LIFE Project Number LIFE12/NAT/SE/001139

FINAL Report Covering the project activities from 01/07/13 to 31/12/2018

Reporting Date 16/05/2019 LifeELMIAS

Project Data Project location Visby Project start date: 01/07/2013 Project end date: 31/12/2018 Total Project duration 66 months (in months) Total budget € 4 251 755 Total eligible budget € 4 251 755 EU contribution: € 2 125 877 (%) of total costs 50 (%) of eligible costs 50

Beneficiary Data Name Beneficiary Skogsstyrelsen/Swedish Forest Agency Contact person Mrs Karin Wågström Postal address Box 1417,621 25 VISBY Visit address Visborgsallén 4 Telephone +46 (0) 498 25 85 23 Fax: - E-mail [email protected] Project Website http://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/Projektwebbar/Life- ELMIAS1/

1. List of contents

1. List of contents ...... 2 2. Executive Summary (maximum 5 pages) ...... 5 3. Introduction (1 page) ...... 8 4. Administrative part (maximum 3 pages) ...... 9 4.1 Description of the management system ...... 9 5. Technical part (maximum 50 pages) ...... 13 5.1. Actions ...... 13 5.1.1 Action A1. Production of restoration plans ...... 13 5.1.2 Action A2. Production of draft revised management plans to combat the impact of DED and ADB ...... 14 5.1.3 Action A3. Survey of the distribution of Ulmus ssp. within and outside of Natura 2000 areas on Gotland ...... 17 5.1.4 Action A4. Survey of the behaviour of Scolytus multistriatus on Gotland ...... 18 5.1.5 Action A5. Identification of dieback-resistant F. excelsior genotypes to create a database of at least 100 presumably dieback-resistant F. excelsior genotypes ...... 19 5.1.6 Action A6. Identify the DED disease agent through sampling DED elms, trapping S. multistriatus, pure culture of DED pathogen, determining the species or sub-species and genotyping the DED-pathogen ...... 21 5.1.7 Action C1. Conservation of Natura 2000 sites habitats including measures to restore structural diversity ...... 22 5.1.8 Action C2. Annual detection of newly DED infected trees, breeding trees and deadwood within and outside Natura 2000 sites on Gotland ...... 24 5.1.9 Action C3. Fell and destroy newly DED infected trees, breeding trees and deadwood within and outside Natura 2000 sites on Gotland ...... 27 5.1.10 Action C4. Killing infected roots by chemical control of stumps and root suckers of Ulmus ssp...... 30 5.1.11 Action C5. Tests with wood decomposing fungi for biological treatment of risk-zone tree stumps ...... 32 5.1.12 Action C6. Tests with vaccination against DED in two selected areas ...... 33 5.1.13 C7 Controlling risks for renewed invasion of DED ...... 34 5.1.14 Action C8. Establishment of 100 ex situ genotypes/seed bank of dieback-resistant F. excelsior in order to replant disease-damaged Natura 2000 sites ...... 36 5.1.15 Action D1. Monitoring the impact of project actions on biodiversity values in Natura 2000 sites ...... 38 5.1.16 Action D2. Monitoring the impact of project actions on the spread of DED ...... 40 5.1.17 Action D4. Assessment of the project impact on ecosystem functions ...... 45 5.1.18 Action F1. Project management and monitoring of project progress by SFA ...... 46 5.1.19 Action F2. Project coordination by CAB ...... 49 5.1.20 Action F3. Project coordination by MG ...... 49 5.1.21 Action F4. Project coordination by SLU ...... 49 5.1.22 Action F5. Project coordination by SEPA ...... 49 5.1.23 Action F6. Audit ...... 50 5.1.24 Action F7. Reducing the carbon foot-print ...... 51 5.1.25 Action F8. After LIFE Conservation Plan ...... 52

2 5.1.26 Objectives ...... 55 5.1.27 Dissemination: overview per activity ...... 56 5.2 Evaluation of Project Implemention ...... 73 5.3 Analysis of long-term benefits ...... 83

3

List of keywords and abbreviations used in this report:

SFA = Swedish Forest Agency, coordinating beneficiary MG = Region of Gotland/Municipality of Gotland SLU = Swedish University of Agricultural Sciences SEPA = Swedish Environmental Protection Agency SPES = Swedish Public Employment Service CAB = County Administrative Board of Gotland GAG = Gotland Action Group against invasive alien species DED = Dutch Elm Disease ADB = Ash Dieback FSF = Federation of Swedish Farmers GIS = Geographic Information System GMC = Gotland Meadow Committee IAS = Invasive Alien Species IncRep = Inception Report, reporting date 31/03/2014 MidRep = Midterm Report ProgRep1 = Progress Report 1, reporting date 17/05/2017 ProgRep2 = Progress Report 2, reporting date 19/04/2018 RDP = Rural Development Programme SLHC = Swedish Local History Committee on Gotland

4 2. Executive Summary (maximum 5 pages)

The LifeELMIAS project objectives were to:

1) Eradicate the invasive alien species (IAS) of Dutch Elm Disease (DED) from Gotland; 2) Ensure favourable conservation status and sustainability of the wooded Annex 1 habitats affected by DED and ADB by implementing complementary management actions to make the habitats more robust trees for the future.; 3) Prepare a contingency plan for if DED eradication fails in the short term. This will provide an insurance policy for the Natura 2000 sites. 4) Implement an information programme to increase the knowledge and understanding of the problems related to Invasive Alien Species and the impact on biodiversity.

Key deliverables and outputs: 1) The eradication or control of DED 2) The distribution of elm mapped, all trees identified as infected with DED felled and destroyed. 3) The ecology of Scolytus multistriatus on Gotland better understood and the DNA provenance of the DED pathogen established. 4) A control programme for the import of time established 5) A database and site seed bank with at least 100 apparently disease resistant ash genotypes established 6) 25 restoration plans produced and 30 ha of Annex I habitat restored, 200 trees veteranized, 400 trees pollarded, 700 trees cleared around and 500 trees protected from grazing animals, 800 trees vaccinated and evaluated. 7) 25 baseline survey descriptions for the Natura 200 sites produced. Monitoring of mortality rates of veteran trees and their replacements as well as the health of the trees subject to the treatments. Monitoring of lichens, Ficedula albicollis and bats at the beginning and the end of the project. 8) Evaluation of the socioeconomic impact of the project as well as the assessment of the project impact on ecosystem functions. 9) 20 notice boards put up, website produced, at least 6 press releases, a leaflet and a layman’s report produced. 500 people taken part in visitor events and training sessions. A workshop with at least 100 delegates and a final conference with at least one hundred delegates.

LifeELMIAS is now finished. The project has been successful in identifying and eradicating infected and risk trees, keeping DED under control, we have developed and improved methods for how to combat DED and have built capacity and knowledge within the work team. The project has also been effective in reaching out with communication to the general public and stakeholders.

Three scenarios were proposed in the application: 1) DED eradicated within the timescale of the project; 2) DED cannot be eradicated from Gotland 3) DED is not eradicated by the end of the project, but the disease has been controlled. It is clear from the reviews and monitoring that Life ELMIAS has achieved scenario 3. In other words, DED is under control, but not eradicated. The project has significantly slowed the progress of the disease and thus has helped conserve the nature conservation values depending on elms.

LifeELMIAS has generated new knowledge that will help improve the efficiency of combatting DED and minimizing damage caused by DED and ADB on the conservation values. Using current scientific research, we now have an understanding of the rate of loss of trees if no eradication programme is implemented (see ProgRep2). We also can conclude that with a continuous control programme against the DED a sustainable scenario is possible (see After Life plan Annex F8) in the sense that the rate of loss of trees means there is likely enough time to replace them with trees with potential for large dimensions. The establishment of the seed bank with resistant ash trees

5 (action C8) could also be a useful restoration measures in the long run. LifeELMIAS, via SLU has contact with a Spanish Life-project working with resistant elm (Ulmus minor) clones, Ulmus minor and U. laevis (LIFE13 BIO/ES/000556) which is another, complementary option where the future of elm could be secured.

The final conference took place in Visby between 30th and 31st August 2018 and brought together the nature conservation and the scientific worlds, with representatives from more than 15 countries. The latest knowledge and lessons learned about DED and ADB were presented. The conference was a cooperation between LifeELMIAS and International Union of Forest Research Organizations, (IUFRO). This co-arrangement with IUFRO meant that there were a large number of conference members from the scientific community and the status of the conference was significantly increased thanks to this joint-arrangement.

The dissemination actions (action E9 and E10, but also C7) have been more successful than predicted in reaching out to people, and there is now a much greater general knowledge about DED and ADB. This will be a help in decreasing DED infections, but also reduce the risk of introducing the DED again.

In general, the project objectives and work plan have been followed and the project was completed on time i.e. 31st December 2018. There were minor changes made to the work plan, which enhanced the ability of the project to reach the project objectives. A lot of work over the last 3 years have been devoted to After Life, for more information see under action F8 and Annex F8.

A formal budget amendment (see Annex F1d) was submitted in 2018 and approved, which involved moving budget between budget posts, in order to ensure the available resources could be used in the most effective way. The following actions had changes to their budgets; A6, C1, C2, C3, C5, C8, D2, E12 and F1.

Problems encountered. There was a problem regarding the contracts of the temporary employed field workers, which has been reported earlier and in the Budget amendment. This had no impact on the project outcomes.

The major challenge for LifeELMIAS has been to secure the resources to combat DED after the end of the LifeELMIAS project. There is a lot of scepticism into the cost-benefit of controlling DED. For example, SEPA contracted an external report to review LifeELMIAS (see Annex F8c Progrep2) as they wanted an independent opinion on the effect of LifeELMIAS. The report concluded that without LifeELMIAS the scenario on Gotland would probably, have been similar to the situation on Öland. On Öland no efforts have been taken to combat DED and consequently about 90 % of the Elms are gone.

It became clear that actions C2, C3 and C4 needed to be prolonged to avoid any gap in the control programme, and these were financed by a budget transfer within the project. The budgets and costs of these actions were challenging to predict both before and during the project, given that it is hard to know how many trees will be impacted by DED and the costs of contractors can vary a great deal.

An Inception report (31/03/2014), one Midterm report (12/11/2015) and two Progress reports, ProgRep1 (17/05/17), ProgRep2 (19/4/2018) have been delivered during the course of the project. The questions and answers from the EU-commission from the various reports and visits have been compiled into a single annex included in this report, which includes answers to the last set of questions (see Annex F1c).

The project management organization can be seen in fig. 1 and there have been no changes to this compared to earlier reports. The project managers and the financial manager met regularly via remote tools such as Skype. In total 29 project management meetings (see Annex F1.c) have been

6 held. In addition, the SFA representative of the steering committee was continuously informed about the current situation.

The members of the steering committee have had 5 meetings in total over the course of the project (Annex F1.c). The reference group, GAG have had 6 meetings including one in the field (Annex E5).

Since 2015, the Project Management has been in contact with SEPA and many other organisations regarding how to secure After Life (see action F8).

Financials The budget has been underspent by less than 4%. All the project’s expenses are found in Statement of Expenditure and in chapter six.

The project has reported 96% of the personnel costs compared with the budget. This is despite there being some variation in the hourly rates for some members of staff, which highlights the difficulty in estimating rates when the person to be engaged in the work may not be known at the point of application.

The costs for external services have been exceeded, 106%, because of the issue related to the union dispute. A number of unforeseen events have had an impact on the project budget, but the most major one involved a dispute with the union regarding the status of temporary workers which affected the 2% rule contribution.

With regard to travel costs, 79% has been used by the project. No travel budget was included for networking visits in the application.

The majority of the equipment planned for in the application was purchased during the project, 64% of estimated budget.

Consumables were 78% of estimated budget. As the contract with the entrepreneur included cost for consumables these were less than originally planned.

Other costs were 137% of estimated budget because of compensation to landowners which was difficult to estimate.

The project partners had various different digital mechanisms for recording their time sheets and paying invoices, but all of these complied with the EU reporting systems. All partners are public bodies and as such were obliged to follow the rules for public procurement.

A budget amendment was sent into the EU regarding a series of actions to allow the project to make use of budget that was still available. Resources were moved from actions with remaining surplus to increase external assistance in action C1, C2, C3, C4, C8 and F1 and to increase personnel costs in actions A6, C5, D2 and E12. The amendment would enable a continued control programme in 2018. The approval of the amendment change came very late and made it difficult to estimate the spending of resources.

In general more has been delivered for the budget agreed than was stated in the application and additional work has been carried out with funds outside of Life such as the control programme of DED in 2017.

7 3. Introduction (1 page)

Background The island of Gotland, with the limestone bedrock, the isolation from the mainland, and the specific weather conditions have given many of the Habitat Directive Annex 1 habitats found here, unique qualities in a European context. Gotland contains at least one third of the pollards in the whole of Sweden and the biodiversity in the wooded landscape is to a large extent tied to the veteran trees; insects and fungi on dead wood and in cavities in the trees, lichens and mosses on the bark, mycorrhiza fungi together with tree roots, herbivore insects on the leaves, birds and bats in hollows in the trees.

Problem The biodiversity associated with broadleaved woodlands, wooded pastures and wooded meadows has long been under serious threat from the intensification of agriculture, abandonment of grazing or conversion to conifer plantations. In the last few years however, the threats from DED in combination with ADB which cannot currently be eradicated pose an even more serious threat.

Overall and specific objectives The project intends for DED to be eradicated from Gotland by the end of the project and thus ensure favourable conservation status and sustainability of the wooded Annex 1 habitats affected by DED and ADB, in total 6774 ha spread all over Gotland, located in 25 Natura 2000 sites. A contingency plan should also be prepared for if DED eradication fails in the short term. Implement an information programme to increase the knowledge and understanding of the problems related to IAS and the impact on biodiversity.

Habitats and species targeted The target is the annex 1 habitats 6530*, 9020*, 9070 and to a lesser extent 9080, 6210, 6280, 9180 and 8210 wherever they occur on Gotland. Also to target the improvement of the conservation status of the following species: birds; Ficedula albicollis (Annex I), Columba oenas (Annex IIb), bats; Barbastella barbastellus (Annex II), the following Annex IV species, Pipistrellus nathusii, Myotis mystacinus, Myotis nattereri, Eptesicus nilssoni, Myotis daubentonii, Myotis brandtii, Nyctalus noctula, Vespertilio murines and Plecotus auritus. Additionally a number of invertebrates, lichens, mosses and fungi (on the Swedish Red Data Book; http://www.artdatabanken.se/naturvaard/roedlistning/) will be directly favoured by the project actions as they are specifically associated with elm and ash.

Main conservation issues being targeted (including threats) The conservation actions are fencing, clearing, pollarding, veteranisation, planting, detection combined with destroying of infected trees, killing infected roots, controlling risks for renewed invasion of DED, establishment of ADB resistant ashes, testing and evaluating vaccination and biological treatment of infected stumps.

Socio-economic context The project has had a positive impact on the local population and economy including the development of skills for employed persons as well as for landowners and conservationists, e.g. additional employees, additional work for entrepreneurs, additional efforts from local people who feel motivated to help fight DED.

Expected longer term results There are three possible outcomes of the project, as listed in the application: 1. The project eradicates Dutch elm disease from Gotland, 2. The project proves that DED cannot be eradicated from Gotland, 3. The project is partly successful, i.e. DED is not eradicated by the end of the project, but the disease has been controlled and can continue to be so with more time and a reasonable amount of money. All three outcomes will need continuation of actions at different levels which have to be managed with

8 voluntary work, grants from internal (national money) and external funds (RDP). Scenario 3 is the outcome established. The project will ensure greater sustainability of 6774 ha of Annex I habitats targeted, bat species, Ficedula albicollis and specific lichens. 4. Administrative part (maximum 3 pages)

4.1 Description of the management system

The organisation of the project management is described in fig. 1. The project managers and the financial managers met regularly via online meeting systems (see annex F1.c) and reported to the SFA representative of the steering committee.

The members of the steering committee met five times. Some were information meetings and any problems where their input was required was discussed. The reference group, GAG, (see annex E5) met six times over the course of the project, sometimes in the field and sometimes with specific speakers. SLU participated on at least one occasion. The meetings were arranged by MG and at the meetings SFA as well as CAB were represented (see annex E5). Two organized partner meetings took place (see annex F1.c). In addition, a number of informal meetings between SFA and CAB, SLU and SEPA have been held, in connection to GAG- meetings, monitor meetings and as and when required in relation to for example actions C1 and D1 and D3. The meetings were held as Skype-meetings, field meetings and other physical meetings.

Figure 1. Organogramme of LifeELMIAS. The project owner is SFA. The project management team is divided between two project managers (one operational and one administrative), one financial manager and one information officer. A steering committee is represented by heads from partner organisations. GAG has functioned as an informal reference group. The partners are represented in project meetings by the project coordinators (contact persons).

The Gantt chart (fig. 2) gives an overview of activities and in which phase they were initiated and completed.

9

− Description of changes due to amendments to the Grant Agreement. The project was completed on time and there was no need for any extensions to the project. The overall objectives were achieved and there was no change to the content of the technical activities. The amendment was thus required primarily due to an increase in the external assistance cost category which exceeded 10% and the €30,000 threshold according to annex F1d. − − Partnership agreements − Agreements were signed and submitted to the Commission in the IncRep. − Beneficiary MG, signed on the 14th of March 2014 and an updated version was submitted with the MidTerm report 19th November 2015 (due to pages missing in the IncRep Annex). − Beneficiary SLU, signed on the 11th of March 2014 − Beneficiary SEPA signed on the 20th of March 2014 − Beneficiary CAB signed on the 12th of March 2014

10 Gantt Chart Life 12 NAT/SE/001139 Additonal/ Proposed Actual M ilestones Deliverables Planned 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 3T 4t 1T 2T 3T 4T 1T 2T 3T 4T 1T 2T 3T 4T 1T 2T 3T 4T 1T 2T 3T 4T 1T Increp M idtrep Progrep Progrep Finalrep PR A.1 AC PR A.2 AC PR A.3 AC PR A.4 AC PR A.5 AC PR A.6 AC PR C.1 AC PR C.2 AC PR C.3 AC PR C.4 AC PR C.5 AC PR C.6 AC PR C.7 AC PR C.8 AC PR D.1 AC PR D.2 AC PR D.3 AC PR D.4 AC PR E.1 AC PR E.2 AC PR E.3 AC PR E.4 AC PR E.5 AC PR E.6 AC PR E.7 AC PR E.8 AC PR E.9 AC PR E.10 AC PR E.11 AC PR E.12 AC PR F.1 AC PR F.2 AC PR F.3 AC PR F.4 AC PR F.5 AC PR F.6 AC PR F.7 AC PR F.8 AC

Figure 2. Gantt chart showing time table of the project activities from start, 1st of July 2013 until end, 31st of December 2018.

11

4.2 Evaluation of the management system − The project management process − The management process has worked quite well via telephone, skype and physical meetings. Notes have been taken for each meeting. It worked well having two people sharing the project management.

− Problems encountered None encountered in relation to project management.

− The partnerships and their added value − The partnership has worked very well. There has been a good atmosphere, and everyone has had respect for the partners differing competences. Everybody has been doing there best in completing the actions as well as sending in economic reports. There have been no significant deviations from the arrangements contained in the partnership agreements in the project.

− Communication with the Commission and Monitoring team. − There have been six monitor visits (4th Dec 2013, 13-14th Oct 2014, 6-7th Oct 2015, 11- 12th Oct 2016, 2-3rd Oct 2017 and 3-4th Oct 2018). On the visit on the 2-3rd October 2017, the monitor was accompanied by a technical and financial officer from the Commission (Elisabetta Scialanca and Tommy Sejersen). The communication has worked well with the Commission and has been helpful in the progress of the project.

12 5. Technical part (maximum 50 pages)

5.1. Actions

5.1.1 Action A1. Production of restoration plans The action is fulfilled and was completed on time and was reported in the Midterm report (deliverables and milestones). This action involved visiting all N2000 sites to carry out field work to produce restoration plans identifying the concrete conservation actions to be implemented in C1. This was combined with Action D1. The management measures proposed were agreed with colleagues from CAB and SFA. Where relevant information was sent out to landowners and other key stakeholders. Link to all the plans https://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/globalassets/projektwebbplatser/life- elmias/rapporter/restaureringsplaner-for-natura-2000-omraden.pdf

This action was underspent and the remaining resources were transferred, mostly personnel costs, to action D1.

Action start date 01/07/2013 Action end date 31/12/2014 Deliverable 31/12/2014 25 restoration plans Milestone 31/12/2014 Restoration plan complete

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT? The fact that this action could be combined with D1 meant that cost savings and travelling costs could be reduced. The direct contact with landowners was also a positive part of this action.

13 5.1.2 Action A2. Production of draft revised management plans to combat the impact of DED and ADB The project had a target of revising 25 conservation plans and 14 (16 in the original application, see modification below) management plans to combat the impact of DED and ADB. Hässleänget and Gildarshagen were included in the Natura 2000 site Bästeträsk in 2015, which means there are however only 23 Natura 2000 sites left.

