LIFE and Europe's Rivers: Protecting and Improving

L I F E I I I

LIFE and Europe’s rivers

Protecting and improving our water resources

colours C/M/Y/K 32/49/79/21 LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers

European Commission Environment Directorate-General

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

The contents of the publication “LIFE and Europe’s rivers: Protecting and improving our water resources” do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the institutions of the European Union.

Authors: Wendy Jones, Jon Eldridge, João Pedro Silva (technical expert), Nora Schiessler. Editorial department: Eric Sarvan (Astrale GEIE-AEIDL). Managing editor: Philip Owen (European Commission, DG Environment, LIFE Unit). LIFE Focus series coordination: Simon Goss (DG Environment, LIFE Communications Coordinator), Evelyne Jussiant (DG Environment, Communi- cations Coordinator). Graphic design: Daniel Renders, Anita Cortés. Production: Christine Charlier. The following people also worked on this issue: Michael Oliver, Mickaëlle Rousseleau, Cornelia Schmitz, Gillian Storey, Jon Taylor, Audrey Thénard, Georgia Valaoras. Acknowledgements: Thanks to all LIFE project beneficiaries who contributed comments, photos and other useful material for this report. Photos: Unless otherwise specified; photos are from the respective projects. This issue of LIFE Focus is published in English with a print-run of 5,000 copies and is also available online.

Attention version papier ajouter

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers to your questions about the European Union. New freephone number: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

A great deal of additional information on the European Union is available on the Internet. It can be accessed through the Europa server (http://europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2007

ISBN 978-92-79-05543-0 ISSN 1725-5619

Printed in Belgium

Ecolabel Flower Printed on recycled paper that has been awarded the EU Ecolabel for graphic paper (http://ec.europa.eu/ecolabel/) LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers I p.

Peter Gammeltoft (left), and Michael Oliver (Desk Officer, LIFE Unit)

As sources of water and means of transportation, Europe’s rivers have been crucial for many human settlements. Industries have developed by rivers for the easy shipping of manufactured products and the importing of goods and materials. Economic activities, however, have placed a heavy burden on many rivers, which have also been used as natural sewers.

But in the last twenty years, initiatives to clean up Europe’s rivers and reduce the amount of industrial waste and sewage being discharged into rivers have had a marked impact. Today, rivers are not only sources of water, energy production, irrigation and transportation, they are once again becoming recreational sites, used for bathing, sailing and fishing.

As part of the EU’s Water Framework Directive (WFD) which was adopted in December 2000, the European Com- mission has set an ambitious target of achieving good ecological status for all Europe’s rivers by 2015. While significant progress towards this goal has already been made, much more work remains to be done. The impact of human activities continues to threaten the ecology of rivers in many areas of Europe.

The main tool to achieve WFD objectives will be the river basin management plans, the first of which should be published by December 2009. In case of river basins encompassing more than one country, the WFD requires Member States to coordinate their plans. For those river basins shared with third countries, Member States should encourage transboundary cooperation with non-EU countries.

The Commission’s environment and nature project funding programme, LIFE, offers an excellent opportunity for drawing up and implementing such river basin management plans. The examples featured in this brochure form an overview of how LIFE co-funded projects have helped Member States meet the requirements of the WFD. Projects have helped to implement the directive by testing, validating and demonstrating procedures and approaches that aid the management and sharing of information and the development of guidance on technical issues.

As well as having a long-lasting local legacy, ensuring sustainable management practices, many of the LIFE projects have also advanced innovative tools and technologies that enable better river basin management. Other projects have demonstrated how river basin management plans that involve the local community can boost a sense of ownership and responsibility for river cleanliness among local residents.

LIFE-Environment and LIFE-Nature projects have also targeted other issues included in the WFD, such as flood protection and groundwater, or they have focused on issues detailed in other European Directives, such as nitrates, birds, habitats, urban wastewater treatment and drinking water. This brochure presents a selection of the more than 150 river projects have received LIFE co-funding.

