the case with a few conservation get species. endemic species with restricted distribution, such as some species of fish (see Some LIFE projects have contributed in a Further project actions and outcomes pages 35-37), plants (see pages 38-40) more indirect way to conserving habitats concerning Natura 2000 and LIFE can be and amphibians and reptiles (see pages and species. For example, the redefini- found in the publication, ‘LIFE for Natura 24-26). To a lesser extent, LIFE has also tion or delimitation of Natura 2000 sites 2000 – 10 years implementing the regu- funded actions covering the entire distri- (thus helping set up the Natura 2000 net- lation’. (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ bution range of certain habitats. Exam- work), preparing species actions plans life/publications/lifepublications/lifefocus/ ples include the Vai Palm forests in Crete, and site management plans, awareness documents/lifefornatura_en.pdf)

LIFE has contributed to the Natura 2000 network of protected sites as a means of improving habitat conservation. Photo: LIFE05 NAT/IRL/000182 10

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

site managers to apply them to similar habitat types in different biogeographical regions.

LIFE Challenges

This brochure highlights some best practice examples that have made an impor- STATUS REPORT tant contribution to improving the conservation status of species and habitats. However, the impact of LIFE is sometimes difficult to measure and is limited by the resources and mandate assigned

Photo: LIFE04 NAT/GB/000245 to the programme. To further enhance its Caught on camera: project actions have commonly included surveys and monitoring activi- role in nature conservation and biodiver- ties that have greatly added to our knowledge of certain species. sity at EU level, some key challenges for the LIFE programme are to: Improving knowledge of For less known species of invertebrates l Further develop the link between the species and habitats such as some dragonflies species, the LIFE programme and other sources of project ‘Conservation of endangered funding on nature conservation and LIFE has also made an important contri- arthropods of Extremadura’ (LIFE03 biodiversity. For example, the use of bution to improving knowledge of species NAT/E/000057) conducted by far the the European Agricultural Fund for and habitats. These actions are normally largest and most comprehensive survey Rural Development in recurring habitat included in LIFE projects as preparatory ever undertaken in the region, and as a management actions;

actions, which establish the conditions result, there are now sufficient manage- l Develop new tools to measure the impact for and help to define the subsequent ment tools to protect and monitor the tar- of the programme at EU level, including project actions. These include surveys, get species. Management, conservation through the dissemination and take-up monitoring and some genetic studies, or recovery plans were also drafted and of good practices or approaches devel- which, while not improving the conser- approved for the four species of odo- oped by LIFE projects;

vation status directly, help to improve nates (dragonflies and damselflies). l Prioritise species and habitats that are knowledge of the targeted species and reported as having an ‘unfavourable habitats. For example, as a key part of LIFE contributions to collecting data bad’ conservation status;

the sustainability of the project ‘Regener- has also been important for the marine l Better link the LIFE programme with ation and preservation of dry grassland in environment, where a lack informa- applied nature conservation research Germany’ (LIFE00 NAT/D/007058), the tion and knowledge was highlighted in programmes, such as the Seventh project developed management plans the Article 17 report. A wealth of expe- Framework Programme, and research for each of the 14 project Natura 2000 rience and knowledge is being built institutions in order to establish meth- sub-sites. These were drafted after initial up through the implementation of EU odologies for the implementation of status surveys and vegetation mapping. marine projects co-funded by LIFE (for nature conservation best practices;

example, the LIFE SCANS projects l Monitor the status of targeted species (LIFE92 ENV/UK/000065 and LIFE04 and habitats after LIFE projects end, in LIFE has highlighted best practices in NAT/GB/000245) to assess the popula- order to assess the success and long- habitat management. tion of small cetaceans in the North Sea term effects of project actions;

and European Atlantic continental shelf l Further promote networking at EU level waters). Such projects encourage inter- to facilitate the transfer of best nature national co-operation and provide valua- conservation practices for species and ble data and know-how on which to base habitats. future policy recommendations. Photo: LIFE03 NAT/FIN/000039

Several management models implemented by LIFE projects have been For further information on this, and highlighted as best practice examples on other LIFE case studies cover- for habitats. For more information see: ing EU forest, plants, wetlands and http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ marine habitats/ species types see natura2000/management/habitats/mod- the publications section of the LIFE els_en.htm. The aim of these manage- website: ment models, based on LIFE project best practices, is to enable Natura 2000 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life Species 12

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

LIFE promotes bat conservation MAMALS : BATS Many of the species of bat found in Europe are endangered. Their continued survival is

threatened by human disturbance and changes to their habitats that reduce the avail-

ability of food. As a result, LIFE projects have focused on securing hibernation sites and

conserving habitats as well as increasing knowledge of species that are commonly not

well understood.

lmost all bats hibernate during knowledge and public awareness of bat 30% of the breeding long-fingered bats Amost of the winter. If they are dis- ecological requirements. and 38% of the hibernating individu- turbed during this time – by cave explor- als; and about 15% of the Schreiber’s ers for example – then they are often too The project covered 13 Sites of Com- bat breeders and 2% of the hibernat- weak to survive the winter. One of the munity Importance (pSCI) across five ing individuals in France. A total of 19 main conservation actions is therefore to regions of southern France, which are roosts were permanently protected in fence off entrances to caves and other home to more than 56% of the breeding some form during the four-year project: sites where bats hibernate. Changes in Mediterranean horseshoe bats and 45% 12 were either permanently blocked agricultural practice, such as the use of of the hibernating individuals; about or blocked at certain key times of the pesticides and intensive farming have also altered the food supply of many bat species. Management of land that takes Conservation status at into account local wildlife is therefore a Species Biogeographical region Projects level (main regions) main priority of conservation initiatives for bat species. In spite of such activities, Barbastella Unfavourable-inadequate LIFE98 NAT/B/005167 the conservation status of many species barbastellus (Atlantic, Continental, Maca- remains unfavourable. ronesian) unfavourable bad (Mediter- LIFE actions ranean and Boreal) Miniopterus Unfavourable bad (all LIFE00 NAT/IT/007139 Protection of roosts: schreibersii regions) LIFE04 NAT/FR/000080 One of the most effective ways to ensure Myotis bechsteini Unknown LIFE98 NAT/B/005167 that bats are not disturbed, particu- LIFE00 NAT/IT/007139 larly during hibernation, is to construct LIFE04 NAT/ES/000043 fences around sites and to block off LIFE06 NAT/B/000095 the entrances using horizontal bars that allow the bats to fly between them. This Myotis capaccinii Unfavourable bad (all LIFE00 NAT/IT/007139 action was successfully taken at several regions) LIFE04 NAT/FR/000080 sites in the south of France as part of a Myotis emarginatus Favourable (Atlantic and Pan- LIFE98 NAT/B/005167 LIFE project aimed at conserving three nonnian) LIFE00 NAT/IT/007139 species of bat (LIFE04NAT/FR/000080). Unfavourable inadequate LIFE04 NAT/ES/000043 Its target species, the Mediterranean (Continental) LIFE05 NAT/IT/000037 LIFE06 NAT/B/000095 horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus euryale), the long-fingered bat (Myotis capaccinii) and Rhinolophus euryale Unfavourable bad LIFE04 NAT/FR/000080 the Schreiber’s bat (Miniopterus schreib- (all regions, expect Panno- LIFE04 NAT/ES/000043 ersii), have all experienced a decline in nian - inadequate) their population numbers. Urbanisation, Rhinolophus mehelyi Unfavourable bad (Mediter- LIFE00 NAT/E/007337 caving and modern agricultural practices ranean) LIFE04 NAT/ES/000043 have disturbed their roosts and adversely affected their natural habitats. Moreo- Rhinolophus LIFE04 NAT/ES/000043 ferromequinum LIFE05 NAT/IT/000037 ver, there was a lack of basic scientific 13

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

year, and another nine were protected France and in other countries of Europe, by long-term management agreements where the project beneficiary, Société among local representatives, landown- Française pour l’Etude et la Protection ers, associations and the municipali- des Mammifères, has presented ties. In addition, successful long-term its results. According to Mélanie partnerships were established between Némoz, the project manager, conservation and caving associations. the guidelines that the project

produced are being used across MAMALS : BATS The effect on bat populations of the France in similar conservation project actions was significant: a record initiatives. “The classic way to number of Mediterranean horseshoe protect a cave is to put up hori- bats (2 238) were observed in hiberna- zontal bars,” she says, “but for tion in 2005 at one site in Aquitaine. some sites Other sites saw the return of bats to – particularly previously abandoned roosts, such as f o r s m a l l a cave in Languedoc-Roussillon, which sites – it was had been unused by bats for 15 years, first neces- but had a population of 80 long-fingered sary to put up bats by 2007. The project also created a a false grid, using new roost by reopening an abandoned plastic bars, to see how mine and securing it from public access. the bats would react.” Around 650 Schreiber’s bats were observed there in late 2007. An ambitious project carried out in Spain by the regional adminis- Moreover, the project is continuing to tration of Extremadura (LIFE04 NAT/ have an important role to play in con- ES/000043) also made a big effort in fencing meas- serving bat populations throughout roost site protection. Apart from similar ures in 13 roosts across the region, the project undertook actions for stabilising abandoned mines and constructed new BAT BOXES refuges for a colony that is to be relo- The Valencia project is good example of a LIFE project that has intro- cated from the Yuste Monastery (former residence of the emperor Charles V), duced bat boxes to complement the natural bat habitat. This action was as this building now forms part of the carried out in five forest pSCIs. Two years after installation, 26% of the European Heritage network. This build- boxes were occupied, a promising result despite the lack of actual breeding hosted a major breeding colony of ing in them during the project timeframe. Bat boxes were also installed the greater horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus – more than 200 in total – as part of the Brussels project to provide extra ferromequinum) in Europe. Bats are now roosting sites. This project additionally renovated several buildings as gradually taking up the new places prepared for them. possible shelters.

Information gathering: Constructing boxes in trees is an effective way of facilitating roosting. LIFE projects have also aimed to improve our knowledge of bat species. The French project used radio tracking with electronic tags to monitor its target species. It discovered that the horseshoe bat can travel up to 12 km away from its roosting site, far greater that the 3-4 km previously thought to be normal. The Schreiber’s bat has a much larger terrain of 50 km2. Némoz says that such a wide area is impossible to protect, and as a result, for this species, conservation activities focused on safeguarding roosts. “It was important to protect all the sites, because there are not many and they are heavily populated“ she says. Greater understanding of the 14

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

different species of bat allows for tar- ing knowledge of fishing techniques, An inventory and distribution atlas of geted use of resources and management with a view to identifying the most likely bats in the region of Castilla y León was plans that are regionally adapted. causes of the sharp decline in numbers: one of the main results of the Spanish the intensification of citrus orchards has project (LIFE96 NAT/E/003081). Such Several other LIFE projects that have adversely affected the Mehely’s horse- information enabled important refuges focused on bats have taken a similar shoe bat and inadequate management for bats in the region to be designated as approach. The Valencia project (LIFE00 of riparian habitats has harmed the long- pSCIs, with their exact location, threats NAT/E/007337) aimed to provide valuable fingered bat. The project’s approach was and protection needs identified. MAMALS : BATS information on two vulnerable species: followed by a similar initiative in Extre- the long-fingered bat (Myotis capaccinii) madura (LIFE04 NAT/ES/000043) where Awareness raising: and Mehely’s horseshoe bat (Rhinolo- the presence of forest-dwelling bats was Many of the projects highlighted the need phus mehelyi). Forest-dwelling bat spe- confirmed by intensive surveys. The for conservation measures to be taken cies were monitored over a period of two information gained in general for all the with the full support of the local com- years and cave-dwelling species were species targeted now allows for a suit- munity. The Brussels project responded monitored over three years. The research able management of this species group. to this need by publishing a manage- provided updated census data for both As a result of these projects, recovery ment handbook for the managers of the the long-fingered and Mehely’s horse- plans were officially endorsed for Rhi- public forests and parks covered by the shoe bat in the project area (2 700 and nolophus mehelyi, Rhinolophus euryale project. It also produced an information 70 individuals respectively), and new data and Myotis beschteinii brochure for owners of houses and other for some forest species was obtained. buildings, giving simple techniques to Information gathered as part of the Brus- improve survival of bats, and installed Such data led to the enlargement of the sels project (LIFE98 NAT/B/005167) had 30 information panels. Awareness-rais- pSCI network: 18 new pSCIs for bats a direct impact on conservation meas- ing tools are also useful for helping dis- were designated, and the project area ures. The project made an inventory of seminate the project to a wider audience. was enlarged to cover 29 pSCIs. Five all trees with potential bat-hosting inter- The south of France project produced a new refuges, two of them hosting impor- est in the Brussels Natura 2000 network 31-minute film that won the nature con- tant colonies of long-fingered bat, were and an agreement was reached with the servation prize at the 2007 International identified. The research also identified services responsible for these public Ornithological Film Festival. feeding preferences and patterns, includ- owned areas not to cut these trees. As well as carrying out numerous general awareness-raising activities, the LIFE projects have yielded valuable information about the bahaviour of several lesser Extremadura project targeted environ- known species of bat. mental agents in the region and encouraged them to implement the project’s actions. Co-operation with volunteers has greatly helped to continue the work of the project and will guarantee future monitoring.

Conclusions

LIFE projects have demonstrated that introducing the above conservation actions can help stabilise and increase populations of endangered bat species on a local level. For the conservation status of such species to improve on a Europe-wide level, such actions must be adapted and replicated in other regions.

While gaps remain, the knowledge gained through LIFE projects has increased our understanding of key species and has helped inform conservation measures and priorities. Through continued monitoring and habitat protection, LIFE is improving the status of several target species. Photo:Yoann Peyrard/LIFE04NAT/FR/000080 Photo:Yoann 15

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

The LIFE programme has made a significant contribution to ensur-

ing the long-term conservation of the brown bear in the EU through

numerous projects in several countries. In particular, by promoting

efforts to reconcile conflicts between human needs and those of

bears, much progress has been made in reducing threats to the

species. Photo:Callisto

LIFE’s contribution to brown MAMMALS : BROWN BEAR bear conservation

n the EU there are between 13 500 (40-50), Pyrenees (15-17)] and vulner- carnivore, which lives mostly in forests, Ito 16 000 bears. The species was able [the Dinaric-Pindos (2,800), Car- does have a favourable status in the formerly widespread and abundant, but pathian (8,100) and Balkan (700) popu- Alpine region, thanks to the favourable over the last few centuries it has become lations]. The Scandinavian (Sweden) and status of the Slovenian and Slovakian extinct in much of western and central north-eastern European (Finland and populations. Its conservation status Europe. The IUCN classifies the bear Baltic countries) populations are not in the Boreal region is unknown since as near threatened in the EU, and not threatened as they are connected with there is no available data from Sweden, threatened across Europe as a whole the Russian population. although Finland and Estonia reported if you add the 45 000 individuals from it as favourable. Nevertheless, it is the Russian bear population. However, As a result, the Member States reported worth noting that the brown bear’s main in the EU many populations are tiny and its status as ‘unfavourable-bad’ in the populations at EU level are located in fragmented and, therefore, according to Continental region and ‘unfavourable- Romania (Carpathian) and thus fall out- IUCN, critically endangered [the Alpine inadequate’ in the Atlantic and Medi- side of the scope of the current Article (35-40), Cantabrian (60-90), Apennines terranean regions. However, this large 17 report.

Low and fragmented populations mean that the brown bear is critically endangered in the EU. Photo: FOP 16

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

mainly those in the Apennines, Alps, Conservation status Population Cantabria, Dinaric-Pindos and the Bal- at Member State / Species Relevant Projects targeted by region level kans. These projects undertook a range the projects (main regions) of actions, which can nevertheless be seen to follow similar themes: reconcil- Ursus arctos Austria LIFE02 NAT/A/008519 ing human and ursine needs; restor- LIFE00 NAT/A/007055 ing crucial habitats and food sources; Italy (Bad but Alps population All the Apen- and increasing genetic flow between improving – Alpine; LIFE96 NAT/IT/003152 nines popula- populations by improving connectivity Bad but improving LIFE00 NAT/IT/007131 tions and part and reintroducing bears. Many projects – Continental) LIFE2003 NAT/CP/ of the Alpine monitored bears to improve knowledge IT/000003 was targeted and understanding of the species and

MAMMALS : BROWN BEAR LIFE03 NAT/IT/000147 by LIFE its needs, and to implement bear-man- Apennine population agement plans. LIFE99 NAT/IT/006244 LIFE97 NAT/IT/004141 All the projects looked to raise stake- LIFE98 NAT/IT/005114 holder (especially farmers, livestock LIFE03 NAT/IT/000151 producers and hunters) awareness of LIFE04 NAT/IT/000190 LIFE04 NAT/IT/000144 the brown bear. Bears are often disliked, LIFE07 NAT/IT/000502 feared and attacked because of the damage they cause to livestock, bee- Greece (Inadequate LIFE99 NAT/GR/006498 hives and crops. The Slovenian project but improving) LIFE96 NAT/GR/003222 (LIFE02 NAT/SLO/008585) removed LIFE93 NAT/GR/010800 rubbish dumps that might attract bears LIFE07 NAT/GR/000291 to human settlements. Along with Slovenia LIFE02 NAT/ other projects (LIFE96 NAT/IT/003152, SLO/008585 LIFE93 NAT/GR/010800, LIFE96 NAT/ GR/003222, for example), it also pro- Spain (Inadequate) LIFE98 NAT/E/005305 100% of the vided compensation to those who had LIFE98 NAT/E/005326 Cantabrian suffered damage or loss caused by bears LIFE99 NAT/E/006371 population LIFE00 NAT/E/007352 to try to prevent the development of anti- LIFE07 NAT/E/000735 bear sentiment.

A common intervention is to erect (elec- The main threats to the bear come LIFE actions tric) fencing around fields and beehives directly or indirectly from human to protect them from bears (LIFE00/NAT/ activity. Direct threats include poach- As can be seen from the above table, a IT/007131). Another common action is ing, particularly by people looking to significant number of LIFE projects dealt to provide guard dogs to livestock own- protect crops, livestock and human with conservation of the small and more ers (LIFE04 NAT/IT/000144 and LIFE96 settlements. Indirect threats come endangered brown bear populations, NAT/GR/003222) and to create livestock principally from the degradation and fragmentation of important habitats. An effective focus of bear conservation has been measures to connect populations. Bears can also be killed by traps and poison set for other predators. An increasing number of fatalities occur as a result of traffic accidents – for example, on the recently constructed Egnatia highway, which crosses through the bear habitat in Pindos, Greece. It is anticipated that new road infrastructure will cause similar problems to the Rhodope bear population in Greece and Bulgaria. Isolated populations can suffer from low genetic diversity, which increases risks to survival. The species is not helped by a low productivity rate of only one cub every three to four years. Photo: FOP 17

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

guarding dog breeding stations (LIFE07 NAT/GR/000291).

Other efforts to tackle poaching of bears included the use of wardens or patrols, notably in Spain. These sought to monitor and prevent poaching, while simul- taneously having an important role in educating people about the brown bear (LIFE00 NAT/E/007352 and LIFE98 NAT/ E/005326). A couple of Italian projects also aimed to capture stray dogs, which

cause problems for the bears (bears are MAMMALS : BROWN BEAR killed by poisoned bait used illegally by local farmers against stray dogs) (LIFE97 NAT/IT/004141).

Measures to restore important bear habitats have taken different approaches. The restoration of forests (LIFE07 NAT/ GR/000291, LIFE03 NAT/IT/000147 and LIFE99 NAT/E/006371), the planting of wild fruit trees (LIFE96 NAT/GR/003222,

LIFE03 NAT/IT/000151 and LIFE07 Photo: Callisto NAT/GR/000291) and the artificial supply Awareness campaigns have attempted to reduce mortalities due to poaching. of forage (LIFE99 NAT/IT/006244) were among the techniques used to improve through the collection of fur samples in In Greece, LIFE projects have led to food supply for the bear. Italy (LIFE03 NAT/IT/000151). crucial improvements in the conservation status of the species. The bear Other habitat protection measures Following awareness raised through two population is showing slight increases included preventing or reducing tourist Greek projects (LIFE93 NAT/GR/010800 at all sites and recolonisation has been access to sensitive areas, such as win- and LIFE96 NAT/GR/003222) on the noted in at least four sites. Spanish LIFE tering sites (LIFE07 NAT/GR/000291 impending Egnatia highway construc- projects have contributed to wider efforts and LIFE99 NAT/E/006371) and the tion, which cuts through bear habitat, the to improve the conservation status of the removal of dumped waste from potential European Commission obliged the Greek brown bear in Cantabria, which has seen bear habitats (LIFE98 NAT/IT/005114). government to take mitigation measures. increases in the effective population. A Securing migration routes (LIFE00 NAT/ This safeguarded the bears along the first new project (LIFE07 NAT/E/000735) is A/007055) or corridors between zones of stretch of the highway, but bears are being aiming to link this population with the suitable habitat (LIFE99 NAT/E/006371) killed in the recently opened sections, which one found in the Pyrenees. were other measures taken. lack appropriate fencing and throughways for the bears. The Greek project (LIFE07 Furthermore, the projects that have Two Italian projects aimed to capture NAT/GR/000291), currently in progress, is focused on improving cross-border bears in Slovenia and release them pushing for the enforcement of the appro- capacity to protect bears have played an into sites in the Italian Alps to restore priate measures. important role (LIFE07 NAT/IT/000502, numbers and improve genetic diversity LIFE2003 NAT/CP/IT/000003, LIFE02 (LIFE96 NAT/IT/003152 and LIFE00 Conclusions NAT/A/008519 and LIFE99 NAT/ NAT/IT/007131). A Greek project (LIFE93 GR/006498). The protection of migration NAT/GR/010800) aimed to rehabilitate In Italy, there are two bear populations routes between countries (LIFE00 NAT/ bears taken from travelling performers in with distinct genetic characteristics: the A/007055) is also essential. a specially created bear sanctuary. brown bear (Ursus arctos) in the Alps and the Marsican brown bear (Ursus arctos Despite some improvements in the con- Several projects increased understanding marsicanus) in the Apennines. The intro- servation status of the brown bear, how- of the bears and their movements through duction of new bears into the Alps has ever, much progress is still needed. A the use of radio tracking (LIFE99 NAT/ yielded positive results, while numerous particular challenge lies in the expansion IT/006244 and LIFE02 NAT/SLO/008585). projects in the Apennines have improved and linking of appropriate habitats and The wardens and other observers were knowledge and protection of the bear. ensuring sustainable numbers and suf- sometimes used for this purpose and Nevertheless, this subspecies is still criti- ficient genetic diversity within individual genetic fingerprinting was undertaken cally endangered. populations. 18

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

Securing a future for the Arctic fox

The Arctic fox (Alopex lagopus), which within the EU is found only in the northern parts

of Sweden and Finland, is classified as critically endangered. Its populations are frag- M A M A L S : A R T I C F O X mented and isolated from the strongholds in western Siberia.

hen the first LIFE project (among other small rodents) whose pop- the survival rates of the juveniles. Dur- W(SEFALO) started in 1998, ulations fluctuate – and competition and ing wintertime, carcasses were hidden about 40 adult arctic foxes were present predation by the red fox (Vulpes vulpes), under the snow as a complement to in Sweden and only five litters were which has increased in numbers in the the dog pellets. This extra food dur- born. Towards the end of the second mountain areas. Also, young foxes have ing wintertime helped to increase the project (SEFALO+), during the summer difficulty in finding a non-related partner number of breeding arctic fox pairs, of 2007, 24 Arctic fox litters were born because of their diminished numbers. In increase the litter size and improve in Sweden and 15 in Norway. Never- the past, hunting for fur has been a major juvenile survival rates, contributing to theless, no litters were born in Finland, threat to the species. The conservation a faster population growth. and the Finnish population (10 individu- status of the Swedish and Finnish popu- als) shows no reproduction. lations is ‘unfavourable-bad’. Another measure that LIFE projects have highlighted is the need to inform The main threats to the Arctic fox are The LIFE projects aimed to increase the local population about the plight of scarcity of food – it feeds on lemmings reproductive output and decrease mor- the fox. The first project emphasised tality. The main conservation actions that sites with breeding dens should – supplementary feeding and control also be protected from hunting with of the red fox – helped achieve this aim dogs in early autumn. Conservation of the critically endange- and demonstrated the possibility of red Arctic fox has focused on increasing reviving a population threatened with Finally, a great many red foxes have reproduction and improving juvenile extinction. been culled in strategically important survival rates. sites for the Arctic fox. LIFE actions Conclusions The first SEFALO project (LIFE98 NAT/ S/005371), which was carried out in There are currently about 200 individu- Sweden and Finland, helped stabi- als in Fennoscandia. The results of the lise the population, but it was unable projects demonstrate that conservation to increase numbers and a second measures can halt population decline project (LIFE03 NAT/S/000073), also and even increase population size. In including Norway, was considered areas where intensive actions have been necessary to build on the experience performed, the population has more learned during the first one. The most than doubled over a four-year period. It important change was that the project is important to remember that it is the would now take an individual-oriented combination of actions that have resulted approach rather than an area approach in the positive population development to conservation measures. Such a shift during the project period. However, as all in focus was made possible as a result actions are completed together it is also of the monitoring programme launched difficult to distinguish which contribute by the first project that tracked indi- most. Information and protection around viduals with radio-transmitters. dens are difficult to evaluate in a quantitative way, but they are an important part The dens with litters were provided with of a concerted conservation effort. Sav- extra food (commercial dog pellets) ing an endangered carnivore is a long- during the project in order to increase term initiative spanning several years. Photo: LIFE03 NAT/S/000073 19

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats MAMMALS : MONK SEAL

A viable future for the monk seal

Europe is home to the world’s most endangered seal, the Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus monachus). Despite strenuous conservation efforts, its population is still declining. The species has been on the IUCN Red List since 1996, classified as critically endangered.

ccording to the IUCN, only about to kill them because of their impact on projects in Greece. The first benefici- A350-450 individuals remain in the fish stocks. Fatalities are also caused ary was the WWF, which carried out a wild, with 150-200 in Greek waters and by entanglement in fishing nets. Lack project that also aimed to improve the about 100 in Turkish waters. The remain- of knowledge and lack of co-opera- conservation status of the loggerhead der inhabit the western Mediterranean tion with fishermen on these issues has turtle. Since then, three consecutive and there is a small Atlantic population been a serious threat to the species. projects have been run by the non- (23 individuals) in the archipelago of As a result, the conservation status of profit, non-governmental environmental Madeira (Desertas), Portugal. the species was reported by Greece as organisation, The Hellenic Society for “unfavourable with bad prospects”. the Study and Protection of Monk Seal The main threats to the monk seal (known as MOm). are human activities, such as habi- LIFE actions tat destruction, uncontrolled tourism, MOm’s efforts in Greece over several marine pollution and depletion of fish To halt the decline of the monk seal, years have led to the establishment stocks. The seals also suffer at the close to €4 million has been spent since of a strictly protected National Marine hands of fishermen, who are known 1992 through four different LIFE Nature Park, 35 special areas of conservation 20

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats MAMMALS : MONK SEAL Photo: MOm/LIFE00 NAT/GR/007248 Habitat destruction, pollution, human interference and depletion of fish stocks have led to the decline of monk seal populations.