All of the Natura 2000 conservation plans except Bästeträsk (including Hässlegänget and Gildershagen) were finalised and approved by the end of the project 2018-12-31. See annex A2. The Natura 2000 site Bästeräsk is now a much larger Natura 2000-area, approved by the Commission on 12th of December 2017, where the Swedish State has started a process to create a National Park. As reported in ProgrRep 2, a preliminary study started in 2016 and the process continued in 2018 and will continue after the end of the project in 2019. This meant that the conservation plan could not be finalised by the end of 2018 because it was to be included in the plan for the possible formation of the National Park. The plan for a National Park in this area (Bästeträsk, Hässelgänget and Gildershagen) was not known when LifeELMIAS started, and the process around this had not begun at that time. In a letter from the Commission 18th September 2018, the Commission accepted that a conservation plan for Hässleänget, Gildarshagen and Bästeträsk could not be approved before project ends because of the ongoing process for the National park. A lack of an updated conservation plan does not prevent actions for maintaining and restoring a favorable conservation status for habitats and species in a Natura 2000 site.

All of the management plans were finally approved before the project ended 2018-12-31, see annex A2. The drafts were complete as per the action timetable. There were 16 areas in need of having a modified management plan to be able to fight DED and ADB. Two of these areas are located within other nature reserves and are therefore included in the management plans for those, which led to a total of 14 management plans that needed to be updated rather than 16. The area Hässleänget is included in the nature reserve Bästeträsk and the area Blautmyrskogen is included in the nature reserve Hall-Hangvar.

The Natura 2000 area of Fide prästänge was included in the new nature reserve Fide lövskog that was created on 2014-11-21. The management plan for Fide lövskog already included the possibility for actions to be taken to deal with invasive species, like DED and ADB. This meant that CAB assessed that no new management plan was needed to be able to fight these diseases in the future. The remaining 13 management plans were approved on the 17th September 2018 and became valid 12th October 2018. A milestone (deadline 01/02/2014) was reported in the IncRep. All 22 approved conservation plans, and updated management plans are available here: http://skyddadnatur.naturvardsverket.se/

The announcement of the approved Natura 2000 conservation plans in Gotland media is linked below. They were approved 2018-12-20. Four of the approved conservation plans are Balutmyskogen SE0340108, Hall-Hangvar SE0340090, Hejnum Kallgate SE0340147 and Stora Karlsö SE0340023. https://www.lansstyrelsen.se/gotland/om-lansstyrelsen- gotland/nyheter-och-press/nyheter---gotland/2018-12-20-nya-bevarandeplaner.html

14 Table 1. Overview of 25 Natura 2000 sites and 14 nature reserves in LifeELMIAS. The table shows that all management plans are updated, and all conservation plans (except Bästeträsk, including former sites Hässleänget and Gildarshagen) are approved by 2018-12-31. nr Natura 2000 sites³ Approved Natura 2000 Nature updated Notes Natura 2000 conservation Reserves Manage- conservation plans approved ⁴ ment plans until since progress plans progress report 2, in nature report 2, 2018- at date 2018-12- reserves⁵ 02-28 31 1 Allekvia löväng -SE0340059 x x x 2 Alvena lindaräng- x x x SE0340060 3 Anga prästänge-SE0340128 x 4 Blautmyrskogen- - approved x (x)6 6Blautmyrskoge n is included in SE0340108 2018-12-20 nature reserve Hall-Hangvar 5 Brunnsrar- SE0340150 x 6 Bästeträsk-SE03401201 will not be x x7 ¹Natura 2000 approved because site Bästeträsk of the ongoing include former process for a natura 2000 national park sites Hässleänget and Gildarshagen 7 Dagghagen-SE0340140 x x x 8 Fide prästänge- SE0340129 x x x 9 Gildarshagen-SE03401451 will not be x x approved because of the ongoing process for a national park 10 Hall-Hangvar-SE0340090 - approved x x6 2018-12-20 11 Hejnum högård-SE0340130 x 12 Hejnum kallgate-SE0340147 - approved 2018-12-20 13 Hässleänget-SE03401321 will not be x (x)7 7Hässleänget is approved included in nature reserve because of the Bästeträsk ongoing process for a national park 14 Hörsne prästäng-SE0340058 x x x 15 Klosteränget-SE0340172 x x x 16 Käldänget-SE0340027 x x x 17 Liste-Hammars-SE0340156 x

15 18 Myrungs-SE0340180 x 19 Mästerbyänget-SE0340134 x 20 Oggesänget-SE0340183 x 21 Pankar-SE0340135 x x x 22 Salmbärshagen-SE0340136 x x x 23 Stora Karlsö-SE0340023 - approved x x 2018-12-20 24 Östergarns prästänge- x SE0340138 25 Östergarnsberget- x x x SE0340115 sum 25³ 18 4 14 14

³ There are only 23 Natura 2000 sites, since Hässleänget and Gildarshagen were included in the Natura 2000 site Bästeträsk in 2015. They are still in this list however, to make it comparable to the application. There were 22 conservation plans completed. ⁴ 14 nature reserves in 16 Natura 2000 sites. ⁵ Most of the plans were approved on the 18-09-17, except Fide Prästänge, which was approved on 2014-11- 21.

Action start date 01/07/2013 Action end date 31/03/2015 Deliverable N/A Milestone 01/02/2014 Draft of one plan ready

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT? Changes regarding boundaries of existing Natura 2000 sites which occurred once the project was underway combined with the issue in relation to the development of a new National Park made both reporting and implementing the plans more challenging for a few sites. This did not however impact on the implementation of management actions in the Life ELMIAS project and the amount of work that was achieved. There are always challenges like this when a project is ongoing for several years.

16 5.1.3 Action A3. Survey of the distribution of Ulmus ssp. within and outside of Natura 2000 areas on Gotland The survey of distribution of elm, financed by the project was carried out by SFA during the growing seasons of 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016, and this action was completed in December 2016 as per the timetable. The data has been digitised as layers on GIS maps. In IncRep an example of the inventory from 2013 was reported as a deliverable which was the “map with distribution of elm on Gotland” 30/12/2016. This action was coordinated with action C2 to save resources and there were some resources left which were transferred to action C3.

It is considered that the majority of the locations with elm have been found on Gotland, however if the control of DED is to continue (see After Life) it may be important to continue with this work, in particular in relation to C2.

Action start date 01/07/2013 Action end date 31/12/2016 Deliverable 30/12/2016 Map with distribution of elm on Gotland Milestone N/A

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT? Establishing both the location and distribution of elm as well as elm trees affected by DED is very time consuming, but also crucial for the success of the eradication programme. It would be much more efficient and effective if it were possible to identify elm and DED trees with a remote sensing technique. This has been discussed at various meetings and is presented in more detail in the After Life plan (see Annex F8).

17 5.1.4 Action A4. Survey of the behaviour of Scolytus multistriatus on Gotland This action was completed in 2016. Traps to catch Scolytus multistriatus were put out and emptied over four growing seasons by SFA in 2013, 2014, 2015 and 2016. The results from these years were reported in the Progress Report 1 (deliverable), see also Annex A4 in the ProgRep2. The traps were set out in June and left until August in order to accurately identify the flight periods of the elm bark beetle (Scolytus multistriatus), 10 pheromone traps were placed at Horgrän and 10 at Vallstena. The traps at each site were placed in 2 km-long transects extending from elm rich areas to elm poor areas, also over different landscapes including open areas, conifer forest, woodland edge. The distance between individual traps was ca. 200 m. During the weeks 24-35, traps were checked and emptied once a week. The results from 2013, 2014 and 2015 have been reported in IncRep and MidRep and are summarised below.

To save resources, action A4 was implemented in coordination with A6 (SLU) and partially with D2 (SLU).

Table 2 – number of individuals of Scolytus multistriatus caught over the project period v24 v25 v26 v27 v28 v29 v30 v31 v32 v33 v34 v35 Total 2013 2 0 9 0 17 4 0 6 0 1 0 0 39 2014 10 0 1 0 21 2 19 4 6 0 0 1 64 2015 4 0 0 7 7 1 9 5 4 15 3 0 55 2016 6 1 4 0 12 2 8 0 4 1 3 0 41 TOTALS 22 1 14 7 57 9 36 15 14 17 6 1 199

Action start date 01/07/2013 Action end date 31/12/2016 Deliverable 30/12/2016 Report on the behaviour of Scolytus multistriatus on Gotland Milestone N/A

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT? It worked well to combine this work with the other actions involving studying Scolytus multistriatus. In particular because this meant that we were able to continue trapping the beetle over the course of the project, which ensured useful monitoring data. This action has also allowed us to develop our understanding of the ecology of the beetle and its peak flying periods. We were also able to identify the natural variation, which is important to take account of, because the work was done over several years.

18 5.1.5 Action A5. Identification of dieback-resistant F. excelsior genotypes to create a database of at least 100 presumably dieback-resistant F. excelsior genotypes This action involved searching for dieback-resistant ash trees and was carried out during July-October 2013 and was implemented in coordination with action A1 as well as landowners. Particular attention was given to the healthy-looking trees (no dieback symptoms) situated close to the trees with severe dieback symptom, or trees that had already died. Following evaluation, 135 healthy-looking ash trees were selected and mapped in different parts of Gotland.

The action was finalized in December 2016 in terms of selection of resistant ash trees, but to be able to produce a scientific manuscript (action E12), the monitoring and molecular work continued in 2017 with resources from other actions (see answers to questions in the letter from the Commission in Dec 2017 in Annex F1.f). The location of the trees was recorded and presented in the Midterm report, as a list and map (agreed deliverables).

The monitoring of the health status of F. excelsior in 2016 & 2017 i.e. 3 or 4 years after the trees were mapped, showed that 134 (99.3%) trees were healthy-looking (0-10% crown damage) and a single (0.7%) tree had 10-20% crown damage. The presence of dead tops, wilting foliage or cankers was not observed on any of the mapped trees. The results demonstrated that search, assessment and mapping of healthy-looking F. excelsior takes a lot of time and effort but is an appropriate approach for the selection of ash dieback-tolerant individuals of local origin. This is supported by the monitoring data as after several years since mapped F. excelsior trees showed lack of disease development. The latter suggests that such trees that show persistent and durable tolerance to ash dieback can be suitable material for further propagation and breeding for disease resistance.

The molecular data showed mixed results. Although the majority of the mapped F. excelsior showed the presence of target complementary single nucleotide polymorphism (cSNP) for disease tolerance, in 15.0% of trees investigated it was missing. Control trees with severe ash dieback symptoms included genotypes with and without target cSNP for disease tolerance (37.5% and 62.5%, respectively), thereby showing a conflict between phenotype and genotype data. The latter suggests that the genetic marker currently available possesses limited capacity to discriminate reliably among tolerant and susceptible individuals of F. excelsior. This demonstrates that selection of disease-tolerant trees should be based on the phenotype data until more reliable genetic markers become available. A scientific manuscript (E12) is prepared and is on the website here.

The ash database and plantation will be managed by SLU after the end of the project.

19

Figure 3. Map of Gotland showing principal localities of selected dieback-resistant ash (Fraxinus excelsior) genotypes. In total 135 F. excelsior genotypes were selected.

Action start date 01/07/2013 Action end date 31/12/2016 Deliverable 15/12/2016 List and maps Milestone 30/09/2016 50 resistant F. excelsior identified

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT? Mapping of ash trees, monitoring their health-status, sampling of materials for molecular work and molecular genotyping went well and generated important results. The generated database with ash dieback-tolerant individuals on Gotland can now be used in breeding programs as well as for education and field demonstrations. During the Life Elmias conference (E11), the selected trees were used for demonstrations and discussions on ash future in the field. A challenge when financing may not always be forthcoming is the maintenance, monitoring and management of the tissue and seed materials, however it will be the responsibility of SLU (see After-Life plan Annex F8).

20 5.1.6 Action A6. Identify the DED disease agent through sampling DED elms, trapping S. multistriatus, pure culture of DED pathogen, determining the species or sub-species and genotyping the DED-pathogen This action is complete; all material has been collected and the DNA analyses are complete. SLU completed the field work according to the milestone deadline and reported in the IncRep. The sampling from 2016 resulted in the isolation of a further 26 DED-pathogen pure cultures, which have been used to study the development and population dynamics of DED pathogens in Gotland. The results showed the presence of two distinct species Ophiostoma ulmi and O. novo-ulmi in Gotland (see also action D2).

Two-hundred-thirty-two isolates of Ophiostoma ulmi and Ophiostoma novo-ulmi originating primarily from the island of Gotland and from mainland Sweden, Latvia, Lithuania, Ukraine and Russia were compared using genealogical concordance of six genetic markers. Results showed that for each Ophiostoma species the lowest genetic distance was among isolates from Gotland. The latter demonstrated that introduction of Ophiostoma species to the island of Gotland occurred on a very few occasions and that it came from mainland Sweden.

An unforeseen visit to Latvia and Russia involved the collection of relevant fungal materials in the Baltic Sea area in order to establish the origin of Dutch elm disease pathogens in Gotland. During the visits, a number of cultures of Dutch elm disease pathogens were collected and included in genetic analyses. Without inclusion of fungal cultures from other neighbouring areas such comparisons would be incomplete. Thus, these collections of fungi significantly contributed to the aims and objectives of the Life project, thereby enhancing overall knowledge on the origin of pathogenic Ophiostoma fungi in Gotland. Financial consequences were minimal as were used to cover travelling expenses only (see also Annex F1c).

One scientific article has been published (Scolytus multistriatus associated with Dutch elm disease on the island of Gotland: phenology and communities of vectored fungi, www.skogsstyrelsen.se/lifeelmias). Another manuscript has been completed (Genetic population structure for the DED pathogen on the island of Gotland), see also action E12.

A short summary of this action; a) In 2016, 26 diseased elm trees were sampled in different parts of Gotland b) In 2016, 41 elm bark beetles were trapped c) In 2016, 26 pure cultures of the DED pathogen were isolated

There was a mistake in the original application; in the description and in the milestone of the action. However in the budget, the plan for the field work was correct and thus this action continued until March 2016. To save resources, this action was coordinated partly with A4 and D2. There was an increase in personnel costs (see budget amendment annex F1d).

Action start date 01/07/2013 Action end date 31/03/2016 Deliverable N/A Milestone 31/3/2016 Field work completed

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT? The fact that there were two publications produced from this work was very positive and not just manuscripts, which raised awareness of the project within the scientific community. Collection of infected elm wood, fungal culturing and DNA work went well, and generated a large amount of fungal cultures and DNA data. Isolated fungal cultures were deposited in the culture collection of the Dept. Forest Mycology and Plant Pathology, SLU, and can be used for future work. Molecular work on this

21 large quantity of fungal material was challenging as we tested several different methods of molecular fingerprinting in order to study genetic population structure.

5.1.7 Action C1. Conservation of Natura 2000 sites habitats including measures to restore structural diversity The conservation activities according to the restoration plans in action A1 have been accomplished in thirteen Natura 2000 sites; Käldänge, Brunnsrar, Fide prästänge, Klosteränge, Pankar, Myrungs, Alvena lindaräng, Dagghagen, Allekvia löväng, Hejnum högård, Hörsne prästäng, Salmbärshagen, Hässleänget and according to the application. A milestone and a deliverable have been reported in MidRep. CAB has been responsible for the planning and organization of the activities. All activities described in the application have been implemented. CAB executed some of the activities because CAB obtained extra external resources. Therefore, SFA did not have to undertake some of the sub actions under C1 and could therefore use the resources for the unexpected large costs in C3. This was reported in ProgRep1.

Table 3 is a summary of the conservation activities which have been carried out in all thirteen Natura 2000 sites during the project, sorted by each activity and Natura 2000 site. This action was finalised and all work completed in December 2017, which was reported in ProgRep 2. Detailed information regarding the activities that have been carried i.e. what, where, when and how much is the report in Annex C1.

There were some changes made to this action as a consequence of the restoration plans, which were presented in the Midterm report and involved clearing around 200 trees instead of planting 2500 seedlings. There were already plenty of seedlings, so the best option here was to fence these in and protect them from predation rather than planting new seedlings. The money that was meant thus for planting (18 days) was thus used for clearing around trees (approved in the letter from Commission 21 Dec 2015, table detailing changes Annex 6.2.c1a in MidTerm). There was also a budget amendment for this action with an increase in the external assistance costs, transferred from personnel costs and this was approved.

Action start date 01/04/2014 Action end date 31/12/2017 Deliverable 01/02/2015 Summary of conservation actions after two seasons Milestone 30/11/2014 Conservation actions completed in one Natura 2000 area

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT? Veteranisation was in many respects carried out on trees that were too small, but this was at least partly due to the trees that were available. With regard to the fencing in of young seedlings, this was variable in terms of success, not least because it is difficult to evaluate over such a short period of time during the course of the project. In addition, some of the seedlings did not survive due to natural causes, thus there were sometimes too few seedlings in the enclosures. On the other hand, the expectation is that more will also come up in the future due to protection from grazing. See also D1. It is often difficult to predict exactly what restoration work is required in advance of actually doing the restoration plans. There is therefore a need for some flexibility in the implementation and budget. The objectives however remained the same.

22

Table 3. Planned and implemented activities in Natura 2000 sites, connected to LifeELMIAS Clearing Fencing Restoration of around Veteranising young annex 1 Pollarding replacement trees trees habitat trees Activities 500 according to plan: plants 700 trees 30 ha 400 trees 200 trees Activities carried out by end of 565 project plants 700 trees 30,4 ha 400 trees 200 trees

Activities carried out

Remaining actions number number of Natura 2000 sites number of number of number of Notes 2018-12-31 of trees been hectares pollard veteranized Fenced cleared restored trees trees plants around Käldänget 0 60 3 Lobaria amplissima transplanted onto 5 Brunsrar 0 living ashes Fide prästänge 0 105 Klosteränget 0 15 4 75 Mästerbyänget 0 Pankar 0 80 80 Oggesänget 0 Myrungs 0 15 Anga prästänge 0 Östergarns prästänge 0 Östergarnsberget 0 Stora Karlsö 0 Alvena lindaräng 0 500 5 400 Dagghagen 0 80 60 7,4 Allekvia löväng 0 60 80 3 Hejnum högård 0 60 Hörsne prästäng 0 60 Salmbärshagen 0 60 25 7 30 Gildarshagen 0 Liste 0 part of N2000 Hässleänget 0 20 1 Bästeträsk Bästeträsk 0 part of N2000 Hall- Blautmyrskogen 0 Hangvar Hall-Hangvar 0 Hejnum kallgate 0 Summary 565 700 30,4 400 200

23 5.1.8 Action C2. Annual detection of newly DED infected trees, breeding trees and deadwood within and outside Natura 2000 sites on Gotland Action C2, as financed in Life ELMIAS, was completed in December 2018 (excluding 2017 when the work was financed outside of LIFE). The aim of this action was to locate all newly DED infected trees. The intense period of the DED survey started at the beginning of July each year and the inventory lasted at least 8 weeks. The survey continued at a less intense level during the autumn until the leaves have turned yellow. Risk trees were also surveyed, and these are elms growing close to infected trees and which will probably be infected by DED within short time through root contact. Dead trees are included in the category DED trees.

Between 2013-2016; four seasons, a total of around 13 630 trees infected by DED trees plus 3 764 risk trees were registered (milestone, first season inventory of diseased trees finished, reported in IncRep; deliverable, summary of identification of diseased trees 2013, reported in IncRep). The table also presents the numbers of DED and risk trees in 2017 (outside of the project) and 2018 (financed by the project). In total throughout the project (including 2017 and 2018), 18885 trees were infected by DED. Excluding 2017 the total number was 15912. The approximate number of thin stems² smaller than 10 cm are included in table 4. These small trees are time consuming to clear but none the less important to remove as they can be a source of the disease to be transmitted via the beetle (see Prog Rep 1). The data was registered with the help of GIS-tools at SFA.