Peter Gammeltoft Head of Unit – Protection of Water and Marine Environment European Commission, DG Environment LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers

Foreword...... 1 Heavily modified rivers: Reconnecting rivers and Environmental problems rural and urban floodplains...... 39 solutions...... 22 related to Europe’s rivers...... 3 Belgium: Flood management UK: River management in European Union water policy....6 and ecological restoration the West Midlands...... 22 in the Dijle valley...... 39 LIFE and Europe’s rivers...... 10 UK: A community approach Denmark: Restoration of to cleaning up an estuary.....25 habitats and wildlife of LIFE and integrated river the River Skjern...... 42 basin management...... 12 Spain: Restoring river ecosystems...... 27 France: Integrated Finland: Water management development and on the scale of the management of the Saône river basin...... 12 Monitoring the status of EU rivers...... 28 Valley...... 44 Spain: Practical Belgium: Ecological quality implementation of river Stakeholder assessment based on the fish management...... 14 participation...... 45 populations of the Meuse....28 UK: Wise use of floodplains The Netherlands: Protecting riverine – a trans-national Implementing a common habitats and species...... 15 partnership...... 45 approach to river management Austria: Restoring the natural in Northern Europe...... 30 dynamics of a Danube floodplain ...... 15 Further projects focusing Improving the status of on rivers...... 47 UK: LIFE safeguarding Europe’s rivers...... 31 Natura 2000 rivers...... 18 List of available LIFE Denmark: Establishing publications...... 49 Greece: LIFE actions to a Centre for River aid endangered freshwater Restoration...... 31 fish – gizani...... 20 Germany / Austria: Restoring the River Inn’s hydrological dynamics and floodplain habitats...... 33

Austria: Aiding migration of endangered fish in the Danube...... 37 LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers I p.

Environmental problems related to Europe’s rivers

There have been some remarkable improvements in recent years in the ecological status or water quality of certain European rivers such as the Rhine and the Danube. However, rivers in many parts of the Community are at risk of not reaching good ecological status or potential by 2015 due to a range of human activities. Their traditional use as recipients of effluent has had obvious negative environmental impacts. But there are other negative impacts such as ‘river regulation’ (irrigation, drainage, the construction of navigation channels, reservoirs, dams, etc.); damage to habitats and over-exploitation or direct impacts on species.

Status of Europe’s rivers/ Mean annual nitrate in rivers for 2005 by National River Basin District human pressures Nitrates by River Basin District - EIONET The three largest European Union < 0.8 mg/I N river basins are the Danube (817,000 km2), the Vistula (194,000 km2) and the 0.8 - 2.0 mg/I N Rhine (185,000 km2), which together 2.0 - 3.6 mg/I N drain approximately a quarter (27%) 3.6 - 5.6 mg/I N of the EU-27 territory. Europe’s rivers 5.6 - 11.3 mg/I N today are used mainly for water sup- No data

ply, energy production, irrigation and a transportation. But their use for recreational activities such as sailing, bathing and angling and other amenities is

also increasingly important. The grow- http://www.eea.europ ing number of users and uses of rivers – perhaps especially around the many areas of Europe with high population densities and high industrial development – has increased the exploitive

pressures on rivers, posing a risk to Copyright: EEA, Copenhagen - human health and adding to the pollu- The map shows the average mean annual concentrations of nitrate measured at EIONET-Water tion of Europe’s coastal waters. river monitoring stations located within National River Basin Districts (RBDs) during 2005. (EIONET validates monitoring data from national databases and adds information on the phys- Over the past 20 years or so, according ical characteristics of the water bodies and on the pressures potentially affecting water quality) to the European Environment Agency (EEA), there have been significant they were at the beginning of the last Not only the quality of water but also advances in the treatment of sewage decade. High nitrate levels can result the quantity available for human use is and industrial wastes being pumped from ‘runoff’ carrying surplus fertiliser of importance, says the EEA, adding into Europe’s river systems. This has – which can cause eutrophication. that more and more frequently there led to lower levels of most pollutants are problems with water scarcity and a measurable improvement in around large cities and in southern Water from precipitation or irrigation that water quality. The agricultural sector, flows over the ground and into bodies of Europe. on the other hand, has not made such water. It can contribute to soil erosion and carry harmful pollutants. good progress, as it has been under The main factors that increase the Eutrophication refers to the accumula- pressure to intensify to remain profit- tion of nutrients (nitrates and phosphates) risk of not achieving good ecologi- able. Nitrate levels are still as high as in a body of water. This process can occur cal status, or potential, in Euro- naturally but recently has been accelerated by nutrient runoff from activities pean rivers are: (farms and sewage) input. Algal blooms l Nutrient enrichment (eutrophica- EEA - Indicators: http://themes.eea. result and their decay removes dissolved europa.eu/Specific_media/water/indica- oxygen, eliminating aerobic organisms tion) – one of the principal sources tors/WEU05,2003.1010 such as fish. of organic pollution discharged LIFE Focus ILIFE LIFE Nature and Europe’s rivers LIFE Environment LIFE river projects