(SACs), a national action plan and the In the two most important breeding sites als. The hope is that these proposals will establishment of management bodies at Alonnisos and Kimolos, fishing boat be adopted and implemented by the rel- for two of the areas most frequented by activities were tracked. From 29 exami- evant Greek ministries, thus becoming a monk seals. nations of monk seal fatalities, it was basic national policy tool for protecting evident that the main cause of death for the monk seal in fishing areas. LIFE project actions have included moni- adult seals was deliberate killing (44%), toring and documentation of the distribu- and for younger seals, entanglement in LIFE projects have led to the establish- tion of the Greek population of the monk fishing gear (56%). ment of a strictly protected National seal, collection of data on its marine Marine Park, 35 Natura 2000 Special environment, establishment of a rescue The Portuguese LIFE project achieved Areas of Conservation, a National Action and rehabilitation centre, surveillance its aim of protecting the Atlantic monk Plan, and the establishment of manage- activities, lobbying of local, regional seal and its habitat: the population ment bodies for two of the monk seal’s and national authorities, presentation of increased from 6-8 animals in 1988 to most frequented areas. management proposals and information 23 in 2000. All planned measures were campaigns, and education programmes implemented successfully. The integral The last project revised the national to increase public awareness of the sig- reserve status of the southwest area conservation strategy for the species nificance of the rare seal. of Deserta Grande – confirmed during and introduced a national action plan the project’s lifetime as an important to mitigate seal-fishery interactions. The During the projects, an improvement breeding and resting ground – proved population is being monitored systemat- in the birth rate was noticed in some adequate. ically in only three of the sites (Alonnisos, areas, but mortality rates have contin- Kimolos, Karpathos) and is reported by ued to be high. To address this problem, Conclusions the beneficiary to be stable. Although MOm started a four-year project in 2005 the monk seal remains in an unfavoura- focused solely on defusing the conflict LIFE projects in Greece have led to action ble status, the situation would have been between monk seals and fishermen. plans with specific and feasible propos- much worse without the LIFE projects.

Conservation status at Biogeographical Percentage of the Species region level (main regions) Relevant Projects species range targeted by the project(s)

Mediterranean monk seal Unfavourable-bad (Marine Mediterranen) LIFE95 NAT/GR/003225 90 % (Monachus monachus) Unknown* (Marine Macaronesian) LIFE92 NAT/GR/013800 LIFE98 NAT/P/005236 LIFE00 NAT/GR/007248 LIFE05 NAT/GR/000083

* even though Portugal provided information on estimated increasing population and habitat trends 21

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

LIFE projects have succeeded in halting the decline of the rare Iberian lynx in the key

region of Andalusia, mainly by restoring numbers of its principal prey, the rabbit. Ongoing

measures are now seeking to improve links between sub-populations, increase their

genetic diversity and reintroduce animals bred in captivity into the wild.

LIFE boost for critically MAMMALS : IBERIAN LYNX endangered Iberian lynx

he Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus) was open pasture for hunting rabbits. Rab- overall conservation status for the Medi- Tonce common all across Spain and bits make up 95% of its diet. The main terranean region is ‘unfavourable-bad’. Portugal. However, over recent centuries causes of the decrease in population With a total population of less than 150 and particularly in the past few decades have been damage and fragmentation of adults, the Iberian lynx is the most threat- of the 20th century, its population and these habitats and the wiping out of rab- ened feline in the world, assessed as a range declined dramatically. In 2009 it bit populations, first through epidemics ‘critically endangered’ species on the was estimated that around 250 lynxes of myxomatosis and then of viral haem- IUCN Red list and described by IUCN in survived (plus 74 in captivity centres) in orrhagic pneumonia. 2007 as “on the brink of extinction”. the south-western corner of the Iberian Peninsula. Populations are now clustered in small LIFE actions groups that have limited opportunities This medium-sized feline (8-14 kg) thrives to mix genetically. Only two areas con- Since 1992, LIFE has co-funded most of in areas characterised by Mediterra- taining sub-populations with chances the conservation initiatives in Portugal nean woodland and maquis. It favours of long-term viability survive in Doñana and Spain that target directly or indirectly a mosaic of dense scrub for shelter and and Andújar-Cardeña (Sierra Morena). Its the species. The main actions have been

Most conservations initiatives aimed at the Iberian lynx have been co-funded by LIFE. Photo: J. Andalucia/ M. Medio Ambiente 22

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

fences, underpasses and overpasses to reduce fatalities. They have also repaired or covered dangerous wells to prevent accidents.

A campaign, including numerous warn- ing signs for drivers and specifically addressed campaigns for hunters, raised public awareness of the plight of the lynx and its needs.

Apart from these Andalucian LIFE projects, other LIFE projects in adjacent MAMMALS : IBERIAN LYNX regions such as Castilla-La Mancha,

Extremadura and Madrid in Spain, and several ongoing LIFE projects in Portugal are paving the way for the expansion of the lynx in its former territories. Similar management actions to those mentioned Photo: J. Andalucia/ M. Medio Ambiente are creating suitable habitats with good Restoring rabbit populations has been an major part of lynx conservation. rabbit densities that will allow the reintroduction of animals bred in captivity in the habitat restoration (in particular rabbit main prey in their distribution areas and years ahead. habitats), the involvement of stakehold- diminution of threats caused by poach- ers (mainly farmers and hunters) and ing or road kills allow lynx populations to ConclusionS awareness campaigns. For this type of expand naturally. Rabbit restoration was project, collaboration with private own- mainly achieved through artificial, pro- Many LIFE projects have targeted this ers has been essential as 75% of the cur- tected breeding areas for new popula- critically endangered species. LIFE rent lynx territories are located on private tions, which naturally grew and spread. projects have succeeded in stop- lands (mainly game hunting estates). ping the rapid downward spiral that Important management actions were had brought the Iberian lynx to the Two LIFE projects co-ordinated by the agreed with landowners. These were verge of extinction. The lynx popula- Andalusian Regional Authority have been aimed at conserving key habitats, par- tion in Doñana has been consolidated, central to the protection and enhance- ticularly in areas linking sub-populations while lynx numbers and territories are ment of the existing lynx populations. of lynx. They have restricted land-use increasing in the other viable population The first project, ‘Population recovery of and hunting practices such as snares and area of Sierra Morena. The experience Iberian Lynx in Andalusia’ (LIFE02 NAT/ rabbit hunting, which may directly or indi- gained in habitat management and the E/008609), succeeded in stemming the rectly affect the lynx. Temporary feeding preparation of good habitats in Andalu- decline, stabilising populations in Doñana actions were carried out when prey was cia and other Spanish and Portuguese and increasing the number of individuals scarce. regions allows for some moderate opti- and breeding territories in Sierra Morena. mism about future recolonisation of part The follow-up project, ‘Conservation and LIFE projects have also taken steps to of the former distribution area by this reintroduction of the Iberian lynx in Anda- make roads safe for animals by installing extremely endangered animal. lusia’ (LIFE06 NAT/E/000209), is attempt- ing to increase the genetic diversity of the Captive-bred animals have been reintroduced to territories where the lynx populations, both by improving connec- was previously found. tivity between isolated sub-populations and by reinforcements – it is continuing to extend their territories by enhancing the existing populations and by undertaking the first reintroduction of captive-bred animals in territories where the lynx previously was found.

The key action for maintaining and restoring population numbers of the Iberian lynx has been to increase the population of rabbits. Sustainable populations of their Photo: J. Andalucia/ M. Medio Ambiente 23

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

LIFE support for critically endangered European mink

LIFE has aimed to protect the highly endangered European mink. Projects have

explored how to make breeding and release of the species more successful, improved

riverside habitats and tackled key threats, notably the invasive American mink. MAMMALS : EUROPEAN MINK

he European mink (Mustela lutreola) habitats. Many new habitats for the Euro- Finally, a co-operation project run from Twas once found along riverbanks, pean mink were proposed as Natura 2000 Barcelona (LIFE03 NAT/CP/E/000002) streams and in wetlands across Europe. sites. Prior to these projects, knowledge brought together different projects and Today, this small mammal, which has a of this species was scarce and no specific experts to draw up and update European typical body length of around 30-40 cm, actions were being carried out. Therefore, protocols for breeding and release of the occupies less than 10% of the area it once LIFE represented a turning point for the animal. covered and has disappeared in more than conservation of this species in Spain. 20 countries. Conclusions A subsequent Spanish project in Catalonia Within the EU, less than 2 000 adult indi- (LIFE02 NAT/E/008604) pursued similar The European mink remains one of viduals survive in the wild – found mainly goals, while also including a captive- Europe’s most endangered mammals, in southern France and northern Spain, breeding programme and establishing a but LIFE projects have started to explore but also in Romania and Estonia. In only reserve of individuals with which to start a the means for saving it. This is espe- a few decades, their EU distribution area recovery programme. cially notable in Spain where population has reduced by 70% to around 40 000 declines were reversed by LIFE projects. km2, making the mink one of the most An Estonian project (LIFE00 NAT/ The European Mink has become in just a endangered mammals in Europe along EE/007081) tried to increase European few decades a flagship species for river- with the Iberian lynx. Outside the EU, the mink numbers in an island’s sub-popu- ine habitats. The challenge of successfully main population is a rapidly declining sub- lation by releasing animals, which were introducing mink bred in captivity into population in northeast Russia. bred in captivity under an existing pro- the wild is one that LIFE projects have gramme. Although this process was not not yet overcome. Finding effective and Habitat degradation and fragmentation have a total success, it helped highlight some viable introduction methods, controlling been important threats, isolating and reduc- of the challenges for future reintroduction American mink populations and ensuring ing the genetic viability of sub-populations. programmes in Europe. The project, how- healthy, well-connected riparian habitats However, the main cause of its decline in ever, did help to extend the new Natura are key to the survival of the species. The many areas has been the invasion of Ameri- 2000 network for the species. collaborative approach encouraged by can mink (Mustela vison), which has man- LIFE projects represents a clear way in aged to populate Europe after escaping or An ambitious Spanish project (LIFE05 which this goal can be achieved. being released from fur farms. NAT/E/000073) focused on restoring and improving the connectivity between The European mink is threatened by LIFE actions riparian forest habitats, such as the 91E0, habitat degradation and fragmentation. crucial to European mink populations. It Three of the first LIFE projects focusing created favourable habitat features for on the European mink implemented a the target species, such as gullies and co-ordinated European mink action plan breeding areas and tackled 33 danger for Spain. The projects in Castilla y Léon spots – mainly on roads – to reduce mink (LIFE00 NAT/E/007299), La Rioja (LIFE00 mortality rates. The project also monitored NAT/E/007331) and Álava (LIFE00 NAT/ European mink dynamics and genetics, E/007335) worked to enhance European and ensured the absence of the Ameri- mink populations, control the spread of can mink from target areas. A broad and the American mink, limit the occurrence of intensive awareness campaign success- disease and pollution, and restore natural fully engaged the public. Photo:LIFE05 NAT/E/000073 24

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

Despite a limited number of projects, LIFE Nature has had a major impact on some of

Europe’s amphibians and reptiles species.

LIFE helps Europe’s herpetofauna

AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES mphibians and reptiles (collec- the most northerly lizard species in the biogeographical region. For amphibians Atively known as herpetofauna) are world. Reptiles also thrive in open seas the scenario is much worse with almost one of the most endangered groups of as shown by marine turtles. 70% of the assessments being reported vertebrates in Europe. Nearly a quarter as ‘unfavourable’ and more than 20% of of amphibians and almost a fifth of rep- A number of factors have led to the them ‘unfavourable-bad’. tiles species are considered threatened decline in numbers and range of reptiles in Europe (IUCN, 2009). and amphibians. Threats to herpetofauna Between 1992 and 2006, 59 LIFE include: projects directly targeted the conser-

Reptiles and amphibians are found in a l Direct killing (out of fear and supersti- vation of herpetofauna listed under the range of habitats in Europe. Although tion or for trade); annexes of the Habitats Directive, while

amphibians are linked to wet habitats, l Habitat change and destruction; additional projects indirectly benefit-

they can also be found in drier places, l Invasive alien species (IAS); ted amphibian or reptile species when

particularly in the Mediterranean, or in l Climate change; carrying out conservation actions in a

special habitats, such as the cold, dark l Disease (e.g. the chytrid fungus, a broader context – for example, under caves in the Dinaric area that are home virulent pathogen that affects many habitat actions, Natura 2000 network to the endangered olm (Proteus angui- amphibian species). site management plans, or more gen- nus). Conversely, while reptiles are asso- eral actions. ciated with warm and sunny locations, More than 40% of the reptile species they can also be found in wet and cold assessments were classified on the More than two-thirds of the projects that habitats – the European common lizard Article 17 report as being unfavour- have targeted amphibians and reptiles (Lacerta vivipara) is able to survive freez- able. Nevertheless, for reptiles, there is have been concentrated in Italy, Spain ing conditions over winter in the Arctic a high percentage of ‘unknown’ (around and Greece, which is to be expected parts of Finland and Sweden, making it 40%), particularly in the Mediterranean since the largest number of reptiles and amphibians are located in the Mediter- ranean biogeographical region. Almost a fifth of reptile species are considered threatened in Europe, according to the IUCN.

The majority of LIFE projects targeting amphibian species included actions focused on habitat restoration. The common factor in all these habitats is water. Typical restoration actions include encouraging an increase in habitat-specific vegetation by the propagation of water or grasslands plants; eradication of IAS; erosion control; restoration of hydrological features and water quality; and provision of ecological corridors between populations.

LIFE projects targeting reptiles have included many of the same types of actions and have normally targeted either highly endangered reptile species with very small populations in restricted areas or species with very specific requirements Photo: Halpren Bálint Photo: Halpren 25

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

such as sea turtles. Common features of directly or indirectly the conservation Typical LIFE project actions to improve the projects have included preparatory of two rare species of fire-bellied toads: the habitat and/or populations of Bom- actions – monitoring and assessment of Bombina bombina and Bombina vari- bina include: habitat management the status of the wild populations; habi- egata. actions aimed at creating optimum con- tat restoration; construction of captive ditions for the reproduction and survival breeding facilities; networking with other Fire-bellied toads (especially Bombina of fire-bellied toads – the creation of shal- projects; and awareness campaigns. bombina) are strongly bound to water, low ponds with abundant aquatic weeds, spending the whole summer in ponds. the removal of drainage systems and the LIFE AND THE FIRE-BELLIED The species are under threat from a re-instatement of extensive year-round TOADS decline in their optimal habitats caused grazing with cattle and horses, and the by drainage and filling in of ponds, and a creation of hibernation sites close to the Since 1996, more than 40 LIFE projects decline in grazing together with increased ponds; genetic analysis; and population have included actions targeting either use of fertilisers and pesticides. management (breeding programmes).

AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES One of the most ambitious LIFE Nature projects to date has been ‘LIFE-Bom- bina’ (LIFE04 NAT/DE/000028), an international project targeting the northern- most populations of the fire-bellied toad Bombina bombina in the Baltic regions of Denmark, Sweden, Latvia and Germany. This project, which built on the work of an earlier project (LIFE99 NAT/DK/006454), implemented a range of habitat improvement actions – digging and restoration of ponds and hibernation sites; encouraging more conservation-oriented farm- Photo: LIFE06 NAT/E/00019 ing (hardy whole-year grazing animals LIFE SUPPORT FOR CRITICALLY ENDANGERED LIZARDS are being used to secure and maintain The Canary Islands are home to a genus of lizards found nowhere else: the pools for the toads in grassland habi- Gallotia of the Lacertidae family of wall lizards, which includes eight endemic spe- tats); genetic analysis; and population cies and two recently rediscovered giant lizards, the El Hierro giant lizard (Gallotia management – that have seen more than 120 ponds dug or restored, more than simonyi – rediscovered in 1974) and the La Gomera giant lizard (Gallotia bravoana 21 000 eggs collected and more than 23 –1999). These critically endangered giants show very reduced genetic variability 000 young toads released into the wild at and are under threat from predation by introduced species (particularly feral cats project sites in Denmark, Germany and and rats) and human activities (tourism and agriculture). A series of LIFE projects Latvia. The ‘LIFE-Bombina’ project also have targeted the conservation of the giant lizard species. The first of these (LIFE94 attracted widespread media coverage for its European Bombina Song Contest, NAT/E/001238 and LIFE97 NAT/E/004190) have developed a management plan and which has been held on two occasions. captive breeding programme that are crucial to the El Hierro giant lizard’s chances of mid-term recovery and survival. Aside from the implementation of the recovery plan through the captive breeding programme and the release of individuals in suit- ably prepared habitats, the main management actions for both projects consisted of the control of possible predators (mainly cats and rats) and competitors for food (goats and other lizards). As a result, there are currently five nuclei of giant lizards on the island, compared with a single population of some 200 individuals at the beginning of the project. Drawing on the lessons of these projects, in 2002, LIFE co-funding was secured for the ‘Recovery plan for the giant lizard of La Gomera’ project (LIFE02 NAT/E/008614). Photo: LIFE04 NAT/DE/000028 A captive breeding centre set up on La Gomera had bred more than 50 individuals by the end of the project, which has been followed up by a second project (LIFE06 NAT/E/000199) whose main objectives are to continue the conservation strategy the first project established and to release into the wild some of the lizards bred in captivity. 26

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

Populations of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) in the Atlantic and Mediterranean

Sea have declined dramatically in recent decades, and its conservation status in these

regions is unfavourable. Its main threats are interaction with fisheries – it is often the

victim of by-catch – habitat loss and direct killing.

Loggerhead turtles’ long-term survival through LIFE

IFE projects have addressed threats wide toll-free number for reporting acci- Lin order to improve the status of this dental catches and for co-ordinating endangered species (it is listed in Annex recovery efforts. This project also dem- II and Annex IV of the Habitats Directive). onstrated that actions taken to improve Through information and awareness cam- the conservation status of bottlenose paigns as well as habitat conservation dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) can also and the establishment of rehabilitation benefit turtles. centres, projects have demonstrated a

AMPHIBIANS AND rangeREPTILES : LOGGERHEADof effective TURTLES measures for combat- Finally, LIFE projects have directly ing the species decline. addressed habitat loss. In the province Protecting nesting sites has been a of Agrigento, on the south coast of Sicily, LIFE actions common LIFE action. a LIFE project (LIFE03 NAT/IT/000163) targeted two Natura 2000 sites in the Reducing the high mortality rate of the ing of tagged turtles (a group of 13) was Pelagian Islands, Lampedusa and Linosa loggerhead turtle was the main focus also undertaken by a Spanish project – the last known nesting sites in Italy. of the most recent project carried out (LIFE97 NAT/E/004151). It obtained val- The project continued an information by ARCHELON in Greece (LIFE02 uable information on the species’ behav- campaign, which was launched in an NAT/GR/008500). One of the key aims iour, habitat use and movements. earlier project (LIFE99 NAT/IT/006271) was to encourage turtle-friendly fishing and aimed to restrict access by tourists practices through dialogue with fishing The previous ARCHELON LIFE projects and the local population to the beaches organisations. Memoranda of under- (LIFE98 NAT/GR/005262, LIFE97 NAT/ used by turtles during the nesting sea- standing were signed and information on GR/004247, LIFE95 NAT/GR/001115) son. It also advised local fisherman on good practice (i.e. what to do should a protected nesting beaches in Kyparisia how to reduce by-catch by modifying turtle become entangled in a fishing net) Bay, Crete, and Lakonikos Bay. In all but fishing gear. was circulated. Rethymnon (Crete) the populations are stable; the Rethymnon one is declin- Conclusions Exact numbers of turtle mortalities ing but after 19 years of monitoring and resulting from by-catch are difficult to nest protection, many hatchlings have On a local level, LIFE projects have had a calculate, but ARCHELON has identified returned which would otherwise have direct impact on the conservation status hot-spots, where it has set up first-aid been lost, providing hope for a reversal of loggerhead turtles. The challenge is centres for injured turtles. Similar cen- in numbers. for local and regional authorities, in co- tres have also been established, in part operation with fishing associations and funded by LIFE, in the Pelagic Islands, The Tartanet project (LIFE04 NAT/ the tourist industry, to implement best the Canary Islands and Madeira. The last IT/000187) focused on creating a con- practices and conservation measures ARCHELON project equipped the rescue servation network of five new rescue on a wider scale in order to improve the centre at Glyfada, Athens, with large out- centres in national parks and marine overall status of the species. Monitoring door tanks that ease the turtles’ adap- reserves, identified on the basis of their is one area in which different organisation back into the sea. The beneficiary importance for the presence of the turtle tions could work together. The Tartanet tracked released individuals using satel- along the Italian coasts. A turtle first-aid project showed that such networking can lite telemetry and tagging. The monitor- service was established, with a nation- produce demonstrable results. 27

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

Freshwater pearl mussels in the EU have benefitted from LIFE.

Several habitat restoration and species reintroduction techniques

and integrated water management of river basins have been

securing the survival of this species.

LIFE benefit for freshwater pearl mussels

he freshwater pearl mussel (Mar- seems to be that this species is declin- and improving the fish spawning areas. Tgaritifera margaritifera), which only ing. In Poland it is even believed to be All the projects included the monitoring occurs in the EU and neighbouring coun- already extinct. of populations in order to assess their tries such as Norway and Russia, lives structure and viability. in fresh, running water streams or rivers LIFE actions with clean bottoms, bordered with allu- Sweden is one of Europe´s strongholds for vial forest. It is a good indicator of clean Since 1992, seven LIFE projects have mussels; nevertheless populations are as water. The mussels have a very peculiar directly targeted the species. Several threatened as other remaining populations biology; they have a parasitic lifecycle other projects have tried to improve the in Europe. A Swedish project “Freshwater LESS-KNOWN SPECIES : FRESHWATER PEARL MUSSELS stage dependent on a host fish (nor- conservation status of the species habi- Pearl Mussel and its habitats in Sweden” mally brown trout or salmon) before they tat with indirect river restoration actions. (LIFE04 NAT/SE/000231) aimed to secure develop into fully grown mussels. these remaining important EU populations All of these projects aimed to improve in 21 Natura 2000 sites watercourses. The The species is highly threatened through- the riverine ecological conditions, in project implemented several actions tar- out its distribution area. In central Europe, particular, its water quality and riverbed geting the riverbeds and host fish, such as the population has decreased by more and shore structure. These were done by creating migration opportunities for host than 95% in its range and abundance, restoring riverbanks, removing commer- fish in ten sites by removing obstacles, and it is extinct in several countries. As cial forestry plantations from river valleys fixing incorrectly placed road culverts and a result, it is classified by the IUCN Red and planting deciduous riverine wood- building bypasses around migration barri- list as ‘endangered’ and listed in Annex lands. Moreover, the projects aimed to ers. In order to restore more natural buffer II and V of the Habitat Directive. The rea- improve the habitat for the host fish (nor- stream zones, the project removed spruce sons behind the mussel’s decline include mally Salmonids) that the mussels’ para- plantations along two streams to benefit water acidification, pollution and siltation, sitic larvae, the small glochidia, depend the deciduous trees. These actions have irregular water flow and river regulation, upon during its reproductive cycle. This resulted in a more ecologically functional and agriculture and commercial forestry was done by creating fish passages, buffer stream zone, and thus reduced on the river shores that enhances silta- removing artificial blocking structures disturbance and siltation. Moreover, the tion. Moreover, in the past mussels were widely exploited for their pearls. Nearly Improving the river quality and the structures of the riverbeds and shores are critical for all remaining mussel populations are mussel conservation. characterised by very low recruitment and low juvenile densities. Some populations have only individuals that are more than 60-years-old.

The conservation status of this species differs according to geographical region: ‘unfavourable-bad’ in the Atlantic, Con- tinental and Mediterranean regions and ‘favourable’ in the Alpine and Boreal regions. However, the general trend Photo: LIFE02 NAT/D/008458 28

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

water mussels Unionoidea in the border Freshwater pearl mussel distribution in Europe and LIFE project area of Bavaria, Saxony and the Czech locations (adapted from Larsen 2005) Republic’ (LIFE02 NAT/D/008458) released five bathes of young freshwater pearl mussels into the Südliche Regnitz and Zinnbach creeks and two batches into the Höllbach and Mähringsbach creeks. The project used the following 1 technique: brown trout were infected with mussel larvae in a fish farm. After nine months the young mussels came 5 off the fish gills and were collected from the fish tanks using fine sieves and were infiltrated into the cleaned bottom of the brook via a tube. Around 342 000 7 individuals were released in total. This 2 technique was also used for another 1 LIFE97 NAT/FIN/004086 6 mussels species, Unio crassus, listed 3 2 LIFE02 NAT/B/008590 in Annex II and V, with the release of 3 LIFE02 NAT/D/008458 115 000 young mussels at the project sites. Also, the Finnish and Swedish 4 4 LIFE03 NAT/E/000051 projects, after the restoration work was 5 LIFE04 NAT/SE/000231 completed, reintroduced pearl mussels 6 LIFE05 NAT/L/000116 to selected streams at other locations – 116 and 1000 individuals respectively. 7 LIFE08 NAT UK/000201 The recent UK project (LIFE08 NAT/ UK/000201) will develop an assisted

LESS-KNOWN SPECIES : FRESHWATER PEARL MUSSELS breeding programme to reintroduce the project replaced stones on the riverbed the watercourse and poor buffer zones) species to the Irfon catchment area. that had been removed to facilitate tim- were addressed first, and the project ber floating. This helped recreate a more blocked several riverside ditches to Conclusions natural habitat for the host fish. prevent leakages of sediments from the source zones, so that the new gravel riv- The conservation of the pearl mus- However, the Swedish project had also erbeds do not become clogged again sel is complex, as it requires action be direct actions on the river bed, such as by new sediment. In addition, a new taken at various levels. Mussel survival placing gravel and stones at appropri- method to improve riverbeds was tested and reintroduction success depends ate locations in the watercourse, thus in the stream Bratteforsån. A pump and not only on habitat conservation (e.g. helping small juvenile mussels to find hose were used to rinse away sedi- adequate water quality and substrate) suitable substrate in areas where silta- ment through a screen frame, leaving but also on the availability of host tion may have caused decline in recruit- a clean, oxygen-rich bottom substrate. fish populations, such as salmonids. ment. This action also benefited spawn- Conversely, a German project (LIFE02 The outcome of the conservation and ing grounds for brown trout. NAT/D/008458) constructed eight silt reintroduction actions taken across the traps. EU are difficult to assess at this early New riverbeds were created in nine stage. Though the projects reported in of the project’s watercourses. Several The Swedish project also developed a their monitoring surveys that no glo- restored locations were difficult to reach comprehensive restoration and man- chidia have been found in trout gills due to the presence of bogs and dense agement handbook on freshwater pearl and that no juveniles had been found riverside forests. The action was there- mussels, compiling all the projects out- yet in the rivers surveyed, recruitment fore carried out with the help of a heli- comes and techniques used as well as is expected within the coming 10–20 copter, thus preventing damages to the all available information produced by years. LIFE projects have developed riverside zone. Before restoration meas- several LIFE projects around the EU. and demonstrated techniques of site ures were carried out, landowners and restoration and ex-situ reproduction forestry stakeholders were advised and Reintroduction of fresh- of the target species that potentially informed in order to minimise any future water pearl mussels contribute to the strengthening of pearl impacts on the watercourse. mussels within their natural habitats and Some projects established the release that are transferable at EU level in order The sources of siltation (dredging, of infected host fish and juvenile mus- to improve the conservation status of clearing of ditches, vehicle damage in sels. The German project ‘Large fresh- this endangered species. 29

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

Bolstering butterfly populations through LIFE

Most butterfly populations and numbers are in decline throughout Europe, with Member

States reporting the conservation status of species in their countries is ‘inadequate’, or

‘unfavourable-bad’ (see table). However, by actions targeting the conservation of habi-

tats, LIFE projects should have a positive long-term impact on populations of especially

vulnerable European butterfly species at a local level.

he decline of European butterflies has been long recognised, but it T LESS-KNOWN SPECIES : BUTTERFLIES was not until the publication of the Red Data Book of European Butterflies in 1999 that the full extent of the problem became clear. The study showed that 71 of the 576 species known in Europe were threatened (12% of the total), and a further 43 species were classed as near threatened.