Table 4. Summary from DED inventory, six seasons, 2013-2018. The DED inventory 1 July- 31 December 2017 was financed outside LifeELMIAS by SEPA and SFA. Summary of results of DED inventory, carried out between 2013-2016, four seasons, according to the application Total Summary of reporting Approximately surveyed properties DED Summary number of trees where DED infected Risk DED and Thin stems was found Inventory period trees trees¹ risk trees < 10 cm  each year Milestone Deliverable IncRep 5 131 1 July 2013–31 December 2013 3 385 1 046 4 431 700 403 MidtRep 10 310 1 July 2014–31 December 2014 3 206 404 3 610 6 700 371 MidtRep 15 869 1 July 2015–31 December 2015 3 991 1 378 5 369 10 500 442 ProgRep 1 10 384 1 July 2016–31 December 2016 3 048 936 3 984 6 400 350

41 694 Summary 2013-2014-2015-2016 13 630 3 764 17 394 24 300 Results of inventory measured outside LifeELMIAS project, financed by SEPA and SFA 10 462 ProgRep 2 1 July 2017-31 December 2017² 2 973 1 780 4 753 5709 288 Summary of results of DED inventory, carried out since progress report 2 Results of DED inventory financed inside LifeELMIAS, due to the fact that the Commission approved the Formal Request for budget Amendment in December 2018 Final Rep 1 July 2018-31 December 2018³ 2 282 940 3 222 3 085 6 307 280 15 912 4 704 20 616 30 009 48 001 Summary 2013-2014-2015-2016-2018⁴ 18 885 6 484 25 369 33 094 58 463 Summary 2013–2014-2015-2016-2017-2018⁵

¹ Risk trees = contagion through the roots ² Inventory measured outside LifeELMIAS, financed by SEPA and SFA ³ Recorded as a part of the LifeELMIAS, because the Commission approved the Formal Request for budget Amendment in December 2018 ⁴ summary inventory, as a part of LifeELMIAS ⁵ Summary inventory, all years, (year 2017 financed by SFA and SEPA and the years 2013, 2014, 2015, 2016, 2018 financed as a part of LifeELMIAS

24

The landowners on whose land infected trees were found, were informed about the findings as soon as possible after the inventory, before the destruction of trees began. They have received maps with locations of infected trees or a postcard informing them.

A deliverable with maps, lists, tables and pictures for the four seasons, 2013-2016, was reported in annex C2 in progress report 2. This annex has been updated to include 2017 and 2018 attached to this report (annex C2). LifeELMIAS project management has raised the issue with experts from SFA, if it is possible to identify the presence of DED-trees and Ulmus ssp via remote sensing. An application has been sent in by SLU in January 2019 regarding the development of this kind of technology to a Swedish fund.

The outcome of this action has highlighted that DED probably cannot be eradicated, but that the project has been partly successful in that DED appears to be under control. The number of trees infected is declining each year (figure 4) and there is also a declining trend in the area over which the sick trees are found and numbers of properties with infected trees (figure 5).

Figure 4. The number of DED trees found over the the project period 2013-2018. Year 2017 was not financed by LifeELMIAS. Figure from report D4/annex D4, Vikki Bengtsson.

Modifications: Resources left from completed actions were used to continue C2 until end of 2018 in cost categories external and personnel. A Formal Request for budget Amendment was sent in during May 2018 and was approved. Binoculars were also purchased to speed up the surveying and ensure that trees could be looked at from a distance (agreed in letter 21st Dec 2015).

The project management has devoted a lot of effort to securing the future detection and destruction of annual DED infected trees (C2 and C3), see F8. The work in 2017 was financed outside the project budget, by SEPA and SFA.

25

Figure 5. Development of found DED-trees on different properties during the project period 2013-2018. Year 2017 was not financed by LifeELMIAS.

Action start date 01/07/2013 Action end date 31/12/2018 Deliverable 01/03/2014 Summary of identification of diseased trees after first season Deliverable 30/04/2018 Maps with list and tables Milestone 01/11/2013 First season inventory of diseases trees finished

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT? The biggest challenge was to find all trees that are affected by DED, due to the fact that this has been reliant on human survey. Over time, experience has increased which has made the work easier. It would however be more reliable if the survey could be done using remote sensing techniques, which would provide more certainty that all sick trees are identified. These techniques were not available at the start of the project but are currently being investigated. We used an app (ArcCollector) to make data collection easier and this improved efficiency and helped reduced costs.

26 5.1.9 Action C3. Fell and destroy newly DED infected trees, breeding trees and deadwood within and outside Natura 2000 sites on Gotland Activities in Action C3 during the project period was, as written in the application, planned to be performed and financed over four seasons. The number of trees which were felled, destroyed and chipped is reported in table 5 below. More details about these activities were reported in previous reports and as deliverables in MidRep, ProgRep1 and Prog Rep 2 and their respective annexes for action C3.

As reported in progress rep 2, the destruction work continued, financed outside the project by SFA and SEPA for a fifth season and started in September 2017 to avoid any gaps in the control programme. All the work with felling, transporting to roadside and chipping was finished by June 2018. The destruction work has been performed by the same procured entrepreneurs as in the previous years. A summary of all felled trees and generated volume of chips during period 2017-2018 is presented below in table 5.

In progress report no 2, SFA informed about the plans to continue the destruction work in action C3 (and also in C2, C3 and C4) also in season six, which due to a budget amendment ensured that this work could be financed by funds remaining within the total Life ELMIAS project budget. This work began in august 2018 and continued until the project ended in December 2018. By the 31th December 2018, when LifeELMIAS finished, roughly about 50 % of 2 282 afflicted elm trees > 10cm Ø and 50% of the 3 085 thin stems <10cm Ø, found in the summer 2018 inventory, had been cut down and transported to roadside. The chipping work had also begun by this time. This budget amendment ensured that there was no gap in the control programme for DED (Annex F1d).

After the LifeELMIAS project ended on 31/12/18, the remaining trees identified from the DED inventory in the summer of 2018 will be felled, destroyed and chipped, by no later than June 2019. The measures will be financed by SFA. The estimated number of trees which are still left to be felled, destroyed and chipped, is 1141 DED trees, 470 risk trees and 1542 thin stems. These trees are estimated to produce about 1977 m³s chips.

In the After Life plan (annex F8) the plans and issues in relation to how to combat DED in the longer term after the end of the project is described.

All work in action C3 between August 2018 and until 31 December 2018 has been recorded as a part of the LifeELMIAS project, because the Commission approved the Formal Request for budget Amendment (see Annex F1d).

Summary of annual felling 2013, 2014 and 2015 was reported as deliverables in MidRep and ProgRep1. The summary of the annual felling in 2016 was reported in ProgRep2.

27 Table 5. Summary of felled trees and generated volume (m³s) of chips for all seasons: period of actions Felled DED Felled Totally Estimated m³s km2 with Reporting trees risk felled number of chips DED (new trees DED and cleared thin information risk trees stems since 1<10 cm  ProgRep 2) 2013-2014 3385 1046 4431 700 4850 1914 midterm rep Deliverable- Summary of annual felling 2013(-2014) 2014-2015 3206 404 3610 6700 5387 2112 midterm rep Deliverable- Summary of annual felling 2014 (-2015) 2015-2016 3991 1378 5369 10500 5578 2060 progress rep 1. Deliverable - Summary of annual 2015-2016 felling 2016-2017 3048 936 3984 6400 4890 2038 progress rep 2. Deliverable - Summary of annual 2016-2017 felling Summary - 2013-2014- 2015-2016 13 630 3 764 17 394 24 300 20 705 Actions carried out since progress report 2: Actions financed outside LifeELMIAS project budget, financed by SEPA and SFA 2017-2018 2973 1780 4753 5709 3680 1806 Action recorded as a part of the LifeELMIAS project budget due to the fact that the Commission approved the Formal Request for budget Amendment in December 2018. Summary of felled trees and generated volume (m³s) of chips during period 01/08/2018–31/12/18. The trees which were taken down amounts to approx. 50% of the trees identified during the DED inventory, 1 july-30th September 2018. 01/08/2018– 1141 470 1611 1543 1977 1621 Final report, 31/12/18 annex C3 Summary actions financed inside LifeELMIAS, 2013-2014-2015-2016-2018 Summary 14 771 4234 18 555 25 843 23 743 N/A 2013-2014- 2015-2016- 2018 Summary actions financed inside and outside LifeELMIAS, 2013-2014-2015-2016-2017-2018 Summary 17 744 6014 23 308 31 552 27 423 N/A 2013-2014- 2015-2016- 2017-2018 After Life actions, financed outside project by SFA, since LifeELMIAS was finished. Left to do after LifeELMIAS is finished; trees which will be felled and destroyed between 2019-01-01 until 2019-06-30. This is about 50% of all trees found during summer inventory 2018. summary 2019 1141 470 1611 1542 1977 N/A

28 Over the course of the project we have felled over 40000 elm trees in total of all sizes, which equates to over 6900 trees per year. In the application we estimated that we would fell 6000 trees per year.

Modifications: The cost for this action was higher than planned according to the application. The problems with high costs were reported in IncRep and have been dealt with and reported in MidRep.

Action start date 01/07/2013 Action end date 31/12/2018 Deliverable 31/05/2014 summary of annual (2013) felling

Deliverable 31/05/2015 summary of annual (2014) felling

Deliverable 31/05/2016 summary of annual (2015) felling

Deliverable 30/06/2017 summary of annual (2016) felling

Milestone 30/09/2013 Powered equipment for felling purchased

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT? This action and C2 cost much more than anticipated but was also a foundation stone for the success of the project. The project should have applied for funds in the original application to continue with both C2 and C3, after 2016, given that the DED was not eradicated by 2016. In addition, the project was advised to extend the final date in the revision phase, but without a budget to cover the additional season of control. However due to underspend elsewhere in the budget, it was possible to continue with this important element of the project.

A major issue for this action related to the employment status of those involved in the destruction work, which meant that the short-term staff had to be made redundant. This in turn resulted in higher external assistance costs. In the end the result for the project was better, but it was a challenge for the project to sort out. Full details of this issue were reported in the ProgRepI.

The number of trees destroyed declined over the project, the area over which DED trees were found also declined and the number of properties. Even if DED was not eradicated, these results indicate that the disease has been controlled. More information in annex D4 and F8. See also figures 4 and 5 above.

The use of the ArcGIS collector app (see C2 and annex C3) made the work in C3 more efficient as the trees were recorded digitally and this information could be shared with all involved in the different steps in the process from surveying, to felling, to extraction.

29 5.1.10 Action C4. Killing infected roots by chemical control of stumps and root suckers of Ulmus ssp. The aim of this action was to treat virtually all stumps of infected trees with Ecoplugs to minimize the further spread of DED (figure 6 below). Exceptions were made when landowners have KRAV (organic) production http://www.krav.se/english or if for other reasons they did not want us to use Ecoplugs on stumps.

This action was carried out simultaneously and in collaboration with Action C3 throughout the project period. The plugging in the whole project period, six seasons, was carried out by SFA and the procured entrepreneur that also carried out C3.

Action C4 was planned to go on in four seasons, as written in the application, between 2013 and 2017. As reported in progress report 2, the work with killing infected roots by Eco plugs, continued outside the project for a fifth season, starting in September 2017 and finished in June 2018. The work during this period was funded outside the project budget, by SEPA and SFA, as mentioned in the progress report 2.

At the end of august 2018 SFA submitted a Formal Request for budget Amendment (annex F1d) to the European Commission, where SFA asked to prolong activities in Action C4 with one more field season within the project time, until 31/12/18, as there was a surplus in C2, C3 and C4. In December 2018, SFA received feedback from the European Commission that the Formal Request for budget Amendment had been approved. Action C4 has therefore been implemented within the LifeELMIAS project during the period 01/08/-31/12/18, in connection with action C3. The activities during that period, was reported with a separate project code, 231903, while we did not know if the Formal Request for budget Amendment should be approved.

About 1260 stumps were not plugged with Eco plugs, regarding the measures financed within LifeELMIAS in five seasons (table 6), because of reasons described above. During all six seasons (one season financed outside LifeELMIAS, 398 Eco plugs) 1658 stumps were not plugged. Stumps which could not be plugged, have been treated in other ways. This included removal of the bark, using fire/gas and grazing by animals in the area. Estates with non- plugged stumps and methods instead of using Ecoplug, is described in Annex C4.

The results of the activities, number of plugged stumps, number of Eco plugs etc, during all six seasons is presented in table 6 and in annex C4.

The estimate of the number of stumps in the application was about 2000 stumps per year, whereas it ended up being just over 4000 per year, however the budget was adequate, in fact there was budget left. This was reported as a modification in midterm report. A total of 160 000 plugs have been bought (40 000 were estimated in the application, but this was a wrong calculation) and used during six seasons in the period 2013-08-27--2018-12-31. From September 2017- 31 December 2018, about 23 000 plugs were used (table 6). In average about 6,6 plugs/stump have been used during project period. Milestone for plugging first season was reported in MidtRep. A deliverable with a report in combination with action C3 and C5 has been produced and annexed in the final report (Annex C4.a_Deliveble C3-C4-C5).

Action start date 01/07/2013 Action end date 31/12/2018

30 Deliverable 31/12/2018 Report in combination with C3, C4 and C5 Milestone 15/05/2014 Plugging first season completed

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT? There were some difficulties related to this action, in relation to when landowners were not keen to use ecoplugs or were organic farms. This resulted in extra work both in terms of planning, cost and communications with the landowners. The ecoplugs worked very well in terms of the fact that trees treated with ecoplugs did not produce shoots or suckers.

Table 6. An overview of number of felled DED-trees, plugged stumps and number consumed Eco plugs during the project period, 2013-2018. Number of Number of Number of Number of Number of Total Number of reporting felled felled stumps plugged plugged number plugs² DED trees threes 10 cm  stumps stumps of 10 cm  ≤10 cm  which not >10 cm  ≤ 10 cm  plugged have been (with DED) stumps plugged¹ 2013–2014 3385 700 233 3152 250 3402 31 500 MidtRep

2014–2015 3206 6700 255 2951 1750 4701 28 500 MidtRep

2015–2016 3991 10 500 186 3805 2600 6405 41 000 ProgRep1 2016- 2017 3048 6400 404 2644 1900 4544 36 000 ProgRep2 sum 13 630 24 300 1078 12 552 6500 19 052 137 000 Actions carried out since progress report 2: Action financed outside project budget 2017-2018 2973 5709 398 2575 1370 3945 15 300 FinalRep Action recorded as a part of the LifeELMIAS project budget due to the fact that the Commission approved the Formal Request for budget Amendment in December 2018. Summary of number of felled DED-trees, plugged stumps and number consumed Ecoplug during period 01/08/2018–31/12/18. The trees which was plugged was about 50% of the trees as should be plugged, related to the DED-trees which will be felled, between September 2018 until June 2019. 01/08/2018– 1141 1543 182 959 190 1149 7700 FinalRep 31/12/18 Summary actions financed inside LifeELMIAS, 2013-2014-2015-2016-2018 Summary 14 771 25 843 1260 13 511 6690 20 201 144 700 2013-2014- 2015-2016- 2018³ Summary actions financed inside and outside LifeELMIAS, 2013-2014-2015-2016-2017-2018 Summary 17 744 31 552 1658 16 086 8060 24 146 160 000 2013–2014- 2015-2016- 2017-2018⁴ After Life actions, financed outside project by SFA, since LifeELMIAS was finished. Left to do after LifeELMIAS is finished; trees which will be felled and destroyed and stumps which will be plugged between 2019-01-01 until 2019-06-30. This is about 50% of all trees/stumps found during summer inventory 2018. 1141 1543 182 959 190 1149 7700

¹ not plugged because of KRAV, don’t want to, or organic farming. ² in average about 6.6 plugs/stump during six seasons. ³ Summary actions financed inside LifeELMIAS project budget ⁴ Summary actions during six seasons, financed inside and outside LifeELMIAS budget.

31

5.1.11 Action C5. Tests with wood decomposing fungi for biological treatment of risk-zone tree stumps This action was completed in the autumn of 2017. The treated and control stumps were assessed for sprouting indicating if the stump was alive or dead. The results from each year were as follows: -mortality of stumps was 5.2% in 2014, 23.5% in 2015, and 13.3% in 2016. The results showed that the method had limited or no effect on the mortality of the elm stumps and thus appeared to be unsuitable for controlling the spread of DED via root contact and basal shoots. In 2017, sites with treated and control stumps were re-visited and evaluated. Results showed that no major changes had occurred, thereby confirming previous observations that treatments had little or no effect on the control of stump sprouting. More detailed results of the work are available in the published article “The effect of biological stump treatment as an alternative to chemical treatment to reduce the re- sprouting of felled Ulmus spp. infected by DED. Published in Baltic Forestry” and the link is here.

Figure 6. Pictures show inoculation procedure and were taken few minutes after the application of the treatment. Formulated fungal mycelia gel used for stump treatment (left); example of a stump which was treated with a fungal mycelia of wood decay fungus (right).

Action start date 01/07/2013 Action end date 31/12/2017 Deliverable N/A Milestone 01/08/2014 Inventories of stumps started

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT? It was disappointing that this method did not work as we were hoping for the development of a method which would mean we did not have to use chemicals. It was however, very useful to have the university as a partner, which ensured that this work was undertaken and evaluated in a proper scientific way. In terms of the action, the preparation of fungal inoculum, treatment of stumps and their monitoring went well and provided important practical information, resulting in a publication. In the first year of stump treatment, stumps were distributed across a large part of Gotland, which was impractical and time consuming to access them for the treatment and monitoring. In the following years, stumps were selected from a smaller geographical area that contributed to efficient treatment applications, monitoring and data collection. .

32 5.1.12 Action C6. Tests with vaccination against DED in two selected areas As it is uncertain whether the vaccination against DED is efficient, SFA undertook some testing to evaluate the effect. Two sites (see annex C6) each with 100 trees were located and the trees were marked and registered on maps with GPS points (several trees can be registered on one point). The site in Visby, Visborg 1:9, is situated in an area where the DED infection pressure is high and many infected elms were found. As for the other site, Vamlingbo Prästgård 1:6, the infection pressure of DED is not regarded as high. The plans were to treat all the selected 200 trees with Dutch Trig four times, in spring, once per year which also have also been done. The first occasion was in May 2014 (milestone, deadline 31/10/2014), second, third and fourth time on the same trees in May 2015, May 2016 and finally in May 2017. According to the application, this action should be completed in December 2017. SFA decided to continue with C2, C3 and C4 2017-2018 and because of that we needed to continue one more season with vaccination. That was done in May 2018. This means that the vaccination has been carried out five times, financed with LifeELMIAS money. The results are presented in annex C6

The vaccination has been carried out by Nordic Tree Care, which SFA signed a procurement with in March 2014. A renewal of procurement contract was signed in March 2017.

The vaccination treatments were monitored annually in the summer of the following year (as part of action D1). Whilst there were some trees that showed some yellowing leaves on individual branches in some years, this was likely due to drought. No Dutch elm disease was encountered on any of the 200 vaccinated trees on the two properties after four years of vaccinations. Dutch elm disease was found in proximity to the property in Visby during the field season 2017. The absence of Dutch elm disease in the vaccinated elm trees could mean that the vaccinations are an efficient way to protect the trees, but the timescale of the project is too limited to say for sure if this is an appropriate method on a larger scale. In addition, it is very costly and is thus likely more suitable for individual special trees, rather than on a large scale in nature reserves.

After four years no DED was found on the (200) vaccinated trees in the two sites. This could mean that vaccination might be an effective method to protect elms from DED, but it would be desirable to test the method for a longer period before giving any recommendations concerning vaccination. Monitoring of vaccinated trees is performed within action D1. The deliverable outlining the experiences from vaccinating was delivered with the ProgRep2 a month later than planned (see table).

Action start date 01/10/2013 Action end date 30/06/2018 Extended to allow an additional year Deliverable 1/10/2017 Summary of experiences from vaccination Milestone 31/10/2014 First vaccination completed

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT? Sometimes difficult to be sure that the trees did not have DED, due to the fact that the trees sometimes develop yellow leaves either as a consequence of the vaccination or perhaps also the weather conditions. It is also an expensive method and needs to be repeated each year. It is probably only appropriate for very special trees in public places. It is also difficult to know if the trees have actually been exposed to DED and thus to be clear if the vaccination has worked. This was also only a small scale pilot study.

33 5.1.13 C7 Controlling risks for renewed invasion of DED The measures, as promised in the application, have been completed and this action is fulfilled. The additional activity since Prog Rep2 (28th Feb 2018) involved producing two advertisements/articles in 2018, which have been done and are outlined below (nr.8). A summary of each element is described below along with the numbers reached where appropriate. More detailed information is available in Annex C7.

1. Produced a leaflet, “Ta inte med lövved till Gotland (Don´t bring wood to Gotland, deliverable, deadline 15/05/2014)”, reported in MidtRep. SFA estimated that at least 2200 brochures would be distributed. By 31st December 2018, SFA had distributed more than 3360 leaflets, at least 1160 more than promised.

2. Undertaken controls of elm wood at harbours (quayside). Contact was taken with the new owner, GEAB, 5th mars 2014 and in 13th October 2016. They told SFA that they do not´ import wood anymore but only bark, because they need bark to mix with the chips in the boiler. Therefore, no further control of wood import in harbors on Gotland has been necessary. No other company on Gotland is dealing with or importing wood from other countries.

3. Approached at least five companies in forest industry sector and in the construction sector that risk bringing wood to Gotland. There are no companies, who are importing wood to Gotland (see point 2). Instead 70 companies in forest sector/forest industry have been contacted and have been offered information/training on how to prevent the spread of elm disease. Seven companies were interested and have taken part in the education program.

4. Thirteen companies in the tourism industry have been contacted by SFA. They have received the brochure “Ta inte med lövved till Gotland” (Don´t bring wood to Gotland) from SFA and distributed it to visitors. Advertising in Gotland’s largest tourism newspaper “Gotlands Guiden” for the summer edition 2015 was undertaken. The newspaper was available to all people travelling by boat to Gotland as well as available at the airport and tourist centers but also distributed to all people living on Gotland.