45% 31% 46% 36% 7% 31% into Europe’s watercourses is from Concentrations of organic matter and ammonium organic waste around areas of

Europe with high population density Concentrations of organic matter and ammonium generally fell by around 50% and high industrial development. at [monitoring/research] stations on European rivers during the 1990s, reflec- High levels of organic pollution tend 24% ting improvements in wastewater treatment. Northern18% European rivers have the 62% to reduce the concentration of oxy- Habitat restoration andlowest management concentrations of oxygen-consumingRiver and floodplain restoration substances measured asEnvironment biochemi- gen in water and thus affect all river- cal oxygen demand (BOD) but concentrations are higher in rivers in some of the ine species and habitats.Species Rivers Conserwith vation and management River Monitoring Nature new EU Member States and candidate countries where wastewater treatment is low population densities normally River and floodplain managemennot so advanced.t AmmoniumRiver concentrationsBasin management in many rivers in EU MemberThird CountriesStates have reduced levels of organic pol- and accession countries are still far above background levels. lution – for instance in Nordic countries and other mountainous areas. The agricultural sector too, with its Biochemical Oxygen Demand and total ammonium fertilisers and manure enrichment of concentrations in rivers between 1992 and 2003 soil increases the concentrations of Total ammonium ug N/l BOD mg O2/l nutrients (nitrates, ammonium and 200 3.50 180 phosphorus) in water that is asso- 3.00 160 ciated with the river flow alteration 140 2.50 (dams, reservoirs, etc) boosting the 120 propagation of algal booms and 2.00 100 1.50 hence water turbidity. Neverthe- 80

less, over the past 15 years the lev- 60 1.00 els of organic matter concentration 40 0.50 and nutrients in the European rivers 20 have been gradually decreasing 0 0.00 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 (see box). Total ammonium (1102) BOD7(44) BOD5(630) l Physical interventions including

river regulation – that is the physical Source: EEA – environmental Indicators changes that man imposes on water- http://themes.eea.europa.eu/Specific_media/water/indicators/ WEU05, 2003.1010 courses, such as the construction of reservoirs and energy production (hydro-electric dams), channelisa- increased acidification can result Diphenyl-Trichloroethane), PCBs - tion and navigation structures, land in a toxic environment that has Polychlorinated Biphenyls, etc] there drainage and irrigation, maintenance a significant negative impact on are other substances where the real work (removal of obstacles to water the ecosystems of rivers. Surface impact on the aquatic environment flow, sediment removal, etc.). Such water acidification first became remains unclear. Minimum stand- measures may result in a discon- an issue of public concern in the ards (i.e. the maximum permissible nection of the rivers from floodplains 1970s when awareness was raised concentrations of pesticides) are with a negative impact on dependent by incidences of major fish kills in regulated by Directive 97/57/EEC, in habitats and species. They may also the rivers and lakes in the south- line with the revised Drinking Water cause disruption of the river sedi- ernmost part of Norway and along Directive (98/83/EEC), at 0.1 µg/l.

ment system (erosion, transport and the west coast of Sweden. l Heavy metals – the main sources

deposition), and/or disturb aquatic l Organic micro pollutants – an in Europe’s rivers are industrial and organisms, for example by hinder- increased use of pesticides and mining facilities. Concentrations ing the up- and down-stream migra- the production of other organic of heavy metals are decreasing in tion of migratory fish, or by changing substances has led to pollution of European rivers and are regulated water flows and temperatures. watercourses. Pesticides enter- by the Water Framework Directive.

ing the aquatic environment may l Radioactivity – nuclear plants are Other environmental problems have serious impacts on flora and normally located near water sources affecting European rivers include: fauna and limit the use of the water and thus increase the risk of con- l Acidification – decreasing of the pH for drinking water abstraction. The tamination of the rivers by radionu- levels caused by sulphur and nitro- source of these substances is linked clides. The heated water released by gen oxides deposition (as a result to agriculture and industry. While the the nuclear plant cooling systems of the combustion of fossil fuels) effects of some organic chemicals could also have localised impacts into the rivers’ catchments. This are well known [DDT, (Dichloro- on the river ecosystems. Background to the management of Europe’s rivers LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers I p.