Over half of European butterfly species are linked to grassland habitat types, with the highest number of species occurring in farmland habitat – typically open grassy areas such as extensively farmed areas, grasslands, meadows and pastures. Their very substantial decline in recent years is attributed to loss of extensive farmland to

agricultural intensification, leading among Photo: LIFE03 NAT/UK/000042 other things to a loss of marginal habitats Populations of the marsh fritillary butterfly have declined dramatically in Europe and the and hedgerows and a higher input of ferti- species is assessed as ‘unfavourable-bad’. liser, herbicides and insecticides. hardy breeds of sheep, cattle, or horses, main actions involved the establishment Protecting their natural breeding habitats is and in some cases drainage and restora- of mechanisms for the legal protection of crucial, not only to avoid a further decrease tion of natural hydrology. the species and, on Natura 2000 sites, the in their numbers, but also to protect other introduction of legally binding management animal and plant species and areas with Among these, the projects focused in par- plans together with national conservation high ecological value. ticular on actions for the protection and con- or biodiversity plans. servation of breeding habitats associated LIFE actions with the marsh fritillary butterfly (Euphydr- Although populations of marsh fritillaries yas aurinia). Listed as a priority species in may occur occasionally on wet heath, bog Since 2000, LIFE projects have indirectly Annex II of the Habitats Directive, numbers margins and woodland clearings, most targeted populations of ten rare or highly have declined dramatically in Europe. The colonies are found in damp acidic or dry endangered butterfly species in Europe. species is assessed as ‘unfavourable-bad’ calcareous grasslands. Therefore, there These locally based actions involve, for across most of its European range. has been a great deal of LIFE work on-site the most part, restoration of the grassland to ensure good conditions for the species’ habitat types on which the species depend. LIFE projects in the UK, Denmark and preferred larval food plant, devil’s bit scabi- Typically, they include mechanical clearing Poland have focused mainly on long-term ous (Succisa pratensis). The plant benefits of overgrowth, including scrub and trees, conservation measures to bring the most from measures that prevent overgrowing, controlled burning, mowing, introduction threatened and isolated populations into and clearance work is also of value to many or reintroduction of extensive grazing with an improved conservation status. The other listed species and habitat types. LIFE 30

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

able. Only eight small sub-populations Conservation status at remain, and thus the actions of the Dan- Species Member State / region level Projects (main regions) ish project (LIFE05 NAT/DK/000151) were crucial to reverse this negative trend and to Coenonympha Unfavourable-bad (Alpine) LIFE06 NAT/PL/000100 ensure the butterfly species continues to oedippus and Unfavourable - exist there. As well as habitats for Euphy- Inadequate (Continental) dryas aurinia, a Polish project also tar- Colias myrmidone Unfavourable - LIFE02 NAT/IT/008574 geted the conservation and improvement Inadequate (Continental) of habitats for five other rare butterflies of wet, semi-natural meadows (LIFE06 NAT/ Erebia christi Unfavourable bad (Alpine) LIFE99 NAT/GR/006498 PL/000100). LIFE96 NAT/GR/003222 LIFE93 NAT/GR/010800 Meanwhile, LIFE actions have also indi- LIFE07 NAT/GR/000291 rectly benefited another of Europe’s rarest Euphydryas Unfavourable bad (Atlantic LIFE03NAT/UK/000042 butterfly species: Raetzer’s ringlet (Ere- aurinia and Continental) LIFE05 NAT/DK/000151 bia Christi) – found almost exclusively in LIFE06 NAT/SK/000115 a small SCI area of the Ossola valley (Val LIFE06 NAT/PL/000100 d’Ossola) on the Italian-Swiss border. Here, LIFE07 NAT/B/000039 the project’s valuable monitoring work has LESS-KNOWN SPECIES : BUTTERFLIES Graellsia isabelae Unknown LIFE03 NAT/E/000057 greatly added to the knowledge of this species, first sighted in the area in the 1970s. Lycaena dispar Favourable (Boreal) LIFE05 NAT/SK/000112 During the three years of the LIFE project Unfavourable - LIFE06 NAT/PL/000100 (LIFE02 NAT/IT/008574), the presence of Inadequate (Continental) LIFE07 NAT/B/000039 the species was confirmed (22 individuals Lycaena helle Unfavourable-bad LIFE06 NAT/PL/000100 were recorded in 2004) and, apart from its (Continental and Boreal) LIFE07 NAT/B/000039 very limited distribution, the researchers found no other threats to its survival. Maculinea arion Unfavourable-bad LIFE06 NAT/SK/000115 (Continental and Alpine) LIFE04 NAT/DK/000020 Conclusions Maculinea Unfavourable-bad LIFE05 NAT/SK/000112 nausithous (Continental) LIFE06 NAT/PL/000100 While many European butterfly species still Maculinea teleius Unfavourable-bad (Conti- LIFE05 NAT/SK/000112 have an ‘unfavourable-bad’ conservation nental) LIFE06 NAT/PL/000100 status, the habitat conservation actions undertaken by LIFE projects should have a positive long-term impact on individual has also funded a range of awareness-rais- The marsh fritillary has also suffered rapid populations of highly endangered spe- ing campaigns. decline in Denmark, due to fragmentation cies. Through surveys and demonstration of habitats and populations. Together with of best practice approaches to habitat In the UK, one of the species’ main strong- a continuing decline in the quality of exist- improvement, LIFE has also added signifi- holds in Europe, the marsh fritillary has ing and potentially suitable habitats, this cantly to our understanding of the ecology undergone a dramatic decline in recent has caused the conservation status of the and conservation of some of Europe’s rar- years, with a 66% loss in populations marsh fritillary today to be highly unfavour- est butterflies. nationally since 1990. The project that was carried out on the mid-Cornwall moors, (LIFE03 NAT/UK/000042), demonstrated ‘Metapopulation’ approach benefits marsh fritillary best practices for supporting habitats associated with some of the larger populations Between 2003-07 the mid-Cornwall moors project focused on increasing the of the species in England. Project work has extent and improving the quality of marsh fritillary breeding habitats at nine sites. A successfully targeted habitat management key objective was to restore the connectivity between breeding patches on the sites over several sites, using a metapopulation where marsh fritillaries already occurred. Making connections between marsh fritillary strategy deemed necessary for the long- breeding places is considered particularly important because the insects thrive as a term maintenance of populations (see box). collection of colonies, and the adults need to be able to fly between different sites. A major achievement was the redirection of a section of a busy road that intersected these butterfly colonies. Useful ‘information sheets’ can be downloaded from the A metapopulation consists of a group of project website: http://www.midcornwallmoors.org.uk/. These cover the background geographically separated populations of the same species which interact at some level. to the project, the science underpinning it and conservation grazing. 31

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats LESS-KNOWN SPECIES : WHITE CLAWED CRAYFISH Photo: Graia srl The reintroduction of the white- clawed crayfish

Many LIFE projects have undertaken habitat-restoration measures that include the

white-clawed crayfish as a target species. Six Italian projects, however, have focused

directly on breeding and reintroducing this species to identified target areas.

he white-clawed crayfish (Aus- Habitats Directive and is classified as can signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leni- Ttropotamobius pallipes) is a vulnerable in the IUCN Red List. usculus and Procambarus clarkii) com- freshwater species mainly found in petes directly with the native crayfish mineral-rich waters, notably in small, European populations, however, are for habitat and resources. In all geo- fast-moving mountain streams. The increasingly sporadic, mainly due to graphical regions where white-clawed animal is particularly susceptible to habitat degradation, water removal, crayfish occur (Alpine, Atlantic, Conti- water pollution and requires high oxy- pollution – including sewage, insecti- nental and Mediterranean) its conser- gen levels. Its presence is considered cides and farm waste effluent, poach- vation status was assessed as ‘bad’. an indicator of good water quality. It ing and crayfish plague. Moreover, the Germany is the only country where it is included in Annexes II and V of the plague resistant invasive North Ameri- is performing well. 32

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

Italy (at least 250 crayfish were released in each site). Surveillance and scientific monitoring activities were also carried out to reduce poaching.

Another Italian project (LIFE03 NAT/ IT/000147) aimed to prevent the extinction of the white-clawed crayfish in the Valvestino and Corno della Marogna Natura 2000 sites. First, a survey was conducted to assess the ecological conditions and the local crayfish population. The resulting data showed that it was possible to reinforce the existing populations with new individuals in the Valvestino, where the species had natural reproduction, and to reintroduce the Photo: LIFE03 NAT/IT/000147 species in a selected water course in the LIFE has contributed to the development of captive breeding techniques for the white- Corno della Marogna, where no cray- clawed crayfish. fish were found in the survey. In order to achieve this goal a crayfish breeding LIFE actions turing healthy specimens and breeding facility was built with ten tanks and an them in captivity before releasing the artificial pond. The project improved the Since 1992, LIFE has co-funded 17 offspring into the wild to recolonise breeding techniques and 610 juvenile projects that directly or indirectly tar- habitats and add genetic diversity to crayfish were released in the predefined LESS-KNOWN SPECIES : WHITE CLAWED CRAYFISH geted the species. Most of the project weak sub-populations. The released locations. Juveniles were bred from actions included improving water qual- specimens and their habitats were care- reproductive crayfish that were cap- ity and stream habitats, but just eight fully monitored and awareness-raising tured in rivers and water courses within have focused specifically on the white- activities carried out. the two sites and then released after the clawed crayfish - most of them taking reproduction period. place in Italy, one in France and the One Italian project (LIFE03 NAT/ other in the UK. Although the species is IT/000137) prepared and adopted an Using the experience gathered by still found across the Italian peninsula, action plan for the species with seven these two Italian projects, an ongoing numbers have fallen sharply and many Italian provinces in central Italy and project (LIFE08 NAT/IT/000352) aims local populations have been elimi- gave technical training courses. This to reintroduce crayfish in 47 Natura nated. This vulnerable crustacean is project also restored two breeding facil- 2000 sites by breeding 23 200 juvenile now confined to isolated groups in the ities in order to raise juvenile crayfish crayfish in newly established/restored least polluted watercourses and faces a to release into the wild and to improve breeding centres. high risk of local extinction and loss of breeding techniques. After a preliminary genetic diversity. study of the distribution and ecological Elsewhere in the EU, a French project conditions of the local crayfish popula- (LIFE04 NAT/FR/000082) and a recent All projects focused significant efforts tions, more than 4 400 juvenile crayfish, UK project (LIFE08 NAT/UK/000201) on the breeding and reintroduction of born by captive breeding, and 270 adult are also aiming to reintroduce the crayfish into carefully targeted areas of crayfish were released in 18 selected white-clawed crayfish in two Natura appropriate habitat. This involved cap- sites in three different regions of central 2000 sites.

Conclusions Conservation status at Species Biogeographical region level Projects Though LIFE project actions have (main regions) been taken at a local level, they have Austropotamobius Unfavourable-bad (Alpine, LIFE00 NAT/IT/007159 improved the conservation status of pallipes Atlantic, Continental and LIFE03 NAT/IT/000137 white-tailed crayfish in certain areas, Mediterranean) LIFE03 NAT/IT/000147 such as central Italy. Nevertheless, the LIFE04 NAT/FR/000082 conservation status throughout EU is LIFE08 NAT/IT/000352 not favourable, and the actions dem- LIFE04 NAT/IT/000159 onstrated by LIFE projects must be LIFE08 NAT/UK/000201 adopted on a wider scale to ensure the LIFE99 NAT/IT/006229 long-term survival of this species. 33

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

LIFE support for Italy’s ENDANGERED FISH SPECIES : COBICE endangered Cobice sturgeon

Fish protection bodies in northern Italy have made good use of LIFE co-financing to

help improve the conservation status of one of Europe’s most endangered species,

the Cobice sturgeon.

urope’s last remaining populations LIFE involvement restocking programme. A parallel LIFE Eof the Cobice or Adriatic sturgeon project (LIFE03 NAT/IT/000113), which (Acipenser naccarii) are found in Italy, the One LIFE Nature project (LIFE04 NAT/ has benefited the conservation status Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia IT/000126) has addressed sturgeon of the Cobice, targeted the fish’s last and Albania. In Italy it is located only in stocks in the Po, Adige, Piave and remaining land-locked population in the northern Veneto, Lombardy and Brenta river basins. These sites cover the lower Ticino River. Emilia Romagna regions. It is included in the majority of the sturgeon’s remain- Annex II of the Habitats Directive, and is ing population range and provide the classified as vulnerable in the IUCN Red main reproductive locations. LIFE Cobice individuals ready for restocking List. The limited distribution of the spe- support here included a large-scale – incubating cobice eggs. cies, combined with its particularly long reproductive cycle (females only reach reproductive maturity at around 12-14 years of age with a low productivity rate), represent particular natural challenges to its conservation.

The conservation status is ‘unfavourable- bad’ in the Continental region, where a large decline has occurred in the Italian rivers during the past few decades due to intensive overfishing, construction of dams that block the rivers where stur- geons spawn, water pollution and habitat destruction. Photo: LIFE 04NAT/IT/000126 34

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats ENDANGERED FISH SPECIES : COBICE Photo: LIFE 04NAT/IT/000126 Captured cobice at the breeding centre.

With the aim of restoring viable popu- Policy in practice Studies also focused on genetic analysis lations of the priority species, LIFE of fish stocks, and findings underscored co-financed the release of more than A programme of practical policy-driven the importance of expanding gene pool 162 000 captive-bred Cobice sturgeon conservation work was carried out to diversity in captive breeding systems. in 12 different rivers (LIFE04 NAT/ help reinforce the effectiveness of LIFE’s IT/000126). Around 23 500 of these restocking efforts. New facilities were Conclusions were grown to an average length of provided at two hatcheries to expand 50 cm, and 12 000 were fitted with the LIFE project’s potential and increase The LIFE-funded action plan has been microchips, in order to monitor their the hatcheries’ efficiency. These capi- widely welcomed by Cobice stur- movement and track the LIFE project’s tal investments were complemented by geon stakeholders. It takes a holistic overall impacts. improved scientific knowledge of the approach, also incorporating actions on sturgeon’s favoured habitat features and Natura 2000 sites, and has been adopted A wide network of stakeholders (fish- its captive breeding. Hydrological studies by environmental management authori- ermen, rangers and volunteers) was were completed and data was mapped ties from three different regions. LIFE’s created to monitor the released stur- using a GIS system to identify optimum interventions have played a significant geons. Results from the still ongoing release points. This informed the content role in meeting the Habitat Directive’s monitoring are expected to confirm the of an action plan, which also included river requirements by strengthening the con- long-term survival and reproduction of management recommendations support- servation status of this protected Euro- more than 2 000 sturgeon. ing the survival of sturgeon populations. pean species.

Conservation status at Percentage of the species Species Biogeographical region level Projects range targeted by the project(s) (main regions)

Acipenser naccarii, Unfavourable-bad (Continental) LIFE03 NAT/IT/000113 About 100 % (known as the Cobice LIFE04 NAT/IT/000126 or Adriatic sturgeon) 35

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

Better rivers for healthier fish: salmon conservation in Scotland

The Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), the so-called ‘king of fish’, is widely distributed

throughout the North Atlantic, including Europe. However, it has declined because of

pollution, acidification, introduction of non-native salmon stocks, overfishing, physical

barriers to migration and degradation of spawning and nursery habitats.

n all geographical regions the status project also planned to improve the The project’s results were impressive, Iof this species is assessed as ‘bad’ extent and quality of spawning-grounds and in some areas performed better in the Article 17 report. In Finland and and habitats for juvenile fish through in- than expected. For example, the project Latvia, however, the Atlantic salmon is stream works. aimed to improve 40 000 m2 of degraded bucking the overall trend (assessed as streams, but in fact restored more than ‘favourable’). Other aims of the project were to prevent 70 000 m2. It aimed to fence 52 km of riv- the erosion of riverbank habitats due to erbank to prevent uncontrolled grazing,

Scottish rivers are a European stronghold livestock; to reduce the amount of agri- but a total of 80 km was fenced. Other ENDANGERED FISH SPECIES : ATLANTIC SALMON for the species, where the salmon is an cultural sediment going into one river; to goals such as easing the 25 man-made indicator species for habitat quality. The improve riverbank woodland habitats; obstacles, managing riverbank forest salmon is also economically important to stimulate natural recolonisation and and restocking of rivers were comfort- to Scotland. Therefore, Scottish Natural spawning in newly restored areas; to ably achieved. Heritage, the government conservation encourage sustainable use of gravel in agency, with support from the LIFE pro- salmon rivers, and to purchase netting Communication activities were also gramme, carried out the wide-ranging rights on two rivers. highly effective. The team produced a ‘Conservation of Atlantic salmon in Scot- DVD showing completed actions at vari- land’ (LIFE04 NAT/GB/000250) project, The project benefited from having a wide ous locations on the river and organised one of the most significant initiatives of range of high-profile participants. Scottish a «Salmon in the Classroom» programme this kind ever undertaken. Natural Heritage was joined by the Dis- at local primary schools. The final con- trict Salmon Fisheries Boards, Fisheries ference, which was held in June 2008, LIFE actions Trusts, the Scottish Executive, the For- attracted more than 80 delegates. estry Commission, the Crown Estate and The project encompassed various sub- companies such as Scottish Hydro Elec- Several other LIFE projects have also projects, starting in 2004 and running tric. This showed the importance placed indirectly benefitted the salmon. For until 2008. They took place in eight on restoring salmon habitats. The project example, two projects (LIFE06 NAT/ Scottish rivers, aiming to improve fresh- enabled partners to develop expertise NL/000078 and LIFE05 NAT/S/000109) water habitats for salmon and bypass- and technical understanding in a number aimed to remove the barriers for migrating, removing or mitigating 25 man-made of areas, such as fish-passage installa- ing fish in Netherlands and Sweden, an obstacles to the passage of salmon. The tion, riparian work and in-stream work. action that might also benefit salmon among other migrating fish. Removing salmon migration obstacles has improved the status of the salmon. Conclusions

The project showed the benefits that can arise from concerted conservation actions, involving a wide range of stakeholders undertaking a broad range of actions. In this respect, the project could be a model for future activities in areas affected by conservation problems that require a joined-up approach. Photo: LIFE04 NAT/GB/000250 36

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

Through in situ habitat-management actions, ex situ captive breeding programmes and

management-capacity development, LIFE projects have helped improve the conserva-

tion status of some of the most endangered freshwater fish in Europe.

LIFE and Mediterranean freshwater fish ENDANGERED FISH SPECIES : MEDITERRANEAN FRESHWATER FISH Photo: E. C. vertebrados acuáticos - U. Murcia

editerranean biogeographi- reported in 2006 on the ‘Status and Dis- and the pollution of water sources exac- Mcal region freshwater fish are tribution of Freshwater Fish Endemic to erbate this problem, while bank altera- those found in any river basin flowing the Mediterranean Basin’. It found that tions, the collection of gravel and sand, into the Mediterranean Sea. The princi- 18% of these endemic species are ‘criti- and the release of non-native fish can pal European waterways are the Rhone, cally endangered’, 18% ‘endangered’ negatively affect the delicate ecosystems Ebro and Po rivers – in which a total of and 20% ‘vulnerable’. Thus a total of in which the fish survive. 253 endemic fish species can be found. 56% of these species are threatened. Areas of species richness include the LIFE Actions Po river basin in northern Italy, the lower The main threat to their survival is the lack Guadiana in southern Spain and Portu- of water. Rainfall in the region is relatively LIFE projects have for the most part gal, several parts of the Mediterranean low and a significant amount of water is aimed to protect specific species in Spanish coastline, and the Acheloos, extracted for domestic consumption, targeted areas. This is partly because Axios and the lower Pinios river basins notably during peak tourism periods, and many of the endangered freshwater in Greece. for agriculture. The construction of dams fish have a very restricted distribution, often limited to one country or

IUCN carried out a Freshwater Biodi- http://www.uicnmed.org/web2007/cd_ one area. Habitat management was an versity Assessment Programme, which fwfish/index.html important feature of all these projects. 37

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

A Greek project created a model biotope to act as a fish refuge. A Spanish project removed alien species (competing fish and crabs), restored important saltpan habitats and ponds and created new ponds to host the Iberian toothcarp. A Portuguese project sought to restore riparian habitats and participated in the drawing up of a hydrological plan for the Guadiana basin.

All the projects also undertook new ex situ captive breeding programmes to create stocks of the endangered fish for reintroduction and to prevent the possibility of total extinction.

Improving the understanding of the needs of these little-known fish was an important element of each project. Habitats, water quality, fish abundance and genetic diversity were explored. This in turn informed the development of management, conservation and recovery plans for the spe- HCMR Photo: Maria Th. Stoumboudi, Institute of Inland Waters, Gizani in its natural habitat, feeding on the substrate. cies, the revision of Natura 2000 sites to include the species, and the proposal of new SCIs. In most cases, beneficial dia- in river management. Finally, information with effective reintroduction programmes logue and co-operation was established sites were developed to engender public and legal mechanisms to protect the spe- with the relevant administrations involved support for these species and to engage cies raise hope for a better future for these relevant stakeholders, including local inconspicuous fish species. authorities and private organisations in Iberian toothcarp (Aphanius iberus) leisure and tourism. Their conservation status has therefore

been improved in the areas where LIFE ENDANGERED FISH SPECIES : MEDITERRANEAN FRESHWATER FISH Conclusions projects were undertaken and increases in population numbers on a local level were LIFE projects have increased under- recorded. As a result of the Greek project, standing of endangered endemic Medi- the gizani is now generally stable and was terranean freshwater fish (distribution, assessed as ‘favourable’ thanks mostly biology and ecology) and what is needed to LIFE project actions. Another relevant to ensure survival and restore their habi- contribution of these projects is that they tats. Very little was known previously in help to protect streams that host the spe- most cases. Habitat improvement and the cies and therefore contribute to the resto-

Photo: Carlos Gonzalez Revelles establishment of protected areas together ration of some very fragile habitats.

Endangered Mediter- Conservation Country Projects Where found Project location ranean fish status

Greece LIFE98 NAT/GR/005279 Gizani (Ladigesocy- Endemic to the Greek Rhodes Favourable pris ghigii) island of Rhodes.

Spain* LIFE04 NAT/ES/000035 Iberian toothcarp Endemic to the Spa- Murcia region Unfavourable- (Aphanius iberus) nish coastline inadequate

Portugal LIFE97 NAT/P/004075 Anaecypris hispanica Endemic to Iberia Guadiana basin Unfavourable- bad

* In Spain many other projects have directly or indirectly contributed to the protection and enhancement of both Aphanius iberus and Valencia hispanica (LIFE96 NAT/E/003180, LIFE96 NAT/E/003118, LIFE98 NAT/E/005323, LIFE00 NAT/E/7339, LIFE04 NAT/E/0044), though it was generally not their main objective. 38

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

LIFE innovations benefit Europe’s flora

The status of many plant species has been improved by LIFE projects. The programme

has helped foster important innovations such as the plant micro-reserve (PMR) concept.

urope’s varied geography and Eclimate provides a vast range of habitats that support more than 12 500 LIFE IMPROVING PLANT SPECIES vascular plants (flowering plants, conifers and ferns). Centres of particularly high plant diversity include the mountainous areas around the Mediterranean and the Black Sea. The floras of Spain, Greece, Italy, Bulgaria and Romania support the highest numbers of both endemic and endangered plant species.

Wild plants in Europe are under severe threat, however, and significant losses of plant species and habitat have taken place. According to the IUCN, some 21% of Europe’s vascular plant species are classified as threatened and half of the continent’s 4 700 vascular endemic spe-

cies are in danger of extinction. Photo: LIFE00 NAT/A/007069 The conservation status of the Lake Constance forget-me-not (Myosotis rehsteineri) was The highest percentage of the ‘favour- improved thanks to two LIFE projects. able’ assessments in the Art 17 report is for vascular plants, where more than ably according to each individual plant D/005940) projects, targeting the Lake 20% of the assessments are favourable species targeted by the project. The Constance forget-me-not (Myosotis reh- and less than 20% ‘unfavourable bad’. complexity of the projects means that steineri), and the Italian project (LIFE03 However there are still more than 35% of many benefit from close collaboration NAT/IT/000147) targeting (Saxifraga ‘unfavourable inadequate’ assessments. with stakeholders and from national and tombeanensis). This group includes a large number of international partnerships. endemic plants. When it comes to restricted species LIFE projects focusing on plants com- populations on a group of sites, LIFE has The main factors that have contributed monly target several plant species – with helped pioneer a new approach that has to the progressive decline of European different ecological requirements, habi- spread from Spain across the EU: the plant diversity are: tats and locations (e.g. the project ‘Con- plant micro-reserve (see box).

l Habitat loss and degradation; servation and restoration of calcareous l Introduction of invasive alien species; fens in Friuli’ (LIFE06 NAT/IT/000060), l Pollution and disease; which targeted the species Armeria To read more about LIFE’s work in

l Climate change. helodes, Erucastrum palustre, Euphra- this area, download the publication sia marchesettii and Gladiolus palustris). ‘LIFE and endangered plants – con- A particular characteristic of LIFE plant Projects also focus on very restricted serving Europe’s threatened flora’ projects is that they typically have highly populations – with few individuals in very from the LIFE website: specific objectives (e.g. many target small areas. Examples include those that http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ endemic or very rare species). Meeting focus on only one or a few Natura 2000 these objectives often involves carrying sites, such as the Austrian (LIFE00 NAT/ publications/lifepublications/lifefo- out complex actions that differ consider- A/007069) and German (LIFE99 NAT/ cus/nat.htm#plants 39

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats LIFE IMPROVING PLANT SPECIES

LIFE and plant micro-reserves

A plant micro-reserve (PMR) is a small LIFE Nature supported a two-phase network of 24 plant micro-reserves. plot of land (up to 20 ha – there is no project to create a network of flora The island and regional governments minimum size) that is of peak value in micro-reserves in Valencia. The first are now working on implementing terms of plant richness endemism or phase (LIFE93 NAT/E/011100) ran from this network of PMRs. rarity. The PMR is a permanent, statu- 1994-96 and the second phase (LIFE95 tory reserve given over to the long- NAT/E/000856) from 1997-99. Slovenia was the first country out- term monitoring of plant species and side Spain to go down the micro- vegetation types. As well as providing The projects succeeded in establish- reserve path. In the Slovenian strong protection to plants and sub- ing a total of 158 micro-reserves, cov- project (LIFE02 NAT/SLO/008587), strate, traditional activities compatible ering 286 ha, that are representative which ran from 2002-5, the Science with plant conservation are allowed of the main endemic plant communi- and Research Centre at the Univer- within the micro-reserve. ties found in Valencia. The Valencia sity of Primorska set up a network micro-reserve network has expanded of 30 micro-reserves for rare and Since a PMR can be proclaimed for significantly following the conclusion endangered wild plants, as well as a single target species, it can pin- of the LIFE project in 1999. As of 2005, for priority habitats protected by the point isolated areas of high botani- it consisted of 247 plots, with a total Habitats Directive, mainly focused cal value. The aim is to provide a surface area of 1 684 ha (the densest on small ponds, calcareous screes, small-scale and flexible approach to network of protected sites for plant rocky slopes and grasslands. plant conservation and to act as a conservation in the world). complement to large Natural Pro- In Greece, the “CRETAPLANT” project tected Areas. Planta Europa adopted the initial LIFE ( LIFE04 NAT/GR/000104) has adapted micro-reserves project in Valencia as a the PMR concept to the province of Europe’s first PMRs were set up in pilot scheme to evaluate the possible Chania in Western Crete, where it has 1994 by the Regional Wildlife Ser- creation of a pan-European micro- achieved good results in terms of vice of the Generalitat Valenciana, reserves network. LIFE has done much guaranteeing the long-term conser- the autonomous government of the to help establish such a network. vation of seven threatened endemic Valencia region of Spain, with the sup- plant species. port of the LIFE programme. Valencia As part of a Spanish project (LIFE00 has a great diversity of plant spe- NAT/E/007355), which ran from 2001- LIFE+ continues to support the growth cies, many of which appear in micro- 4, the government of Minorca devel- of the PMR network. The latest batch populations fragmented throughout oped a set of comprehensive actions of approved projects includes two the whole region. It was therefore to recover the plant species and prior- on micro-reserves, one in Bulgaria an ideal location for Europe’s first ity habitats protected by the Habitats (LIFE08 NAT/BG/000279) and one in network of PMRs. Directive, including the creation of a Cyprus (LIFE08 NAT/CY/000453). 40

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

Successful LIFE support for endangered Italian daisies

LIFE project interventions have helped contribute to securing a favourable conservation

status for Aster sorrentinii, a previously endangered plant species found only in Sicily.