5. Two Notice Boards (Action E3) have been put up close to ferry arrival terminals on Gotland, one in Visby and one in Slite.

6. Visited four tourist information centres (included in the thirteen tourism companies in point 4 above) and gave them copies of the leaflet “Ta inte med lövved till Gotland”. They have also been contacted by telephone. 470 leaflets were delivered at two tourist information centers in 2014, 2015 and 2016.

7. Two press releases (action E4) have been published which resulted in three newspaper articles:

a) https://www.atl.nu/skog/sjuka-almar-falls-pa-gotland/

b) http://sverigesradio.se/sida/artikel.aspx?programid=94&artikel=5971303

34 c) https://www.helagotland.se/nyheter/avverkning-ska-bekampa-almsjukan- 10185255.aspx

8. Two advertisements or articles per year in 2014, 2015, 2016 and 2017 and 2018 - informing about risks with storage and transport of elm wood- have been written, see modification in MidtRep.

Since the ProgRep2, three activities have been implemented including one advertisement, one announcement and one article has been published:

SFA have been published one advertisement on SFA: s homepage, one announcement on SFA: s Facebook and one article in SFA: s intranet (see more in annex C7):

a) 1.One announcement on SFA homepage 2018-05-25, call to report trees with DED

b) 2. One announcement on SFA Facebook 2018-07-07, call to report trees with DED, and information about DED inventory summer 2018

c) 3. One article published on SFA: s intranet, 13 September 2018

Modifications: Modifications were reported in MidRep and which involved replacing two press releases with two published articles.

SFA will continue efforts to avoid new introductions of DED to Gotland as and when appropriate (see Annex F8).

Action start date 01/01/2014 Action end date 31/12/2018 Deliverable 15/05/2014 Leaflet – Ta inte med lövved till Gotland Milestone N/A

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT? The level of interest from the media and professional press had been greater than expected resulting in lots of articles and interviews over the course of the project. This has continued after the end of the project. As far as we are aware, no new import of elm wood has occurred over the course of the project.

35 5.1.14 Action C8. Establishment of 100 ex situ genotypes/seed bank of dieback-resistant F. excelsior in order to replant disease-damaged Natura 2000 sites The seedbank was established but observations from 2015 and 2016 showed that no seedlings had germinated. It is likely that germination takes place in a stratified way and there was no way of speeding up this process. This meant that the milestone “First seed/seedling established in the seedbank”, 01/06/2016 was not fulfilled. An alternative approach was thus developed and implemented in spring 2017. This involved finding up to 3 year-old self-seeded, apparently healthy, ash seedlings on Gotland and then excavating and transporting them to the allocated planting site at Endre Stenstugu and re-plant. At least 1032 symptom-free ash seedlings were planted out. The planting site was the same as with the sown seeds.

In august 2017, the planted ash seedlings were evaluated for survival and disease incidence; 82.8% were healthy-looking, 10.9% - had symptoms of disease and 6.3% - were dead. In the summer of 2017 however, many of the seeds that had been planted in 2014 also germinated! To protect the seedlings from browsing, a fence was built around the plantation, which resulted in higher external assistance costs than budgeted which was included in the budget amendment (Annex F1d).

The fence is placed around the ash plantation at the Hallfrede in Gotland (57°35'44.2"N 18°26'47.2"E). The total length is ca. 400 m and includes two gates; one at the front side and one at the back side. The fence is 2 m high and specifically made to protect fenced area from smaller and larger animals as it has narrow mesh size close to the ground and wider higher up. Poles keeping the fence are made from iron and galvanized to protect from corrosion. The fence is reinforced at the corners with additional poles. The fence is dug down in to the ground ca. 10 cm to prevent digging in of the animals. No animal damage has occurred since the fence was put up around the plantation.

The vitality of the ash trees that either were planted or started to grow from the seeds were evaluated in summer 2018 (see Fig 7 below). 2018 was a very hot, dry summer which may have increased the mortality rates of the ash seedlings. Evaluation of the 1-2 years-old ash trees growing from the seeds showed that there were no disease symptoms or mortality. A manuscript (E12) has been produced from the work on this action here. This action is now complete. SLU will continue to manage and make use of this plantation for further studies into disease tolerance/resistance.

Figure 7. Health status of Fraxinus excelsior planted at Hallfrede on Gotland.

36

Action start date 01/07/2013 Action end date 31/12/2018 Deliverable N/A Milestone 1/06/2017 First seed/seedling established in the seedbank (year later than planned)

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT? The seeds were planted in an old barley field and in the first year, there was no germination of ash, only poppies, neither in the year after! This was a difficulty with this action, in that germination cannot be forced or speeded up! To try and ensure that this action took place, more than 1000 seedlings were then transplanted to an area nearby and these were protected by plates which allowed them to grow quickly. There were also difficulties with browsing from hares despite fencing, due to the fact that there was at least one hare that was fenced into the enclosure! This provided a unique and unexpected opportunity to compare these two different strategies for the establishment of seed banks. It also provides a very useful resource for future ash dieback resistant or tolerant trees which may be able to be used in the Natura 2000 sites on Gotland and elsewhere.

37 5.1.15 Action D1. Monitoring the impact of project actions on biodiversity values in Natura 2000 sites This action has been completed and all reports are now uploaded on the website. 1. 25 baseline surveys were carried out in 2014 (and then followed up in 2018), reported in MidtRep, annex 6.2.D1a_25 baseline surveys 2014. 2. The mortality rates of the monitored elm trees were calculated to be 1.77% per annum and the mortality rate of the monitored ash trees was 2.717% over the course of the project from 2014 to 2018. The annual figures have been published on the project website. https://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/lifeelmias/om-projektet/resultat-och-rapporter/ . See also annex D1c.

3. SFA carried out the annual evaluation of the health and level of disease of all vaccinated trees in 2016 (see action C6 and Annex C6). No trees developed DED over the course of the project, however it is also unclear whether they were infected with DED. Annual evaluation of the health and level of disease of all vaccinated trees in 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017 and 2018 (why the vaccination also was done 2018 is explained in action C6). Deliverable: Summary of experiences from vaccination 2014-2017 (reported in progress report no 2). 4. All restoration actions undertaken in action C1 have also been evaluated. The evaluation work was coordinated with the tree recording in point 1 above. The final report on this action has been published on the project website and full details in annex D1e. In general the restoration work carried out in the Natura 2000 sites has had a good effect in all sites due to the fact that many of the sites had become quite overgrown in the last hundred years. The increased shade had previously a negative impact on the broadleaved trees and the associated species. By opening up in these areas, and around individual old trees, undertaking veteranisation and pollarding there has been a positive impact on the trees and the meadow flora. In total some 30 hectares have been restored and over 600 trees cleared around. We know that mortality rates of older trees in shade is higher than those in the open and thus the work is likely to have reduced the mortality rate by half in these sites (see Annex D1c, D1e and D4). 5. The lichen monitoring was also carried out in 2018 and a report published on the website (annex D1d). Lichens were surveyed in selected Natura 2000‐sites within the ELMIAS‐project. The survey focused on a selection of 22 species associated with ash and elm and should therefore not be regarded as a complete survey. The results indicate that: a) The average number of lichen species per tree has increased slightly (from 3.1 species per tree to 3.5); b) 14 species appear to have increased, 2 decreased and 6 remained the same; c) Of the 14 species that increased, 6 showed a comparatively large increase; d) Of those species with a comparatively large increase, 3 are listed in the Swedish Red Data Book (Megalaria grossa (EN), Sclerophora pallida (VU) and Alyxoria ochrocheila (NT); e) Of those 2 species that had decreased 1 is listed in the Swedish Red Data Book (Reichlingia zwackii (CR)). The results are seen as inconclusive with regards to the reasons to why certain species have increased or decreased. The clearing work that was carried out as a part of the project may have had a positive impact on some of the lichen species, such as Megalaria grossa or Sclerophora pallida, that reportedly is favoured by more open conditions but there may be other explanations. 6. A final survey of the number of nesting pairs of Ficedula albicollis was completed in spring 2018 and the report has been published on the website (see Annex D1b and D4) The results from the survey of territories for the collared flycatcher in 11 Natura 2000 sites included in ELMIAS in 2014 and compared with 2018 showed that in 2014 there were between 102 and 130 territories and in 2018 between 95 and 123. This is a relatively stable result, or highlights a small reduction. It is however considered that the reasons for the reduction may be twofold. The first is that there were nest boxes in the study areas, which had been set up as part of a research project and were new in 2014. These nest boxes were in a poor condition or had been removed in 2018, which may have impacted on the results. The second is that several individuals may have arrived later to Gotland due to the bad weather in the spring of 2018 in Southern Europe, resulting in several individuals being stuck for a longer period during their

38 journey north from their wintering grounds in the central parts of Africa. It is therefore difficult to see any significant impact of the ELMIAS project on the population of collared flycatcher, however changes are also difficult to identify over the relatively short timeframe of the project (Annex D1b). 7. A final survey of the habitat directive bat species was completed in 2018. The results from the survey of bats from 2014 and then again in 2018 show that there have been few very changes in terms of numbers of species found in each sites, with the exception of Pankar, where four additional species were found, but this is most likely due to luck in the surveying, rather than a reflection on the project. Particularly interesting was the record of a Myotis myotis (greater mouse-eared bat) from Käldänge in 2018, which has only been recorded from Skåne in Sweden before. Three additional species were recorded from Hässleänget in 2018, compared with 2014 including a large number of records of the Pipistrellus pipstrellus, which is unusual in Sweden. This species was not recorded from the site in 2014. Overall however, the results are relatively stable, or highlight a small improvement between 2014 and 2018 (Annex D1a). It is however unlikely that changes in management or habitat condition will be reflected in the bat fauna after such a short period.

Action start date 01/07/2013 Action end date 31/12/2018 Deliverable N/A Milestone 31/03/2014 Procurement of consultants initiated

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT? It was sometimes difficult to find the same trees when doing the monitoring of individual trees and it was not possible to undertake the final survey in 2018 on Stora Karlsö. Lichen surveying is always challenging due to the fact that species can easily be missed, especially if there only occur in a very small quantity. There was a challenge in relation to the coordination with results and review i.e. bat survey report not ready for work to be done with D4. Same with D2. Baseline surveys had to be done in 2014 because project did not start until July 2013 which was too late to tender and undertake the work within the appropriate period of time. There is also always a challenge in monitoring change in species and habitats over such a short period of time and identifying the cause and effect. Generally however, the project has shown positive results as a consequence of the project efforts.

39 5.1.16 Action D2. Monitoring the impact of project actions on the spread of DED This action allowed monitoring of the seasonal flying patterns and flying intensity of the Scolytus multistriatus beetles (see figure 8 and table 7) as well as the proportion of beetles infected with DED each year. The action provides key information on DED vectored by the beetles and potential changes in DED abundance over the course of the project and therefore provided information on the success or otherwise of the project measures in relation to DED eradication, see also action A6.

Figure 8. Scolytus multistriatus trapped and their seasonal flying patterns on Gotland during 2013- 2018

Table 7. Scolytus multistriatus bark beetles trapped on Gotland v24 v25 v26 v27 v28 v29 v30 v31 v32 v33 v34 v35 Total 2013 2 0 9 0 17 4 0 6 0 1 0 0 39 2014 10 0 1 0 21 2 19 4 6 0 0 1 64 2015 4 0 0 7 7 1 9 5 4 15 3 0 55 2016 6 1 4 0 12 2 8 0 4 1 3 0 41 2017 3 7 2 5 5 12 0 0 3 0 1 0 38 2018 8 8 3 23 16 9 7 1 11 6 11 12 115

All 33 16 19 35 78 30 43 16 28 23 18 13 352

110 traps were set out in three places and SLU has been in charge of the activity but emptying the traps has been performed in cooperation with SFA synchronized with action A4 and A6. 352 beetles have been trapped during the course of the project, which is less than expected. The type of trap was changed, which resulted in fewer beetles being caught, but this did not have an impact on the quality of the results. Delta traps were used, in which beetles firmly stick to the sticky insert (see figure 9 below), which prevents physical contact between different individuals, and prevents cross- contamination with e.g. fungal spores, allowing identification of the beetles with and without DED. This is confirmed by the publication of results in the peer reviewed paper in the Scandinavian Journal

40 of Forest Research (see E12) Dutch elm disease on the island of Gotland: monitoring disease vector and combat measures. Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research) link. The results from this work have been published annually on the website and has been reported in previous reports. In 2018, 115 beetles were trapped, much higher than in previous years, but this is more likely a reflection on the unusually hot and dry weather on Gotland, which favoured beetle activity.

Figure 9. Trap with pheromone attractant and Figure 10. Traps placed in a gradient transects sticky insert on the bottom. from elm rich areas to elm poor areas.

Beetles trapped during 2015-2018 were used for DNA isolation and fungal sequencing in order to identify the proportion of beetles vectoring DED fungi. Results showed that for entire period 45.7% of beetles contained DED fungi. The total community consisted of 2084 taxa among which the DED pathogen Ophiostoma novo-ulmi was most common with 32.5% of all sequences. The generated sequence data will be further analyzed to reveal seasonal and site specific changes in fungal communities and used for a research publication.

Figure 11 – the proportion of beetles with DED fungal spores from 2015 – 2018 at the two locations.

41 The results from this action showed that trapping needed to continue throughout the project period and thus this action/milestone deadline was extended by a year to 30/11/2018, which was approved. The budget for this action was amended as per the budget amendment with an increase in personnel costs from consumables (see Annex F1d). The results from this action helped in the analysis of action D4 and also inform the monitoring work that needs to continue after the end of the project.

Action start date 01/07/2013 Action end date 31/12/2018 Deliverable N/A Milestone 30/11/2013 Traps up and first year of beetle collection complete Milestone 30/11/2018 Final beetle collection and analyses complete within the project (extended by one year)

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT? The trapping worked well and this action could be combined with other actions (A4 and A6) which helped save costs and time for personnel. It became also clear that the information gathered in this action also allowed good data to be collected and of the quality that it was possible to publish in a peer reviewed scientific publication. This in turn means that the Life ELMIAS project has positively contributed to furthering knowledge regarding the vector and DED. A difficulty was that we had not foreseen the benefit in continuing with this work throughout the project, however due to there being funds available from elsewhere it was made possible. It is however too short a time to properly evaluate the results in terms of the impact of DED control due to the impact of weather events (such as 2018 summer).

42 Action D3. Assessment of the socio-economic impact of project operations The report assessing the impact of the Life ELMIAS project has been completed and was published in May 2018 (see Annex D3). It was carried out by a contractor employed by SEPA. The report outlined that the Life ELMIAS project up until the end of December 2017, has created more than 13 000 working days for the project partners and 1 768 paid working days for contractors. In general the perception is that the Life ELMIAS project has had a positive impact on the economic situation for local businesses and the biodiversity of Gotland. Many people have developed their knowledge and skills, not just in relation to their understanding of Dutch Elm Disease and nature conservation, but also in relation to project management, leadership skills, planning and logistics as well as in the use of machines such as chainsaws and brushcutters. Many local people see the conservation of the elm population on Gotland as being important for the landscape as well as biodiversity and consider it to be important to try and save the elm trees. Some of the negative views relate to the fact that, in some cases, healthy elms have also been removed and that the timber could have been used rather than being chipped (Annex D3). The results from this work were presented at the Final Conference (E11), see part of the program and page no 28 in PDF-presentation below, and in annex E11.

43

Action start date 01/07/2015 Action end date 31/12/2018 Deliverable N/A Milestone 30/10/2015 Procurement of consultant initiated

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT? It is difficult to measure the socioeconomic impact on the project qualitatively. It is possible to measure quantitatively i.e. number of days worked, but less easy to understand the positive and negative impacts on for example tourism. It is impossible for example to compare the impact of the loss of elm on the landscape that would have occurred without Life ELMIAS on tourism with the retention of elm as a consequence of the project as there are no “control areas”.

44 5.1.17 Action D4. Assessment of the project impact on ecosystem functions This action is complete and the report was published at the end of November 2018 (Annex D4). The work was carried out by a consultant employed by SFA. The deadline for this action had to be pushed back, due to the fact that this report was dependent upon the publication of the results from the other monitoring actions (D1, D2 and D3) and some of these were delayed (bat report and tree monitoring in particular). The delay however resulted in better data for analysis as the final year of monitoring from 2018 could be included, which gave a more accurate picture of the outcomes of the Life ELMIAS project. The report is published on the website and in Annex D4.

Some of the main results identified that the Life ELMIAS project has saved around 300 000 elm trees and that whilst DED has not been eradicated, it is under control and with continued efforts, it is likely to ensure that the elm population as well as the associated biodiversity can be maintained at sustainable levels for many decades to come.

The analysis of the impact of the project on ecosystem services when only carbon storage and uptake of air pollution are taken into account, the Life ELMIAS project has directly saved 7 102 935 Euros. This is an economic valuation which amounts to more than double the Life ELMIAS budget.

Action start date 01/07/2015 Action end date 31/12/2018 Deliverable N/A Milestone 28/02/2015 Procurement of consultant initiated

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT? The development of our understanding of ecosystem function and ecosystem services is changing all the time and this can make it difficult to know exactly what to measure. In addition a major difficulty with measuring impact on ecosystem function is that the project is over too short a period. Biodiversity takes much longer to react to changes in their environment. In addition, the lack of data regarding the actual number of elm trees and veteran elm trees led to various assumptions having to be made. On the positive side, doing this kind of analysis and identifying the economic value of the control programme will be very valuable for justifying why we should continue with a control programme.

45 5.1.18 Action F1. Project management and monitoring of project progress by SFA The project management and monitoring by SFA has worked very well. The project managers and project accountant met regularly via online meeting systems and notes have been taken for many of these meetings (see annex F1.c). The outcomes of these meetings have been reported to the SFA representative of the steering committee. This has ensured that the project is keeping to deadlines and to keep track of the finances. It worked well having two people sharing the project management as each brings different skills to the project. The project accountant has provided clear instructions to the partners about reporting and given feedback following a reporting period. The organisation of the project management is shown in figure 1 above. There have been no problems with the project management team, any problems have been external ones (e.g. the problems with the contracts for temporary workers).

The members of the steering committee met five times in total, by Skype and one as a physical meeting. The meetings were of an informative character to update the steering group on the progress of the project and with any potential problems e.g. the problems with the contracts for temporary workers) and the minutes are in annex F1.c The reference group, GAG have had 6 meetings including one in the field (Annex E5).

The project management organization can be seen in fig. 1 and there have been no changes to this compared to earlier reports. The project managers and the financial manager met regularly via remote tools such as Skype. In total 29 project management meetings (see annex F1.c) have been held. In addition, the SFA representative of the steering committee was continuously informed about the current situation.

Partners in the project have met organized in two meetings, one as a starting meeting, but they also met in connection to GAG-meetings, monitor meetings. In addition, a number of informal meetings between SFA and CAB and SLU and SEPA have been held as and when required in relation to for, example actions C1 and D1, and with SLU action relating to C8 and reporting. The meetings were held as Skype-meetings, field meetings and other physical meetings.

All partner meetings, project managers meetings and steering group meetings with notes are presented in table 8. Two meeting is completed after progress report 2. It is a project manager meeting held 2018-03-24 and a steering group meeting 2018-10-26 at SEPA. All notes from the meetings are presented in annex F1c.

Table 8. Partner meetings, project managers meetings and steering group meetings presented with notes, attached in Annex F1.c. Reporting new information No Date Partner meetings Meeting form since ProgRep 2 LifeELMIAS starting meeting 1 13-09-05 with partners physical meeting IncRep 2 14-12-04 physical meeting IncRep Project managers meeting 3 14-01-23 Skype MidtRep 4 14-04-25 Skype MidtRep 5 15-01-15 Skype MidtRep 6 15-02-03 Skype MidtRep

46 7 15-04-09 Skype MidtRep 8 15-05-06 Skype MidtRep 9 15-06-16 Skype MidtRep 10 15-09-03 Skype MidtRep 11 16-01-21 Skype ProgrRep 1 12 16-02-02 Skype ProgrRep 1 13 16-04-11 Skype ProgrRep 1 14 16-07-01 Skype ProgrRep 1 15 16-06-08 Skype ProgrRep 1 16 16-08-25 Skype ProgrRep 1 17 16-08-30 Skype ProgrRep 1 18 16-09-07 Skype ProgrRep 1 19 16-09-26 Skype ProgrRep 1 20 16-09-28 Skype ProgrRep 1 21 17-05-04 Skype ProgrRep 2 22 17-05-15 Skype ProgrRep 2 23 17-06-08 Skype ProgrRep 2 24 17-06-13 Skype ProgrRep 2 25 17-06-20 Skype ProgrRep 2 26 17-09-14 Skype ProgrRep 2 27 17-10-19 Skype ProgrRep 2 28 17-12-06 Skype ProgrRep 2 29 17-12-11 Skype ProgrRep 2 30 18-01-31 Skype ProgrRep 2 31 18-03-24 Skype FinalRep new since ProgRep 2 Steering group meetings 32 15-02-02 SFA, MG, SLU, CAB Skype MidtRep 33 16-02-08 SFA, CAB, MG, SEPA, SLU Skype ProgrRep 1 34 17-01-25 SFA, CAB, MG, SLU Skype ProgrRep 1 35 18-02-16 SFA, CAB Skype ProgrRep 2 36 18-10-26 SFA, CAB, SEPA, SLU physical meeting FinalRep new since ProgRep 2

An Inception report (31/03/2014), one Midterm report (12/11/2015) and two Progress reports, ProgRep1 (17/05/17), ProgRep2 (19/4/2018) have been delivered during the course of the project. The questions and answers from the EU-commission from the various reports and visits have been compiled into a single annex included in this report, which includes answers to the last set of questions (see Annex F1c).