Ecological importance of rivers

Although rivers only represent a tiny proportion of Europe’s surface area, they make significant contributions to the welfare of Europeans.

SUPPLYING SERVICES REGULATING SERVICES CULTURAL SERVICES Products obtained from river Benefits obtained from regula- Non-material benefits obtained ecosystems tion of ecosystem processes from river ecosystems l Food and raw materials: l Climate regulation: river ecosys- l Recreation & ecotourism including a vast range of food tems can influence climate. l Aesthetic products derived from plants, l Disease regulation: changes l Educational animals and other organisms, as in the riverine ecosystems can l Sense of place well as materials such as wood. directly influence the abundance l Cultural heritage l Fresh water: rivers are impor- of disease vectors, such as mos- l Spiritual & religious tant for the supply and regula- quitoes. tion of fresh water. l Water regulation: flood control, l Energy: wood and hydroelectric alleviation of drought, etc. SUPPORTING SERVICES power. l Erosion control: riverside and l Genetic resources including the floodplain vegetation cover plays i.e., those necessary for the genes and genetic informa- an important role in soil retention production of all other tion used for animal and plant and the prevention of river ecosystem services breeding and biotechnology. erosion. l Soil formation l Transport: Essential role in trans- l Water purification: river ecosys- l Nutrient cycling portation of goods and people tems can help to filter out and l Primary Production – both business and leisure. decompose organic wastes l Biodiversity (habitats and species) Photo: LIFE98 NAT/D/005372

Adapted from: “Ecosystems and their Services”, Chapter 2 of Ecosystems and Human Well-being; A Report of the Conceptual Framework Working Group of the Millennium Ecosystem Assessment, Millennium Ecosystem Assessment Board, Washington, DC: Island Press, 2003, pages 56-60.

Biodiversity loss Most environmental problems con- improve river basin management on a cerning Europe’s rivers have evolved European scale. All of the above factors threaten bio- gradually because of development diversity loss. Around 250 species of pressure or lack of knowledge on how Rivers need to achieve good macrophytes and 250 species of fish best to protect water resources. How- ecological status inhabit European inland surface waters, ever, certain catastrophic pollution and a significant number of birds and incidents such as the Sandoz disaster The EU Water Framework Directive mammals depend on freshwater wet- on the upper Rhine in 1986, as well as (discussed in the following section) lands for breeding or feeding. Physical the more recent spillages of toxic min- provides an opportunity for imple- changes and water pollution have had ing waste which affected the Doñana menting better planned, long-term a detrimental affect on many European region of Spain and the Tisza river and water management measures that freshwater habitats and resulted in the its tributaries in Romania, Hungary should help to minimise the impact loss of their natural vegetation and ani- and the former Federal Republic of of, or at least provide the necessary mal life [source: “European Rivers and Yugoslavia, as well as the catastrophic tools for, a more rapid and effective Lakes – assessment of their environ- floods along the rivers Danube and response to environmental problems mental status”, EEA (1994)]. Elbe in 2002, have triggered action to in the future. the impact of human activity on the the on activity human of impact the of (e.g. studies of results the account for each river basin district, taking into measures of programme a and plan should have developed a management States Member 2009, of end the by that is planning basin river to regard with deadline upcoming important most the But below. out set are ule The main elements of the WFD sched basins. river same the share they where areas cross-border work in quality to water improve to together countries obliges it that neighbouring is element key A districts. basin river within EU territory the throughout way integrated an in managed be should water how out sets it status’, for ‘good achieving deadlines strict with process, phased a in Involving States. Member implementation the of in phase initial currently is directive work frame the 2000, June in Adopted (WFD) Water FrameworkDirective operationaltoolforachieving theEU’s goal‘goodof status’ withitsoverarching themeintegrated of water management theatriver basin level, theis waterprotection oneitsofmainpriorities. TheWater Framework Directive (WFD) [2000/60/EC], qualitywater forallpurposes onetheisofmainreasons whytheEuropean Commission hasmade countriesgoingfar71%.as upThis demand Europe’sby citizens forsufficient quantities goodof respondentssaidthey were worried about “water pollution” (47%), withfigures forindividual environmentalissues thatEuropeans wereworried about, averageon almost halftheofEU25 beaches)washighlighted recentaby Eurobarometer opinion poll. Whenasked list tothefive main Theincreasing demand Europeansby forcleaner rivers (aswelllakes,as groundwater andcoastal policy Water Union European End 2008 End 2006 End 2004 End 2003 End 2015 End 2012 End 2010 End 2009 Year Environmental objectivesachieved Programme ofmeasures operational Introduction ofpricingpolicies Publish RiverBasinManagementPlans, including progamme ofmeasures Present draftRiverBasinManagementPlans Establishment ofmonitoringnetwork/Startpublicconsultation Analysis ofpressures/impacts andeconomicusecompleted WFD transposedintonationallaw/RiverBasinDistrictsidentified Deadlines forWFDimplementation LIFE Focus LIFE