ster sorrentinii, a small plant from pressures, combined with habitat dam- tion had also led to new specimens being Athe daisy family (Asteraceae), is age by fires or fragmentation, led to a observed on other project sites. listed as a priority species for conserva- significant decline in the size of the natu- tion under Annex II of the Habitats Direc- ral Aster sorrentinii population. By 2004 Conclusions tive. This rare and delicate daisy has a numbers of this protected plant species highly limited distribution, being found had dropped significantly. Urgent actions LIFE’s project results have made con- nowhere else in the world other than a were thus required to prevent the species siderable contributions to the long-term small number of locations in Sicily. from completely disappearing. sustainability of Aster sorrentinii, as more than 270 plant specimens were noted Sites favoured by Aster sorrentinii include LIFE support interventions growing in the wild following the project’s gas mud volcanic areas with and feature final phases. Italy’s Article 17 report now habitats, such as Mediterranean salt LIFE support was harnessed to help records the species as having a favour-

LIFE IMPROVING meadows,PLANT SPECIES : ASTER temporary SORRENTINII ponds and steppe intervene in this species’ conservation able conservation status and the ben- grasslands. Agriculture has had a major programme, which was actively pursued eficiary acknowledges that key success influence on the make-up of these types by the regional government’s compe- factors can be attributed to the shift in of habitats in recent decades, which saw tent bodies. Their four-year LIFE project land-use approaches. Land acquisition Sicilian farmers introducing increasingly (LIFE04 NAT/IT/000182) began in 2004 facilitated these changes, allowing a halt intensive patterns of land-use manage- and was carried out in the ‘Maccalube to excessive sheep grazing and silvicul- ment. di Aragona’ Natura 2000 site, one of the ture, the main threats to availability of few sites with Aster sorrentinii, and ini- suitable habitats for Aster sorrentinii. Herbicides and artificial fertilisers have tially focused on maximising protection been used to boost the Island’s poten- for the existing Aster sorrentinii popu- Longer term expansion of the plant tial for supporting larger numbers of lation. Land covering some 66 ha was populations remains reliant on address- livestock. However, increased grazing acquired and contractors installed 4 600 ing these concerns and LIFE project staff m of fencing to reduce grazing-related developed conservation methods that

Aster sorrentinii. threats around plant locations. Fire encourages stakeholder involvement breaks were also introduced and habi- from local landowners. These actions aim tat support works were complemented to broaden a sense of understanding and by trials to identify optimal parameters ownership of the plant preservation pro- for a proactive campaign of transplanta- gramme among farmers and foresters. tion. The trials were carried out at a new acclimatisation station that stocks plants Mainstreaming more environmentally coming from a nearby nursery. sensitive approaches within these key sectors remains a challenge throughout Results from earlier plant propagation work the EU. However, while policy support is provided valuable lessons in how best to now moving in this direction, more sus- approach nurturing the growth of wild tainable benefits for Europe’s biodiversity Aster sorrentinii populations. Knowledge will only be achieved when land holders gained from this conservation process convert policy rhetoric into action on the helped to ensure a successful re-estab- ground. LIFE continues to play an impor- lishment of the endangered daisy species tant role in testing and demonstrating in specified target areas. Moreover, by practical techniques for reaching these the end of the project, natural dissemina- essential conservation goals. Photo: LIFE04 NAT/IT/000182 HABITATS 42

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

Preserving priority palm forest habitat on Crete

A combination of practical conservation actions and sustainable tourism principles

have contributed to the success of a LIFE project that aimed to conserve and expand

the rare Greek palm grove habitat. FORESTS : PALM GROVES

reece’s ‘Palm groves of Phoenix’ Phoenix palms previously covered as well as monitoring and managing Ghabitat (*9370) is defined as an almost 300 ha. In recent decades, onsite water levels. Annex II priority by the Habitats Direc- extensive land reclamations destroyed tive, and is located in the Vai area at the large parts of the unique palm forest. LIFE contributions helped to double eastern tip of Crete. This forest habitat The problem became so acute that by the surface of Crete’s rare forest habi- contains the EU’s sole grove of Phoenix 2000 only 15.6 ha remained, mostly tat, which by the end of the project theophrastii palms. Phoenix theophrastii surrounded by agricultural land. This encompassed around 32 ha. The project is encountered only in Crete and in limited the habitat’s capacity to expand also introduced a strategy for tourism south-western Turkey and Vai is the only and natural regeneration was further management to help maintain this site. place where it forms a grove. In all other hampered. Urgent conservation inter- Another project in Crete (LIFE04 NAT/ sites (other parts of Crete and Turkey) it ventions were sought to prevent com- GR/000104) created a micro-reserve for only occurs in small clusters. Only one plete eradication of this endangered EU the western – most cluster of the habitat other endemic type of palm forest habi- habitat. on the island (along with micro-reserves tat exists in the EU (Phoenix canariensis for another six priority species). in the Canary Isles) and so protection of Conservation interventions the Vai palm forests remains an ongo- Tourism was once one of the palm ing obligation for Greek environmental LIFE Nature support was used to habitat’s main threats, with more than authorities and forestry services. launch and reinforce a long-term habi- 200 000 visitors regularly using nearby tat rehabilitation initiative (LIFE98 NAT/ beaches. Managing this scale of visitor A series of different pressures on the palm GR/005264). This involved the imple- pressures remains essential and LIFE’s habitat are noted in the Greek Article 17 mentation of a specific management Vai tourism strategy took a multifaceted report. These include cultivation, drain- plan prepared by a previous LIFE project, approach. New information facilities age, burning, disease, genetic pollution, (LIFE95 NAT/GR/001140) followed by a were established and a publicity cam- competition and tourism impacts. programme of targeted actions co-ordi- paign helped raise awareness among nated by the Greek Biotope-Wetland local tourist operators about this unique Centre and designed to help implement forest’s potential as a green-tourism LIFE has ensured that the ‘Palm groves of Phoenix’ habitat (*9370) has retained its key palm grove conservation actions. attraction. In this way, ownership of the favourable conservation status. palm conservation objectives have now To achieve the forest expansion and been mainstreamed within the Vai area’s restoration, farmers agreed to reallo- economic development agenda. cate 2.7 ha of sensitive areas around the forest to alternative land, and the Conclusions Monastery of Toplou agreed to do the same for a further 13.4 ha. A batch of These actions continue to help contrib- restoration measures were also imple- ute to the ‘favourable’ conservation sta- mented in parallel to improve the struc- tus that is now enjoyed by Crete’s Palm ture and vigour of both the existing, and groves of Phoenix habitat. The Greek now, extended forest area. This work Article 17 report acknowledged LIFE’s involved: planting the additional 16 ha contribution to the endangered palm with Phoenix theophrastii; fencing both forest habitat’s restoration and its long- the existing forest and the new resto- term survival. It reported that the habitat ration area; implementing specific sil- area and range is increasing, primarily vicultural treatments required for safe- as the result of the management actions guarding the existing palm population, of the LIFE project. Photo: LIFE04 NAT/GR/000104 Photo: LIFE04 NAT/GR/000104 43

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

LIFE interventions have helped Italian authorities to adopt long-term strategies for the

sustainable management of rare Apennine beech forest habitats.

Sustaining the favourable conservation status of Italian Mediterranean beech forest habitats FORESTS : APENNINE BEACH Photo: Alberto Cozzi

taly is home to two beech forest of the presence of silver fir in Tuscany’s local forests’ genetic make up; Ihabitats: European temperate for- beech forest habitats include: l Spread of pathogen fungi, such ests and the Mediterranean mountain l Unsustainable timber extraction meth- as Heterobasidium and Armillaria, broadleaf forests in southern Italy, ods targeting fir species; caused by the substitution of the nat-

which includes two Apennine beech l Introduction and proliferation of exotic ural mixed broadleaf-silver fir forests habitats that are characterised by their silver firs which dilute and weaken the with 100% silver fir plantation. diversified species composition – both are classified as priority for protection Conservation status by the Habitats Directive and contain Habitats at Member State / region Projects mixtures of beech and silver fir (Abies level (main regions) alba) (9220*), or beech with yew (Taxus baccata) and holly (Ilex aquifolium) 9210* Apennine beech Favourable LIFE04 NAT/IT/000191 forest with Taxus and Ilex LIFE04 NAT/IT/000190 (9210*). ad aquifolium

In the Tuscany region these distinctive 9220* Apennine Beech Favourable LIFE95 NAT/IT/000610 mixed forest habitats were once more forests with Abies alba LIFE96 NAT/IT/003169 prolific but are now restricted to small LIFE97 NAT/IT/004163 isolated patches along the Apennines LIFE99 NAT/IT/006260 and in the isolated area of Monte Amiata. LIFE04 NAT/IT/000190 Key factors contributing to the decline LIFE04 NAT/IT/000191 44

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

Such pressures on the habitats’ conservation status are reflected by the Article 17 report, which highlights problems of inappropriate forest management techniques. It assessed these habitats as ‘favourable’, but underscored concerns affecting the future sustainability of priority Apennine beech habitats, in particular due to forest conversions to grazing pastures and the impact of ski routes.

Italian LIFE involvement

FORESTS : APENNINEItalian BEACH authorities have recognised that a long-term outlook is required to address these pressures on the Apen- nine beech woods, and LIFE was identified as an appropriate vehicle to help protect and preserve future prospects for the two priority habitats. Indeed, habitats 9210* and 9220* are the forest habitat most targeted by the Italian LIFE projects, both in the Continental and Mediterranean biogeographical region. In the northern Apennines it was targeted by the project LIFE95 NAT/ IT/000610 and its follow-up LIFE97 NAT/IT/004163, and in the central and the southern Apennines by the projects LIFE96 NAT/IT/003169 and follow- up projects LIFE99 NAT/IT/006260,

LIFE04 NAT/IT/000190, LIFE06 NAT/ Photo: Alberto Cozzi IT/000053. Another project, LIFE04 LIFE has played an important role in establishing management methodologies and restora- NAT/IT/000191, focused on the Nat- tion of the Apennine Beech forests with Abies alba habitat (9220*). ura 2000 SCI IT5180013 “Foreste del Siele e Pigelleto di Piancastagnaio”, eased silver fir trees and initiating a tion managers to operate more freely where both habitats survive. The local programme to gradually extract all and effectively. ecotype of silver fir was characterised exotic silver firs from the beech for- from a genetic and morphological point est. Further conservation gains were Conclusions of view. achieved via the reproduction and subsequent planting of around 6 In quantitative terms, the LIFE pro- Long-term considerations featured 000 native tree seedlings (including gramme has helped to reconstitute 32 prominently in this particular LIFE 3 000 yews) in the project area, which ha of Apennine beech forest with silver project. It established a carefully co- has now been designated as a Special fir, ‘renaturalise’ 18 ha of artificial coni- ordinated framework of forest con- Conservation Area (SCA) by the Prov- fer stands with allochthonous silver fir, servation commitments based on a ince of Siena. and restore 20 ha of Apennine beech 25-year management plan. Following woods with yew and holly. These tan- development of the plan, LIFE actions LIFE funding for the long-term man- gible project outcomes are augmented centred on a series of habitat reme- agement plan was crucial in attaining by more qualitative impacts relating to diation measures that were required to this legal habitat protection. Another LIFE’s securing of a long-term commit- help facilitate the beech forest’s future notable success was allocating time ment to the conservation of Tuscany’s vitality. for the labour-intensive determination rare beech forest habitats. Such a leg- of the genetic origins for individual acy demonstrates the real potential of This involved silvicultural interven- silver fir specimens. In addition, LIFE the LIFE programme and will safeguard tions across 36.7 ha that improved support for the purchase of priority for- the favourable conservation status of natural regeneration conditions for est habitat sections (for a 7 ha dedi- this valuable European forest habitat indigenous species by removing dis- cated reserve) has allowed conserva- for future generations. 45

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

LIFE support for Europe’s Atlantic Forests

While the Article 17 report has confirmed that many Atlantic forest habitats remain threa-

tened, LIFE support has shown how key conservation concerns can be addressed. FORESTS : ATLANTIC FOREST

urope’s Atlantic forest habitats jects have been acknowledged in the NAT/UK/004244, which also targeted Eare mainly located in the nor- Article 17 reports for their beneficial the restoration of Atlantic oak woods; thwest of France and the British Isles. effect on the conservation status of and LIFE05 NAT/IRL/000182, which Three different types of forest habitats Atlantic forest habitats. Examples is continuing to restore yew forests as are found exclusively in the Atlantic include: LIFE00 NAT/UK/007074 for part of a co-ordinated conservation biogeographical region, none of which its work with Tilio-Acerion forests programme addressing priority woo- enjoy a favourable conservation status (9180*) and Atlantic oak woods; LIFE97 dland habitats in Ireland. (see box).

Common threats to these important The Caledonian Forest (91C0*) EU natural resources include excessive exploitation and negative impacts from A forest habitat type unique to Scotland is the Caledonian forest, comprising a non-native species. Air pollution, habitat blend of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris), birch (Betula) and juniper (Juniperus) wood- fragmentation and overgrazing are also lands. This priority habitat previously enjoyed widespread coverage across northern major problems in many threatened parts of Scotland but its distribution is now limited and at EU level its status is Atlantic woodlands. These conservation ‘unfavourable bad’. But conservation efforts (in some cases with LIFE support) over concerns often occur in combination thus exacerbating threats to the habi- many years mean that its conservation status is improving. tats’ status. Decline of this Scottish habitat has been associated with pressures from steep increases in deer and sheep populations. These have had a major impact on the LIFE and Europe’s Atlantic Caledonian Forest’s ability to regenerate and are highlighted in the UK’s Article forest habitats 17 report as an obstacle to this forest’s future expansion. Inappropriate forestry

A series of LIFE projects have targe- operations were also identified during the Article 17 assessment, and the large-scale ted the restoration of habitat quality in felling of Caledonian timber resources has fragmented the integrity of remaining these special woodland habitats. The indigenous pine, birch and juniper populations. Subsequent replanting with non- first of these (LIFE94 NAT/UK/000580) native species has further hampered the forest’s natural regeneration capacities and focused on the conservation of the Caledonian forest. Several LIFE pro- also weakened its genetic make-up. 46

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

The following review of these LIFE projects’ outputs highlights the most common conservation actions that ensure a more promising future for Europe’s threatened Atlantic forest habitats.

Control of invasive and non native species

Exotic shrubs, such as laurel and rhododendron, can spread vigorously in Atlantic forests to form a dense canopy which prevents the growth of native woodland species. LIFE projects have been at the forefront of campaigns to FORESTS : ATLANTIC FOREST Taxus baccata woods IN THE British Isles (91J0) eradicate or control the spread of these The remnants of Europe’s yew (Taxus baccata) forests can be found in dry prolific species. valleys or scarp slopes on chalk and limestone hills in England and Ireland. Both countries classify the state of their yew habitats as ‘unfavourable bad’ As part of its restoration of Atlantic oak woods, a British LIFE project (LIFE97 and this is attributed to problems such as atmospheric pollution and soil NAT/UK/004244) helped eradicate the eutrophication. The latter has led to a spread of invasive nitrophilous spe- invasive Rhododendron ponticum scrub cies, and biocenotic evolution is also noted as a threat to Taxus baccata from 405 ha at five sites. Conservation habitats. This phenomenon continues to represent a real risk as the ecologi- techniques included follow-up spraying of more than 557 ha at the same sites cal make up of these forests changes over time. Subsequent effects impede and complementary bracken control on natural regeneration and alter the age structure of yew forests. 373 ha at four different sites. Moreover, the project cleared exotic conifers from 688 ha of oak woods at seven sepa- ted genetic make-up. Natural regenera- improved by encouraging better co- rate sites. A Scottish project (LIFE00 tion can be further facilitated by reducing ordination among forest stakeholders. NAT/UK/007074) invested heavily in factors that lead to forest fragmentation, A key method was the use of mana- the removal of Rhododendron ponticum managing woodlands’ carrying capa- gement groups, which were set up at from Atlantic forest habitats, including city to maintain grazing herbivores and each site to help different parties agree the necessary remedial measures to replanting badly affected areas with on consistent approaches to conserva- inhibit recurrence of the shrub problem native species from local genetic seed tion. Similarly, ‘Local Operational Plan- after cutting. sources. ning Teams’ were pioneered by a UK project (LIFE97 NAT/UK/004244) and LIFE projects have also implemented dif- Fragmentation has been targeted by a joined-up partnership approaches were ferent techniques to manage the nega- British project (LIFE03 NAT/UK/000044) shown to be beneficial for the reduc- tive impacts associated with non-native through its restoration of forest habitats tion of grazing pressures on Caledonian trees. Ireland’s priority woodlands project in England and Wales, where the quality forests by another UK project (LIFE94 (LIFE05 NAT/IRL/000182), for exam- of overall woodland mosaics has been NAT/UK/000580). ple, demonstrated the effectiveness of a carefully planned approach to habi- LIFE has invested heavily in the removal of Rhododendron ponticum from Atlantic forest tat restoration, which, as well as felling habitats. and selling non-native trees to help fund ongoing conservation work, used ring- barking to deliberately leave deadwood and promote forest biodiversity.

Natural regeneration of native trees

Core objectives driving the removal or control of non-native or commercial species focus on improving the ability of forests to regenerate naturally, and so strengthen the durability of their associa- Photo: LIFE00 NAT/UK/007074 47

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles (91A0) Referred to as ‘Atlantic oakwoods’ these acidophilous sessile oak (Quercus petraea) forests are characterised by low-branched trees, evergreen bushes and ferns, mosses, and lichens. Frequently, this oak woodland occurs as part of a mosaic of forest types and the habitat was once common in many maritime regions of the British Isles, as well as northwest France. However, the range of Europe’s old sessile oak woods has significantly retracted and its current conservation status is now rated as ‘unfavourable bad’ at EU level, although reported as improving in the UK which hosts the biggest area of this habitat. Habitat isolation is identified in the Article 17 report as one of the main threats to oak woods. Fragmentation has been aggravated in upland areas by overgrazing, and controlling the invasion of non-native

species continues to present a FORESTS : ATLANTIC FOREST persistent challenge. The rapid spread of rhododendron-related risks is especially problematic and inappropriate forestry practices are also assessed as a contributing factor in the demise of British oak woods. A similar situation has arisen in Ireland, where the habitat area is still decreasing.

Grazing controls have been a common Awareness-raising techniques, realising sustainable scrub- component of LIFE projects, such as legacies level controls and instigating conserva- the previously mentioned UK project tion methodologies for farm woodland (LIFE97 NAT/UK/004244), which bloc- Guidance manuals on these and other areas. A another UK project (LIFE00 ked access to forest regeneration sites types of restoration techniques for NAT/UK/007074) produced guidance using more than 61 km of deer fen- Atlantic forest habitats represent ano- on thinning Atlantic oak woods and cing at three sites and around 14 km ther common conservation tool har- stand dynamics in Tilio-Acerion woo- of stock fencing at six additional sites. nessed with effect by LIFE projects. dlands, among other measures. The results provided a total of 148 ha Good practices are included in the of protected oak habitat and have made ‘Conservation Toolbox’ produced by a Much of this guidance is available online important contributions to improving UK project (LIFE03 NAT/UK/000044), from the LIFE project websites, which natural conditions in seven of the UK’s which features a database of technical continue to provide valuable peer lear- most extensive Atlantic woodlands. information on topics such as managing ning opportunities for those involved in Long-term benefits were gained from sycamore in semi-natural woodlands, improving the unfavourable, often bad, a co-ordinated deer cull carried out by addressing forest grazing pressures, conservation status of Europe’s Atlantic the same LIFE project, and its findings implementing appropriate coppicing forest habitats. informed a high-level debate about the reduction of deer numbers in Scottish Conservation status at SACs. Habitat Biogeographical region Projects level (main regions) The only Irish woodland project so far (LIFE05 NAT/IRL/000182) also recogni- 91A0 Old sessile Unfavourable-bad LIFE97NAT/UK/004244 ses the need for effective techniques to oak woods LIFE00NAT/UK/007074 LIFE03NAT/UK/000044 address grazing pressures. For example, fencing in protected areas where young 91C0* Caledonian Unfavourable-bad LIFE94NAT/UK/000580 native seedlings are being planted. The Forest LIFE97NAT/UK/004244 project is regenerating around 33.5 ha of yew forest at five sites by transplan- 91J0 Taxus Unfavourable-bad LIFE05 NAT/IRL/000182 baccata forest LIFE99NAT/UK/006094 ting young trees propagated from local LIFE03NAT/UK/000044 native cuttings. 48

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

Significant parts of the Mediterranean black pine forests remain in unfavourable, inad-

equate or bad condition and LIFE projects have been working towards improving the

conservation status of this priority EU habitat.

LIFE boosts black pine forest habitats in southern Europe

oniferous forest habitats are C present throughout Europe and include upland forests dominated by black pines of the Pinus nigra group. Included under Annex I of the Habi- FORESTS : MEDITERRANEANtats Directive PINE FOREST as an EU conservation priority, this ‘(Sub-) Mediterranean pine forest with endemic black pine’ (9530*) habitat is mainly found in the mountain ranges of southern Member States, where distribution of the black pine habitat remains fragmented.

Often containing trees as high as 30 m or more, the black pine forests tend to comprise mixed-age classes. These habitat features commonly create closed arboreal canopies which help maintain a variety of fauna and offer useful protection against soil erosion following heavy rain showers.

At the European level, this habitat’s conservation status is currently ‘unfavourable–inadequate’ in all Alpine, Continental and Mediterranean regions.

While Article 17 reports from a number Photo: LIFE03 NAT/E/000064 of Member States rate the habitat sta- LIFE projects promoted the sustainable management of Mediterranean Pinus nigra habitats tus as ‘favourable’, the less positive (9530*). overall assessment is attributed to concerns in Austria, France and Italy. westerly ranges. In Spain the status of declined to such an extent in recent Here future prospects are considered black pine remains unclear and French decades that the habitat’s condition is problematic, particularly in the habitat’s stocks of endemic black pine have considered to be ‘unfavourable bad’.

Tackling habitat threats Conservation status at Habitat Biogeographical region Projects Some of the most significant threats level (main regions) to the long-term survival of Pinus nigra forests include unsustainable cutting 9530* Mediterranean Unfavourable-inadequate LIFE 03 NAT/E/000059 for production purposes (particularly pine forest with endemic LIFE 03 NAT/E/000064 timber), the spread of exotic species, black pine LIFE 00 NAT/F/007273 defoliation by insect pests (especially 49

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

this habitat. Micro-reserves of flora were approved for specific sites and suitable management plans were drafted for vast areas, serving as a model for management of similar sites.

Other outputs offering good demonstration value included a LIFE-financed book which highlights appropriate guidance on silvicultural and management techniques that will help provide a more sustainable and favourable conservation status for Europe’s black pine forests. Also, the monitoring network created for the forest habitats of Murcia has proved effective in the management of this type of habitat.

Beneficial results

Beneficial results have emerged from LIFE’s actions, such as purchasing FORESTS : MEDITERRANEAN PINE FOREST Photo: LIFE03 NAT/E/000064 and rehabilitating more than 400 ha of Pine seedlings ready for plantation to improve the Pinus habitats. black pine forest in the region of Mur- cia, Spain, and the restoration of large Thaumetopoea pityocampa), overgraz- This aspect of LIFE’s habitat conser- areas in Corsica, France. All of these ing, fires and genetic pollution. In the vation work is important for preserv- LIFE projects are demonstrating forest last decade, climate change might also ing genetic variability since intra-spe- endemic black pine evolution, adapta- be having an adverse effect on some cific hybridisation can easily occur tion and a positive response to active of the most extreme distributions of among different subspecies of black management. They will serve as dem- this habitat. Higher temperatures and pine. Such risks have been reduced onstration sites for similar initiatives lower rainfall would oblige black pines by avoiding planting black pines of regarding this vulnerable habitat. forests to colonise areas at higher unknown origin in the proximity of altitudes, which in some cases is no autochthonous pinewoods. In addition, these LIFE projects longer possible due to their location in have helped species that are highly the higher mountain ranges. Impacts Further sustainable forest manage- dependant on these forests such as include the sudden death of individual ment measures promoted by LIFE Sitta whiteheadi (endemic to Corsica), pines, less resilience to pest attacks include programmed and informed some species of woodland bats and and increased risks of fire. approaches to pest control, thinning, many invertebrates (including Graellsia cleaning, pruning and weeding. Care isabellae). Several LIFE projects have addressed has been taken to retain sufficient these threats in order to improve the supplies of dead wood since this nat- conservation status for this priority EU ural resource is crucial for support- forest habitat. ing the habitat’s associated, and sometimes interdependent, biodi- Forest managers from the LIFE versity. In the same way, a Spanish projects have applied an operational project (LIFE03 NAT/E/000064) framework that blends sustainable sil- enhanced the biodiversity of vicultural techniques with model con- the forest composition by servation methodologies in order to planting diverse bushes and help create positive conditions for the promoting bees that would aid black pine and its associated fauna. pollination and birds that would Actions have concentrated on provid- ensure wider distribution of forest ing the necessary support to ensure plant species. long-term regeneration of irregular canopy structures that contain trees In some cases, the best long-term of various ages including very old conservation protection has been specimens. the purchase of large surfaces of 50

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

Atlantic coast LIFE projects attempt to reverse dune deterioration

The coast of the Atlantic biogeographical region stretching from western Denmark

to the north-western corner of Portugal, and including the British Isles, contains the

most extensive range of coastal sand dunes in the EU. However, with the exception of

Denmark, the condition of the dunes is ‘bad’.

he table, below, shows the situa- Restoration activities include the removal in an informal European dune network, Ttion for two Atlantic and continen- of planted conifers, the control of native supported by the European Coastal and tal dune habitat types: fixed (grey) dunes and non-native scrub and the introduction Marine Union. and humid dune slacks (areas between of sustainable grazing. Special attention dune ridges). has been given to the restoration of natural In the UK, only one LIFE project relating to DUNES : ATLANTIC AND CONTINENTAL DUNES hydrological cycles in the dunes, including dunes has been carried out, but it has had The dune systems along Europe’s western the management of humid dune slacks. In a significant impact. The project (LIFE95 flank share common problems. Although some areas, for example along the Belgian NAT/UK/000818) took place in the north- still under pressure from development, coast, debris from the First and Second west of England in the area between the including residential housing, holiday World War, such as concrete bunkers that estuaries of the rivers Mersey and Ribble. homes and golf courses, the situation here impede sand drift, can still be found. The sand dunes, beaches and marshes is less critical than that in the Mediterra- of the 4565 ha Sefton Coast Natura 2000 nean. Recreational pressure is a concern LIFE actions site is one of the most important areas in in many areas and has to be managed in the UK and the main site for the natter- a way which does not damage the dune LIFE has supported a number of projects jack toad (Bufo calamita). The project pur- habitats. Much of the focus of project across the Atlantic region, helping to chased private land (after the owners had work in the UK, France, Belgium, Nether- formulate good practice and promote failed to develop it as a golf course), des- lands and Denmark has been on the man- information on dune restoration and con- ignated it as nature reserve, established agement of the mosaic of Annex I habi- servation. These projects have encour- nature trails, and prepared a management tats which characterise a dune system. aged conservation experts to co-operate plan in co-operation with local landowners. A significant amount of habitat restoration and species-recovery actions also Situation for two Atlantic and continental dune habitat types took place.

2130* Fixed (grey) dunes 2190 Humid dune slacks The project contributed to the develop- Member State % of habitat Status % of habitat Status ment of the UK Habitat Action Plan for sand dunes and encouraged the sharing UK 35.80% Bad and 13.40% Bad and of good practice. However, this project by deteriorating deteriorating itself was not sufficient to improve the UK Ireland 11.30% Bad 1.60% Bad assessment of its dunes, which remain ‘bad and deteriorating’.