Since 2015, the Project Management has been in contact with SEPA and many other organisations regarding how to secure After Life (see action F8).

Action start date 01/07/2013 Action end date 31/12/2018 Deliverable 01/06/2014 Partnership agreement Milestone 01/02/2014 Signing of partnership agreement

47 WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT?

The partnership has worked very well. There has been a good atmosphere and everyone has had respect for the partners differing competences. Everybody has been doing their best in completing the actions as well as sending in economic reports. There have been no significant deviations from the arrangements contained in the partnership agreements in the project. There have been six monitor visits over the course of the project including one when there were also visitors from the Commission. The communication has worked well with the Commission and Monitoring team, although staff changes resulting in different monitors has made the process more difficult on occasions.

A transfer from personnel costs to external assistance was approved as part of the budget amendment (Annex F1d).

48 5.1.19 Action F2. Project coordination by CAB CAB have taken responsibility for their actions, reported activities and economy according to time-schedule as well as participated in meetings with the project group, partnership meetings etc.

Action start date 01/07/2013 Action end date 31/12/2018 Deliverable N/A Milestone 31/03/2014 Signing of partnership agreement

5.1.20 Action F3. Project coordination by MG MG have taken responsibility for their actions, reported activities and economy according to time-schedule as well as participated in meetings with the project group, partnership meetings etc.

Action start date 01/07/2013 Action end date 31/12/2018 Deliverable N/A Milestone 31/03/2014 Signing of partnership agreement

5.1.21 Action F4. Project coordination by SLU SLU have taken responsibility for their actions, reported activities and economy according to time-schedule as well as participated in meetings with the project group, partnership meetings etc.

Action start date 01/07/2013 Action end date 31/12/2018 Deliverable N/A Milestone 31/03/2014 Signing of partnership agreement

5.1.22 Action F5. Project coordination by SEPA SEPA had a small role in the project and have undertaken their responsibilities. They have been kept updated and have taken part in work in relation to Action F8 – After-Life on a regular basis (see Annex F8).

Action start date 01/07/2013 Action end date 31/12/2018 Deliverable N/A Milestone 31/03/2014 Signing of partnership agreement

49 5.1.23 Action F6. Audit This contract for this action has been finalized and is in place until June 2019. The audit will be done early in 2019 but is dependent upon receiving a draft of the final report. See also the financial report and the auditors report (chapter 6 and financial annexes).

Action start date 01/07/2017 Action end date 31/03/2019 Deliverable N/A Milestone N/A

50 5.1.24 Action F7. Reducing the carbon foot-print The work within Life ELMIAS has followed SFAs environmental policy throughout the project. Life ELMIAS has been well in line with this policy in terms of their efforts to reduce the carbon footprint. This has involved reducing travelling where possible in connection with meetings using Skype or equivalent as alternatives. As SFA already has a well-developed environmental policy it is compulsory to use biofuels and vegetable-based oils as far as possible when undertaking practical work. Project members involved in a significant amount of driving (more than 20 days) within the project have been on an eco-driving course (see Midterm rep, annex 6.1.f7). In addition, eco-driving instructions have been placed in all cars. We also reorganized the work in order to reduce the amount of driving within the project which was assessed as a more cost efficient as well as environment friendly way of handling the matter. Diesel powered vehicles have been used within the project of which two are classed as environmental cars. The elm wood that has been cut was, as far as possible, transported to the heating plant in Visby, where it was chipped and used in their boilers, which in turn was transformed to energy for Visby’s remote heating system. At the Workshop (E10), there was a presentation about how LifeELMIAS works with limiting the production of greenhouse gases during the project.

Action start date 01/07/2013 Action end date 31/12/2018 Deliverable 30/09/2017 List of persons completed eco driving course Milestone 31/03/2014 Signing of partnership agreement

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT? It has been more challenging to manage this issue in this project due to the fact that Gotland is an island, which almost always means travelling when meetings are involved. However the strong focus on local contractors and using Skype, particularly once the personal contacts have been established has worked very well.

51 5.1.25 Action F8. After LIFE Conservation Plan This action is now finalized, but due to the nature of this project, i.e. that if eradication did not work, control may need to continue after the end of the project, work regarding the situation After-LIFE has been an inherent component of the project since April 2015. Some 15 meetings and workshops have been held with key stakeholders, researchers, government departments and financiers since that time. A key report that was produced in 2016 was “Vägar framåt för alm och ask”, Black-Samuelsson, Wågström & Isacsson, 2016 (The Way Forward for Elm and Ash, only in Swedish), which outlined the issues and problems not just with ADB and DED, but also other IAS and how these should be managed in a cross-governmental agency way. Since the end of the project, an application to Vinnova has been sent in, an application for financial support from SEPA to write a new LIFE application and contact has been made with a local university to gain help with mapping the elm population on Gotland. More details of all of this work can be found in F8 annexes in the various reports.

The After Life Plan started with a Workshop 2015 05-04. After that many meetings and activities have been held about how to continue to deal with DED on Gotland in the future. Table 2 is a summary of the most important meetings and activities. More details about the activities in annex F8a. Some of the ideas that have been discussed include:-

• Subsidies for landowners that destroy DED elm on their land • More courses in the identification of DED • Involve the general public in reporting DED e.g. an app • Find markets for the elm material, which may then lead to contractors being able to generate income from elm control • Financing required at a national level • Work more on the development of remote sensing methods of detection • Focus on a cross-government departmental approach to dealing with and financing management as a consequence of IAS (including DED and ADB); this work currently falls between stools. • Development of resistant elm species (e.g. LIFE+ ELM LIFE13BIO/ES/000556) • Prognoses of the development of DED based on the control programme experience. • Calculations of the impact on ecosystem services with a control programme • Developing calculations of the costs of not controlling DED on Gotland • The impact of loss of elm on the tourist industry on Gotland.

From the final D4 report, it is clear that a continued DED control programme is required if the biodiversity associated with wooded meadows and wood pastures on Gotland are to be conserved. If work stops, then the disease will increase exponentially. SFA and SEPA have continued to discuss the management of DED on Gotland. Discussions have taken place in connection with different meetings with managers of the respective authorities. SFA and SEPA have studied and discussed the prerequisites for finding long-term financing. SFA is therefore examining the possibility of making a request for funding to the government for next year's budget for the Authority. More details about the activities are presented in table 9 below.

Table 9. Activity’s about “After Life plan” during project period, starting with 2015-05-04 until 2018-12-31 when LifeELMIAS was finished and from 2019-01-01, after the project ended, as after life activities. More about agendas, content, memo notes mm in Annex F8a of the final report. Meeting Date Activity Organizer no 1 2015-05-04 Workshop Workshop, project ideas about dealing with DED on Gotland, After Life Plan LifeELMIAS 2 2015-11-12 Meeting Centrala skogsskyddskommittén (CSK)

52 3 2015-12-21 Letter Forestry Processing Association, Ola Roswall 4 2016-03-11 Letter/respond Swedish Species Information Centre, Göran Thor 5 2016-06-21 Meeting SFA together with SEPA 6 2016-06-23 Meeting SFA General manager etc. 7 2016-06-29 Meeting SFA together with the Board of Agriculture 8 2016-09-29 Meeting SFA General manager etc. 9 2016-11-23 Meeting SFA General manager and SEPA General manager 10 2017-02-02 Application SFA ask SEPA for funding to be able continue DED control measures 11 2017-02-09 e-post/Skype Contact with SFA and SLU expert about possibility to inventory DED thru Remote Sensing etc. Activities carried out after Progress Report 1, 2017, from 28th February 2017 until 28th February 2018 12 2017-03-14 Meeting Centrala skogsskyddskommittén (CSK) 13 2017-04-20 Meeting, SKYPE Discussion meeting with the SFA general manager 14 2017-10-24 Tree course broadleaved environments on Gotland - with a focus on management issues and species 15 2017-11-14 Meeting General managers from SEPA and SFA 16 2018-01-25 Meeting interaction meeting (SANS-Meeting) General managers from SEPA and SFA Activities carried out after Progress Report 2 2018, from 28th February 2018 until 31th December 2018

2018-10-15 Letter CAB- Is there a future for nature and cultural values linked to the Elms on Gotland? 2018-10-26 Meeting/workshop SEPA invited SFA, CAB, SLU, Swedish Species Information Centre, to a workshop on control measures against DED by LifeELMIAS – a discussion about continued state funding? 2018-10-31 Letter Swedish Species Information Centre- financing of continued control of DED on Gotland 2018-12-04 position statement SFA: s view on continued combating of DED on Gotland 2018-12-23 Answer to letter Answer to CAB: s letter from 2018-10-31 Activities carried out since LifeELMIAS was finished 31th December 2018, from 1th January 2019 2019-01-08 Application SLU-Application to Vinnova: Competence Centre for Forest Health. Project 2. Sustainable management of Gotland wooded meadows under the threat from Dutch Elm Disease and Ash Dieback 2019-02-08 Application Contribution for making an application for national funding to develop a new LIFE application for Gotland 2019-03-14 Decision of refusal Decision of refusal for financing the development of a to application new LIFE application for Gotland March 2019 Discussion regarding development of testing of remote sensing techniques March 2019 Discussions with Gotland University about population study of elm on Gotland with students

Action start date 01/10/2015 Action end date 31/12/2018 Deliverable 31/12/2018 After-Life Conservation plan (deadline extended) Milestone N/A

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT? It is proving challenging to find funding to continue with the DED control programme. It is costly and it has been proven that it is unlikely that DED will be eradicated, rather it is continued control that is

53 required to buy time for alternative solutions for the biodiversity and landscape of Gotland i.e. to find resistant elm trees and ash trees or vaccines or disease inhibitors. It is a question of the cost versus the benefit.

54 5.2 Dissemination actions

5.1.26 Objectives The Life ELMIAS project had a main objective which was to implement an information programme to increase the knowledge and understanding of the problems related to Invasive Alien Species and the impact on biodiversity. This work involved several different approaches to reach the various target groups. The dissemination work included in Life ELMIAS was, in general much more successful than anticipated. The level of interest in the project and the work to control DED was high. For example, the website resulted in more than double the number of page visits than expected and was a very useful resource for both the deliverables from the project but also more general information on DED and ADB primarily for a professional audience, but also interested members of the general public.

For the general public, 21 notice boards were put up in key locations including urban areas where there were plenty of visitors. In addition to reach the general public, professional and specialist audiences 85 articles have been published as a consequence of the press releases. These have ranged from local newspapers to specialist publications. The Layman’s report has been produced in a digital interactive format, which we hope will appeal to a wider audience than a printed publication and this also allows greater ease of sharing the document. The Elm Protector Awards were very well received and was a relatively cheap way to generate goodwill and positive publicity for the project. A wide range of events were organized, again for a range of audience ranging from local history societies to international researchers to the general public. In total 29 events took place with 765 delegates, 50% more than anticipated.

The training courses were a vital part of the project, both to share knowledge and to build capacity and these reached 200 delegates, 100% more than anticipated. The workshop at the start of the project had more than 100 delegates, mostly from Sweden and included a wide range of stakeholders including landowners, administrators, fieldworkers and also members of the public. In contrast the final conference attracted a huge number of international delegates from 15 different countries and provided an excellent opportunity to share knowledge between site management and research in Natura 2000 sites. The project work also resulted in four articles published in peer reviewed scientific publications and an additional two manuscripts which will be published after the end of the project giving the results from the Life project a wide international reach. The feedback from the socioeconomic study revealed that many people felt that they had gained greater knowledge and understanding as a consequence of the Life ELMIAS project.

55 5.1.27 Dissemination: overview per activity

5.1.27.1 Action E1. Project website SFA set up a project website (see IncRep), https://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/lifeelmias/ which has been up and running since the autumn 2013. The LifeELMIAS website is connected to SFA's regular homepage, which is an advantage for cost reasons but also because SFA's web specialists help maintain the information. Measurement of number of page views on LifeELMIAS homepage have been done in 10 occasions during the project, beginning in October 2013 and lastly in November 2018. On average, there are about 590 page views per month. Table 10. Report from SFA’s web administrator about number of pageviews. Measurements have been taken on 10 occasions during the project Year Month Pageviews 2013 October 1110 2015 December 252 2017 October 865 2018 February 664 2018 March 684 2018 April 660 2018 June 561 2018 July 574 2018 October 395 2018 November 220

Page views is not the same as number of people on these occasions, but this is a fairer picture of the visitor frequency (annex E1). Several people also from the mainland of Sweden, have expressed their positive response about the information of DED and ADB available on the website. We are frequently contacted by readers of the website by e-mail or by phone. People who want to obtain information about DED, sometimes contact employees of SFA and we usually refer them to the LifeELMIAS website were more information and brochures can be found.

The website will be available on the internet, connected to SFA:s homepage, for at least two years after the end of the LifeELMIAS project.

A web platform was not set up, instead the resources were used for promotion materials such as rollups, vests with logos etc and this was approved in 2013.

Action start date 01/07/2013 Action end date 31/12/2018 Deliverable N/A Milestone 27/12/2013 Project website up and running

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT? The website is a very useful place to collect information about the project but also more widely regaring DED and Ash Dieback. It is also very helpful to have a place where all the reports can be held and made available for downloading.

56 5.1.27.2 Action E2. Layman´s report SFA began work on the Layman´s report in October 2018. A new approach was adopted for the format for the Life ELMIAS Layman’s report. The digital product called Story Maps from Esri was used, which is an interactive mapping system and allows the use of maps, films, text and photos to be combined into a “story”. This is a more modern approach, easier to spread and more environmentally friendly. This means that printed copies will not be available, but the report will be available in English and Swedish. This different approach was presented at the Monitor visit in October 2018. The link to the layman’s report is here http://biit.lly/2PG89sR (Englliish versiion) https://arcg.is/1LrKHi (Swediish versiion)

Figure 12 – The front page of the Life ELMIAS layman’s report as a “Story map”

Action start date 01/10/2017 Action end date 31/12/2018 Deliverable 31/12/2018 Layman’s report (Deadline extended) Milestone 31/12/2018 Draft of Layman’s report (deadline extended)

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT? Layman’s reports are very useful for spreading the results of the project to a wider audience. It is however, often difficult to spread these, particularly as they are often produced towards the end of the project. This approach makes it very easy to spread and avoids lots of printed material being produced. It also provides the opportunity to combing different media such as films and photos.

.

57 5.1.27.3 Action E3. Notice boards This action was completed in December 2014, by SFA. 21 notice boards have been put up in strategic locations and the deliverable completed (see IncRep, annex 6.3. E3). The condition of the notice boards are checked regularly as part of ongoing maintenance and at least annually. The last time they were checked was in December 2018. All were in good condition apart from two; nr 8, Othem Slite 4:8 and nr 15, Sproge Bosarve Lövskog, where the notice boards were gone. They have both been replaced. See also Annex E3 for more detail. The boards will continue to be checked annually for at least another two years by SFA as a part of the After Life plan (see Annex F8).

Action start date 01/10/2013 Action end date 31/12/2014 Deliverable N/A Milestone 31/05/2014 Putting up of first notice board

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT? It was relatively straight forward to find suitable locations to put the notice boards, but harder to find locations where there were lots of people. In the urban areas of Visby, Hemse and Slite, on land owned by the District Council, planning permission was required for the signs, which meant that the last signs could not be set up before December 2014.

58 Figure 13 – the notice boards that have been erected as a part of the Life ELMIAS project.

59 5.1.27.4 Action E4. Media work Media work in LifeELMIAS has been very successful during the whole project. At least 85 articles have been published in different papers and other media, for example websites and television. One live broadcast on National Swedish Television was sent during the largest event on Gotland every year, Almedalsveckan (reported in MidtRep, annex E8b), when all the political parties meet. Most of the interest has been in the control measures of DED; what measures have been taken; how is the control programme working; what options are there for elm to be saved on Gotland? Six press releases have been published in papers and on CAB´s website. The first press release was issued on 2013-07-04 when the LifeELMIAS was approved by the EU- commission to mark the start of the project. That press release resulted in at least 35 articles in different papers. The second press release was published on 2014-05-06, to highlight the workshop which was arranged at 7-8th of May 2014. The third press release was sent out 2014-09-22, in connection with when the control measures against DED started in 2014. The fourth press release was published to inform about the result of DED inventory in 2014. The fifth press release was sent out in connection with the publication of the new Swedish Red list, 2015-05-11, when elm and ash were classified as threatened. The sixth press release was published by CAB to inform about a letter to the Swedish Environmental Protection Agency which highlighted the need for long-term funding of the DED control programme on Gotland. Instead of press releases in relation to the tourist season, SFA published an advert explaining the DED inventory and control programme, the activities planned for tourist season and when DED inventory was planned to start, about activities in Almedalsweek in the beginning of July 2016, and why you should not bring wood to Gotland (See annex C7). The final conference in August 2018, was publicised on Twitter and websites. https://twitter.com/search?q=lifeELMIAS&src=typd After ProgRep2, between 28th February 2018 and 31th of December 2018, three articles have been published in different papers and one press release has been published on CAB’s website. All media activities from the beginning of the project, 2013-07-01 until 2018-12-31 are reported in Annex E4.

Action start date 01/07/2013 Action end date 31/12/2018 Deliverable N/A Milestone 31/08/2013 First press release

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT? It is usually always difficult to get the media to publish what the project would like or even to predict when they will take an interest and also that the media include references to the EU and Life +. However, overall the media coverage has been positive for the project and raising the profile of biodiversity on Gotland and more widely. The media work continues even after the project, due to the uncertain future of the control programme.

60 5.1.27.5 Action E5. Gotland Action Group against invasive alien species This action is complete and all objectives and milestones have been achieved. Gotland Action Group, GAG, has until 31th December 2018 undertaken the following actions: 1) Contributed to the selection of 126 recipients (24 rewards 2018) for the Private Elm Protector Certificate and Reward between 2014 – 2018, one selection every year for five years. The goal was to distribute about 25 lithographs/year equivalent to at least 125 paintings during the project period. See more information in point 1, annex E5 and annex E7. 2) Given a presentation at the workshop (E10), more information in annex E5, point 2. 3) GAG attended the LifeELMIAS conference (action E11) and gave a presentation on the field excursion on 31st August at Allekvie Meadow, see annex E5, point 3. 4) GAG has been a co-organiser of 29 Visitor days with 765 participants. In ProgrRep 2 there were only 759 participants reported, which was wrong. It was only reported 15 participants at visitors’ day nr 28 held at Rotary club, but according to the organizer, there were 21 participants. 6 participants have therefore been added to visitors’ day nr 28 at Rotary club. See more information in table 11 below and annex E5, point 4 and in annex E8. In the application it was anticipated that there would be 32 events with 500 people (See action E8), however an additional 265 people were reached which is more than the target, even if there were fewer events.