- - I

LIFE and Europe’sand LIFE rivers Photo: João Pedro Silva related Directives. water- EU existing by required ures water status’. They include the meas mum steps required to achieve ‘good mini the represent and compulsory are directive) the of 11 Article in out measures’‘Basic etc.). use water (set of analyses economic watercourses, In line with WFD requirements, riversneedtoachieve‘goodecologicalstatus’by 2015 In linewithWFDrequirements, Action 1 forallCommunity waters 2015.by - - l condition i.e.withouthumanimpacts. a givenwaterbodyfromitsoriginal,natural ofdeviation ofthedegree measures are (high,good,moderate etc) the directive ‘status’categories usedin 1 Thedifferent l Main elementsoftheWFD

ment manage basin river Integrated (91/271/EEC). Directive Treatment Water Waste Urban and (91/676/EEC) Directive of Member States under the Nitrates commitments existing maintains It legislation. water other all of tion implementa coordinated the for framework a provides and EU the for all ground and surface waters in waters surface and ground all for ronmental target of of target ronmental The directive establishes a clear envi is the framework within which which within is the framework ‘good status’ ‘good

- - -

Background to the management of Europe’s rivers LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers I p.

Examples of international cooperation in River Basin Management Planning

For two of Europe’s largest river systems, the Danube and the Rhine, inter- governmental river basin Commissions have been established to coordinate policy and action within a common framework

River Danube The International Commission for the Protection of the Danube Photo: LIFE98 NAT/A/5422 River (ICPDR) was established Flood damage of the Danube, Austria in 1994 to ensure that surface waters and groundwater within the Danube River Basin are measures for achieving ‘good sta- managed and used sustainably tus’ are to be implemented. and equitably. l A River Basin Management Plan To meet the framework water (RBMP) must be developed with legislation, the ICPDR is deve- transboundary basins requiring loping a comprehensive mana- joint management between two gement plan for the entire river or more Member States (and pos- basin. This process involves sibly with countries outside the Photo: LIFE98 NAT/A/5422 experts from industry and agri- Flooding of the Danube in 2002 near Vienna, Austria Community). culture, representatives from l The precise measures to be taken environmental and consumer organisations as well as the local and national within a given river basin may vary authorities. Its implementation follows the WFD timetable, i.e. it will be presen- widely according to what is most ted in draft form by 2008 and finalised by 2009. Thereafter, it will be updated appropriate – but a ‘programme of every six years. measures’ must be fully operational The management plan will include a general description of the characteristics by 2012, with a progress report of the Danube River Basin, a summary of significant pressures and impacts submitted to the Commission. of human activities on the status of surface water and groundwater, a map of l Control of all pollutant emissions monitoring networks, a list of environmental objectives and a summary of the and discharges into surface waters economic analysis of water use. For more information, visit the ICPDR website: using a ‘combined approach’, based http://www.icpdr.org/icpdr-pages/river_basin_management.htm not only on the overall quantity of a given pollutant, but also on its con- River Rhine centration in the receiving aquatic The governments of the five countries bordering the Rhine (Switzerland, France, environment. Germany, Luxemburg and the Netherlands), have been working together since l Specific controls for certain higher the 1950s to improve the water quality of the Rhine, which was chronically pollu- risk pollutants on a priority basis, ted by wastewater. For example, in 1986, a chemical spill severely poisoned the with progressive reduction, phasing river and caused a massive death of fish between Basel and Koblenz. out, and/or cessation of emissions. The result of their joint actions, under the auspices of the International Com- l Water pricing is to be introduced mission for the Protection of the Rhine (ICPR), has been a significant reduction by 2010 – acting as an incentive in pollutants (i.e. between 1985-2000 the point source input of most pollutants for the sustainable use of water figuring on the ‘list of priority substance’ have been reduced by 70 to 100%). resources and helping to reduce In April 1999, this co-operation was reinforced with a new Convention on the unnecessary consumption. Protection of the Rhine, its banks and its floodplains. In order to meet the obliga- l Public participation is a funda- tions of the WFD, a Coordinating Committee Rhine & Water was formed between mental component of the direc- the five original countries, plus Italy. The task of the committee is to coordinate tive. Article 14 obliges Member the implementation of the WFD in the Rhine river basin. On the basis of its natu- States to ensure that draft river ral features the Rhine River Basin District has been split up into the following basin management plans are sub-basins: Alp Rhine/Lake Constance, High Rhine, Upper Rhine, Neckar, Main, published for public consultation Middle Rhine, Moselle and Sarre, Lower Rhine, Delta Rhine. For more informa- and comment one year before tion, visit the ICPR website: the start of the period to which http://www.iksr.org/index.php?id=295 the plan refers. B 5 E 0 S T 0