France 19.90%i Inadequate 44.90% Bad The UK project’s approach has since been mirrored by, for example, the large-scale Belgium 1.40% Bad 0.40% Bad dune and dune-heath restoration project Germany 5.50% Favourable 5.90% Inadequate in Denmark, ‘Restoration of Dune Habi- tats along the Danish West Coast’ (LIFE02 Denmark 10.00% Inadequate 26.50% Inadequate

Netherlands 16.10% Bad 7.40% Inadequate http://www.eucc.net Note: No information is available for Spain or Portugal. 51

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats Photo: LIFE06 NAT/F/000146 LIFE project actions, such as fencing sensitive areas to restore sand dynamics and re-vegetation, have improved the status of dunes at a local level.

NAT/DK/008584) and an equally-ambi- restoration; removal of soil for restoration Lessons learned during these projects tious current project in the Netherlands, of humid dune slacks; and excavation of have informed the ongoing ‘Zwindunes DUNES : ATLANTIC AND CONTINENTAL DUNES ‘Restoration of dune habitats along the 17 permanent pools. These pools have Ecological Nature Optimalisation’ project Dutch coast’ (LIFE05 NAT/NL/000124). since been colonised by the great crested (LIFE06 NAT/B/000087), which is restor- In France, the project, ‘Preservation of the newt (Triturus cristatus) and natterjack ing and maintaining a nature reserve near coast biodiversity on the Gavres-Quiberon toad. Knokke-Heist, in the northern-most part site’ (LIFE06 NAT/F/000146) is working of the Belgian coast. The project’s main on a 2 500 ha sand dune area in Brittany. The project concluded in 2001, but follow- objective is to improve the natural habi- Within this area are almost 1000 ha of the up work was carried out in 2004. A con- tat that typically exists among coastal priority habitat ‘grey dunes’. This project crete dyke between the dunes and beach dunes, and to encourage transition to salt aims to protect this rich dune area and to foreshore of the De Westhoek nature marshes, where amphibians and birds can control some of the more damaging rec- reserve was partially removed, allowing thrive. To this end, scrub expansion has to reational activities such as horse-riding, the sea to penetrate further into the dunes. be reversed, and plantation trees will be use of quad bikes and rubbish dumping. This was followed by acquisition of Shet- removed to help to restore the humid dune In most projects concerning sand dunes land ponies and other animals for grazing slacks and fixed dune habitat. public education is an important element management. LIFE helped the beneficiary of the work. gain a better understanding of the benefits Conclusions of grazing for dune habitats, in particular Belgium through exchanges with the British dune LIFE projects dealing with Atlantic dunes management project, which used sheep have generated management models that It is in Belgium, however, that LIFE Atlan- to graze grey dunes. are applicable to these habitats in other tic dune projects have been particularly areas and to similar habitats. When con- effective, even though actions have been Subsequently, the FEYDRA report (LIFE02 sidered as a suite of interlinked initiatives, carried out over a relatively small area. An NAT/B/008591) restored wet grasslands the Atlantic biogeographical region dune early project, ‘Integral Coastal Conserva- and opened dune vegetation on former projects combine with those in the Baltic tion Initiative’ (LIFE96 NAT/B/003032) wooded areas and the site of a disused Sea and the Mediterranean to make a sig- had a significant pump-priming effect, sewage plant. The project took place in Ter nificant contribution to the Natura 2000 leading to many spin-off actions. The Yde, an area close to the French border network. The Belgian, Danish and Dutch project started a political debate about created in the 14th Century by the dam- dune projects in particular have been the purchase of dunes for conservation. ming of part of the Ijzer estuary. The project extensive and strategic. This led to the adoption by the Flemish established management approaches for government in 1998 of a legal instrument controlling the water level in the area, thus However, Atlantic and Continental dune for acquiring coastal dunes. The project helping ensure the long-term protection of habitats remain under considerable threat. carried out restoration actions, including the Ter Yde Natura 2000 sites. Their status is generally poor throughout scrub clearance over an area of 32 ha the EU. More work is needed to build on

to restore humid dune slacks and grey ‘Fossil Estuary of the Yzer Dunes Restora- the results of past LIFE projects if this situ- dunes; sod cutting for coastal heathland tion Area’ ation is to be addressed. 52

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

A coastline under pressure: Mediterranean dunes DUNES : MEDITERRANEAN DUNES

Threatened by urban sprawl, increasing tourism, invasive species, sand extraction,

pollution and rising tides, Mediterranean dunes are an endangered habitat that need

protecting. LIFE projects have shown how their long-term survival can be ensured.

editerranean dunes are charac- restoration of habitats that had been During the projects, coastal grass (Spar- Mterised by a gradient of habitats, transformed by human pressure. Actions tina versicolor) was sown, helping to fix stretching inland from the beach. These undertaken by the various projects have and repopulate the dunes. Marine juni- habitats are shaped by the wind, sand included restoration and re-vegetation of per was planted to reinforce the local and their distance from the sea. Medi- the dune systems. Work has been done to population. The project also surveyed terranean dunes are less dynamic than restore dune geomorphology and dynam- the dunes, identifying 8 959 vegetation Atlantic dunes, but in general they are ics, and to ‘stabilise’ dunes using a variety specimens and 18 vegetation types of more species rich. They form a complex of means, such as planting native species interest, while manually removing non- mosaic of habitats endemic to the Medi- that are specially adapted to sand – for native species (Carpobrotus edulis and terranean region (see table), and are listed example, umbrella pines (Pinus pinea) – or Agave Americana). in Annex I of the Habitats Directive. Exam- installing artificial barriers. In other cases, ples include coastal dunes with Juniperus dunes have been rehabilitated by con- The planting of marine juniper was a species, dunes with hard leaf evergreen trolling access to them, or by eradicating success, with significant improvements scrubs and umbrella pine dunes. non-native species. in germination rates (from 7 to 50%). This has had a major positive impact on the Mediterranean dunes are under threat For example, the project ‘Model of res- extent of juniper in the dunes, and thus from several directions. Most damaging is toration of dunes habitats in L’Albufera the habitat’s ability to repopulate the area their direct destruction by urban sprawl, de Valencia’ (LIFE00 NAT/E/007339), in the future. followed by sand extraction and distur- and its follow-up ‘Recovery of the lit- bance, all of which are linked to the explo- toral sand dunes with Juniper spp in Data from the germination work helped sion of mass tourism in Mediterranean Valencia’ (LIFE04 NAT/ES/000044), car- the beneficiary to develop an innovative countries. But there are other, more recent ried out a range of habitat restoration computerised predictive model, which is threats, such as the spread of non-native actions in an extensive area close to one being used by habitat managers to iden- plant species (used for stabilising shifting of the major costal cities in Spain where tify the best vegetation for different target sands), and rising sea levels due to global the dune system had been nearly com- areas. This technology helps to improve warming. Consequently, Mediterranean pletely destroyed. Actions included the the survival chances of regenerating veg- dunes have been assessed by the Article removal of undesired pathways, roads, etation, and thus accelerates the recov- 17 report as having unfavourable, bad or car parks and a sewage network, and ery of habitat features. inadequate status (see table). the reconstruction of dune hills and abra- sion platforms as part of a programme of Another project working on the same LIFE actions semi-fixed dune restoration. The project habitat type, the Vendicari project also restored dune slack networks (the (LIFE02 NAT/IT/008533), also success- More than 20 LIFE projects have tar- areas between the ridges of coastal dune fully contributed to halting the degrada- geted Mediterranean dune habitats. systems), allowing wet vegetation and tion of the “Coastal dunes with Junipe- In all cases, the main objective was the aquatic fauna to be established. rus spp” priority habitat, and improving 53

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

its ecological condition along 3 km of coastline in southeast Sicily.

Italy Photo: LIFE06 NAT/IT/000053

Since 1992, more than 15 LIFE projects have targeted Mediterranean dune habitats along the Italian coast. However, as stated by the Italian report under Article 17, the impact of these actions was localised, and the projects lacked an integrated approach and strategy Directing tourist access to the beach through wooden passages is helping restore Mediter- ranean dunes habitats. that could have led to more wide-ranging improvements. part of the habitat in the project site was extensive awareness campaigns were The Italian projects had three main con- fenced off and thus protected from graz- required to inform beach users of the cerns: the protection of dunes from public ing pressure and vehicles trespassing on need to protect the dune habitats. DUNES : MEDITERRANEAN DUNES disturbance by installing fences; the con- the dunes. The project also planted and struction of walkways to reduce damage fenced off 4 000 young umbrella pines, Conclusions caused by people accessing the beach and installed dune restoration fences through the dunes; and the installation alongside the most affected parts of LIFE project restoration actions have of small artificial barriers to promote the the dunes. These actions enabled dune made a very important contribution to establishment of dune vegetation. ‘rebuilding’ and sand accumulation to improving the conservation status of occur. The conservation activities were Mediterranean dune habitats. However, Greece accompanied by the marking off of park- the pressures on the dunes continue to ing areas and visitor access points, and build up, and while projects have brought The ‘Conservation management in the placing of information signs. localised benefits, the conservation status Strofylia-Kotychi’ project (LIFE02 NAT/ for many habitats remains ‘unfavourable GR/008491) targeted the umbrella For most projects carried out in these bad’. Nevertheless, the projects provide (stone) pine dune habitat. A significant countries, dune plant production was good practice examples, the principles a relevant management measure, as of which could be applied more widely. reintroductions need to be carried out Future projects could be based on the http://www2.minambiente.it/pdf_www2/ dpn/pubblicazioni/attuazione_direttiva_Habi- with native species to ensure the best useful data gathered by past projects, tat.pdf: “il carattere locale di molti interventi chance of adaptation. Good management and on the tried and tested restoration insieme alla frammentazione di questi practices and the establishment of effec- techniques that have been shown to ambienti in molto tratti del nostro territorio, rende ancora molto lontano il raggiungimento tive germination protocols were another improve the status of these threatened di un obbiettivo di conservazione di questo key aspect of these LIFE projects. Finally, habitats. habitat nel loro complesso”

Habitats Conservation status Relevant Projects

2220 - Dunes with Euphorbia terracina Unfavourable-bad LIFE00 NAT/E/007339 (Mediterranean) LIFE04 NAT/ES/000044

2230 - Malcolmietalia dune grasslands Unfavourable-inadequate LIFE00 NAT/E/007339 (Mediterranean) LIFE04 NAT/ES/000044

2250* - Coastal dunes with various Unfavourable-inadequate LIFE00 NAT/E/007339, LIFE04 NAT/ES/000044, species of juniper (Juniperus spp) (Mediterranean) LIFE99 NAT/IT/006189, LIFE03 NAT/IT/000141, LIFE05 NAT/IT/000050, LIFE06 NAT/IT/000050, LIFE98 NAT/P/005235, LIFE04 NAT/P/000212

2260 - Cisto-Lavenduletalia dune sclero- Unknown LIFE03 NAT/E/000054, LIFE00 NAT/E/007339, phyllous scrubs LIFE04 NAT/ES/000044, LIFE99 NAT/IT/006189, LIFE05 NAT/IT/000050, LIFE99 NAT/IT/006275, LIFE04 NAT/P/000212

2270* - Wooded dunes with Unfavourable-inadequate LIFE02 NAT/GR/008491, LIFE00 NAT/E/007339, Pinus pinea and/or Pinus pinaster (Mediterranean) LIFE04 NAT/ES/000044, LIFE99 NAT/IT/006189, LIFE03 NAT/IT/000141, LIFE98 NAT/IT/005117, LIFE06 NAT/IT/000050, LIFE98 NAT/P/005235 54

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

Protecting Posidonia in the Mediterranean

Posidonia oceanica is a species of seagrass only found in under-

water fields along the Mediterranean coastline. The Posidonia beds

provide a refuge for a number of species, but they are under threat

from several human activities, such as trawling and dredging, ran- DUNES : POSIDONIA BEDS dom mooring of pleasure boats, construction and pollution. The

beds are also threatened by invasive algae species.

osidonia beds are listed in the department of agriculture and fisheries Cyprus has also taken action to pro- P annex I of the Habitats Direc- and the main scientific research insti- tect its Posidonia beds. A recent LIFE tive as priority for conservation, as tutions in Spain, worked towards their project, ‘Conservation management in they have an essential role as a refuge suitable protection by gathering vital Natura 2000 sites of Cyprus’ (LIFE04 and an area for feeding and breeding information about the relevant marine NAT/CY/000013), installed a floating for a large number of marine species. sites and species. anchoring system for vessels for the Over the past few decades, nearly protection of Posidonia beds 50% of the underwater meadows in The first measures taken by the the Mediterranean have experienced regional government were the map- A Portuguese project (LIFE06 NAT/ some reduction in range, density and/ ping and surveying of the Posidonia P/000192) has been targeting other or coverage, and 20% have severely beds together with a set of scientific species of seagrass habitat in the regressed since the 1970s. For this studies on clonal growth and species Atlantic. The project has trans- reason, their Article 17 assessment is presence. This allowed assessments planted several species (Zostera ‘unfavourable-inadequate’ for all Mem- to be made of the factors impacting marina, Zostera noltii and Cymodo- ber States in the Mediterranean. Posidonia and its conservation status, cea nodosa) collected from donor as well as factors negatively affecting meadows (such as the Sado estuary LIFE actions species living among the beds. The and Ria Formosa). So far the project work carried out provided the basis for has successfully planted under- A few projects have directly targeted a range of plans and regulations, such water sea grasses with innovative this habitat in the Mediterreanean: a as a regulation to control mooring by techniques. Spanish project for the Balearic Islands boats in seven priority sites of commu- was fully dedicated to the protection nity interest (SCIs). The authority also Conclusions of the Posidonia seabeds, and in the created three marine reserves and put 1990s two French projects (LIFE92 in place monitoring teams at Cala Rat- Although the conservation status of ENV/F/000066 and LIFE95 ENV/ jada (jointly managed with the Spanish Posidonia beds is still ‘unfavourable- F/000782) tried to prevent the spread Ministry), Migjorn and Malgrats. The inadequate’, the Spanish project in the of Caulerpa taxifolia. project also developed and approved Baleares, in particular, has accumu- 14 comprehensive management plans lated a great deal of information about The Spanish LIFE project, “Protection for the 14 marine SCIs declared for their sites. Valuable management of Posidonia beds in the Baleares” Posidonia oceanica. tools were created and legal mecha- (LIFE00 NAT/E/007303), set out to nisms adopted, which are central to show how Posidonia conservation Finally, the region organised exhi- the management of the marine SCI could be improved. A considerable bitions on the three main Balearic of the Balearic Islands and adequate proportion of the Balearic coastline islands to increase public awareness protection of the Posidonia meadows. had been proposed for inclusion in of the value of Posidonia. At present, The experience gained during the dif- the Natura 2000 network. The project regulated areas and close surveillance ferent LIFE projects could be exported beneficiary, a biodiversity department continue to ensure that the most valu- to other sites in the Mediterranean within the regional government of the able areas for Posidonia meadows will to help improve conservation of this Balearic Islands, in partnership with the be protected in the future. important marine habitat. 55

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

Though a characteristic feature of the Atlantic region, European

heathlands are under threat, with Member States reporting that the

conservation status of heathlands in their countries is ‘inadequate’

or ‘unfavourable’. HEATHLANDS LIFE demonstrates how to regenerate low land and alpine heathlands

IFE projects are having a signifi- Annex I of the Habitat Directive, mainly nitrogen and waste) are also a problem L cant impact on the conservation as a result of inadequate management for heathlands. status of lowland and alpine heath- and direct habitat destruction (uncon- lands on a local and regional level, trolled fires). Threats to the habitats LIFE actions acting as a valuable testing ground for include poor grazing practices and new approaches to conservation with replacement by commercial forests Though several LIFE projects have imple- potential for wider application. and other land uses (recreation, urban- mented actions that have had an indirect isation, etc.). Invasive species (espe- impact on heathlands, few projects have Several heathland habitats are listed cially alien scrub and trees) and nutri- specifically targeted these threatened as priority (*) for conservation in the ent deposition (mainly atmospheric habitats. In several projects, actions

Main heathlands habitats targeted by LIFE projects (1992-2008)

Habitat Conservation status at Biogeographical region Projects

4010 – Northen Atlantic wet Unfavourable-bad (Atlantic) LIFE99 NAT/B/006298 heaths with Erica tetralix LIFE97NAT/UK/004242 LIFE00NAT/UK/007079 LIFE02 NAT/B/008595 LIFE04 NAT/NL/000206

4030 - European dry heaths Unfavourable-bad (Atlantic, Med and continental) LIFE00NAT/UK/007079 LIFE05 NAT/D/000055 LIFE05 NAT/D/000051 LIFE06 NAT/SK/000115

4040* - Dry Atlantic coastal Unknown (Atlantic ) - Assessed as ‘unknown’ as Spain, LIFE95NAT/UK/000832 heaths with Erica vagans which has some 90% of the habitat area, reported all parameters as ‘unknown’. Reported as ‘unfavourable- inadequate’ by France and ‘favourable’ by the UK where this habitat is restricted to a single locality.

4060 - Alpine and boreal heaths Favourable (Continental) - Unfavourable-Inadequate LIFE05 NAT/A/000078 (Boreal and Alpine)

24070* - Bushes with Pinus mugo Favourable (Alpine) LLIFE00 NAT/A/007053 and Rhododendron hirsutum (Mugo-Rhododendretum hirsuti)

* Priority for conservation - Source: LIFE Database, Astrale Monitoring team and Art 17 technical report 56

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

were undertaken primarily for bogs and sive conifers, while a German project in mires which had a beneficial impact on Lower Saxony (LIFE05 NAT/D/000051), associated heathland habitats. The Dutch targeted the non-native woody plant spe- project carried out in the region of Dren- cies, black cherry (Prunus serotina). the (LIFE04 NAT/NL/000206) is a good example of a project that targeted bogs Other management actions undertaken

HEATHLANDS but had an indirect impact on wet heath- by LIFE projects include grazing with Gal- lands. The construction of dykes and loway cattle (LIFE99 NAT/B/006298) and water storage reservoirs primarily to stim- ponies (LIFE97NAT/UK/004242) and for ulate the formation of a raised bog also wet heaths, water-level modification. A increased the area of wet heathland, and German project (LIFE05 NAT/D/000051), locally boosted its conservation status. which focused on the coastal heaths near the North Sea, has introduced grazing Several projects, however, have directly with large herbivores such as heck cattle, targeted heathland habitats, which are wild horses (Equus przewalskii) and Euro- mainly located in the Atlantic biogeo- pean bisons (Bison bonasus). Grazing will graphical region (Belgium, France and suppress the current invasion of shrubs the UK), though it is found elsewhere to and pioneer grass species. As a result, a lesser degree. Most projects include an area of about 400 ha of open coastal actions for both Northern Atlantic wet heath landscape will be established and

heaths and European dry heaths which maintained. Photo: LIFE04 NAT/B/0010 are often found together in a mosaic of Erica tetralix heathlands (4010) were habitat types. Lack of good management LIFE projects have also aimed to increase restored by managing the bogs’ water levels. (balanced grazing and controlled fire) has public awareness of the value of heath- led to habitats becoming dominated by lands, which are often treated as dump- trees and therefore the most common ing grounds and are subject to loss by Conclusions restoration activity is tree removal. In fire. The Dorset Heaths LIFE project some cases, tree removal is not sufficient (LIFE00 NAT/UK/007079) carried out While European heathland habitats still for the regeneration of natural heathland a schools education programme and have an unfavourable conservation sta- and the top layer of leaf litter and soil involved community groups in monitoring tus, many of the actions taken by LIFE must also be removed. activities. It also introduced fire-preven- projects have had a significant impact on tion measures, such as the construction the conservation status of heathlands on The project to protect Juniper heaths of firebreaks and fences to protect partic- a local and regional level. in Osteifel, Germany (LIFE05 NAT/ ularly sensitive areas, the employment of D/000055) took this measure to speed wardens throughout the summer period LIFE projects have provided valuable up the restoration of heathlands on the and increased policing. opportunities for testing and implement- cleared areas (it was also necessary to ing best practices and management sow heather (Calluna vulgaris) and other Finally, land purchase has been a com- tools for this habitat. For example, a typical heathland species). Some projects mon action for conserving this type of Belgian project (LIFE99 NAT/B/006298) have also eliminated alien plant species. habitat. Areas of heathland have been developed a ‘Rescue Plan for Atlantic One of the actions taken as part of the UK bought by LIFE projects and added to Heathlands in Flanders’. Though the project in the New Forest (LIFE97 NAT/ the Natura 2000 network sites, ensuring project’s actions had no direct impact UK/004242) was the removal of inva- their continued management. on the conservation status of the target habitat (wet heaths, habitat 4010), they provided data for the long-term conser- Heathlands habitat restoration benefitted vation of the habitat in Flanders. dependent species The demonstration of new techniques Project actions targeting heathlands have also indirectly benefitted sev- and the sharing of information and eral species. By tackling the fluctuations in the water levels affecting the experience exemplify LIFE projects‘s wet heathlands and bogs in Bargerveen, the Netherlands, a LIFE project important role in improving the conser- (LIFE04 NAT/NL/000206) indirectly addressed the threats posed to the vation status of heathlands, even though Member States do not mention LIFE in amphibians, reptiles and invertebrates found in the area. It has also their reports. The challenge for the future improved the site as a habitat for wintering birds. Combating the destruc- is, therefore, to ensure a wider uptake of tion of heathlands in Dorset (UK) also helped to stabilise the population these new techniques and approaches of nesting birds, which was decreasing. in order to improve the impact at Euro- pean level. 57

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats : Habitats Directive Article 17 report WETLANDS

LIFE helps restore vital wetland ecosystems

LIFE has done much to improve the conservation status of wetlands, one of Europe’s

most threatened habitat types.

n estimated 6% of the Earth’s bogs, mires and fens in the Atlantic and Furthermore, most projects have sup- Aland area – some 570 million ha Continental biogeographical regions as ported the Ramsar Convention and are – is wetlands. Of this wetlands area, 2% ‘unfavourable-bad’, and more than 70% indirectly linked to the implementation of consists of lakes, 30% bogs, 26% fens, of the freshwater habitats assessments the Water Framework Directive by main- 20% swamps, and 15% floodplains. as ‘unfavourable’ (30% are ‘unfavour- taining or improving water quality and the Despite supplying the water that an enor- able bad’). The coastal habitats follow status of ecosystems. mous range of plant and animal species the same trend. Since 1992 LIFE Nature require for their day-to-day existence, has co-funded more than 350 projects As this section illustrates, LIFE co-funded wetlands are among the most highly targeting wetlands in general. The projects have targeted the full gamut of threatened ecosystems on the planet, majority of these projects have focused wetlands habitats – blanket bogs, mires, with some 50% of the world’s wetlands on the restoration and management of raised bogs, coastal lagoons, temporary having disappeared in the last century. wetlands, with some projects targeting ponds, petrifying springs with tufa forma- specific wetland bird species, and thus tion; riparian forests, rivers and lakes (see Wetlands require specific hydrological contributing to the implementation of box). Common actions have included regimes. The Article 17 report assesses both the Habitats Directive and the Birds removing overgrowth, blocking drainage more than 80% of the assessments for Directive. systems and introducing grazing.

LIFE and lake conservation The naturally eutrophic Lake Fure is one of the largest (940 ha) and deepest (37 m) lakes in Denmark. Once famous for its submerged vegetation, the lake’s biological system has been damaged by decades of heavy load- ing with nutrients. To address this problem, the project, ‘Restoration of Lake Fure – a nutrient-rich lake near Copenhagen’ (LIFE02 NAT/DK/008589), took steps to reduce the standing biomass of ‘trash fish’ by 80% and to reintroduce pure oxygen into the bottom of the lake to ‘clean out’ the accumulated phosphorous pools in the sediment. The measures taken improved the oxygen concentration of the bottom layer of water, reducing the release of phosphorous, increasing vegetation and leading to the return to the deepest parts of the lake in 2005 of the relict crayfish (Mysis relicta). In Spain, the project, ‘Recuperation of the acquatic environment of Porqueres and the lake of Banyoles’ (LIFE03 NAT/E/000067), recuperated and increased the area of wetlands and lakeside woods that surround the lacustrine basin of Lake Banyoles, the second largest lake in the Iberian Peninsular. Four new lagoons were constructed on land purchased by the project. Other project actions included the naturalisation of brooks, restoration of ditches, removal of alien species and planting of autochthonous ones. Management plans for the long-term benefit of the lake have also been put in place. 58

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

LIFE supports blanket bog restoration in the UK and Ireland

Within the EU, active blanket bog is mainly found in the UK and Ireland. The LIFE pro-

gramme has already helped improve the habitat’s status in these countries and contin-

ues to support restoration efforts. WETLANDS : BLANKET BOGS

lanket bogs develop where the Bclimate allows peat formation on flat and gently sloping ground. While they are typical of areas of heavy rainfall in northwest Europe, such as the Brit- ish Isles – 85% of the area covered by this habitat is in the UK, and 10% in the Republic of Ireland – they also occur in northwest Spain, northwest France and alpine Sweden. The status of blanket bog is described as ‘bad’ in Ireland and ‘bad but improving’ in the UK.