Table 11. List of completed information days - Visitors day until the project end, 31 December 2018. number of reported no year date Visitors day together with GAG: participants 1 2013 09-nov Gotland Meadow committé 45 MidtRep IncRep 2 2014 27-jan Local History Society of Gotland 28 MidtRep IncRep 3 30-jan Local History Society of Gotland 30 MidtRep IncRep 4 04-feb Local History Society of Gotland 22 MidtRep 5 04-mar Lövsta agricultural school 15 MidtRep 6 15-jun Gotland Meadow committé 49 MidtRep 7 06-sep Gotlands Skördefestival 70 MidtRep 8 09-okt Lokal Heritage Foundation 10 MidtRep 9 10-okt Lokal Heritage Foundation 6 MidtRep 10 27-okt Lövsta agricultural school 6 MidtRep 11 08-nov Gotland Meadow committé 52 MidtRep 12 2015 26-mar Forest owners Gotland 7 MidtRep 13 21-apr Upplands Botanical Assosiation 12 MidtRep 14 30-apr Roma school/Mangsarve Meadow 37 MidtRep 15 05-sep Gotlands Skördefestival 36 MidtRep 16 01-okt SFA-IT department 28 ProgrRep 1 17 07-nov Gotland Meadow committé 53 ProgrRep 1 SFA staff, district Stockholm- ProgrRep 1 18 2016 16-feb Gotland 19 19 28-apr Lokal Heritage Foundation 3 ProgrRep 1 20 24-maj staff from CAB 6 ProgrRep 1

61 21 18-jun Gotland Meadow committé 15 ProgrRep 1 22 03-jul Almedalsveckan 115 ProgrRep 1 23 21-aug Dendrology Society 25 ProgrRep 1 24 31-aug SFA, Forest Department 21 ProgrRep 1 25 10-sep Nordic Forest 11 ProgrRep 1 26 12-okt Forest owners Gotland 4 ProgrRep 1 27 2017 5-jun Lokrume Hembygdsförening 9 ProgrRep 2 28 22-sept Visby Rotaryförening updated 21 ProgrRep 2 29 2018 28-febr meeting with landowners 10 ProgrRep 2 summary 765

5) RG had the responsibility for organising six meetings where GAG has acted as an informal reference group. (see Figure 1. Organigramme of LifeELMIAS and annex E7). The goal for this action was to organize one meeting per year, which means six meeting in total. In 2015 and 2017 no meetings were organized but instead there were two meetings each year 2016 and 2018. The meeting in 2017 should have been in December 2017, but we decided we wanted a field day for that meeting and thus we postponed the date until June 2018. These have been reported in ProgrRep 1 and ProgrRep 2. More information in annex E5, point 5. At the reference group meetings, GAG's members were involved in discussions and providing their views at the meetings and ensuring that they were satisfied with the work done throughout the project. Two meetings have been organized since progress report 2, in 2018. One of the meetings was a field excursion, visiting a project site, Allekvie Meadow. More information in annex E5, point 5.

Table 12. Reference groups meetings. Six meetings between 2013 and 2018. No Meeting date Notes Reporting 1 28th November 2013 IncRep 2 13th November 2014 MidtRep 3 20th January 2016 guest lecturer, Göran Thor ProgrRep 1 4 14th December 2016 guest lecturer, Sanna Black Samuelsson ProgrRep 1 5 1th June 2018 field excursion FinalRep 6 9th October 2018 FinalRep

Action start date 01/07/2013 Action end date 31/12/2018 Deliverable N/A Milestone 01/12/2013 First meeting

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT? More people were interested in attending the visitor days than expected and it worked well having GAG as a local reference group for the project. The timing of the meetings needed to be adapted to match important moments in the project and sometimes it was better to postpone a meeting i.e. if it was to be a field meeting than to stick to the plan of having one per year. The Elm Protector Awards were very well received.

62 5.1.27.6 Action E6. Networking with other projects

The project management has participated in six Swedish Life+ network meetings throughout the project, see (Annex E6). The project management team has also taken part in a number of Life platform meetings which were in in Östersund September 2013, in Rowaniemi June 2014, in Aalborg September 2015, in Örebro April 2017 and in Punkaharju in Finland in June 2018. A part of the project management also participated in the Kick off meeting, organized by the Commission, with other new Life+ Projects, in Copenhagen 22 October 2013 (see Annex E6).

LifeElMIAS has been presented at the following events: 1. Den sista almstriden [The last elm battle], Miljötrender #Invasiva arter, 10-17p., August 2014, SLU, Uppsala. 2. COST FA1103 Action “Endophytes” Workshop (keynote presentation), November 2014 Izmir, Turkey. 3. European Congress of Arboriculture (keynote presentation), May 2014, Turin, Italy 4. Nordic View of Sustainable Rural Development, the 25th NJF Congress, 16-18 June 2015, Riga, Latvia 5. UArctic Congress, 12-16 September 2016, St. Petersburg, Russia 6. HealGenCar Workshop: Fighting ash dieback with new and old tools. 23‐25 August 2017, Skovskolen, Denmark 7. International Union of Forest Research Organizations, IUFRO conference, 18-22 September, Friburg Germany 8. Life project platform meeting on Invasive Alien Species, 29-30 November 2017, Milan, Italy SLU has regularly contact with Life13BIO/ES/000556. Rimwys Vasaitis working at SLU, participated IUFRO-conference in Freiburg and presented LifeELMIAS work.

LifeELMIAS considering study visits to two projects (mentioned in the Commission letter of 21 December 2015). It was not possible to visit these projects during autumn 2018, but instead the Life ELMIAS project managers along with representatives from the partners SLU and CAB visited another appropriate Life project in Spain, LIFE+ELM, LIFE13 BIO/ES/000556, “Elms alive” in Madrid on 26 th and 27th November (program and pictures in annex E6). This project was very appropriate and interesting because they are working on developing resistant elms of the species found on Gotland. Representatives from this Life project also took part in the Final conference (E11).

It was originally planned that a representative from a Greek project working with climate issues would present at the Workshop (E10) from the Life project CLIMLOCAL2020 Life+, but this event ended up being a Swedish event in Swedish.

Action start date 01/07/2013 Action end date 31/12/2018 Extended Deliverable N/A Milestone N/A

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT? The CLIMOLOCAL 2020 (LIFE07 ENV/GR/000282) project never answered the requests sent by mail. It is probably easier to get in contact with projects still running. There was no budget allocated for networking, which was a mistake. It was useful to make contact particularly with the Life project in Spain working with developing Resistant elms. In general the contact with other Life projects and the platform meetings proved to be very useful for exchanging ideas and experience.

63 5.1.27.7 Action E7. Introducing the Private Elm Protector Certificate and Award A painting was produced with the purpose of giving encouragement and a reward to people who have made special efforts in the project. An artist was procured who produced a lithography with elm and one of the project's focus species, the collared flycatcher, Ficedula albicollis, which is also Gotland's landscape bird and was monitored in action D1. The goal for this action was to distribute about 25 lithographs/year aiming for at least 125 paintings during the project period. The Private Elm Protector Certificate and Awards have been given to 126 people over the project period; 2014-2018. The numbers of people who received the painting/ lithograph is presented in table 13 below. The receivers of the Private Elm Protector Certificate and Award have been invited to “Ängsdagen” (the Meadow Day), arranged by Gotland Meadow Committee in two occasions, 2014 and 2015. The receivers have also been invited to SFA´s office to receive the reward. Some of the receivers have been awarded at their homes or at other meetings, the last ones were presented at the LifeELMIAS conference at 30th August. Lists of all of those presented with the award, invitations, name lists and some pictures are presented in Annex E7. Since the progress report 2, 26 additional people were selected to receive the special lithography for LifeELMIAS in 2018, the last year.

Table 13: Number of paintings/litographs which have been selected during five years in LifeELMIAS. year Number of people which have Reported received a painting/lithography

2014 26 MidtRep

2015 25 ProgrRep 1

2016 26 ProgrRep 1

2017 25 PrgrRep 2

2018 24 FinalRep

Summary 126

Posts on SFA/LifeELMIAS homepage and LIFE Twitter and Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/LIFE.programme/photos/a.310100714394.146123.302437314394/ 10153717814464395/?type=3&theater https://twitter.com/LIFE_Programme/status/664032315266453504

Action start date 01/07/2013 Action end date 31/12/2018 Deliverable N/A Milestone 06/06/2016 Winners first year appointed

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT? These awards were very well received and was a relatively cheap way to generate goodwill and positive publicity for the people involved in the project and the project itself.

64 5.1.27.8 Action E8. Visitor days in cooperation with associations and non-profit making organizations By the end of the project SFA, jointly with GAG, have carried out 29 Visitors days with 765 persons taking part. In ProgrRep 2 there were only 759 participants reported, which was wrong. This was due to the fact that there were in fact 21 participants at the Rotary club according to the organizer (nr 28 in table 14) and not 15 as reported before. 6 participants have therefore been added to visitors’ day nr 28 at Rotary club. Agendas and name lists along with more information are presented in annex E8. The participants have been informed about the diseases (DED and ADB) and measures to counteract them. Participants have been active and asked a lot of questions.

The objective in LifeELMIAS was to reach out to 500 people in 32 Visitors days by the end of the project (31 December 2018). The objective has been reached by about 153% by 29 Visitors days with 765 participants. More visitor days may be organized after the project and these will be managed by SFA (see Annex F8).

Table 14. List of completed information days - Visitors day until the project end, 31 December 2018. number of reported no year date Visitors day together with GAG: participants 1 2013 09-nov Gotland Meadow committé 45 MidtRep IncRep 2 2014 27-jan Local History Society of Gotland 28 MidtRep IncRep 3 30-jan Local History Society of Gotland 30 MidtRep IncRep 4 04-feb Local History Society of Gotland 22 MidtRep 5 04-mar Lövsta agricultural school 15 MidtRep 6 15-jun Gotland Meadow committé 49 MidtRep 7 06-sep Gotlands Skördefestival 70 MidtRep 8 09-okt Lokal Heritage Foundation 10 MidtRep 9 10-okt Lokal Heritage Foundation 6 MidtRep 10 27-okt Lövsta agricultural school 6 MidtRep 11 08-nov Gotland Meadow committé 52 MidtRep 12 2015 26-mar Forest owners Gotland 7 MidtRep 13 21-apr Upplands Botanical Assosiation 12 MidtRep 14 30-apr Roma school/Mangsarve Meadow 37 MidtRep 15 05-sep Gotlands Skördefestival 36 MidtRep 16 01-okt SFA-IT department 28 ProgrRep 1 17 07-nov Gotland Meadow committé 53 ProgrRep 1 SFA staff, district Stockholm- ProgrRep 1 18 2016 16-feb Gotland 19 19 28-apr Lokal Heritage Foundation 3 ProgrRep 1 20 24-maj staff from CAB 6 ProgrRep 1 21 18-jun Gotland Meadow committé 15 ProgrRep 1 22 03-jul Almedalsveckan 115 ProgrRep 1 23 21-aug Dendrology Society 25 ProgrRep 1

65 24 31-aug SFA, Forest Department 21 ProgrRep 1 25 10-sep Nordic Forest 11 ProgrRep 1 26 12-okt Forest owners Gotland 4 ProgrRep 1 27 2017 5-jun Lokrume Hembygdsförening 9 ProgrRep 2 28 22-sept Visby Rotaryförening 21 ProgrRep 2 29 2018 28-febr meeting with landowners 10 ProgrRep 2 summary 765

Presentations and information materials at following links: https://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/globalassets/projektwebbplatser/life-elmias/presentationer/projektet- lifeelmias.pdf https://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/globalassets/projektwebbplatser/life-elmias/presentationer/utbildning- alm-och-almsjuka.pdf https://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/globalassets/projektwebbplatser/life- elmias/informationsmaterial/almsjuka-pa-gotland.pdf https://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/globalassets/projektwebbplatser/life-elmias/informationsmaterial/dont- bring-wood---hindra-spridningen-av-almsjuka.pdf

Action start date 01/07/2013 Action end date 31/12/2018 Deliverable N/A Milestone 01/12/2013 First visitor’s day completed

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT? More people attended the visitor days than expected. The feedback from the delegates was always good with lots of questions and interest.

66 5.1.27.9 Action E9. Training sessions for entrepreneurs and landowners in the eradication of DED This action is completed and SFAs have educated 244 people in 25 training sessions. This is more double the number anticipated in the project application (In progress report 2, it was reported that SFA have educated 200 persons in 23 training sessions until 28th of February 2018, but it wasn’t the right numbers). Agendas and name lists are presented in Annex E9. The PowerPoint presentation “Utbildning alm och almsjuka” has been used in the training: https://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/globalassets/projektwebbplatser/life-elmias/presentationer/utbildning- alm-och-almsjuka.pdf

Table 15. 25 completed educational activities within the project. SFA''s trainers are included in the number of participants year year-month-date compani-participants number of participants reported inkl SFA:s educaters 2014 2014-01-22 Region Gotland 8 IncRep/midtRep 2014-01-29 Nybergs entreprenad 9 IncRep/midtRep 2014-02-05 Nybergs entreprenad 8 IncRep/midtRep 2014-02-05 Skog och miljö, GSM 9 IncRep/midtRep 2014-02-11 Lantmäteriet 7 IncRep/midtRep 2014-02-19 Lantmäteriet m fl 7 IncRep/midtRep 2014-02-26 Skogssällskapet 7 IncRep/midtRep 2014-03-14 Guteröjarna 4 MidtRep 2014-03-05 LRF-Mellanskog 17 MidtRep 2014-03-20 LRF-Källunge-Vallstena 19 MidtRep 2014-03-26 LRF Gerum mfl 12 MidtRep 2014-04-01 LRF-Bro 16 MidtRep 2014-04-15 Region Gotland 14 MidtRep 2014-07-15 Region Gotland 5 MidtRep 2014-07-15 Region Gotland 9 MidtRep 2014-08-20 Svenska kyrkan 6 MidtRep 2014-08-21 Svenska kyrkan 15 MidtRep 2015 2015-02-03 Eltel Networks 7 MidtRep 2015-02-12 Motorsågskurs 7 MidtRep 2015-03-03 Motorsågskurs 8 MidtRep 2015-03-16 Motorsågskurs 10 MidtRep 2015-03-24 Nybergs-Trafikverket 13 MidtRep 2015-04-23 Skogsföretag-trädvård¹ 9 FinalRep 2016 2016-04-25 Motorsågskurs 3 ProgRep 1 2018 2018-01-12 PEAB, Trafikverket, Lillfole 15 FinalRep 2018 2018-01-12 PEAB, Trafikverket, Lillfole 15 FinalRep Summary 244 ¹2015-04-23, Skogsföretag/trädvård, should have been reported in Midterm report, but was forgotten then.

67

According to the application the plan for this action was to make a three-part education program for 100 people. To be more cost efficient and more energy efficient (e.g less car journeys) we instead included all three parts of the education programme in one session. By doing so we also reached out to more people.

Action start date 01/10/2013 Action end date 31/12/2018 Deliverable N/A Milestone 30/11/2013 First training session completed

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT? It exceeded our expectations with regard to numbers of people that took part in the training almost 2.5 times what we anticipated in the application. It was also much more effective to run these three different sessions as a single event in terms of the carbon footprint and reaching out to more people. In addition when asking contractors to spend time on training, this is something to take into consideration; i.e. it is a large cost to take time out of fee-paying work to go on training courses, therefore it is better to run a single day rather than several sessions over several days. This activity was key to building capacity amongst local contractors.

68 5.1.27.10 Action E10. Workshop - Wooded Natura 2000 sites and Invasive Alien Fungi Species (pathogens) This action has been completed at a lower cost than anticipated. As the target group of the workshop was primarily Swedish stakeholders it was decided to have this workshop in Swedish (see IncRep). SFA sent out 200 invitations and the result was 110 participants (see annex 6.3.E10a and b in Midterm Rep). The workshop was organised by SFA. CAB, SLU and RG and the proceedings from the workshop are available on the webpage (deliverable, deadline 30/12/2014, http://www.skogsstyrelsen.se/Projektwebbar/Life-ELMIAS1/Nyhetsarkiv/workshop/workshop- presentationer/). The climate change theme was also addressed at the workshop in a presentation. This point was also included in the evaluation forms.

Efforts to invite and engage international participants was instead directed to the international conference (E11). It was clear from the evaluation forms that the workshop was much appreciated by the participants, because the information was given at a practical level. The participants were landowners, administrators, fieldworkers and also members of the public, that had seen the advert about the workshop in the local newspaper.

Action start date 01/07/2013 Action end date 31/12/2014 Deliverable 31/12/2014 Workshop proceedings – Wooded Natura 2000 sites and Invasive Alien Fungi (pathogens) Milestone 30/09/2014 Workshop – Wooded Natura 2000 sites and Invasive Alien Fungi (pathogens)

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT? It is always a challenge having conferences in English, whilst at the same time trying to reach practitioners. Many Swedish people have a very good level of English, but it is different when dealing with technical and professional language. This conference was likely much more successful at reaching out to local stakeholders because it was in Swedish rather than English.

69 5.1.27.11 Action E11. Conference: Experiences of Saving Wooded N2000 on Gotland from Invasive Fungi Species (pathogens) SLU was the sole organizer of the final conference on Gotland and in Visby, on 30th and 31st August 2018. The cooperation with the International Union of Forest Research Organizations, (IUFRO) provided no financial and/or organizational support for the conference and only the part on Gotland which focused on Life ELMIAS were included in the budget for the event. On 26th -29th August a part of the IUFRO conference was arranged in Uppsala, but this was not directly connected with LifeELMIAS. See link https://www.slu.se/iufro-rots2018 and agenda https://www.slu.se/en/departments/forest-mycology-plantpathology/iufro-rots2018/program/

By this co-organization with IUFRO however, the conference was announced through IUFRO´s network and by doing so attracted more researchers working with tree diseases from more countries. 79 people attended the conference. The conference took place at Wisby Strand's conference hall with about 20 lecturers and presentations and as a field excursion to three different Life ELMIAS Natura 2000 sites. 13 posters were also presented at the conference. A conference dinner was held at Wisby Strand's conference hall in the evening 30th August.

LifeELMIAS was responsible for six presentations at the conference and the field excursion to three Life ELMIAS sites: • Presentation 32; Scolytus multistriatus on Gotland Island: phenology and infectiousness with Dutch Elm Disease • Presentation 33; Veteranisation – using tools instead of time. • Presentation 42; LIFE+ ELMIAS project on managing wooded meadows of Gotland under the threat of Dutch Elm Disease and Ash Dieback including presentation of action D3- the assessment of socioeconomic impact of project operations • Presentation 43; Fighting Dutch Elm Disease on the Gotland Island. What have we leant and what can we expect for the future? • Presentation 52; Testing ash for resistance to dieback: an amateurish approach • Discussion 53; What is the future for elms in Europe and on Gotland? This provided an excellent opportunity to combine research ideas with the practical issues faced by site managers of Natura 2000 sites in the face of IAS on trees.

Approximately 20 stakeholder representatives took part in the final conference and some of the international presentations (e.g. 30, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40, 44, 45, 46, 50, 51) shared related experiences from a “stakeholder perspective”.

The full program/agenda for the conference and field excursions with map, abstracts for presentations (proceedings) and posters, namelist (79 participants from more than 15 countries), LifeELMIAS PPT- presentations, summary from the panel discussion, link to website with information about the conference and pictures can be found collated in annex E11.

The original plan was to arrange the conference in the autumn of 2017, but there was already a large similar international conference planned for that time. We thus decided to postpone the Life ELMIAS conference and have it in cooperation with IUFOR, which gave opportunity for good cooperation with researchers and a greater international reach. The postponement was approved, point 10 in the letter from the European Commission on 02/12/17 (Annex F1). This also resulted in a delay in the milestone, which was moved to August 2018 instead of September 2017.

Action start date 01/07/2016 Action end date 31/12/2018 Deliverable 30/09/2018 Proceedings from conference (Deadline extended) Milestone 30/09/2017 Conference invitations sent out

70

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT? It was a challenge to find a date that did not clash with other significant or similar events. In addition the opportunity was taken to run the Life ELMIAS conference in direct connection with the IUFRO conference to ensure greater impact in terms of international delegates (especially considering the first workshop was in Swedish and focused on more local participants. This event really provided the opportunity for sharing experiences between researchers and site managers of Natura 2000 sites and the challenges faced by both. The final discussion really helped with the discussions in relation to the After Life (Annex F8) e.g. the elm breeding programme etc.

71 5.1.27.12 Action E12. Scientific publication of experiences Six manuscripts have been produced of which five were planned. Four of the manuscripts have already been published in scientific journals: i. Scolytus multistriatus associated with Dutch Elm Disease on the island of Gotland; phenology and communities of vectored fungi. Published in 2016, Mycological Progress. (A6)link ii. Molecular relationship among isolates of Ophiostoms ulmi and Ophiostoma novo-ulmi in the Baltic Sea area with a special reference to the island of Gotland. Manuscript finalized 2018. (A6) link iii. Tests with wood-decay fungi to control sprouting from cut stumps infected by DED. Published in Baltic Forestry, 2017 (C5).link iv. Fraxinus excelsior tolerant to ash dieback on the island of Gotland determined using phenotypic and genotypic traits. Manuscript finished in 2018. (A5/C8) link v. DED on the island of Gotland: monitoring disease vector and combat measures. Published in Scandinavian Journal of Forest Research, 2015 (D2) link vi. Natura 2000 habitats dominated by ash and elm, invaded by alien invasive fungi on the Gotland island of Sweden: an overview. Baltic Forestry, 2017. (D2). link Acknowledgements have been made to LIFE+ Nature ELMIAS project (LIFE12 NAT/SE/00139) in all articles. Additional personnel resources were transferred to this action as a part of the formal budget amendment (F1d).

Action start date 01/07/2013 Action end date 31/12/2018 Deliverable 30/06/2018 Five manuscripts Milestone N/A

WHAT WENT WELL, WHAT WAS DIFFICULT? More manuscripts were published than expected and this also meant that the results were spread internationally and raised the quality of the results achieved.