2 O

0 T

T B S E River basinmanagement of guidance. validationapplication,andtestingthe and issues; technical on guidance of informationofdata;development and management information; of sharing the namely: strategy, the of activities ticularlyinfluential –promoting the key that many LIFE projects have been par emergehereonwards.fromis2002 It Technical to began process this from guidance planning. basin river in practice best and impacts and sures developingpresforsibleanalyses of groupsresponworkingcontributeto to encouraged were States Member wasagreed Mayin2001. particular,In which CIS), (WFDStrategymentation FrameworkDirectiveImpleCommon Water the developed Commission the and States Member EU the tion, implementa WFD assist to order In Implementing theWFD even beyond the EU territory. Rhine, the of case the in as or ders, tive-settingacross Member Statebor withtheir cooperation andjoint objec approach, this of examples positive orRhine river basins (see box) provide Danube the for concerned countries the by instance, for taken, Initiatives politicalboundaries.administrativeor accordingratherthanto –logical unit naturalthegeographical – hydroand ment is management by the river basin managewaterof systemsingle a for The idea is that the most efficient model management Integrated riverbasin en.htm water/water-framework/index_ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ website: ronment Envi DG the from available are WFD the of copies and information More est by 2009, and be submitted to the be submitted and by 2009, est lat the at published be must management plans basin river first The plans l LIFE Focus LIFE

------I

LIFE and Europe’sand LIFE rivers Photo: João Pedro Silva Photo: LIFE98 NAT/D/5372 Healthy riversholdhighlevelsofbiodiversity–RiverMondego,Portugal be must carried basin the river within use water of analysis economic an is that component An gap. additional the fill to designed measures of set a and objectives; these meeting to “gap” remaining the and legislation existing of effect the of basin, the estimation in waters of status the on activity human of review impact a the of river characteristics, the of basin’s analyses include will They timescale. required the within reached be to are objectives) area protected and status chemical tus, sta quantitative status, (ecological basin river the for set objectives the way the of indication clear a provide should plans These publication. their of months three within Commission Agile frog (Rana dalmatica) anAnnexIVspeciesofCommunityInterest - fully involved in this participative participative process. this in involved fully be should parties concerned All out. the rivers Danube and Elbe in 2002 , 2002 in Elbe and Danube rivers the along floods catastrophic including floods, major 100 than more fered 1998 Between and 2004, Europe suf and ManagementofFloods Assessment the on Directive a for proposal– management Flood-risk directives. ‘daughter’ WFD following the for als propos under separately tackled be to management flood-risk and tion protec groundwater for asked sion Commis the WFD, the under sions provi detailed of number the to Due - - - - - of Europe’sof rivers management the to Background from pollution (COM(2003)550). (COM(2003)550). pollution groundwater from protect to directive new a for proposal a adopted sion Commis the 2003, September In a directive Groundwater –anewproposal for water/flood_risk/key_docs.ht http://ec.europa.eu/environment/ preparedness. and protection prevention, on focused plans and management maps flood-risk then flood-risk up draw such to need For would States risk. Member zones at areas associated and coastal basins river the identify to assessments flood-risk preliminary for providing WFD, the of implementation the to a link close ensures measure The property. and infrastructure environment, the health, human to pose floods that risks the manage and reduce to is aim Its Floods. of Management and Assessment the on Directive a (COM(2006)15) for 2006 January proposal in a the adopted problems, Commission these address To land areas andreduce biodiversity. wet destroy also can Floods dated. quantities of toxic chemicals are inun largeholding factories or plants ment treat wastewater when example for consequences, environmental severe have can floods damage, social and economic to addition In land. cultural agri and enterprises, industrial and commercial infrastructure, service lic pub and transport housing, private include flooding from risk at Assets Europe. central across cities and regions in homes their ate evacu to thousands forced flooding heavy 2006, March in And zerland. Swit and Romania Ger Moldavia, many, Bulgaria, Austria, in damage widespread caused 2005 of summer the during floods the recently, More website). Environment DG (source: least at totalling losses in economic and resulted people lion a mil half about of displacement the some 700 that caused deaths, floods e 25 billion billion 25 m ------