As part of the pan-European effort to save and restore mire habitats, the LIFE programme has supported five projects in the UK and one in Ireland, with another project getting underway in the UK in 2010 (LIFE08 Photo: LIFE06 NAT/UK/000134 NAT/UK/000202). The projects have made Blanket bog habitats are recovering after management of the water levels. a major contribution at a national, biogeographical and EU level. The ‘improving’ extraction and forestry are widespread, these activities has been a key conserva- assessment for the UK is probably partly numerous and not easily controlled, tion problem which has been addressed a result of the projects, since the assess- due largely to the nature of the damag- by several LIFE projects. ment makes specific mention of the LIFE ing operations, the remoteness of the project, ‘Restoring active blanket bog of sites and the large areas over which Developing restoration European importance in North Scotland’ they occur. Moreover, peatland habitats techniques (LIFE00 NAT/UK/007075). are particularly sensitive to hydrological changes brought about by drainage for The first LIFE project to target blan- The threats facing blanket bogs, such agricultural improvement, forestry and ket bogs was the ‘Conservation of as drainage, burning, overgrazing, peat peat extraction. The lack of control over Active Blanket Bog in Scotland and Northern Ireland’ project (LIFE94 NAT/ UK/000802), which raised awareness Conservation status Habitat area about the threats to the vast 400 000 at Member State / Habitats Projects targeted by ha Flow Country of north Scotland and region level the projects began to champion the natural values of (main regions) this remote corner of the British Isles 7130 – Unfavourable- LIFE94 NAT/UK/000802 <50% Blanket bogs bad (Atlantic) and LIFE98 NAT/UK/005432 A second project, ‘The Border Mires- (* active only) Favourable (Alpine) LIFE00 NAT/UK/007075 Active Blanket Bog Rehabilitation LIFE02 NAT/IRL/008490 Project’ (LIFE98 NAT/UK/005432), LIFE06 NAT/UK/000134 was located in the Kielder Forest area LIFE08 NAT/UK/000202 of northern England. The principal 59

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

objective was to restore about 2 000 publishing a paper on the advantages ha of blanket bog on 20 sites within and disadvantages of different materi- the Border Mires Kielder-Butterburn als for this purpose. Other LIFE projects part of the Natura 2000 network and, have drawn inspiration from this pio- in particular, to extend the area of blan- neering work. ket bog by means of tree removal. The project focused on the Natura 2000 LIFE makes plans sites in the wider border mires area of for Scotland raised and blanket bog sites (59 sites in total). The project exceeded its objec- A second LIFE project in the Flow Coun- tives and managed to complete around try, using the tried and tested techniques

a quarter of the tasks set by the Border for conifer removal and damming of drain- Photo: LIFE06 NAT/UK/000134 Mires Management Committee for this age ditches, successfully restored large The drainage channels of large bogs were complex and vast site. This is an exam- areas of blanket bog in Caithness and commonly blocked with peat. WETLANDS : BLANKET BOGS ple of LIFE funding acting as a catalyst Sutherland, in north Scotland, between in what was originally foreseen as a July 2001 and December 2006. The areas, blocking ditches to restore the 20-year programme of restoration but project, ‘Restoring active blanket bog of integrity of the bogs’ hydrological systems, was in fact completed in 2009 ahead European importance in North Scotland removing forestry plantations of poor qual- of schedule. (LIFE00 NAT/UK/007075), purchased ity on 500 ha of bog that was still capable 1 556 ha of afforested blanket bog and of natural regeneration, and removal of In total, 500 ha of mires were partially removed the plantations. It also acquired naturally regenerated trees. The overall restored through the LIFE project, 2 275 ha of active blanket bog, and drain aim of the project was to demonstrate that improving the condition of the sites blocking benefitted the condition of more the restoration of suitable active blanket from ‘unfavourable’ to ‘unfavourable- than 18 000 ha of peatlands. bog sites is a real management option for recovering’: it may take another 20 afforested peatlands. years before the sites can be said to be A crucial element of this project was the in ‘favourable condition’. development (led by Scottish Natural Conclusions Heritage) of the ‘Peatlands of Caithness The target of clearing 197 ha of conifers & Sutherland Management Strategy The LIFE programme has undoubtedly was exceeded. The project tried several 2005-2015’. The strategy is the prin- made a significant difference to the con- techniques of tree removal: cutting and cipal means of securing the long-term servation status of blanket bogs in the UK chipping on-site, felling to waste, cable- benefits of the project and the sustain- and Ireland. There has been good shar- craning to lift whole trees clear of the able management of the peatlands, by ing of experience between the projects bog, conventional harvesting techniques bringing together the conservation aims and the development of landscape-scale and killing standing trees by ring-bark- of the project beneficiary (the Royal Soci- strategies for the long-term management ing or herbicide. Increasing the area ety for the Protection of Birds) and the of the habitat. free from the effects of afforestation will economic objectives of local stakehold- increase the likelihood of recolonisation ers. This has led to the formation of a LIFE Nature continues to actively sup- with Annex I habitat species. Peatlands Partnership that will continue port blanket bog restoration in the region to work towards the key objectives of the through an ongoing project, ‘Restoring The project refined techniques for dam- strategic plan. active blanket bog in the Berwyn and ming drainage ditches in peat bogs, Migneint SACs in Wales’ (LIFE06 NAT/ Restoring active blanket UK/000134), and a project, ‘Active blan- bog in Ireland ket bog restoration in the South Pen- By removing trees it is possible to enhance nine Moors (LIFE08 NAT/UK/000202), natural regeneration of the bog. Networking between LIFE projects in the starting in 2010. The Welsh project, early 2000s helped Coillte Teoranta (the which runs until March 2011, seeks to Irish Forestry Board) establish the project, implement restoration and conservation ‘Restoring active blanket bog in Ireland’ actions over 5 039 ha of the Berwyn and (LIFE02 NAT/IRL/008490), the first of its South Clwyd Mountains SAC, benefiting kind in Ireland to be run by a key Natura 2 955 ha of blanket bog within the con- 2000 landowner and stakeholder. Using servation area. Practical restoration and its own land, Coillte Teoranta carried out conservation actions will also be carried an extensive restoration programme on out over 440 ha of the Migneint Arenig 14 sites covering more than 1 200 ha. Dduallt SAC, benefiting 274 ha of blanket bog habitat. The South Pennines project Actions included erecting stock-proof in England targets the restoration of 1600 fences to control grazing on open bog ha of blanket bog. Photo: LIFE06 NAT/UK/000134 60

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats WETLANDS : MIRES Photo: Mikko Tiira Blocking ditches to bring back aapa mires

Finland’s aapa mires are under threat from inappropriate land use and management. LIFE

is helping to improve the ‘unfavourable-inadequate’ status of this important habitat.

ithin the habitat group with ‘structure’, ‘function’ and ‘future A number of LIFE projects in Finland W of bogs, mires and fens, prospects’ considered poor in both have targeted this important habitat. aapa mires (7310) are limited to the Finland and Sweden, and ‘area’ also Restoration of mires in each case was northern Boreal region and the adja- poor in Finland. Threats and pressures achieved through blocking and filling cent part of the Alpine region. They are mostly related to inappropriate of ditches and, in some cases, through are complexes of several types of land use and management, including the removal of excess trees. mires, such as string fens, flarks and drainage to boost commercial forest unraised bog moss (Sphagnum) spp. growth – though this intervention was LIFE and Finland’s aapa While the conservation status of this unsuccessful in several mires as trees mires habitat is ‘favourable’ in the Alpine (mainly pine) did not grow. The mires region, it is assessed as ‘unfavoura- were lost without gaining any commer- The LIFE project, ‘Protection of aapa ble-inadequate’ for the Boreal region, cially valuable forests. mire wilderness in Ostrobothnia and 61

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

Kainuu’ (LIFE02 NAT/FIN/008469), ods were used to recreate flarks, peat servation purposes and a further 225 drew up 12 restoration plans for mires, banks and former streams to recreate ha leased on a five-year contract. The forest, old forest roads and meadows, the former hydrological conditions. project restored some 80 ha of mires, which have now been fully imple- as well as wet meadows and forests. mented (some after the project ended). An earlier project, ‘Protection and Some 924 ha (mainly aapa mires) were usage of aapa mires with a rich avi- Conclusions acquired by the state for nature conser- fauna’ (LIFE00 NAT/FIN/007060), tar- vation purposes and a total of 606 ha of geted the central Lapland aapa mire Thanks to LIFE, thousands of hectares aapa mires were restored. The project zone, which is important as a nesting, of mires have been being restored also restored 154 ha of mainly boreal resting and feeding area for birds. The and their recovery is being monitored. WETLANDS : MIRES forests (9010) through controlled burn- 48 200 ha area covered by the project Projects selected areas on the basis of ing and increasing the amount of dead- is home to 1 800 pairs of wood sandpi- expected results: increased water levels wood, 10 km of old forest roads and 2.4 pers (Tringa clareola), 400 pairs of ruffs leading to thriving Sphagnum mosses ha of meadows. In addition, extensive (Philomachus pugnax) and 180 pairs and the return of mire birds. However, basic inventories of habitats, bracket of golden plovers (Pluvialis apricaria), restoring mires is a long-term invest- fungi, birds, epiphytic lichens and his- as well as bears, wolves and wolver- ment and results are mostly visible torical land use were taken as a basis ines. The Annex-II listed plant species only several decades after restoration. for the management plans. An ecologi- Hamatocaulis lapponicus, Ranunculus A recently approved project in Finland cal survey and conservation plan was lapponicus and Saxifraga hirculus also (LIFE08 NAT/FIN/000596) is aiming to also drawn up for the moss species grow in the area. restore the conservation status of mires Hamatocaulis lapponicus. (and aapa mires in particular) in 54 The project drew up management plans Natura 2000 sites, and another project ‘Karelian mires and virgin forests - pearls for five areas, and more than 6 300 ha (LIFE08 NAT/S/000268) is aiming to in the chain of geohistory’ (LIFE03 of land was acquired for nature con- restore mires in 35 sites in Sweden. NAT/FIN/000036) set out to restore the boreal old-growth forests of northern Water levels in the aapa mires have increased thanks to LIFE actions. Karelia, which act as ’stepping stones’ for species between Russian forests and those in Finland. The mires of this region are equally important since they make up the transition zone between aapa mires and active raised bogs.

As part of a wider series of actions, the project restored a total of 479 ha of mires by blocking and filling approximately 125 km of ditches. As a result of these actions the water level in the restored mires has increased, leading to the recovery of typical mire vegetation, butterflies and birds.

The project, ‘the Natural Forests and mires in the ‘green belt’ of Koillismaa and Kainuu’ (LIFE04 NAT/FI/000078), was focused on the conservation of forests and mires in 13 Natura 2000 sites in eastern Finland. The project also co- operated with Russia – project sites situated next to the Russian border act as stepping stones for several threatened species more commonly found in pristine forests and bogs in Rus- sian Karelia (e.g. the Kalevala National Park). Actions included restoring 390 ha of aapa mires and bog woodlands by filling and blocking ditches and by clearing excess trees. Innovative meth- Photo: Mikko Tiira 62

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats WETLANDS : RAISED BOGS Photo: Justin Toland Raised bog restoration in Europe

An exemplary project in the Irish Midlands provides a great insight into the actions LIFE

projects across Europe have taken to restore active raised bog habitats.

he most significant areas of active raised bogs’ (LIFE92 NAT/UK/013400). this habitat has been marked: whereas Traised bog in the EU are found A key output was the publication of the raised bogs once covered an estimated in the Atlantic biogeographical region. book ‘Conserving Bogs -The Manage- 310 000 ha, today it is estimated that However, habitat types 7110* (Active ment Handbook’ in 1997, a detailed just 18 000 ha of raised bog habitat of raised bogs) and 7120 (degraded raised good practice restoration manual that conservation value remain, with just 2 bogs still capable of natural regeneration) generated widespread interest among 000 ha in a favourable condition. Habitat can be found in almost all regions and conservationists. loss has mainly been caused by harvest- have been the focus of a large number ing of peat for household fuel, electricity of LIFE projects (see box). Lessons learned from this project have production and the horticultural industry. fed into subsequent raised bog resto- Some 2% of Irish raised bogs have been LIFE actions ration efforts across the EU, such as converted to forestry land. Much of this ‘Restoring raised bogs in Ireland’ (LIFE04 afforested raised bog is owned by Coillte The conservation status of active raised NAT/IE/000121). Teoranta, the Irish Forestry Board. bogs is assessed as ‘unfavourable-bad’ in the Alpine, Atlantic, Continental, Mac- About the project ‘Restoring Raised Bogs in Ireland’, which aronesian and Mediterranean regions. ran from October 2004 to September The peatlands of the Midlands and 2008, was the largest single bog resto- The first LIFE project in the EU that mid-west of Ireland are among the ration project to be undertaken in the addressed the threats to raised bogs most important raised bog systems country. Actions focused on the removal was ‘Conservation of Scottish lowland left in Europe. However, the decline of of forestry plantations within 14 pSCIs 63

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

across five counties, which was in line with Coillte Teoranta’s objective of managing 15% of its estate for biodiversity.

Within a total project area of 571 ha, the beneficiary removed almost 450 ha of plantations and blocked drains to restore raised bog habitat. Building on the restoration techniques pioneered in earlier LIFE projects in the UK and Ireland (including LIFE02 NAT/IRL/8490), the project sought to have its own dissemination effect, with two sites – at Cloonshanville Bog near Frenchpark in Co. Roscommon WETLANDS : RAISED BOGS and Carn Park Bog near Baylin Village in Photo: Jan Sliva Drain blocks have improved the water levels on the raised bogs. Co. Westmeath – turned into demonstration sites for restoration techniques and for general awareness-raising. ha on the 240 ha SAC near Frenchpark. include cranberry (Vaccinium oxycoc- The actions took place on land neigh- cus), cross-leaved heath (Erica tetralix), Visiting Cloonshanville bouring 152 ha of intact bog. The veg- bog asphodel (Narthecium ossifragum) Bog etation of this intact area is dominated and common cottongrass (Eriophorum by common heather (Calluna vulgaris), angustifolium), as well as a large popu- As site manager John Tarney explains, deer grass (Trichophorum cespitosum) lation of Sphagnum pulchrum, a rare conifer plantations were removed and and hare’s tail cottongrass (Eriopho- species of peatmoss in the Republic of drains blocked in three areas totalling 34 rum vaginatum). Other frequent species Ireland. The SAC also contains 14 ha of

Other LIFE Nature projects targeting raised bogs While the Irish project is one of just two projects to have exclusively targeted raised bogs (the other is LIFE00 NAT/ UK/007078), LIFE has co-funded a large number of projects that have taken actions to improve the status of raised bogs, together with other associated wetland habitats such as transition mires and quaking bogs (7140) or wet heathlands. • LIFE04 NAT/PL/000208 - Conservation of Baltic raised bogs in Pomerania, Poland: This project, the first in Poland, was very successful. It improved the water level conditions of Baltic raised bogs on 17 sites by felling trees on 720 ha, blocking 724 points of drainage systems and cutting 4 km of ditches. As a result of the project actions, 13 new protected areas of national importance were created, including 10 new nature reserves. The project also led to the formation of a group of some 30 specialists in bog conservation, a collaborative initiative that is continuing after LIFE. • LIFE05 NAT/D/000053 - Rosenheimer master basin bogs: This project, which concludes in October 2010, is aiming to restore a 444 ha raised bog area and improve the hydrological situation of adjacent fen-meadow habitats. • LIFE00 NAT/UK/007078 - Restoration of Scottish raised bogs: The project achieved the removal of 430ha of trees, clearance of 253 ha of encroaching scrub, installation of 2 153 dams, erection of 12.1 km of fencing and removal of 3.6 ha of rank heather across 11 sites (10 cSACs). • LIFE00 NAT/EE/007082 - Restoration and management of the Häädemeeste wetland complex: 1 500-1 800 ha of the Tolkuse bog area was restored through the blocking of key ditches. This raised the water level by 180 cm. Overgrowing bushes and trees were removed from a 6 ha area of the abandoned peat extraction fields and a 3 ha area was rewetted by blocking drainage ditches with peat dams. In addition, the project restored some 600 ha of boreal coastal meadow habitat. • LIFE02 NAT/IT/008574 - Alpe Veglia and Alpe Devero: actions of conservation of mountain grasslands and peatlands (7230 Alkaline fens and 7140 Transition mires and quaking bogs): The survival of the peat bogs in the Alpe Veglia – Alpe Devero Park (located in the Mountain Valley of Val D’Ossola on the Italian-Swiss border) was under serious threat because of a drainage system operating in the area. The LIFE project built fences and a wooden gangway to stop trampling of 17 ha of peatlands. Drainage ditches were blocked to aid water retention. • LIFE03 NAT/FIN/000036 - Karelian mires and virgin forests - pearls in the chain of geohistory: 479.1 ha of mires were restored by blocking and filling approximately 125 km of ditches. 64

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

bog woodland, an Annex I-listed habitat. Typical bog species, such as peat moss Unlike plantation forests, these mostly (Sphagnum pulchrum) and cranberry birch woodlands (of which just 130 ha have already reappeared on the restored are left in Ireland) stay on the peatland area. “The last time our ecologist was out margins where the nutrients suit them he found liverwort, a species that hadn’t and do not dry out the central bog. been on the site before,” says Wallace. “Third year Environmental Science stu- Removal of trees and blocking of drains dents at the University of Galway have is a common feature of all raised bog taken on the monitoring of the site after LIFE restoration projects around the the project,” she adds. “Hopefully this EU (see box). “It’s all about creating the will continue for years to come.” conditions for restoration”, notes Tarney. “When the trees were taken off there Taney notes that it will take “30-40 years WETLANDS : RAISEDwas BOGS an increase in the water level. When for the project area to look like the neigh- damming took place there was a further bouring high bog. Fauna that will ben- increase and over time we expect plant efit from the restoration include curlew species that came in when the water and snipe, lots of butterflies, frogs and level was low will die back.” newts,” he says.

“There will be waves of changes in vege- Spreading the knowledge tation composition, but the aim is to have Photo: Jan Sliva It takes around 30 to 40 years for a raised more and more typical bog species,” The Irish raised bog restoration project bog to reacquire peat formation and for all says Philip Murphy, project manager. used a mix of plastic trays and peat dams associated species to return. to block drains on the newly-cleared sites. “Generally, the lower the vegetation on Over the four years of the project, Coillte the bog, the better the quality – it’s an Teoranta’s team moved more to using mark, Finland and Latvia) that visited its indication of wetness,” explains Angela peat dams, notes Tarney, although this sites. “The visitors from the Finnish Aapa Wallace, PR Manager, Coillte Teoranta. was not possible on the driest areas. The Mires project (LIFE02 NAT/FIN/008469) “In the short time since the planted coni- idea of using plastic came from a UK LIFE were so taken by the idea of the plastic fers were removed at Cloonshanville, the project in the Kielder Forest, ‘The Border dam that they took one home with them,” intact high bog has got visibly wetter,” Mires-Active Blanket Bog Rehabilitation recalls Wallace. she adds. The aim, says Tarney, is “to Project’ (LIFE98 NAT/UK/005432). Coillte keep the water level six inches (15 cm) Teoranta disseminated details of water “The networking was really important below the peat moss surface, even in management devices (names of suppli- and we wouldn’t have been able to do summer”. ers, etc) to three LIFE projects (from Den- that without LIFE,” says Murphy.

Sphagnum mosses are now thriving after restoration efforts. Photo: Jan Sliva 65

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

Restoring coastal lagoons to a favourable status

Europe’s coastal lagoons are reported as having an unfavour-

able status. LIFE is supporting projects that aim to improve this

situation.

oastal lagoons are found in all inlet into the lagoon to help flush out The water quality of the Ter Vell lagoons coastal regions of the EU. The the accumulation of nutrients and re- has been improved by means of a

C OTHER WETLANDS : COASTAL LAGOONS status of this habitat type is classed as establish a more natural water exchange ‘green filter’ created over a 2.57 ha ‘unfavourable-bad’ in all regions except between the sea and the lagoon. In addi- estate acquired for the purpose. The the Boreal, where it is ‘unfavourable-inad- tion, the water level of the nearby Norre- Phragmites, Typha and Scirpus commu- equate’. Pressures and threats are mostly bolle Nor was raised to create a freshwa- nities covering this natural purification linked to human activities, such as inten- ter lake with surrounding reed beds and system have proved effective in manag- sive agriculture (which leads to eutrophi- wet meadows. ing an average daily flow of 700-800 m3 cation). Better reporting is required, and retaining 95% of suspended solids particularly in the Mediterranean, since The project has converted intensively and 65% of N and P load. The benefits several parameters are unknown. farmed land to wetland habitats: the area of this action were reflected in the bird of well-functioning reed bed has been inventories, which were carried out in Two notable LIFE nature projects that enlarged by more than 15 ha and the area the area throughout the project. have targeted coastal lagoons are the of open freshwater by 69 ha. Appropriate Danish project, ‘Improving status of grazing with cattle has been established Two new lagoons were created, cover- coastal lagoon Tryggelev Nor, Denmark on 44 ha of salt meadows. Management ing 1.54 ha in total. Some 500 speci- (IMAGE)’ (LIFE02 NAT/DK/008588), and contracts for extensive grazing have mens of the Iberian toothcarp (Lebias the Spanish project, ‘Restoration and been drawn up to ensure the long-term ibera) were released into La Platera management of the coastal lagoons and maintenance of the whole site. lagoon to ensure a healthy population. marshes of the Baix Ter’ (LIFE99 NAT/ The lagoons developed the typical E/006386). The results of monitoring indicate that vegetation found in the habitat domi- the nitrogen input to Tryggelev Nor has nated by the endangered fish Ruppia Coastal lagoons decreased by 60% thanks to the improved cirrhosa. in Denmark retention capacity in the catchment. While the external phosphorus input has not Conclusions The Danish project took place in Trygge- yet decreased this is expected to hap- lev Nor on the island of Langeland, one of pen when Nørreballe Nor becomes more Although very few LIFE projects targeted several coastal lagoon areas that feed into ecologically stable. A decreased nutrient this particular habitat, they show that it the Baltic Sea. The lagoon had been suf- load creates the possibility for the area to is possible to improve the conservation fering from increasing eutrophication and develop into a rich wetland area with a status of this important habitat. The stagnation, causing a negative impact on wide variety of breeding birds. main issue addressed by the projects its conservation status and that of resi- is improving water quality by green fil- dent bird populations such as the Annex Coastal lagoons in Spain tering or by reconnecting the coastal I-listed bittern (Botaurus botaurus) and lagoon with the sea. These project spotted crake (Porzana porzana). The Baix Ter wetlands in north-east Spain actions might be complemented by the are under heavy pressure from agricul- comprehensive implementation of agri- The LIFE Nature project intended to ture and uncontrolled tourism. The LIFE environmental measures that support address this problem by reducing the Nature project carried out a series of farmers in reducing nutrient loads on nitrogen load in the whole wetland area measures that have improved the con- the lagoons’ surroundings. Moreover, by 70%. Actions taken to achieve this servation status of the area, including the this is also a Water Framework Direc- included the construction of a salt water implementation of a management plan. tive requirement. 66

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

Mediterranean temporary ponds (MTPs) are small, shallow ponds that undergo a

periodic cycle of flooding and drought. As a result, this habitat hosts characteristic

flora and fauna adapted to this alternation. MTPs are mainly distributed in southern

European countries and are found in dry and sub-arid areas in particular.

LIFE aids Mediterranean temporary ponds

priority habitat for conservation A listed in the Habitats Directive, MTPs are vulnerable to human activities and changes to their natural dynamic. Their continued existence is threatened OTHER WETLANDS : TEMPORARY PONDS by agricultural practices and land management that does not take into account their particular requirements.

Conservation efforts have, as a result, aimed to reverse the negative effects of these activities and to restore the ecological functions of the ponds. The lack of recognition of their importance and vulner- ability heightened the need for awareness raising and better management. Several Photo: LIFE05 NAT/ES/00058 LIFE projects have targeted specific areas LIFE projects implemented management plans for the Natura 2000 sites with temporary with direct actions such as restoration of pond habitats. old ponds and the reduction of negative impacts such as over extraction of water, artificial drainage, overgrazing, water on the island of Crete, located within five Another project that focused on improv- eutrophication, siltation, invasive spe- different pSCIs. It carried out a detailed ing knowledge of the habitat was carried cies, solid waste disposal and high visitor assessment of the hydroperiod, water out in Minorca (LIFE05 NAT/E/000058). pressure. Management actions had to be quality and threats to these MTPs. In It carried out an inventory of all of the tailored to each situation as MTPs show a particular, the impact of polluted run-off ponds on the island and made important high degree of variability. from unsustainable agricultural practices limnological discoveries. A main outcome was quantified through monitoring on a of the project is the enlargement of the LIFE actions site-by-site basis. Such data informed SCI to cover all ponds in Minorca, many subsequent conservation activities and of which were discovered by the project’s The Crete project (LIFE04 NAT/ allowed for management plans to be intensive survey and local stakeholder GR/000105) focused on several MTPs drawn up for each site. collaboration. Comprehensive management plans were also drafted. Conservation status at Habitat Biogeographical region Projects The Karst project (LIFE02 NAT/ level (main regions) SLO/008587) in Slovenia mapped all the 3170* - Mediterranean Unknown (Mediterranean) LIFE93 NAT/E/011100 habitats in the target area, which is an temporary ponds LIFE99 NAT/F/006304 important resting and feeding place for LIFE99 NAT/E/006417 migrating birds, as well as for amphib- LIFE02 NAT/SLO/008587 ians, mammals, dragonflies and others. LIFE03 NAT/E/000052 This information allowed site-specific LIFE04 NAT/GR/000105 management plans to be drawn up giv- LIFE05 NAT/E/000058 ing detailed and clear guidelines for the LIFE05 NAT/E/000060 landowners. For the first time in Slovenia, 67

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

stewardship contracts were signed with land-owners to commit them to managing the land according to the plans.

A Spanish project in Valencia (LIFE05 NAT/E/000060), which aimed to protect amphibians, also resulted in important limnological discoveries. It surveyed, characterised and classified all temporary ponds hosting amphibian species.

Restoration has also been the focus of LIFE projects. The Karst project cleaned and removed invasive flora and fauna from 45 ponds. Restoration also included deepening the bottoms of the ponds and their subsequent sealing Photo: LIFE03 NAT/ES/0052 The main LIFE project actions were to restore the winter water levels and quality of ponds. with a layer of clay, and the replanting of native vegetation. In the case of a Span-

ish project in La Albuera, Extremadura edge of the habitat and management of long-term survival of this habitat. The OTHER WETLANDS : TEMPORARY PONDS (LIFE03 NAT/E/000052), restoration temporary ponds, not only on the seven Crete project made extensive efforts to included reconnecting a lagoon com- sites of the project, but also in the French inform the local communities and to enlist plex that had been drained and altered Mediterranean area in general. Experi- the support of local authorities in the by agricultural practices. The negative mental management work took place on conservation of the ponds. The Minorca impact of overgrazing was tackled by most of the sites, including scrub clearing, project constructed a temporary pond constructing alternative water points for digging-out of pools, removal of invasive for educational purposes. The Slovenian livestock and through fencing and shore exotic species, and restoration of filled-in project carried out a particularly strong restoration. pools. Most of this work was accompa- awareness campaign that included estab- nied by careful monitoring of its impact, lishing an information centre for tourists In addition to restoration measures, the in order to draw lessons that could be and visitors that has a permanent exhibi- LIFE projects dealing with the creation of of relevance elsewhere. The project pro- tion about the ponds. a network of flora microreserves in the duced a ponds management handbook. Valencia region (LIFE93 NAT/E/011100, The conservation status of the seven sites Conclusions LIFE99 NAT/E/006417) included land directly targeted by the project was signifi- purchase as a long-term protection of cantly improved. LIFE projects have successfully demon- this type of habitat. strated how the unfavourable conserva- Finally, awareness raising and the involve- tion status of MTPs can be improved in The French project (LIFE99 NAT/ ment of land owners and the local com- Crete, France, Spain and Slovenia. This F/006304) helped to increase the knowl- munity have had a positive effect on the type of habitat has a very quick and positive response to simple restoration

Project actions involved the clearing of scrubs and the elimination of invasive species. and management actions, with results seen in the very short-term, as showed by these projects. While having only a local impact, these projects have helped to gain knowledge of a habitat that was scarcely studied, contributing to an increased representation of MTPs in the Natura 2000 network and to the discovery of new species in the regions covered. In addition, the French project pushed for a resolution calling for the conservation of temporary pools that was adopted at the eighth Ramsar Conference in November 2002. It is hoped that through the spread of best practise implemented successfully by LIFE projects, an overall good conservation status of this habitat will be achieved across Europe. Photo: LIFE05 NAT/ES/00058 68

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

Though often only a few square metres in area, petrifying springs with tufa formation

and their immediate surroundings are a valuable and unique habitat for certain species.

LIFE conservation of a special habitat: petrifying springs with tufa formation

any petrifying springs have LIFE actions Protection of the spring with fences is Msuffered from human interfer- another common conservation action. A ence such as attempts to make them One of the largest concentrations of pet- spring in the community of Dittenheim, more attractive by encasing them in rifying springs in the EU is located in the which has suffered from contamination constructions, draining and their use Franco-Swabian Jura region of southern and damage resulting from the grazing and

OTHER WETLANDS as: PETRIFYING rubbish SPRINGS dumps. They are also highly Germany. A particular threat for the tufa excrement of sheep, was protected by a sensitive to changes in their surround- springs in the region is the substitution fence built by a youth welfare organisation. ings. of native deciduous forests with monoto- Also at a site near Rohrbach, in addition nous stands of planted spruce. A LIFE to the removal of spruce trees, the area This particular type of spring is formed project (LIFE03 NAT/D/000002) helped around the spring was fenced off. where spring water with high calcium restore 56 spring habitats, carrying out carbonate content comes out of the a number of small-scale initiatives to LIFE projects have also increased our ground. On contact with the air, car- ‘renaturalise’ individual springs. knowledge of the micro-habitat. For bon dioxide is lost from the water and example, the Italian project, ‘V. Curone a hard deposit of calcium carbonate Various actions were carried out at spe- - V. S. Croce : protection priority habitats’ (tufa) is formed. Tufa-forming spring- cific sites. For example, a spring near (LIFE98 NAT/IT/005037), carried out a heads are characterised by the swelling Hohenstadt was used by the local com- study of the petrifying springs in the Valle yellow-orange mats of the mosses and munity. Households were connected San Croce Valle del Curone area close to algae of the phytosociological alliance instead to the central drinking water sup- Milan and undertook various measures in Cratoneurion, with the mosses from the ply and the concrete shafts to the spring order to stabilise their hydrology, reduce genus Cratoneuron dominant. Many were removed and the downstream area visitor pressure and increase their sta- rare, lime-loving (calcicole) species live restored. Other actions included remov- bility. Detailed mapping of springs with in the moss carpet. ing a concrete wall acting as a dam at one tufa allowed new localisation in several site to restore the free-flowing character sites within the target pSCI, evidencing a Threats resulting from direct human of the stream fed from the spring. Around wider distribution than expected. These intervention include the discharge of another spring a spruce monoculture was key conservation measures have dem- liquid manure and pesticides in adja- cleared from an area of around 2 000 m2. onstrated how the conservation status cent catchment areas and the inflow The exposed slope was then planted with of petrified springs can be improved in of warmer drainage water from farm- more appropriate trees. Europe. land. Moreover, the mosses and algae on which the habitat depends decline LIFE has restored petrifying spring habitats by restoring the spring flow and by fencing off if conditions concerning shade, micro- the habitat area to avoid grazing and contamination. climate and pH of the water are not perfect.