72 5.2 Evaluation of Project Implemention − Methodology applied: discuss the success and failures of the methodology applied, results of actions conducted and the cost-efficiency of actions

Methodology applied: To reach the objectives specified in the application, the main methods involved focusing on trying to eradicate DED and implement restoration work in order to protect the wooded Annex 1 habitats in question, the following methodology was applied: • To detect, transport and destroy trees infected by DED and monitor the trees and the beetles. • To restore the wooded Annex 1 habitats and improving their ability to resist the effects of DED and ADB by regeneration, clearing, pollarding and veteranisation of replacement trees. • To develop and establish a contingency plan, how to deal with DED and its effects in the long term (After Life plan, see action F8). • To disseminate information, knowledge about DED, ADB and applicable measures how to prevent DED and how to minimize the negative effects of the diseases.

The method involving the identification, removal and destruction of DED infected trees has not yet eradicated DED on Gotland. There is however a downward trend in both the numbers of trees infected and the numbers of properties i.e. a proxy for the area over which DED is spread. This would suggest that the method has been effective in controlling DED and buying time for the biodiversity associated with elm. The method has saved in the region of 300 000 elm trees during the course of the project. Monitoring of the tree mortality at a site level gave less reliable data with regards to elm mortality as more trees would be required and more time. However, the mortality rates calculated from the felling work likely give a clearer reflection on the loss rates and can be compared with no control programme (0.5% compared with 9% with no control programme).

The method to identify the DED trees has developed over the course of the project and more recently an app was used to collect data in the field. This made the process much more efficient as the same data could be shared digitally with the contractors undertaking the felling and removal. This approach as well as being more time efficient also ensured better recording of when the work was done. Remote sensing methods and the use of drones has been investigated and discussed, but not fully developed. This is an area however that SFA will follow up on after the end of the project to make the detection of DED trees more efficient.

There have been some improvements in the methodology in action C3 when it comes to making use of the infected wood. Instead of transporting the infected wood to Visby where it was chipped at the thermal power station, the infected wood has been chipped on site. By doing this, the risk of spreading the disease is reduced as the infected wood. This improvement also resulted in less driving and was more cost efficient.

The study of the beetle flying periods, helped to focus the survey efforts more effectively through the course of the project. The indications from the monitoring on the beetles are variable and more data is required to understand the relationship between the beetle and the quantity of spores they are carrying and the amount of DED infected trees (see also D4 and F8). We do however have a better understanding of the ecology of the elm bark beetle and the fungi. We now know that the beetle flies mostly in July and that the form of the DED fungus

73 is the more aggressive genotype. We also know however, that the fungus probably arrived on Gotland, likely only on a single occasion and it originates from the mainland.

The difficulty with monitoring of species such as the collared flycatcher (Ficedula albicollis), bats (including Barbastelle barbasellus) lichens are that changes in their habitat take time to show in their populations. The problem with the collard flycatcher survey work was that a nest box research project likely influenced the results from 2014. These nestboxes were no longer useable in 2018 and the decline of territories, whilst remaining relatively stable over the course of the project, there was a slight reduction, but this is most likely due to factors other than Life ELMIAS. The lichen surveys worked well, but more time is needed to see genuine changes and some of the changes seen may be due to the surveyor missing species when they only occur in very small quantities. A similar pattern is true for the bats, with a tendency to an increase in the number of species at each site. New The methods, using the auto-boxes was very useful and meant that lots of species were picked up that had not been recorded from various sites before, such as the record of a Myotis myotis (greater mouse-eared bat) from Käldänge in 2018, which has only been recorded from Skåne in Sweden before and two new sites were found for the barbastelle bat, which is very encouraging. It is clear however, that the timescales for seeing changes are too short when monitoring species.

Developing a seedbank with resistant/tolerant ash trees, firstly involved collecting seed from apparently symptom free trees spread over Gotland. The problem was that the seeds took several years to germinate! Small seedlings were then selected from field locations around Gotland that also looked symptom-free and they were transplanted. The seedlings then needed to be fenced to protect them from for example hares. Even after the fence was put up, browsing continued because a hare had been fenced in!! Once that was taken out, the seedlings grew well and the seeds germinated. Although this action cost more than expected, the result is better than expected with around 70% of the trees still being free of symptoms. This will, in the future, have the potential to be an incredible valuable resource for the replacement of ash in Natura 2000 sites.

In the application the plans for training sessions (E9) involved a three part education program for about 100 people. To be more cost effective, more energy efficient (e.g. fewer car journeys) and reach more people, we instead developed one training course with all three parts combined. This resulted in more people being reached for lower cost; more than double the number of people were trained. The investment in training local contractors is that they now have the competence even after the end of the project.

The After-Life plan has been a key component of the project from 2015. This was an important aspect of the approach in Life ELMIAS; to start discussing the future funding of the control programme should the Life project not manage to eradicate DED in the project period, which it has not done. This approach involved using evidence and sharing experiences, organising meetings and workshops with key stakeholders, in particular those with funding. Using the I-tree-eco system has allowed the project to identify the benefits of the control programme in financial terms, in the numbers of trees saved and in terms of ecosystem services such as carbon storage and uptake of air pollution.

74

Comparison of the results achieved against the objectives:

Table 16 - An overview of the actions, results achieved compared with what was planned and a summary evaluation Task/Action Foreseen in the revised Achieved Evaluation proposal A1 25 restoration plans 25 plans produced on Objectives met. These plans will also be time available for future work if necessary. The cost came in under budget and remaining funds were used in D1. This action was combined with D1, which was a good use of resources A2 23 updated draft All produced within Objectives met. There was a minor conservation plans and the deadline. The 14 modification due to the fact that some 14 updated draft management plans N2000 sites were combined (see report). management plans were also legally The results were better than expected due approved to the fact that the management plans were also legally approved within the timescale of the project. A key challenge related to changes of boundaries and the potential development of a National Park A3 Digitized map of elm This was completed It would have been more efficient if it were distribution on Gotland on time and within possible to identify elm using remote budget sensing techniques, however these were not available when the project started and are only now developing. The work was coordinated with C2 which saved on resources and travelling costs. A4 Flight period, This was completed This was really useful in improving the behaviour and on time and within understanding of the peak flight times of population size of budget the beetle on Gotland. It was combined Scolytus multistriatus with A6 and D2 to save on resources. will be established A5 Database of at least 134 apparently ash Mapping of ash trees, monitoring their 100 apparently ash dieback resistant health-status, sampling of materials for dieback resistant genotypes have been molecular work and molecular genotyping geontypes recorded in a went well and generated important results. database and The generated database with ash dieback- monitored and one tolerant individuals on Gotland can now be that is not. used in breeding programs as well as for education and field demonstrations. The future of the trees and the database needs to be maintained by SLU. A6 Details of the genetic Achieved and This work raised the profile of the issue on diversity of DED on identified that the Gotland and in the wider scienfitic Gotland diversity was low community. It also supported the view that indicating few few infection incidents had occurred. Two infections and that manuscripts were produced of which one DED came from was published.

75 mainland Sweden

C1 500 trees fenced All work was carried Generally speaking the work was successful. around, 700 trees out and within the The time period of the project is too short cleared around, 30 ha timetable with the in some instances to be able to fully Annex I habitat modifications as evaluate the success i.e. for regeneration restored, 400 trees agreed following the and tree establishment. Some of the pollarded, 200 trees midterm report restoration work is also difficult ot predict veteranised. in advance, hence the need for some minor modifications. C2 Annual inventory The action was This work was vital to identify DED infected across Gotland to achieved and trees and was one of the most time identify DED infected continued longer consuming actions in the project. An app trees, breeding trees than planned until was developed in the latter part of the and dead wood within 2018 project which made data collection easier. and outside of N2000 The methods were developed to be as sites on Gotland effective as possible, however remote sensing techniques would be a way to additionally make the detection of DED trees more effective. The work in 2017 was financed by SFA to ensure there was no gap in the control programme. The 2018 inventory was financed by LIFE and involved a budget amendment which was approved. The numbers of trees with DED show a declining trend along with the number of properties with DED infected trees. C3 Felling and destroying 6900 elm trees were The lack of budget for 2017 proved to be a 6000 elm trees per felled and destroyed problem, but this was solved and financed year (2013, 2014, 2015, each year. 2017 by SFA. The budget amendment allowed for 2016, 2018 within Life financed outside of continued destruction work in 2018 ELMIAS) Life. ensuring there is no gap thusfar in the control programme. The numbers of trees felled with DED declined over the course of the project. Overall this achieved its objective in that DED is under control, but not eradicated. There is also a downward trend and the mortality rate is very low ca 0,5%. C4 2000 stumps treated Just over 4000 There were some difficulties related to this with ecoplugs per year stumps per year action, in relation to when landowners using 40000 ecoplugs were treated using were not keen to use ecoplugs or were around 150000 plugs, organic farms. This resulted in extra work within budget both in terms of planning, cost and communications with the landowners. The ecoplugs however, worked very well in terms of the fact that trees treated with ecoplugs did not produce shoots or suckers.

76 More were required than estimated, but this still was within budget (with the amendment).

C5 Testing of a new Method tested and It was disappointing that the method did biological control does not work. not work as the project was hoping for a method suitable for Manuscript produced method without the use of chemicals. It did N2000 sites and a and published however results in a published article in a manuscript produced. scientific journal. C6 200 trees vaccinated Achieved and the None of the 200 trees have developed DED, against DED trees have not however it is difficult to assess if this is due developed DED to the vaccination or if the trees have not actually been exposed to DED. It is expensive and needs to be repeated each year and is thus likely only really useful for very special individual trees, rather than larger populations. C7 Leaflet produced and More leaflets were This worked well and no new imports of distributed to 2200 distributed than DED to Gotland have occurred as far as we visitors, controls expected and more can see over the course of the project. quayside, contact with articles were companies importing published than elm wood, press expected releases, contact with tourist board and advertisements C8 Ex situ seedbank of This was achieved The seeds took several years to germinate. dieback resistant ash although it took Apparently health ash seedlings were, as an trees comprising at longer than planned alternative, transplanted into a field, which least 100 genotypes or then had to be protected by a fence. at least 1000 trees However both the seeds and the seedlings established are now growing well and this is a fantastic resource for future use. This could potentially provide ash dieback resistant or tolerant trees for planting out in the Natura 2000 sites on Gotland and elsewhere. D1 25 baseline surveys, All of the monitoring There were challenges in relation to seeing annual mortality rates was achieved. change, in particular with lichens, bats and of ash and elm, birds over such a short period of time, but evaluation of there appeared to be a positive trend for vaccinated trees, the bats and lichens. The mortality rates are lichen, bat and collard very useful in understanding the impact on flycatcher surveys the Natura 2000 sites. The restoration work 2014 and 2018, has generally been successful and has had monitoring of the the results expected. restoration work

77 D2 Proportion of S. 110 traps set up and This worked very well as a method and gave multistriatus with DED 352 beetles trapped very useful results although the project fungus, 100 traps of which over 40% period is a little too short to be able to draw managed and emptied carried DED fungus any major conclusions, due to for example throughout the flight spores. A manuscript the impact of the hot, dry summer in 2018, period, one has been completed which favoured the beetle. manuscript, 20000 beetles collected D3 Numbers of paid 13000 working days The project has had a positive impact on working days and for the project the socioeconomic status on Gotland. Many voluntary days and the partners and 1768 local businesses have benefited from the number of new jobs working days for investment locally. In addition many created as a contractors. companies have increased their capacity consequence of the and knowledge. The impact on the general project public is also positive with many seeing the benefits of saving elm on Gotland. It is however difficult to measure the socioeconomic impact on the project qualitatively. It is possible to measure quantitatively i.e. number of days worked, but less easy to understand the positive and negative impacts on for example tourism. It is impossible for example to compare the impact of the loss of elm on the landscape that would have occurred without Life ELMIAS on tourism with the retention of elm as a consequence of the project as there are no “control areas”. D4 Evaluation of the Achieved later than The evaluation proposed that DED is under project on the control anticipated due to control with a downward trend, but not of DED and the impact coordination with eradicated. The impact on ecosystem of the project efforts other results of services is such that the Life ELMIAS project on ecosystem function. monitoring (D1, D2) has saved a total of 7 102 935 Euro during the project period (2013‐2018) if only the increase in uptake of air pollution and carbon storage is taken into consideration. The annual cost of the DED control programme is estimated to be 500 000 Euro, which means that the cost‐benefit of the control programme is more than double. E1 Website produced and 590 page visits per The website has been a useful place to 250 page visits per month collect information about the project but month also more widely regarding DED and Ash Dieback. It is also very helpful to have a place where all the reports can be held and made available for downloading. E2 500 copies downloaded Only a digital version This is a modern way of sharing information and 300 printed copies produced in English in this digital age. It saves paper and and Swedish. printing and is easy to spread as well as being interactive for the user.

78 E3 20 notice boards put 21 boards put up BehThis worked well having notice boards up in strategic places, but the issue of planning permission for those urban areas where more people would be likely to see the information was a challenge. E4 6 press releases 6 press releases 85 articles have been published as a produced produced consequence of the press releases and the project reaching a wide ranging audience from the general publis to specialists and professionals. E5 125 nominees for Elm 126 recieved the Elm More people attended the visitor days than Protector Award, Protector Award, expected. The feedback from GAG as a local presentations at E10 GAG presented at reference group was very helpful for the and E11, 6 meetings both events, 6 project. The Elm Protector Awards were and 500 visitors meetings helt and very well recieved. attending 32 events 765 visitors attended 29 events (265 more than anticipated. E6 Contact with other LIFE Contact with 6 Life It was useful to make contact particularly projects in and outside projects was with the Life project in Spain working with of Sweden achieved developing Resistant elms. In general the contact with other Life projects and the platform meetings proved to be very useful for exchanging ideas and experience. E7 125 awards give out 126 awards were These awards were very well received and given out was a relatively cheap way to generate goodwill and positive publicity for the people involved in the project and the project itself. E8 500 people reached 765 people attended More people attended the visitor days than with 32 events 29 events expected. The feedback from the delegates was always good with lots of questions and interest. E9 100 delegates on 244 delegates on 25 More people reached than expected. This training courses courses has built capacity in the local professionals. It was also more efficient to run one course rather than three separate courses. E10 200 invitations, 100 110 participants It was clear from the evaluation forms that participants from at mostly from Sweden the workshop was much appreciated by the least 5 countries participants, because the information was given at a practical level. The participants were landowners, administrators, fieldworkers and also members of the public. It is always a challenge having conferences in English, whilst at the same time trying to reach practitioners. Many Swedish people have a very good level of English, but it is different when dealing with technical and professional language. This conference was likely much more successful at reaching out to local stakeholders

79 because it was in Swedish rather than English. The international audience was the focus for E11.

E11 200 invitations, 100 79 participants from It was a challenge to find a date that did not participants from at more than 15 clash with other significant or similar least 5 countries countries events. In addition the opportunity was taken to run the Life ELMIAS conference in direct connection with the IUFRO conference to ensure greater impact in terms of international delegates (especially considering the first workshop was in Swedish and focused on more local participants. This event really provided the opportunity for sharing experiences between researchers and site managers of Natura 2000 sites and the challenges faced by both. The final discussion really helped with the discussions in relation to the After Life (Annex F8) E12 5 manuscripts 6 manuscripts It was excellent to have SLU as a partner produced produced of which that also was so successful in pulling four have been together results which gave them greater published in scientific credibility and ensured they were widely journals already spread. F1 Project implemented Achieved Some of the budget was transferred on time and within between budget posts. The project budget management structure and team worked well. F2 Actions implemented Achieved on time and within budget F3 Actions implemented Achieved on time and within budget F4 Actions implemented Achieved on time and within budget F5 Actions implemented Achieved on time and within budget F6 Fully audited accounts In progress

80 F7 Biofuels wherever Achieved It is challenging keeping the carbon possible, vegetable oils footprint low when a project is on an island. for tools wherever Virtually all travel involves long ferry possible, eco driving journeys or flying. Using Skype however this courses was kept to a minimum. F8 After-life conservation After-life plan This was a huge challenge for this project plan produced produced and work began on this action as far back as 2015. There is a lot of scepticism regarding controlling DED. The project has proven that it is possible to control DED on an island and is now a question of cost versus benefit.

Project results which are visible and those which will take longer to show themselves: There are many of the project results which became visible immediately such as the restoration plans which were implemented and resulted in 565 seedlings being protected by fencing, 30.4 ha of Annex I habitat being restored, 400 trees being pollarded and another 200 veteranised. However the impact of these activities on the biodiversity will take longer to show itself.

A directly visible result was the elm trees that have been felled and destroyed. Equally another directly visible result is the fact that DED has not devastated the landscape in the way it has for example on Gotland. It is harder however to compare the impact on biodiversity or make direct connections between the numbers of trees saved and how many are required in the future?

The socioeconomic impact of the project has been directly visible in terms of numbers of working days and the capacity building that has taken place. What is less easy to see is what difference has occurred in terms of peoples’ behaviour in relation to their understanding of DED and the impact on biodiversity. Equally it is hard to quantify the positive impact the project has had on for example tourism, but the very nature that it has saved so many elm trees and has ensured the survival of the essence of the Gotland landscape; wooded meadows with pollards.

Our understanding of the flight periods of the bark beetle was a directly visible result, however the understanding of the impact of weather and other factors in the population size and the proportion of DED fungal spores would take longer and more time to investigate.

The ash nursery is a directly visible result and it is clear to see that 70% of these trees are still free of ADB symptoms. Work to identify the genetic markers associated with tolerant or resistant trees will take more research and more time.

It will take longer to show visible results of how the restoration actions have affected the target species like the Barbastelle barbasellus, Ficedula albicollis and the surveyed lichens. However, the monitoring will continue as a part of the obligatory monitoring programme in the protected sites and hopefully the positive trends will continue, assuming that the control programme continues to be financed.

The impact of the research work carried out by SLU is really only partly visible now, but this is likely and hopefully to lead to more visible results in the future such as resistant ash trees.

81 Project amendment: The only major amendment involved a budget amendment and this was hugely significant for the biodiversity associated with Elm on Gotland because it ensured that there was no gap in the DED control programme, which would have been a disaster. It also helped secure additional funding from SFA both in 2017 and in 2019 to finalise the destruction work following the end of the project. It also ensured that the project could make use of the funds available for very prioritised efforts. Other amendments to the project were considered minor, but involved extensions to the deadline for the control programme, which was significant for the outcome of the project.

Indicate effectiveness of the dissemination and comment on any major drawbacks The actions and activities linked to dissemination have been very effective in the sense of reaching out to the general public, professionals and specialists. Double the number of people were training and 265 more people attended visitor events. In general the level of knowledge regarding DED both on Gotland and on the mainland is much higher as a consequence of the project’s efforts. The six press releases generated much greater interest than expected; more than 80 publications or news items, including one on national Swedish TV. It is also evident that the general public visits the webpage as project staff has been contacted as a consequence of the webpage. There have of course been some negative issues as well due to the fact that there are sceptics that do not necessarily believe that the control progamme is worth the money. This is an area that has been important to try and measure and quantify in terms of cost versus benefit. Four of the six manuscripts that were written have already been published in peer reviewed journals and this is a very positive outcome of the project. It is often very time consuming to go from manuscript to publication.

82

5.3 Analysis of long-term benefits a. Direct / quantitative environmental benefits: LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity: e.g. conservation benefits for Natura 2000 (SCI/SPA) and species/habitat type targeted. Highlight briefly issues that may have important policy implications on Natura 2000 also in relation to other EC policies if relevant (e.g. new management techniques and procedures, pump priming agri-environment, links with the water framework directive, etc). Please also address incentive/pump priming effects (both in financial and policy terms)

LifeELMIAS by saving elm and ash as tree species and their ecosystems, generates resilience to climate change, contributes to conservation and enhancement of the natural environment and significantly contributes to the objectives of the EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy. LifeELMIAS hits several Targets in EU 2020 Biodiversity Strategy: Target 1. Halt the deterioration in the status of species and habitats. Target 2. Maintain and restore ecosystems and their services. Target 3. Increase the contribution of forestry to maintaining and enhancing biodiversity. Target 5. Combat invasive alien species. Target 6. Help avert global biodiversity loss. Therefore, the project sets a strategic long- term basis for the conservation of the tree species, their habitats and associated biodiversity.

565 seedlings in Natura 2000 sites were protected by fencing and 700 trees were cleared around. 30.4 ha of Natura 2000 Annex I habitat were restored, and 400 trees were pollarded and another 200 veteranized. 200 elm trees were vaccinated, and none have yet developed DED. The ash seedbank has been successful in that both the seeds have germinated and almost 70% of the seedlings show no signs of ADB. These are direct, quantitative environmental benefits.

Life ELMIAS identified three scenarios: 1) do nothing scenario; 2) limited control of DED and 3) eradication of DED. It is scenario two that has been achieved. There are however, clear indications that the disease is under control, with a downward trend in the total number of diseased trees, the number of diseased trees per location and the area where DED has been found. This in combination with a low mortality rate (under 1.77% per annum and more likely closer to 0.50%) means that the control programme, if it continues, is likely to ensure that the elm population, as well as the associated biodiversity, can be maintained at sustainable levels for many decades to come, if the control programme can continue. Almost 60000 elms (of all sizes) were felled and destroyed as a part of the Life ELMIAS project. However, the project has saved in the region of between 290 000 and 348 000 elm trees over 10 cm in diameter compared with if there had been no Life Project. In addition from the veteran elm tree population that has been surveyed the project has directly ensured the survival of around 1000 elms that have high biodiversity value.