Photo: LIFE98 NAT/A/5422 l water-related directives: EU other the following are WFD the to linked Closely cies anddirectives poli European river-related Other water-framework/groundwater.htm http://ec.europa.eu/environment/water/ concentrations. pollutant in trends upward sustained and significant of reversal and identification groundwater the and of status the of chemical assessment the to WFD related the of requirements line the in with is and of account characteristics local takes criteria establishing quality to pro approach The posed in pollution. trends groundwater reverse and and identify to criteria common of basis the on quality groundwater assess and monitor to States Member obliging objectives, quality time, first the for introduces, measure proposed approach, the EU-wide an on Based WhiteEgret Great

Nitrates Directive (91/676/EEC) (91/676/EEC) Directive Nitrates motes eutrophication, particularly particularly eutrophication, motes pro pollution Nitrate agriculture. from runoff fertiliser diffuse to due groundwater and surface of tion pollu nitrate against regulating – (Egretta alba) oneofEurope’s mostgraceful-lookingbirds LIFE Focus LIFE l - - - -

l l l l

Birds Directive (79/409/EEC), and and (79/409/EEC), Directive Birds in water bathing of quality The Treatment Water Waste Urban Natura 2000 sites. 2000 Natura including district, basin river each within areas protected of register a that (92/43/EEC) requires WFD the 6 of – Article Directive Habitats (2006/7/EC). tive Direc new the and Directive (76/160/EEC) Quality Water Bathing and the lakes by regulated in is waters as coastal well as rivers, sectors. industrial urban certain and from wastewater pollution water ing regulat – (91/271/EEC) Directive WFD. the of part integral an forms 98/83/ which EEC) as revised (80/778/EEC, Directive Water Drinking the by set consumption human for thresholds the exceed may and estuaries, in (76/464/EEC). Directive Substances of Dangerous Discharges the on legislation existing the as well the as of 16 directive, Article under stances sub under Priority water [including WFD the surface of lution pol chemical against Strategies

LIFE and Europe’sand LIFE rivers

- - - - p. p. Photo: LIFE98 NAT/D/5372 tats and associated species within the ingthe biodiversity value of river habi reflect conservation, nature towards orientated been have projects these of thirds two almost shows,opposite chart pie the As strands. third countries’ and environment nature, the river-related150 thanprojects across Since1992, LIFE has co-funded more over of budget a with projects 2,750 some co-financed has programme Tothe Countries. date, LIFE-Third and LIFE-Environment; programme LIFE current The countries. candidate EU some and Sea, Baltic the and Mediterranean the bordering countries third certain Union, European the in initiatives environmental policy.co-finances environment LIFE Community of spearheads the of one is Environment) the for Instrument Financial (The LIFE 1992, in Launched Europe’srivers and LIFE is expectedtobeadoptedinJune2007. Regulation coveringtheperiod2007-20 13 theLIFEprogramme. TheLIFE+ replace 1 AnewLIFE+programmewillshortly Beaver (Castor fiber) an Annex II Habitats Directive speciestargetedbyseveralLIFEriverprojects anAnnexIIHabitatsDirective LIFE Focus LIFE