LIFE projects have demonstrated that restoring the natural conditions for this unique micro-habitat can have a beneficial effect on its long-term survival. A wide range of site-specific hydromor- phological actions have been carried out at strategically important sites in Europe. Photo: Landesbund für Vogelschutz (LBV) Bayern Photo: Landesbund für Vogelschutz 69

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

Wet forests are dependent on the good management of the river

systems and the catchment areas on which they rely. A decrease

in water levels, as a result of water abstraction and drainage, and

regulation of watercourses, has resulted in the ‘unfavourable bad’

conservation status of this habitat in all regions. WET FORESTS

LIFE conserving

Photo: Jan Sliva wet forests

oor water quality resulting from project (LIFE97 NAT/UK/004242) high- and strategic approach to the manage- Pagricultural run-off, industrial lighted problems relating to the hydrolog- ment of the water basins, supported by effluents or rubbish dumping, expansive ical networks on which they depend. The local interest groups and communities. spreading of aggressive invasive spe- new project created a Water Basin Man- Direct actions included mire restora- cies and large-scale plantations of pop- agement Forum, made up of key statu- tion, the re-installment of debris dams to lar hybrids in river alluvia are factors that tory agencies and stakeholder groups. restore natural river channel features, the adversely affect the status of wet forests. Its remit was to introduce an integrated restoration of alluvial forests, bog wood- Moreover, the richness of the associated

soils has made them attractive for con- Alluvial forests (91E0) is a habitat that has greatly benefited from LIFE projects. version to agriculture, particularly in the uplands. The abundance of semi-natural habitats and interconnecting features within the wider countryside has also declined, increasing ecological isolation.

Wet forests are a varied habitat type that includes riparian ash (Fraxinus excelsior) and alder (Alnus glutinosa) forests and willow (Salix alba, Salix fragilis) and black poplar (Populus nigra) galleries along lowland and hill water courses together with grey alder (Alnus incana) riparian forests of sub-montane to sub-alpine rivers. The habitat occurs on heavy and periodi- cally inundated soils. Though this habitat type is relatively widespread, it occurs as fragmentary stands where the hydrologic regime is favourable. It is seriously threatened, particularly in lowland areas.

LIFE actions

One of the most important conservation actions that LIFE has demonstrated for this habitat is the adoption of an integrated management approach. A LIFE project (LIFE02 NAT/UK/008544) carried out in the UK’s New Forest focused on restoring woodlands, which an earlier Photo: Jan Sliva 70

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

land and wet grassland habitats, and the success of the NIMOS project (LIFE95 to come to the surface and sediments of creation of conditions to allow the natural NAT/IT/000742) in the Trento province of the surrounding pools were removed. In regeneration of these habitats. Italy was also dependent on the partici- some areas, the pools were enlarged to pation of local farmers. create new open waters. The efficiency Alluvial forests with common alder of these measures was reduced by (Alnus glutinosa) and European ash Another important conservation action canals in the area, which took off sur- (Fraxinus excelsior) (91E0) is a habitat for wet forests is information gathering. face water and caused periodic lowering WET FORESTS that has benefitted from several other Alder woodlands are strongly affected by of the water table, mostly during winter LIFE projects. The objective of the Slo- the changes in water availability, and the periods. To avoid these problems, canal vakian project (LIFE03 NAT/SK/000097) Pavia project focused therefore on moni- profiles and existing throughways were was to preserve the last remaining nat- toring the water table. The data gathered reshaped and specially shaped metal ural floodplain forests in the Slovakian allowed comparisons to be made for the and wooden sluices were installed to part of the Danube floodplain, and to first time of water tables by geological retain water and regulate water levels in introduce sustainable forest manage- location, season, irrigation and land use some areas. ment in the area. Most of the residual of the surrounding areas. Additionally, alluvial forests within the project area field surveys were carried out in order Conclusions were under real threat of being cut to classify the botanical value of the down or degraded by forest manage- area and to explore differences between Actions carried out by LIFE projects point ment practices. These forest habitats woodlands managed according to differ- the way forward for the conservation of benefited from the change of forest ent criteria. wet forests, namely, the restoration of management plans, designation of new whole floodplain systems, the regen- nature reserves (or enlargement of exist- To achieve the favourable conservation eration of natural ground water tables ing ones) and large-scale removal of status of alder forests, water should be and the stopping of unfavourable man- invasive tree species. present above or close to the surface agement practices. Wide-scale imple- throughout the year. Hence, springs, mentation of such measures will greatly An Austrian project (LIFE04 NAT/ which had long been abandoned, were contribute to the improvement of the AT/000001) focused on the river Laf- drilled in order to allow the upper aquifer conservation status of this habitat. nitz, one of the last lowland rivers in the country to have retained a semi-natural Reconnecting floodplains and improving water levels have benefited wet forest habitats. state, having been left to meander without intervention for over three-quar- ters of its 112 km course. As a result, it hosts numerous Annex II-listed fish species, amphibians and Annex I-listed birds in and around its loops, oxbow lakes, side channels and associated alluvial forests. The entire river area has been designated an EU Special Area of Conservation within the Natura 2000 network.

Alder forests were also targeted by an Italian project (LIFE03 NAT/IT/000109) in the Pavia province. Changes in irrigation systems and irrigation canals, a reduction in the level of the water table and invading exotic vegetation had impacted on the conservation status of the forest. To combat these threats the project extended reforested and flooded areas, created new wetlands, and restored hydrological systems.

A key aspect of the project was the active involvement of local farmers in the interventions. For the maintenance of these results, especially the hydrological system, their involvement is vital. The Photo: Jan Sliva 71

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

The vast majority of pannonic grasslands and steppe habitats are found in the

Pannonian biogeographical region, though some of these habitats also occur in adja-

cent parts of the Continental region. Under threat from changes in agricultural prac-

tices and inappropriate land use, Member States report that their conservation status

is ‘unfavourable-bad’.

Stepping up actions to conserve pannonic grasslands GRASSLANDS : PANNOMIC GRASSLANDS he characteristic pannonic grass- The open grassland plains found in Hun- It is also an ornithologist’s paradise: Tlands and steppes were formed gary’s Hortobágy National Park host important bird species such as the great over centuries as a result of extensive Europe’s largest coherent coverage of bustard (Otis tarda), bittern (Botaurus management, notably through tra- priority pannonic salt steppes and marsh stellaris), common crane (Grus grus) and ditional grazing. LIFE projects have habitat (habitat 1530*). The park incorpo- aquatic warbler (Acrocephalus paludi- targeted conservation efforts mainly rates around 54 000 ha of this interna- cola) all live on the Hortobágy steppe. in Hungary, including pannonic step- tionally important habitat that supports a pic grasslands, sand steppes and valuable variety of flora and fauna within The steppe was the location of a suc- salt steppes – listed as priority (*) for its mosaic of wild grasslands, wetland cessful project, ‘Restoration of pan- conservation in Annex I of the Habi- marshes and semi-natural watercourses. nonic steppes, marshes of Hortobágy tats Directive (see table). These unique habitats are under threat from changing cultivation practices, afforestation, over By implementing restoration actions on the grasslands habitats LIFE has boosted rare flora and fauna species. – or under – grazing, as well as unbal- anced use of fertilisers and pesticides. Moreover, many grassland areas have been abandoned and have reverted to scrubland. LIFE has also focused on the restoration of small remnants of pannonic steppe and dry grasslands found in Lower Austria.

LIFE actions

LIFE projects have implemented the following actions: the re-introduction of appropriate levels of grazing (with low inputs and low stocking densities accompanied by late mowing), hydrological works for the restoration of wet grasslands and marshes and the clearing of encroaching woodlands. Particularly successful are actions to encourage the reintroduction of hardy grazing stock of endemic or native breeds of cattle, such as Hungarian flecked and Hungarian grey, Racka sheep, goats and Mangalica pigs. Photo: Jan Sliva 72

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

National Park’ (LIFE02 NAT/H/008634), whose main focus was the large-scale restoration of 10 000 ha of the grassland habitats that had been adversely affected by a complex network of dykes and channels built as an irrigation system during the socialist era. The project re-established the natural water-flow dynamics to create more favourable habitat conditions. At the same time, extensive cattle grazing was introduced in certain areas.

Two other LIFE projects (LIFE02 NAT/ H/008638 and LIFE04 NAT/HU/000119) have also focused on the restoration of dry and wet grasslands and salt marshes in the Hortobágy region. The former project was successful in reduc-

ing negative impacts on 2 000 ha of salt Photo: Jan Sliva GRASSLANDS : PANNOMIC GRASSLANDS steppes, including periodical drying LIFE has reintroduced appropriate levels of grazing to conserve the pannonic grasslands. of the area and eliminating of harmful agricultural practices. Shallow-water habitats were enlarged to 295 hectares, to assure the long-term sustainability of Conclusions through inundations and the elimination conservation measures on grasslands. of channels. The latter project initially LIFE projects located mainly in Hungary targeted an area of 1 500 ha. In total, Finally, the project, ‘Pannonic Steppes have demonstrated significant posi- more than 90 ha of steppic grassland and Dry Grasslands’ (LIFE04 NAT/ tive impacts at a local or regional level (habitat 6250) and around 650 ha of AT/000002), addressed habitat loss of – helping to tackle threats to the grass- alkali steppe grasslands (habitat 1530) the last remaining patches of grassland lands and steppes of the Pannonian were restored. and steppe habitats in eastern Austria. biogeographical region, and improving As well as being areas of valuable bio- their conservation status. Significantly, However, by adopting a holistic restora- diversity, these isolated sites have an these actions are also benefitting tion approach – that also includes the important connectivity function. The populations of Annex I-listed bird spe- creation of ecological corridors between project serves as a model and provides cies, with population growth already valuable sites and the establishment of a practical boost to the conservation of recorded for certain species including buffer zones by restoring grasslands on steppe grasslands in Austria and neigh- the bittern, common crane, aquatic arable land adjacent to marshland areas bouring countries. warbler and great bustard. affected by agricultural contaminants – wider conservation impacts over 5 000 Conservation status at ha are a strong long-term possibility. Habitats Biogeographical region Projects level (main regions) Also focusing on wider impacts is the ongoing, ‘Grasshabit’ project (LIFE05 1530* Pannonic salt Unfavorouble-bad (Pan- LIFE02 NAT/H/008634 NAT/H/000117), led by MME-Birdlife steppes and salt nonian and Continental) LIFE04 NAT/HU/000119 marshes LIFE02 NAT/H/008638 Hungary. This Hungarian project is LIFE05 NAT/H/000117 researching the best possible manage- 6240* Sub-Pannonic Unfavorouble-bad (Pan- LIFE04 NAT/AT/000002 ment methods to ensure the ecological steppic grasslands nonian) and unfavourable and economic sustainability of six char- inadequate (Continental) acteristic grassland and steppe habitat 6250* - Pannonic loess Unfavorouble-bad (Pan- LIFE02 NAT/H/008634 types. Information on best practices steppic grasslands nonian and Continental) LIFE04 NAT/HU/000119 will be disseminated to landowners LIFE02 NAT/H/008638 and managers, farmers and the general LIFE05 NAT/H/000117 public to encourage their application on patches of existing habitats, as well as 6260* - Pannonic sand Unfavorouble-bad (Pan- LIFE02 NAT/H/008634 nonian and Continental) in agricultural areas. The project is also steppes LIFE04 NAT/HU/000119 LIFE02 NAT/H/008638 aiming to achieve adequate changes in LIFE05 NAT/H/000117 the national agricultural policy in order 73

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

A widely distributed and once common European mountain grassland habitat type, the

species-rich Nardus grasslands, included in Annex I of the Habitats Directive, occurs in

almost all EU Member States. However, due to the abandonment of traditional agricul-

tural practices, these priority grasslands have lost more than 90% of their original area

in Europe and Member States report a sharp decline across all regions.

Concerted action to halt the decline of Nardus

grasslands GRASSLANDS : NARDUS GRASSLAND

IFE projects have contributed to They are very important for biodiver- ism practices (such as hiking and skiing) Lthe restoration of Nardus grass- sity, as they harbour a wide diversity of are a growing threat. These grasslands lands at a local and regional level, and species included in Annexes II and IV of often require several restoration meas- are encouraging cross-border links to the Habitats Directive, ranging from but- ures – the most frequently employed enhance future conservation prospects. terflies, such as the Alcon blue (Macu- by LIFE being the removal of trees and linea alcon), grasshoppers and crickets shrubs (by machines or by hand) and the Species-rich Nardus grasslands (habitat (Orthoptera), e.g. Pholidoptera trans- reintroduction or management of tradi- 6230*) are most commonly found within sylvanica. The main threats and pres- tional grazing. the Alpine biogeographical region (the sures come from the intensification of Alps, Pyrenees and Carpathians). The agricultural practices on the one hand LIFE actions priority grasslands also occur relatively and land abandonment and low intensity frequently in mountain and sub-mountain use on the other. Nardus grasslands are The Italian project, ‘RETICNET VAL- areas of the Mediterranean, Continental particularly sensitive to human activi- CHIAVENNA’ (LIFE03 NAT/IT/000139), and Atlantic biogeographical regions. ties, and unsustainable mountain tour- covered five Natura 2000 sites in the Rhaetian Alps in northern Lombardy, tackling areas where the grasslands Species-rich Nardus grasslands are dependent on low-intensity grazing. had become overgrown or where the conservation status was threatened by increasing pressure from tourism. The project established a GIS database, which provides much needed information on the location and state of conservation of the grasslands. Using this information, site management plans were then drawn up. Four of the five plans have already been implemented by local authorities, which should help to ensure future sustainable management of the habitat in the region.

Another Italian project targeted the conservation of Nardus and other mountain grasslands found in the “Alpe Veglia-Alpe Devero” national park in the Ossola valley, on the Italian-Swiss border. The main habitat actions of the project, ‘Alpe Veglia and Alpe Devero: Photo: Conny Schmitz 74

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats Photo: Conny Schmitz Several projects removed overgrown scrubs and trees to restore Nardus grasslands. GRASSLANDS : NARDUS GRASSLAND

actions of conservation of mountain Habitat restoration works included the areas of Central Europe is being co- grasslands and peatlands’ (LIFE02 construction of fencing and the use of ordinated by the German nature con- NAT/IT/008574), focused on the re- Konik horses (a hardy breed) to graze servation NGO, “Naturlandstiftung introduction of sustainable manage- sections of the fenced areas. To enable Saar”. The ongoing 2006-10 project, ment of the pastureland, e.g. grazing further management by grazing and ‘Conservation and regeneration of with cattle and horses, supported by mowing, it was necessary to remove Nardus Grasslands in Central Europe’ shrub removal operations in formerly encroaching shrubs. The project suc- (LIFE06 NAT/D/000008), is focusing abandoned areas to help restore the cessfully removed more than 1 000 ha on 32 Natura 2000 sites where the tar- high-altitude meadows. These resulted of overgrowth. An innovative method geted Nardus grasslands occur: north- in an enlargement by more than 90 ha used to promote this action was a day- ern Luxembourg, the Belgian Ardennes of the Nardus grassland. long practical habitat restoration event and two regions of western Germany involving local volunteers and gaining (Saarland and Reinland-Pfalz). The aim A particularly innovative action was widespread public support. The project is to create a network of core-protected the introduction of a new method for also drew up 13 site management plans, sites whereby co-operation between grazing cattle and horses using tem- setting the management goals and project partners in Germany, Belgium porary electric fences over large areas measures for these areas for the next and Luxembourg will ensure connectiv- to improve the restoration prospects of decade. ity across borders. the grasslands. This action was implemented by the Piedmont region park During the project, the emphasis was Conclusions authority, the project beneficiary, with on individual contracts with landowners the support of local farmers. for the habitat restoration works. Look- Despite their continuing unfavour- ing ahead, management activities will be able condition, prospects for achieving The habitat improvements have also continued under the Rural Development ‘favourable’ conservation status for Nar- indirectly benefited one of Europe’s rar- Plan for Latvia. The project assisted more dus grasslands in areas of Europe have est butterfly species: Raetzer’s ringlet than 400 farmers in applying for these been enhanced by LIFE actions at a local (Erebia christi) – found almost exclu- funds for grassland management. and regional level. Moreover, LIFE is also sively in this area. encouraging international co-operation Finally, an ambitious partnership project for the restoration of this important habi- In Latvia, a nationwide programme for to restore the Nardus grasslands across tat across borders. the restoration and long-term management of priority and other important Conservation status at grasslands occurring in floodplain mead- Habitat Biogeographical region level Projects ows was introduced by the ‘Meadows’ (main regions) project (LIFE04 NAT/LV/000198). Run 6230* - Species-rich Assessed as either ‘unfavou- LIFE03 NAT/IT/000139 by a non-governmental organisation, the Nardus grasslands rable-inadequate’ or ‘unfavou- LIFE02 NAT/IT/008574 Latvian nature fund, the project restored rable-bad’ across all countries LIFE06 NAT/D/000008 a total of 2 500 ha of grasslands of Com- except for Greece and Italy LIFE04 NAT/LV/000198 munity importance, including Nardus who reported its status as LIFE03NAT/LV/0082 ‘favourable ‘ in all regions. grasslands, over 15 sites. 75

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

Regeneration and protection of species-rich dry calcareous grasslands

Semi-natural dry grasslands are under threat, especially those associated with vari-

ous orchid species. Many Member States report that the conservation status in their

countries is ‘unfavourable-bad’. LIFE projects, however, are having a positive impact

on the conservation status of these priority grasslands at a local and regional level.

Importantly, they demonstrate new approaches to their conservation with potential for

wider application. GRASSLANDS : SEMI-NATRUAL DRY GRASSLAND Photo: LIFE04 NAT/IE/000125 LIFE04 Photo:

emi-natural dry grasslands are past century, causing severe fragmen- pressure on these rare and endangered Spresent almost everywhere in tation of the remaining habitat areas habitats is steadily increasing, mainly Europe where ‘basic’ to ‘neutral basic’ and a consequent drop in populations due to abandonment or change in soils occur and are among the most spe- of certain species by as much as 20- use. In the areas where the habitat is cies-rich plant communities in Europe, 50% across Europe. still present, a lack of management is hosting a large number of rare and endan- resulting in the continuing decrease in gered species including many orchids. Between 1999 and 2006, LIFE co- range of the many dependent species Where Festuco-Brometalia grasslands financed 26 projects around Europe tar- (see box). (6210*) are orchid-rich, they are consid- geting calcareous grasslands. Several of ered to be a priority for conservation under these projects, located in northern and LIFE habitat actions typically include the Annex I of the Habitats Directive. central Europe, directly target grass- clearance of shrubs and other invasive lands identified as important orchid plants (e.g. using controlled fire), mow- The structural and floristic characteris- sites. As in other grassland areas, ing and balanced grazing, and, impor- tics of these dry and calcareous (chalky) tantly, often rely on good co-operation grasslands are strongly influenced by with farmers and local landowners who, Important orchid sites are defined in accor- climatic factors and management prac- dance with the Interpretation Manual of EU with the support of agri-environmen- tices, in particular the intensity of graz- Habitats. Version EUR27 European Com- tal programmes, are responsible for mission DG Environment (July 2007): http:// ing. Large areas have disappeared due to ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/ the future sustainable management of the lack of suitable management over the habitatsdirective/docs/2007_07_im.pdf these areas. 76

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

would apply for funding under national Many species benefit from DRY LAND HABITAT and international agri-environmental pro- restoration actions grammes for at least five years after the As well as rare and endangered orchids, many other species – herbs such end of the project in 2008.

as trefoil, grazing animals, butterflies, reptiles and birds – benefit from Finally, LIFE Nature projects in Austria habitat improvement and restoration actions. For example, raptors and (LIFE06 NAT/A/000123) and in Germany other birds of prey such as lanner falcon (Falco biarmicus) and Montagu’s (LIFE00 NAT/D/007058 and LIFE02 NAT/ harrier (Circus pygargus) rely on these grassland habitats for an abundant D/008461) have shown considerable suc- food supply during winter. Many passerine (migrating) species including cess in the restoration and conservation of areas of dry and semi-dry grasslands. the ortolan bunting (Emberiza hortulana) and the woodlark (Lullula arbo- The German project targeted the special rea) also use the habitats; while a number of invertebrate fauna – notably xeric grasslands of Rhineland-Palatinate butterflies – are also associated with these grasslands. –- home to up to 25 species of rare and endangered orchids (including Cypripe- dum calcedus, Ophrys insectifea, Orchis A regional project to restore natural cant areas of other grasslands habitats mascula and Himantoglassum hircinum) pastures and hay meadows in Jämtland in Denmark. – under threat from invading shrubs and and Härjedalen, Sweden, (LIFE03 NAT/ human actions. Thanks to the project, 76 S/000070) used a combination of these The project’s habitat conservation works ha of xeric grasslands have been suc- measures to restore various grass- included clearing, mowing and graz- cessfully restored and a long-term man- land habitats, including the orchid-rich ing with hardy breeds of cattle, horses, agement plan put in place to preserve a (6210*) habitat type over 31 Natura 2000 sheep and goats. The project helped to unique natural resource.

GRASSLANDS : SEMI-NATRUALsites. TheDRY GRASSLAND project achieved a good level promote agri-environmental contracts of co-operation with local farmers and, under the Danish Rural Development Conclusions in particular, helped to promote good Programme whereby local farmers have grassland management practices, sup- undertaken to maintain grazing in certain Despite their continuing unfavourable- ported by agri-environment schemes, areas for the next ten years. The project bad condition, prospects for achiev- among the mainly small-scale farming also successfully reintroduced the large ing favourable conservation status for communities. blue butterfly (Maculinea arion) at one priority dry and calcareous grasslands site – this is especially significant as the in areas of northern Europe have been Another very successful large-scale butterfly is considered an indicator spe- enhanced by LIFE actions at a local and Swedish project is the 2000-05 LIFE cies for habitat quality. regional level. Moreover, LIFE has also project to protect important grass- been a driver of stakeholder co-opera- lands over 18 sites within the agricul- In Latvia, a nationwide programme for tion among communities responsible for tural landscape of the island of Öland the restoration and long-term manage- the future sustainable management of (LIFE00 NAT/S/007117). This project ment of priority and other important dry these grasslands. – a continuation of an earlier 1996-99 and calcareous grasslands occurring in project (LIFE96 NAT/S/003185) in the floodplain meadows was introduced by These xeric grasslands are of special bio- same region – successfully cleared and a LIFE project (LIFE04 NAT/LV/000198). geographical importance since they straddle restored to a favourable conservation Run by a non-governmental organisation, the divide between the sub-Mediterranean/ Atlantic and Continental climactic areas. status more than 1 400 ha of calcareous the Latvian Fund for Nature, the ‘Mead- Rhineland-Palatinate represents the northern grasslands, mostly the priority habitat ows’ project restored a total of 2 500 ha limit of propagation for many species that are otherwise more native to the Mediterranean type Nordic Alvar grasslands (6280*) but of grasslands of Community importance area or the Balkans. also the orchid-rich grasslands (6210*). over 15 sites, including about a half of Latvian area of Fennoscandian wooded As in other parts of Europe, Denmark’s meadows (6530), considerable patches dry grasslands are under threat from the of Species-rich Nardus grasslands (6230), combined effects of scrub encroach- Fennoscandian lowland species-rich dry ment, lack of grazing and the invasion to mesic grasslands (6270), semi-natu- of non-native species. The LIFE project ral dry grasslands and scrubland facies (LIFE04 NAT/DK/000020) launched a on calcareous substrates (6210). The national strategy to restore many valu- main actions focused on shrub cutting able Danish grassland sites within the and removal of shrub roots, controlled Natura 2000 network to a favourable burning and early mowing/grazing. To conservation status. The 11 project ensure the continuity of the manage- sites house a quarter of the priority dry ment activities, contracts were signed on grasslands (6210*), as well as signifi- the agreement that landowners involved 77

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

Wooded pastures and meadows have been disappearing in the Fennoscandia and Baltic.

LIFE is contributing to the reversal of the decline of these rich habitats by restoring and

re-establishing management for their long-term conservation.

Safeguarding Fennoscandian wooded pastures and meadows

s late as the 1920s, forest graz- Aing was the predominant form of pasture in Sweden and other Nordic Baltic countries – in Finland, the practice continued up to the 1960s. However, in GRASSLANDS : FENNOSCANDIAN GRASSLAND Sweden and Finland a major shift in the landscape followed the introduction of a law establishing forestry activities as the economic basis of forestland. In Bal- tic countries the decline in forest grazing followed the collapse of the Soviet Union. Cattle were removed from the woodland pastures and meadows and

put to graze in fertilised grasslands and Photo: ROSORIS LIFE05 NAT/S/000108 subsequently enclosures where they LIFE project actions for wooded meadows and grasslands often included mowing or were artificially fed. grazing, reintroduced in partnership with local farmers.