DED and ADB have seriously affected two keystone tree species in terms of their biodiversity values in Sweden and across Europe. As a result, both elm and ash have been placed on the Swedish Red Data Book http://www.artdatabanken.se/naturvaard/roedlistning/). Gotland is considered as a possible refuge for elms and the species dependent on elm for their survival. A large number of species are directly dependent on ash and/or elm and 118 species on the Swedish Red Data Book have been identified as more or less dependent on ash and/or elm (Artportalen, 2018) and many of these can be found on Gotland. A conservative estimate would be that approximately 50 % are exclusively associated with ash and/or elm (Thor 2018, pers com). This means that the control programme has had a direct and positive impact on the populations of species associated with elm.

The project aimed to eradicate DED, however, it is clear that this has not been possible within the timeframe of the project. Other control programmes have identified a mortality rate of 0,5% per annum when a control programme is in place (Syracuse, Quebec, Netherlands). The mortality rates from the monitoring work on Gotland suggest a similar rate of mortality; in the region of 0,5% per year. Professor Jan Stenlid, SLU has been doing some analyses of the outcomes of Life ELMIAS, with

83 the aim of producing a prognosis with a continued control programme and if it were to stop, comparing with scientific studies carried out elsewhere.

Figure 14 below (assuming a population of 1 000 000 elm trees) shows that with continued control such as has been implemented thusfar we could expect either Prediction II or Prediction III. Prediction II is based on a model prediction and assumes a mortality rate similar to what has been observed during 2017-2018. Prediction III is based on the actual figures from Gotland over the last decade. With Prediction III there would still be in the region of 60% of the elm population remaining on Gotland, which also gives time for new trees to grow up and replace ones that have been lost and also the potential for resistant clones to be developed. Without continued control Prediction I is likely and within 10 -15 years the population would be down to 10% and is based on mortality rates reported from other areas where control measures have been discontinued. This implies that measures to keep down the number of infected elm trees (see also Annex F8) will have a large impact on the number of living elm trees.

Figure 14 – the various Predictions I, II, and III, with (II, III) and without (I) a control programme showing the proportion of elm population that remains

If the control programme stops, it will not take long before up to 90% of the elms will be dead. Combined with restoration measures it might therefore, still be possible to preserve the biodiversity in the wooded Annex 1 habitat.

In addition as a direct consequence of the project more people are aware of the problems connected with invasive alien species such as DED and ADB and the serious problems that these create for our native biodiversity and the Natura 2000 network. b. Relevance for environmentally significant issues or policy areas (e.g. industries/sectors with significant environmental impact, consistency with 6th or 7th (as applicable) EU Environment Action Programme and/or important environmental principles, relevance to the EU legislative framework (directives, policy development, etc.)

LifeELMIAS aimed to have a positive impact on nature conservation and the birds and habitats directive by reducing/eliminating the threats caused by the DED and ADB on the target species in the wooded Annex 1 habitats. In addition, the project is also followed the alien species directive by striving for eradication of DED, but also finding resistant/tolerant ash trees. The work in relation to the After Life Plan has also raised national issues regarding the management of alien species in Sweden.

84 There is hope that a cross-government agency group may be set up to help deal with existing and future alien species, when these can currently fall between stools.

Saving elm and ash creates a long-term carbon sink and a better living environment for people and wildlife. Ash and elm ecosystems are unique and provide wide range of ecosystem services and habitats for wide range red-listed and vulnerable species directly associated with these tree species. Besides, both elm and ash themselves are in the Swedish Red Data Book (see the Swedish Red Data Book) https://www.artdatabanken.se/globalassets/ew/subw/artd/2.-var-verksamhet/publikationer/22.- rodlistan-2015/rodlistan_2015.pdf

The impact of Life ELMIAS on the ecosystem services provided by the elm trees was evaluated using I-Tree and focusing on three services: carbon storage, carbon sequestration and uptake of air pollution. Over the course of the project, only taking carbon storage and uptake of air pollution into account, the Life ELMIAS project has directly saved 7 102 935 Euros. This is an economic valuation which amounts to more than double the Life ELMIAS budget. This is without taking account of the social and cultural history values that the wooded meadows and pastures on Gotland provide. The project also contributed to the socioeconomic situation on Gotland by the creation of almost 15000 working days for both the project partners and contractors, with many people increasing their competence in several different areas.

5.3.2 Long-term benefits and sustainability a. Long-term / qualitative environmental benefits LIFE+ Nature and Biodiversity: What is the outlook for the targeted habitat type and/or species? How do you plan to continue and to develop the actions that were initiated in the LIFE project in the years that follow the end of the project and how will the longer-term management of the site(s) be assured? What are the remaining threats? Details should be given regarding what actions should be carried out, when, by whom and using what source of finance. (For LIFE-Nature projects, you must also annex the After-LIFE conservation plan which shall be delivered in English and also in the language(s) of the beneficiary/ies.)

In the application, in the event of scenario 2 – the project has been partly successful and DED is under control but not eradicated then more work needs to be done to ensure the long-term sustainability of the Annex I habitats and species targeted on Gotland. Funding is however the crucial factor and the situation currently is that there is funding from SFA to continue with the control programme in 2019, but not beyond (actions C2, C3 and C4). There are no funds available from SEPA and an application for funds to support the development of a new Life application was rejected. This means that the habitats are potentially still under threat due to the fact that even if the control programme is stopped for just one year, the likelihood of control declines exponentially. The investment in resistant/tolerant ash trees is very positive and will hopefully provide replacement trees in the not too distant future, however the timescales for delivery are challenging with the mortality rates that would occur (9% for elm with no control and 2.2% for ash).

The project actions that are planned to be carried out after the end of the project are as follows:

All conservation plans and management plans (A2) were approved within the timescale of the project and will be used as the basis for future management after the end of the project. These will be implemented by CAB, who have direct responsibility for managing the Natura 2000 sites. The ongoing management of the Natura 2000 sites will continue, ensuring that the restoration efforts undertaken as a part of the Life ELMIAS project are maintained (C1). The work will be funded by the ongoing funding that the CAB receive annually for management of protected sites supplemented by RDP environmental subsidies where possible.

The control programme; actions C2, C3 and C4 will continue at least during 2019 and will be managed and funded by SFA. Further funding opportunities will be sought out beyond this time frame.

85 Additionally discussions are in place to find support for developing appropriate remote sensing techniques which could reduce the cost and improve the accuracy of identifying sick trees (C2). This will be led by SFA and SLU. Further work to find out more detail regarding the structure of the elm population on Gotland and the character of the elm trees that support the greatest biodiversity will also be undertaken led by SFA and CAB on Gotland. C7 (controlling the risks for new introductions) will form a part of the standard advisory role that SFA and CAB have in their work. The ash seedling plantation and the associated database (A5/C8) will continue to be managed and used for further research depending on availability of funding by SLU. The site will be maintained by SLU.

D1 – monitoring of the N2000 sites will form a part of the standard national monitoring programme (developed by SEPA) that CAB have responsibility for undertaking. In addition CAB will revisit the trees monitored within the project five years after the end of the project (in 2023). Ideally an additional survey of the lichens, bats and collared flycatcher will also take place in 2023 following the same methods, but these actions can only be undertaken if funds are available and if the DED control programme continues. D2 – monitoring of the spread of DED will form a part of the continued control programme assuming funding is available.

The website (E1) will be maintained by SFA for at least two years after the end of the project and longer if the control programme can be financed for longer. The noticeboards (E3) will be checked annually by the respective organisation (SFA, CAB) for 2 years after the end of the project. Media contact (E4) and requests for networking (E6) will continue as a part of the ordinary work of SFA and CAB beyond the end of the project. GAG (E5) is a voluntary organisation and will continue after the end of the project. Visitor days and training sessions (E8/E9) will continue at a reduced level due to the significantly reduced need for this due to the fact of the success of the project in building local capacity and knowledge. The two manuscripts of the six produced (E12) that have not yet been published, will be submitted for publication after the end of the project and SLU will be responsible for this work.

The work to find adequate financing for continuing with the DED control programme will continue by SFA, CAB and SLU (F8). This has formed an integral part of Life ELMIAS and has been identified at senior level in the partner organisations as a priority. There is clearly great uncertainty of the financial situation beyond 2019 (see Annex F8 – After Life Plan and table 16 below).

86

b. Long-term / qualitative economic benefits (e.g. long-term cost savings and/or business opportunities with new technology etc., regional development, cost reductions or revenues in other sectors).

The collaboration with SLU opened up new opportunities for combating DED and the negative consequences of DED and ADB. New directly applicable knowledge has been attained e.g. the seed bank (action C8) of potentially ADB resistant ash seeds. This opens up opportunities for replacement trees (action C1) not just for Gotland, but across Europe. New options might also emanate from the Spanish Life project which has worked with the development of DED resistant clones of elm, Ulmus minor and U. laevis (LIFE13 BIO/ES/000556). They are interested in obtaining elm material from Gotland to test the level of resistance.

New technology in terms of the use of apps for surveying has resulted in cost savings and this technique could be applied elsewhere to for example monitoring of Natura 2000 sites or for other types of management work. The fact that digital information can be shared directly with the contractors limits mistakes and allows the contractors to directly records what has been done, so this is more efficient and accurate. The development of remote sensing techniques to identify sick trees also has the potential to save money and time. c. Long-term / qualitative social benefits (e.g. positive effects on employment, health, ethnic integration, equality and other socio-economic impact etc.)

Many people, in different ways involved in the project, e.g those attaining meetings, education sessions, permanent employees as well as temporarily employees and long term unemployed have gained new and valuable knowledge. E.g how to perform inventories, destruction of infected wood, restoration measures, monitoring etc. The project also contributed to the socioeconomic situation on Gotland by the creation of almost 15000 working days for both the project partners and contractors, with many people increasing their competence in several different areas.

As shown by the analyses of the ecosystem services impact that the Life ELMIAS project has had, there was a significant and positive impact on human health in relation to the uptake of air pollution by the elm trees that were saved as a consequence of the control programme. It was not possible to assess the impact on tourism directly as there is no real comparison with Gotland. d. Continuation of the project actions by the beneficiary or by other stakeholders.

Table 17 - An overview of the actions that will be continued after the end of the project, who will be responsible and where the finances will come from.

Action What will be done Beneficiary Finances Responsible A2 No further work required CAB N/A A5/C8 Ash database will be maintained, and SLU will continue to use SLU SLU these trees as a basis for future research and potentially resistant trees C1 The restoration work will be maintained CAB CAB C2 Survey for DED infected trees 2019 SFA SFA 2019 C3 Felling and destroying of infected trees in 2019 SFA SFA 2019 C4 Killing of infected root by chemical control 2019 SFA SFA 2019

87 C5 Proven to be unsuccessful, no further action required N/A N/A C6 No further vaccination will take place N/A N/A C7 This will form a part of the normal advisory function of SFA SFA SFA personnel D1 The Natura 2000 sites will be monitored as a part of the CAB CAB standard monitoring of Natura 2000 sites. The trees will be revisited in 2023. Additional surveys of bats, lichens and collared flycatcher will take place in 2023 if the control programme continues and if finances are available

D2 Monitoring of the spread of DED will form a part of the SFA/SLU SFA/SLU control programme if funding is available E1 Website will be maintained until at least 2021 and updated if SFA SFA relevant E3 Notice board will be checked annually until 2021 SFA/CAB SFA/CAB E4 Media work will be continued as a part of normal activity SFA/CAB SFA/CAB E5 This is a voluntary organisation and will continue as long as GAG? GAG? there is engagement E6 Responses to networking requests will be done as and when SFA SFA requests come in for at least two years E8/9 Will continue at a reduced level depending on the control SFA SFA programme E12 Manuscripts will be submitted to scientific journals SLU SLU F8 Work to find further financing will continue until all options SFA/CAB/SLU SFA/CAB/SLU are exhausted or DED is out of control

5.3.3 Replicability, demonstration, transferability, cooperation: a. Potential for technical and commercial application (transferability reproducibility, economic feasibility, limiting factors) including cost-effectiveness compared to other solutions, benefits for stakeholders, drivers and obstacles for transfer, if relevant: market conditions, pressure from the public, potential degree of geographical dispersion, specific target group information, high project visibility (eye-catchers), possibility in same and other sectors on local and EU level, etc.

Within the project the method to combat DED has been developed and refined. Now we know that it is possible to fight DED, not eradicate it but at least keep DED under control. This methodology could be applied elsewhere with similar problems. Project staff have been contacted by people who want to learn about how to combat DED. E.g last summer an English manager of protected areas in Great Britain came to visit LifeELMIAS in order to learn about how to combat DED and manage for ADB in Natura 2000 sites. He has published a report (http://www.wcmt.org.uk/sites/default/files/report- documents/Joe%20Also%20report_0.pdf) about his experiences of his visits to different projects in Europe. At the final conference there were were opportunities for sharing experiences from the scientific community internationally and beyond the boundaries of Europe. There were site managers of Natura 2000 sites from other countries that attended looking to share experiences about how to increase resilience of our Natura 2000 sites in the face of increasing numbers of invasive alien species. The data collected from LifeELMIAS can provide good, robust data for other places working on combating IAS, not just specifically DED. The ash seedbank and the associated genetic research could help many other N2000 sites in Europe facing problems as a consequence of the loss of ash. Many scientific papers have been published as a consequence of the work in Life ELMIAS, which has had an impact on the quality control of the results, gives them greater credibility, but also ensures a greater degree of dissemination. The fact that SLU have actually had four manuscripts published in peer

88 reviewed scientific journals is a very positive outcome for the project and encourages cooperation far beyond the project and Sweden. It also means that the results from the work in the project have had a much greater reach.

The work reviewing the impact on ecosystem services (Action D4) also provided an interesting approach and will help both us and other similar projects to justify a control programme for tree diseases for reasons in addition to biodiversity, in particular when trying to balance costs versus benefits.

There may be a potential opportunity for development of resistant/tolerant elm trees in relation to the Spanish Life project which has worked with the development of DED resistant clones of elm, Ulmus minor and U. laevis (LIFE13 BIO/ES/000556). They are interested in obtaining elm material from Gotland to test the level of resistance.

5.3.4 Innovation and demonstration value: a. Describe the level of innovation, demonstration value: added by EU funding at national and international level (including technology, processes, methods & tools, organisational & co- operational aspects);

This was a demonstration project, to show that in isolated regions threatened by DED it is possible to control or combat DED. This in combination with restoration measures it should be possible to secure biodiversity. The collaboration with SLU has been crucial to gain new knowledge how to deal with the problems connected to DED and ADB. SLU has also provided an element of quality control in terms of the monitoring and results produced. The fact that four of the six manuscripts produced duringthe project period have already been published in peer reviewed scientific journals makes for great added value.

New technology in terms of the use of apps for surveying has resulted in cost savings and this technique could be applied elsewhere to for example monitoring of Natura 2000 sites or for other types of management work. The fact that digital information can be shared directly with the contractors limits mistakes and allows the contractors to directly records what has been done, so this is more efficient and accurate. The development of remote sensing techniques to identify sick trees also has the potential to save money and time. The connection and opportunity to make use of the destroyed trees as woodchip in a thermal power station was also innovative, but also provided significant added value by the use of a resource for something positive.

The work looking at the impact on ecosystem services using I-Tree-Eco provided a good demonstration of how these kind of evaluation systems can be used to undertake a cost-benefit analysis. It also showed how the EU project money gave more than double in return in terms of carbon storage and savings to human health due to air pollution. This could be further developed and used more widely. In addition this provided a very positive results of something which otherwise can be perceived as being negative i.e. destruction of trees. It is a tool that can be used to convince sceptics.

The training investment is something that will add value beyond the life of the project. The people trained will be able to use their skills for other types of management work in and outside of Natura 2000 sites.

The conference (E11) was a new and innovative approach in contrast to traditional Life project final conferences. The real tangible benefits were in bringing international researchers to Gotland and putting them in the same room as Natura 2000 site managers and looking at the problems faced out on site. This probably helped move both groups forward by several years in terms of generating a greater understanding of the practical problems for biodiversity and the potential implementation of research. This opportunity was quite unique and gave much food for thought. The discussion session in

89 particular gave great insight in how the future for elm, ash and biodiversity could be with more cooperation.

5.3.5 Long term indicators of the project success: Describe the quantifiable indicators to be used in future assessments of the project success, e.g. the conservation status of the habitats / species.

Many species and habitats included in the habitat’s directive are dependent on ash and elm, the living trees as well as the dead wood. Species dependent on dead wood, e.g. bats, birds and insects, can in the short term be disfavoured by the removal of infected elms. However, the amount of dead wood of elm and ash are already unnaturally high all over Gotland because of DED and ADB. The most important conservation action in the long term for all species dependent on ash and elm right now, is to conserve living trees to ensure intact wooded habitats and to ensure future production of dead wood. The long-term effect of the project on the wooded annex 1 habitats and accessory species will be shown in future monitoring (outside the project period) of protected areas by CAB (see Annex F8).

The trees that were selected in D1 for monitoring will continue to be monitored to provide a measure of the mortality rate, which provides a clear measure of the success of the work being carried out. Keeping track of the numbers of elm trees removed and the size of these trees compared with the totalpopulation will also be a quantifiable measure of success i.e. if the mortality rate of elm is maintained at 0.5% then the control programme is working. In addition further work to identify the population structure of elm on Gotland and match the ages of the trees with when they provide greatest biodiversity value will also help to improve the understanding of the success of the restoration measures (ie. Veteranisation) and any control programme. Bats and collared flycatcher and lichens will also be monitored in 5 years’ time to see how the populations have responded to the restoration work and/or control programme.

A series of maps have been produced based on the numbers of live veteran elm trees over time using the different mortality rates identified in the project (figure 15a, b, c, d, e, f below). The maps and analysis have been carried out in a square area selected around Allvena on Gotland, where the veteran trees have been surveyed, where Dutch Elm Disease has been identified and from where we have enough data. These maps show change over time and highlight the potential change in functionality of the wooded landscape by highlighting the density of veteran elm trees per hectare which are not more than 250 m from one another. These maps have been done for 2013, 2018 and 2038 to show the long- term nature of the issue. It is otherwise very difficult to show the impact on ecosystem function and biodiversity over such a short period of time (6 years). Without a control programme in 2038, figure g, the landscape would be much more fragmented in comparison with with a control programme c and e (based on 0.55 and 1.77% mortality). This type of kernel density analysis can be done again in the future to provide a proxy measurement of ecosystem function and habitat sustainability with updated mortality rates.

90

Figure 15 – the density of live veteran elm trees per hectare around Alvena. The redder the tone indicates greater density of veteran elm trees. Red means that there are more than 100 veteran elm trees per hectare. a) 2013, b) 2018 with 0.55% mortality, c) 2038 with 0.55% mortality, d) 2018 with 1.77% mortality, e) 2038 with 1.77% mortality, f) 2018 with no control programme 9% mortality, g) 2038 without a control programme where 90% of the elm trees would likely be dead. a)

b) c)

d) e)

f) g)

91 4.4 Outside LIFE: work done outside of the Life Project and financing The control programme (actions A4, C2, C3 and C4) in 2017 were undertaken with finances outside of Life, from SFA and SEPA. This was very important as at that time, there were no finances available from the Life budget to undertake the work in 2017, which would have resulted in a break in the control progamme. The budget amendment which was approved allowed the control programme to continue in 2018 with money from Life ELMIAS. SEPA contributed 3,000,000 SEK for the season 2017-2018. SFA contributed remaining funds, 2 300 000 SEK, to carry out the DED inventory and control measures (C2, C3 and C4).

There are also a number of synergies between LifeELMIAS and other projects: 1) PhD project entitled Expression analysis of candidate defence genes for Hymenoscyphus fraxineus in Fraxinus excelsior is using some of ash materials from Gotland in order to evaluate the candidate defence genes in the ash population in Sweden; 2) PhD project entitled Occurrence and virulence of tree-pathogenic fungi vectored by bark beetles compares insect and fungal data sampled in Gotland with corresponding data in other areas of the Baltic Sea region; 3) the Dutch elm disease pathogens sampled in Gotland are used in other collaborative activities to study genetics and virulence of these fungi.

More funds were used from SFA to cover the 2% rule increase as a consequence of the problem with temporary workers.

Karin Wågström (project manager) has been nominated for the National Nature Conservation Prize, given out by the Swedish Species Information Centre for a person’s efforts for nature conservation above and beyond the call of duty. The prize will be awarded in April 2019. Karin was nominated for her efforts to save elm on Gotland and for ensuring that there has been no break in the control programme since DED was discovered on Gotland.

92

93