After 1945, the wooded grassland and trees are not pollarded. A similar pas- ing for collecting fallen twigs, mowing meadow habitats (9070 and 6530 in ture habitat, the ‘dehesa’ or ‘montados’ after midsummer followed by grazing the Habitat directive) suffered a drastic (6310), is found in Spain and Portugal, and pollarding of trees (i.e. collecting reduction and almost disappeared, with but consists of evergreen oaks. bundles of young twig for winter fod- just 1% of the original area still remaining der). Most of the wooded meadows are in Sweden and Finland. These habitats The impact of mowing or grazing defines found in southwest Finland especially in are pastures characterised by the more the species composition and richness, the Baltic archipelago. or less scattered presence of decidu- resulting in meadows or grasslands ous trees, such as lime tree, ash and respectively. In Sweden, grazing and Moreover, these habitats are very diverse oak. In addition in Sweden and Finland mowing practices distinguish the two and hold several plant and invertebrate the wooded meadows broadleaf trees habitat types defined in the Annex I of the species such as the Annex II and IV bee- are often pollarded for feeding the cat- Habitats Directive: 6530 wooded mead- tle Osmoderma eremita. tle, creating typical candlestick-shaped ows (mowing) and 9070, wooded grass- trees. lands (grazed). These habitats occur LIFE Actions together in a mosaic and are sometimes Wooded meadows (6530) are a mosaic related to other grasslands/meadows or All projects included actions that can of open meadows and scattered decid- forest habitat types. More than 70% of be divided into two stages: first the res- uous trees and bush. It is a very spe- the 9070 habitat area is in Sweden, with toration of the grassland and meadow, cies-rich habitat type with up to 85 the remaining in Estonia, Finland and followed by recurring habitat manage- vascular plants in 1m2 (wooded mead- Latvia. And the bulk of the habitat 6530 ment activities based on mowing and/ ows are often combined with calcare- area is in Estonia and Sweden. or grazing and in a few cases pollarding ous grasslands and may have very rich was also re-established. For example, orchid flora). Wooded pastures (9070) Typical management practices that are in one Swedish project (LIFE05 NAT/ have fewer open meadow patches and carried out in Finland include spring rak- S/000108), which was carried out on 41 78 GRASSLANDS : FENNOSCANDIAN GRASSLAND in island pastures in southwest Finland. Finland. southwest in pastures island in raking, mowing and grazing was initiated meadows were cleared and typical spring ( projectFinnishconservation.the termIn long- its ensure to sites project the in addition, new oak trees are being planted toration of the former pollarded trees. In to order in enhance the tree’s longevity and the res- experts, of help the with techniques new with also but way tional tradi- the in performed is pollarding The their survival, such as the eremite beetle. florafaunaofandthatneedtrees old for ash, in order to benefit the many species deciduous trees, especially lime trees and S/000108 ( project Östergötland The now fedartificially. is livestock as disappeared almost has pollarding trees.The pollard of branches tender more and leaves with as well as hay mowed stored the with fed is stock the case of wooded meadows, the winter mowed between July and September. In is hay and autumn, to spring from used) sometimes also are horses and sheep Grazing is mostly done by cattle (though ate grazing and mowing after restoration. NAT/S/008484 success of one Swedish project ( continued The species. nitrofilous ing nutrients are released into scrubs the and soil, favour-trees of cutting the lowing fol- as problems some poses meadows and grasslands the of restoration The protected. were habitat, the of conservation long-term the grant and that habitats the oaks characterise old as such species, trees key while eliminated, and were trees spruce other i.e. – scrubs and woods overgrown removing by areas the clearing of consisted stage restoration the Östergötland, in sites 2000 Natura IE0 NAT/FIN/007067 LIFE00 LIFE Focus LIFE wooded pastures 9070 –Fennoscandian wooded meadows 6530* –Fennoscandian Habitats ) is resuming pollarding of old old of pollarding resuming is )

) is dependent on immedi- I

LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats and species of status conservation the improving LIFE LIFE05 NAT/ LIFE05 (Boreal) Unfavourable-bad (Boreal) Unfavourable-bad ), wooded wooded ), osrainSau Relevantprojects Conservation Status LIFE02 status of the wooded grasslands and and grasslands wooded the of status conservation the improving been have projects LIFE scale, small a on Though Conclusions projects areas. the of management grassland for funds for applying with assistance farmers of LIFE projects combined offered hundreds Thehabitats. the maintenanceof the for 2007-13of willthebemain financial tool opment Plan for Latvia for the time period schemes included in the new Rural Devel- agri-environmental Therefore, project. forleastat fiveyears after theendtheof schemes agri-environmental under ing fund- for apply will that landowners the with contracts signed Estonia, and den FIN/007067 ( project, Finnish the and Latvianproject ( the activities, grazing and mowing the of continuitytheensure year.to order In around mowing the hectare, including the first pollarding, and toration is on average around project Swedish ( one to According actions. project the of success the of the beginning the project is for crucial from owners cattle and farmers the of The involvement est habitat. and scrubs for- species-poor in more once decline will habitats the management tinuous con- without but measures, restoration the implementing at successful are very projects The project. the after actions the continuity of the grazing and mowing is challenge the projects LIFE these For carried out. Estonia a clearing was made and mowing In opened. were surroundings their and protected were trees pollarded viously pre- but undertaken not was Pollarding

LIFE05NAT/S/000108 LIFE00 NAT/FIN/007067 LIFE05 NAT/S/000108 LIFE03 NAT/S/000070 LIFE02 NAT/S/008484 LIFE04 NAT/LV/000198 LIFE00 NAT/FIN/007067 LIFE05 NAT/S/000108 LIFE02 NAT/S/008484 ), which also included Swe- included also which ), LIFE04NAT/LV/000198 € € 2 000 per ha per per ha per 000 2 ), the),cost res-of LIFE00 NAT/ LIFE00 € 2 000 per )

Photo: ROSORIS LIFE05 NAT/S/000108 duced pollarding as a restoration action. duced pollardingasarestoration In SwedenLIFEprojectshavereintro- from other sources. other from must be management funded continued but measures restoration for implementing used be can LIFE+ recurring management. promote that projects but management recurring support cially finan- not does programme LIFE+ The programme. this within subsidies agri-environmental for eligible mainly are habitats these mowing and grazing for Costs level. national the at eligible be to order in plans Development Rural related and Plans Strategic National in covered be to have actions These ows. mead- and pastures wooded for evant rel- are that actions recurring the fund to potential the has Development Rural for Fund Agricultural European the and habitats these of management the for practices best of implementation the to support giving the is LIFE ends. after project actions project the of continuity the ensure to is challenge The habitats. unique these of and management restoration the for successful be to proven are and transferable are that have methodologies and projects techniques defined the Moreover, wooded ones. including habitats and meadow grasslands of ha 600 than more ( NAT/S/000262 project recent A meadows. ) proposes to restore restore to proposes ) LIFE08 LIFE08 79

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

Projects Index

AUSTRIA LIFE05 NAT/DK/000151 LIFE02 NAT/D/008461 Action for sustaining the population Restoration and conservation of xeric LIFE00 NAT/A/007055 of Euphydryas aurinia...... p. 30 grasslands in Germany Schütt-Dobratsch...... p. 17 (Rheinland-Pfalz)...... p. 76 LIFE00 NAT/A/007069 ESTONIA LIFE03 NAT/D/000002 Protecting the habitat of myosotis Measures of optimisation of LIFE00 NAT/EE/007081 rehsteineri in Bregenz...... p. 38 petrifying springs with tufa formation Recovery of Mustela lutreola in (Cratoneurion) and their surroundings LIFE02 NAT/A/008519 Estonia: captive and island in the Franconian Alb...... p. 68 Conservation and management of populations...... p. 9, 23 the brown bear in Austria...... p. 17 LIFE04 NAT/DE/000028 LIFE00 NAT/EE/007082 Management of fire-bellied toads in LIFE04 NAT/AT/000001 Restoration and management of the the Baltic region...... p. 25 Lafnitz - habitat cross-linking on an Häädemeeste wetland complex...... p. 63 Alpine pannonical river...... p. 70 LIFE05 NAT/D/000051 LIFE04 NAT/AT/000002 FINLAND Large Herbivores for Maintenance Pannonic Steppes and Dry and Conservation of Coastal Grasslands...... p. 72 LIFE00 NAT/FIN/007060 Heaths...... p. 56 Protection and usage of aapa mires LIFE05 NAT/D/000053 LIFE06 NAT/A/000123 with a rich avifauna...... p. 61 Bisamberg habitat management...... p. 76 Rosenheimer master basin bogs...... p. 63 LIFE00 NAT/FIN/007067 LIFE05 NAT/D/000055 Restoration and management of BELGIUM Protection and cultivation of the meadows in Finland, Sweden and Juniper heaths of the Osteifel...... p. 56 LIFE96 NAT/B/003032 Estonia...... p. 78 LIFE06 NAT/D/000008 Integral Coastal Conservation LIFE02 NAT/FIN/008469 Conservation and regeneration of Initiative...... p. 51 Protection of aapa mire wilderness Nardus Grasslands in Central in Ostrobothnia and Kainuu...... p. 61, 64 LIFE98 NAT/B/005167 Europe...... p. 74 Habitat improvement in the SAC of LIFE03 NAT/FIN/000036 the Brussels-Capital Region...... p. 14 Karelian mires and virgin forests - GREECE LIFE99 NAT/B/006298 pearls in the chain of geohistory p. 61, 63 LIFE93 NAT/GR/010800 Intermediate Atlantic heathlands in LIFE04 NAT/FI/000078 Protection and Management of the the Flanders...... p. 56 Natural Forests and mires in the Population and Habitats of Ursus ‘Green Belt’ of Koillismaa and LIFE02 NAT/B/008591 arctos in Greece (first phase)...... p. 16, 17 FEYDRA: Fossil Estuary of the Yzer Kainuu...... p. 61 LIFE95 NAT/GR/001115 Dunes Restoration Action...... p. 51 LIFE08 NAT/FIN/000596 Recovery of the Loggerhead Sea Restoring the Natura 2000 network LIFE06 NAT/B/000087 Turtle (Caretta caretta) population of Boreal Peatland Ecosystems Zwindunes Ecological Nature nesting on Crete...... p. 26 Optimalisation...... p. 51 Boreal Peatland Life...... p. 61 LIFE95 NAT/GR/001140 BULGARIA FRANCE Conservation and management of sites of community importance in Greece LIFE08 NAT/BG/000279 LIFE92 ENV/F/000066 (directive 92/43/EEC)...... p. 42 A Pilot Network of Small Protected Expansion of the tropical green algae LIFE96 NAT/GR/003222 Caulerpa Taxifolia in the Mediterranean Sites for Plant Species in Bulgaria Conservation of Ursus arctos Sea ...... p. 54 Using the Plant Micro-reserve and its habitats in Greece Model...... p. 39 LIFE95 ENV/F/000782 (2nd phase)...... p. 16, 17 Control of the Caulerpa Taxifolia LIFE97 NAT/GR/004247 CHYPRE extention in the Mediterranean Sea. p. 54 Implementation of management plan LIFE04 NAT/CY/000013 LIFE99 NAT/F/006304 for Pylos Lagoon and Evrotas Conservation management in Conservation of Mediterranean Delta...... p. 26 ...... p. 67 Natura 2000 sites of Cyprus...... p. 54 temporary ponds LIFE98 NAT/GR/005262 LIFE08 NAT/CY/000453 LIFE04 NAT/FR/000080 Application of Management Plan for Establishment of a Plant Micro-reserve Conservation of 3 cave-dwelling bats Caretta caretta in southern Network in Cyprus for the Conservation in Southern France...... p. 12 Kyparissia Bay...... p. 26 of Priority Species and Habitats...... p. 39 LIFE04 NAT/FR/000082 LIFE98 NAT/GR/005264 Headwater streams and faunistic Conservation measures for the Palm DENMARK Heritage associated...... p. 32 Forest of Vai, Greece...... p. 42 LIFE99 NAT/DK/006454 LIFE06 NAT/F/000146 LIFE99 NAT/GR/006498 Consolidation of Bombina bombina Preservation of the coast biodiversity Implementation of Management in Denmark...... p. 25 on the Gâvres-Quiberon site...... p. 51 Plans in Gramos and Rodopi Areas, Greece...... p. 17 LIFE02 NAT/DK/008584 GERMANY Restoration of Dune Habitats along LIFE02 NAT/GR/008491 the Danish West Coast...... p. 51 LIFE99 NAT/D/005940 Conservation management in Strofylia-Kotychi...... p. 53 LIFE02 NAT/DK/008588 Biotope-Network ‘Westlicher Untersee’ Improving status of coastal lagoon (Lake Constance)...... p. 38 LIFE02 NAT/GR/008500 Tryggelev Nor, Denmark - IMAGE..... p. 65 LIFE00 NAT/D/007058 Reduction of mortality of Caretta caretta in the Greek seas...... p. 26 LIFE02 NAT/DK/008589 Regeneration and preservation of Restoration of Lake Fure dry grassland in Germany...... p. 10, 76 LIFE04 NAT/GR/000104 - a nutrient-rich lake near LIFE02 NAT/D/008458 A pilot network of plant micro- Copenhagen...... p. 57 Large freshwater mussels Unionoidea reserves in Western Crete...... p. 39, 42 LIFE04 NAT/DK/000020 in the border area of Bavaria, Saxonia Restoration of Dry Grasslands in and the Czech Republic...... p. 28 Denmark...... p. 76 80

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

LIFE04 NAT/GR/000105 LIFE00 NAT/IT/007131 THE NETHERLANDS Actions for the conservation of Project URSUS - protection of the Mediterranean temporary ponds in brown bear population of LIFE04 NAT/NL/000206 Crete...... p. 66 Brenta...... p. 16, 17 From degraded to active raised bogs pSCI Bargerveen ...... p. 56 LIFE07 NAT/GR/000291 LIFE02 NAT/IT/008533 Demonstration of Conservation Actions Conservation and improvement of LIFE05 NAT/NL/000124 for Ursus artcos - and habitat type habitats inthe SPA of Vendicari...... p. 52 Restoration of dune habitats along the Dutch coast...... p. 51 9530 - in Northern Pindos N.P., LIFE02 NAT/IT/008574 Grevena Prefecture, Greece...... p. 16, 17 Alpe Veglia and Alpe Devero: actions LIFE06 NAT/NL/000078 of conservation of mountain Restoring migration possibilities for HUNGARY grasslands and peatlands...... p. 30, 63, 74 8 Annex II species in the Roer...... p. 35 PROJECTS INDEX

LIFE02 NAT/H/008634 LIFE03 NAT/IT/000109 Restoration of pannonic steppes, Conservation of Alder woods in POLAND marshes of Hortobágy National Park p. 72 Lomellina area’s SIC...... p. 70 LIFE04 NAT/PL/000208 LIFE02 NAT/H/008638 LIFE03 NAT/IT/000113 Conservation of baltic raised bogs in Habitat management of Hortóbagy Conservation of Acipenser naccarii Pomerania, Poland...... p. 63 eco-region for bird protection...... p. 72 in the River Ticino and in the middle LIFE06 NAT/PL/000100 reach of the River Po...... p. 33 LIFE04 NAT/HU/000119 Conservation and upgrading of habitats Grassland restoration and marsh LIFE03 NAT/IT/000137 for rare butterflies of wet, semi-natural protectin in Egyek-Pusztakócs...... p. 72 Austropotamobius pallipes: protection meadows...... p. 30 and management in SAC sites of LIFE05 NAT/H/000117 Central Italy...... p. 32 Habitat management on the Pannonian PORTUGAL LIFE03 NAT/IT/000139 grasslands in Hungary...... p. 72 LIFE06 NAT/P/000192 RETICNET. 5 SCI for the conservation Restoration and Management of of wetlands and main habitats...... p. 73 IRELAND Biodiversity in the Marine Park Site LIFE03 NAT/IT/000147 Arrábida-Espichel...... p. 54 LIFE02 NAT/IRL/008490 Biocenosis restoration in Valvestino Restoring Active Blanket Bog Corno della Marogna 2...... p. 17, 32, 38 in Ireland...... p. 59, 63 SLOVAKIA LIFE03 NAT/IT/000151 LIFE04 NAT/IE/000121 Conservation of Brown bear in the LIFE03 NAT/SK/000097 Restoring raised bogs in Ireland...... p. 62 sites of the Sirente-Velino Regional Conservation and management of LIFE05 NAT/IRL/000182 Park...... p. 17 Danube floodplain forests...... p. 70 Restoring Priority Woodland LIFE03 NAT/IT/000163 Habitats in Ireland...... p. 45, 46, 47 SLOVENIA Reduction of the impact of human activity on Caretta and Tursiops and LIFE02 NAT/SLO/008585 ITALY their conservation in Sicily...... p. 26 Conservation of large Carnivores in LIFE95 NAT/IT/000610 LIFE2003NAT/CP/IT/000003 Slovenia - Phase I (Ursus Arctos).. p. 16, 17 Protection of relic population of Abies Principles for the establishment of an LIFE02 NAT/SLO/008587 alba Miller, Picea excelsa Lam., Taxus alpine brow bear metapopulation..... p. 17 Conservation of endangered habitats/ baccata L. and of their natural habitat LIFE04 NAT/IT/000126 species in the future Karst Park...p. 39, 66 in the Emilian Appenines...... p. 44 Conservation and breeding of Italian LIFE95 NAT/IT/000742 cobice endemic sturgeon...... p. 33, 34 SPAIN NIBBIO:Improvement of the carrying LIFE04 NAT/IT/000144 LIFE93 NAT/E/011100 capacity for birds of biotopes along Improving coexistence of large Creation of a network of flora the main migratory routes of carnivores and agriculture in S. microreserves in the Valencia region Trentino (Italy)...... p. 70 Europe...... p. 16 (first phase)...... p. 39, 67 LIFE96 NAT/IT/003152 LIFE04 NAT/IT/000187 LIFE94 NAT/E/001238 URSUS Project : Brenta brown bear Tartanet, a network for the Programme for the restoration of conservation plan...... p. 16, 17 conservation of sea turtles in Italy.... p. 26 Hierro giant lizard Gallotia simonyi... p. 25 LIFE96 NAT/IT/003169 LIFE04 NAT/IT/000190 LIFE95 NAT/E/000856 Conservation of priority habitats with Conservation actions in NATURA 2000 Second phase of the creation of a Abies alba in Natura 2000 Sites in sites managed by the State Forest network of flora microreserves and central and southern Italy...... p. 44 Service...... p. 44 acquisition of land of botanical LIFE97 NAT/IT/004141 LIFE04 NAT/IT/000191 interest...... p. 39 Conservation of wolf and bear in the Conservation of Apennine beech LIFE96 NAT/E/003081 new parks of Central Apennines...... p. 17 forests with Abies alba SIC Pigelleto - Priority actions to protect bats in LIFE97 NAT/IT/004163 M. Amiata...... p. 44 Castilla y León Communitary interesting Conservation acts for Apennine Abies LIFE06 NAT/IT/000053 zones...... p. 14 alba and Picea excelsa forests and Management of the network of LIFE97 NAT/E/004151 Apennine beech forests with Abies pSCIs and SPAs in the Cilento Project to support the conservation of alba...... p. 44 National Park...... p. 44 Caretta caretta and Tursiops truncatus LIFE98 NAT/IT/005037 LIFE06 NAT/IT/000060 in the Canary Islands...... p. 26 V. Curone - V. S. Croce: protection Conservation and restoration of LIFE97 NAT/E/004190 priority habitats...... p. 68 calcareous fens in Friuli...... p. 38 Reintroduction of el Hierro Giant Lizzard LIFE98 NAT/IT/005114 LIFE07 NAT/IT/000502 in its former natural habitat...... p. 25 Urgent actions for Bear in the SIC of Improving the conditions for large LIFE98 NAT/E/005326 the Sirente-Velino Regional Park...... p. 17 carnivore conservation - a transfer Conservation of the cantabrian Brown LIFE99 NAT/IT/006244 of best practices...... p. 17 bear breeding nucleus...... p. 16 Brown bear (Ursus arctos) LIFE08 NAT/IT/000352 LIFE99 NAT/E/006371 conservation in Central Apennines... p. 17 Conservation and Recovery of Ancares Project: co-ordinate LIFE99 NAT/IT/006260 Austropotamobius pallipes in Italian management of two adjoining sites of Protection of habitats featuring the Natura2000 Sites...... p. 32 community interest...... p. 17 Silver Fir in the SCIs of the central LIFE99 NAT/E/006386 and southern Apennines (phase II)... p. 44 LATVIA Arrangement and management of the LIFE99 NAT/IT/006271 LIFE04 NAT/LV/000198 Baix Ter Coastal lagoons and Urgent conservation measures of Restoration of Latvian floodplains for marshes...... p. 65 Caretta caretta in the Pelagian EU priority species and habitats p. 74, 76, 78 LIFE99 NAT/E/006417 Islands...... p. 26 Conservation of priority habitats in the Valencian Community...... p. 67 81

LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats

LIFE00 NAT/E/007299 LIFE05 NAT/E/000060 LIFE92 NAT/UK/013400 Conservation of european mink Restoration of priority habitats for Conservation of Scottish lowland (Mustela lutreola) in Castilla y Léon. p. 23 amphibians...... p. 67 raised bogs...... p. 62 LIFE00 NAT/E/007303 LIFE05 NAT/E/000073 LIFE94 NAT/UK/000580 Protection of Posidonia grasses in Ecosystemic management of rivers Scotland’s caledonian forest...... p. 45, 46 SCIs of Baleares...... p. 54 with European mink...... p. 23 LIFE94 NAT/UK/000802 LIFE00 NAT/E/007331 LIFE06 NAT/E/000199 Conservation of active blanket bog in Conservation of european mink Program for the recovery of Gallotia Scotland and Northern Ireland...... p. 58 (Mustela lutreola) in La Rioja...... p. 23 bravoana and its distribution area.... p. 25 LIFE95 NAT/UK/000818 LIFE00 NAT/E/007335 LIFE06 NAT/E/000209 A Conservation Strategy for the Sand

Conservation of the European mink Conservation and reintroduction of Dunes of the Sefton Coast, PROJECTS INDEX (Mustela lutreola) in Álava...... p. 23 the Iberian lynx in Andalucia...... p. 22 North West England...... p. 50 LIFE00 NAT/E/007337 LIFE07 NAT/E/000735 LIFE97 NAT/UK/004242 Bats conservation plan in the Corridors for cantabrian brown Bear Securing Natura 2000 objectives Valencian community...... p. 14 conservation...... p. 17 in the New Forest...... p. 56, 69 LIFE00 NAT/E/007339 LIFE97 NAT/UK/004244 Model of restoration of dunes SWEDEN Restoration of Atlantic habitats in ‘L’Albufera de Valencia’... p. 52 LIFE96 NAT/S/003185 Oakwoods...... p. 45, 46, 47 LIFE00 NAT/E/007352 Protection and restoration of parts of LIFE98 NAT/UK/005432 Conserving the Cantabrian brown Stora Alvaret...... p. 76 The Border Mires - Active Blanket Bear and combating poaching...... p. 16 LIFE98 NAT/S/005371 Bog Rehabilitation Project...... p. 58, 64 LIFE00 NAT/E/007355 Preservation of the Arctic Fox, Alopex LIFE00 NAT/UK/007074 Conservation of areas with threatened lagopus, in Sweden and Finland...... p. 18 Woodland Habitat Restoration: species of the flora in the island Core sites for a forest habitat Minorca...... p. 39 LIFE00 NAT/S/007117 Coastal Meadows and Wetlands in network...... p. 45, 46, 47 LIFE02 NAT/E/008604 the Agricultural Landscape of Öland. p. 76 LIFE00 NAT/UK/007075 Conservation of european mink (Mus- Restoring active blanket bog of tela lutreola) in Catalonia (Spain)...... p. 23 LIFE02 NAT/S/008484 Kinnekulle plateau mountain European importance in North LIFE02 NAT/E/008609 - restoration and conservation...... p. 78 Scotland...... p. 58, 59 Population recovery of Iberian Lynx LIFE00 NAT/UK/007078 in Andalusia...... p. 22 LIFE03 NAT/S/000070 Natural pastures and hay meadows in Restoration of Scottish raised bogs p. 63 LIFE02 NAT/E/008614 Jämtland/Härjedalen ...... p. 76 LIFE00 NAT/UK/007079 Recovery plan for the giant lizard of Combatting urban pressures degrading La Gomera...... p. 25 LIFE03 NAT/S/000073 Saving the endangered Fennoscandian European heathlands in Dorset...... p. 56 LIFE2003NAT/CP/E/000002 Alopex lagopus (SEFALO+)...... p. 18 Collaboration actions for the LIFE02 NAT/UK/008544 conservation of Mustela lutreola...... p. 23 LIFE04 NAT/SE/000231 Sustainable Wetland Restoration in Freshwater Pearl Mussel and its the New Forest...... p. 69 LIFE03 NAT/E/000052 habitats in Sweden...... p. 27 Conservation and management of the LIFE03 NAT/UK/000042 SPA for Birds site of Community interest LIFE05 NAT/S/000108 Restoration of the mid Cornwall wetland ‘La Albuera’ in Extremadura p. 67 Natural meadows and pastures of Moors for the Euphydryas aurinia..... p. 30 ™stergötland - restoration and LIFE03 NAT/UK/000044 LIFE03 NAT/E/000057 maintenance...... p. 77, 78 Conservation of endangered Restoration of the Core Ravine arthropods of Extremadura ...... p. 10 LIFE05 NAT/S/000109 Woodlands of England & Wales.. p. 46, 47 From source to sea, retoring river LIFE04 NAT/GB/000245 LIFE03 NAT/E/000064 Moälven...... p. 35 Gestión y puesta en valor de 3 Small Cetaceans in the European hábitats de alta montaña...... p. 49 LIFE08 NAT/S/000262 Atlantic and North Sea...... p. 10 Traditionella fodermarker i mellansverige LIFE04 NAT/GB/000250 LIFE03 NAT/E/000067 (Pastures and meadows in the Conservation of Atlantic salmon in Recuperation of the aquatic middlemost part of Sweden)...... p. 78 environment of Porqueres and the Scotland...... p. 35 LIFE08 NAT/S/000268 lake of Banyoles...... p. 57 LIFE06 NAT/UK/000134 Life to ad(d)mire Restoring drained Restoring active blanket bog in the LIFE04 NAT/ES/000043 and overgrowing wetlands...... p. 61 Conservation of threatened Berwyn and Migneint SACs in Wales p. 59 chiropters of Extremadura...... p. 13, 14 UNITED KINGDOM LIFE08 NAT/UK/000201 LIFE04 NAT/ES/000044 Irfon Special Area of Conservation Recovery of the littoral sand dunes LIFE92 ENV/UK/000065 Project...... p. 28, 32 Distribution and abundance of with Juniper spp in Valencia...... p. 52 LIFE08 NAT/UK/000202 the harbour porpoise and other small LIFE05 NAT/E/000058 MoorLIFE: Active blanket bog cetaceous in the North Sea...... p. 10 Management and conservation of restoration in the South Pennine temporary ponds in Minorca...... p. 66 Moors...... p. 58, 59

Available LIFE Nature publications

LIFE and Europe’s reptiles and amphib- LIFE and endangered plants: Conserving A number of LIFE publications are ians: Conservation in practice (2009 – Europe’s threatened flora available on the LIFE website: 60 pp. - ISBN 978-92-79-12567-6) (2007 – 52 pp. – ISBN 978-92-79-08815-5) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ Nature & Biodiversity: Projects 2007 LIFE and Europe’s wetlands: Restoring a life/publications/lifepublications/ (2009 – 63 pp. - ISBN 978-92-79-12257-6) vital ecosystem index.htm Learning from LIFE: Nature conservation (2007 - 68 pp. – ISBN 978-92-79-07617-6) A number of printed copies of certain best practices LIFE and Europe’s rivers: Protecting and LIFE publications are available and (2008 - 68 pp. – ISBN 978-92-79-11635-3) improving our water resources can be ordered free-of-charge at: (2007 – 52pp. ISBN 978-92-79-05543-0 LIFE and Europe’s grasslands: Restoring http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ – ISSN 1725-5619) a forgotten habitat life/publications/order.htm (2008 - 54 pp. – ISBN 978-92-79-10159-5) LIFE+ “L’Instrument Financier pour l’Environnement” / The financial instrument for the environment

Period covered (LIFE+) 2007-2013.

EU funding available approximately EUR 2,143 million

Type of intervention at least 78% of the budget is for co-financing actions in favour of the environment (LIFE+ projects) in the Member States of the European Union and in certain non-EU countries. LIFE+ projects > LIFE Nature projects improve the conservation status of endangered species and natural habitats. They support the implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives and the Natura 2000 network. > LIFE+ Biodiversity projects improve biodiversity in the EU. They contribute to the implementation of the objectives of the Commission Communication, “Halting the loss of Biodiversity by 2010 – and beyond” (COM (2006) 216 final). he Iron Gates Natural Park is > LIFE+ Environment Policy and Governance projects contribute to the development and demonstration of innovative Tpolicylocated approaches, on the left technologies, bank of the methods and instruments in support of European environmental policy and legislation. Danube,> LIFE+ close Information to Romania’s and borderCommunication with projects are communication and awareness raising campaigns related to the

Serbia.implementation, This protected updating area hosts and species development of European environmental policy and legislation, including the prevention KH-AJ-10-001-EN-C and naturalof forest habitats fires and of traininggreat importance for forest fire agents. at European level and it is considered an Further information further information on LIFE and LIFE+ is available at http://ec.europa.eu/life. Important Bird Area. The most interest- ingHow species to applypresent for in the LI FE+area includefunding The European Commission organises annual calls for proposals. Full details are birdsavailable such as at Egretta http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/funding/lifeplus.htm garzetta, Ardea purpurea and Falco naumanni and two Contact reptiles - vipera ammodytes and Testudo European Commission – Directorate-General for the Environment hermanniLIFE .Unit A total – BU-9 of 196 02/1 different – B-1049 habi- Brussels – Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/life tat types have been described on-site, ofLIFE which Focus 17 /are LIFE endemic improving to thethe area.conservation status of species and habitats: Habitats Directive Article 17 report TheLuxembourg: main threats Office to the for parkOfficial are Publications habitat of the European Union degradation and species decline caused 2010 - 84p - 21 x 29.7 cm ISBN 978-92-79-13572-9 ISSN 1725-5619 doi: 10.2779/18040

colours C/M/Y/K 32/49/79/21

ISSN 1725-5619