- - I

LIFE and Europe’sand LIFE rivers lication have been selected as suc as selected been have lication The case studies featured in this pub LIFE-Environment casestudies LIFE-Nature and in accordance with the WFD. tion of River Basin Management Plans implementatheindirectly withlinked are projects LIFE-Environment the of half almost and ecosystems riverine of management and restoration the on focus projects 150 the of The majority sites. of network 2000 Natura e 1.6 billion. 1.6 1 is divided into three thematic components: LIFE-Nature; components: thematic three into divided is

- - - l l and rivermanagementthemes: river seven to contribution LIFE’s ing projectsof examples illustrat cessful

Protecting riverine habitats and and habitats riverine Protecting safeguarding Natura 2000 rivers rivers 2000 Natura LIFE safeguarding NAT/A/5422); (LIFE98 area floodplain Danube a natural of dynamics the Restoring – species LIFE and river basin management management basin river and LIFE E/278). ENV/ (LIFE99 management river of ENV/ implementation Practical (LIFE98 FIN/573); basin river the of scale the at management Water – -

Background to the management of Europe’s rivers LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers I p. 11

(LIFE99 NAT/UK/6088); LIFE actions to aid endangered freshwater fish gizani.

l Rural and urban solutions – River management in the West Midlands (LIFE02 ENV/UK/144); A community approach to cleaning up an estuary (LIFE00 ENV/UK/894); Restoring river ecosystems (LIFE99 ENV/ E/347).

l Monitoring the status of EU Rivers – Ecological quality assessment based on the fish populations of the Meuse (LIFE97 ENV/B/419);

Implementing a common approach Silva Photo: João Pedro to river management in Northern LIFE in action: Georg Frank, project manager of the Austrian Danube river banks’ Europe (LIFE99 ENV/NL/263). project (LIFE02 NAT/A/008518)

l Improving the status of Euro- pean Rivers – Establishing a Cen- The projects chosen to illustrate Ahead of the transposition of the tre for River Restoration (LIFE99 the themes represent a very small WFD into national law (end of 2003), ENV/DK/619); Restoring the River sample of the many LIFE projects, LIFE was one means of co-funding Inn’s hydrological dynamics and which since 1996 have addressed projects in pilot river basins under the floodplain habitats (LIFE98 NAT/ issues at the scale of the river Common Implementation Strategy D/005372); Aiding migration of basin. As well as the 150 or so (which was agreed in 2001). Such endangered fish in the Danube LIFE projects directly concerned initiatives played an important role (LIFE99 NAT/A/6054). with river restoration or manage- in providing the necessary tools for

l Reconnecting rivers and flood- ment issues, there are scores testing the guidelines for the imple- plains – Restoration of habitats and of other LIFE-Environment and mentation of the WFD and associ- wildlife of the River Skjern (LIFE00 LIFE-Nature projects, that have ated legislation. Following on from NAT/DK/7116); Flood management indirectly targeted WFD issues this, the task then for LIFE project and ecological restoration in the – covering, for example, the two beneficiaries and their partners was Dijle valley (LIFE98 NAT/B/005171); WFD ‘daughter’ directives con- to gather expertise and experience Restoration of habitats and wildlife cerned respectively with flood to help develop and implement the of the River Skjern (LIFE00 NAT/ protection and groundwater, or measures and best practice guide- DK/7116); Integrated development other associated legislation such lines required to meet the objective and management of the Saône Val- as the Nitrates (91/676/EEC), Birds of ‘good status’ for all European sur- ley (LIFE97 ENV/F/194). (79/409/EEC), Habitats (92/43/ face- and groundwater by 2015.

l Stakeholder participation – Wise EEC), Urban Waste-water Treat- use of floodplains (LIFE99 ENV/ ment (91/271/EEC) and Drinking For further information, see the LIFE UK/203). Water (80/778/EEC) directives. website: http://ec.europa.eu/life/

LIFE river projects LIFE-Nature river projects LIFE-Environment river projects (1996-2006) by thematic category (1996-2006) by approach (1992-2006) by approach Total = 150 projects Total = 150 projects Total = 150 projects 7% 31% 46% 36% 45% 31%

62% 18% 24% Environment River and floodplain restoration Habitat restoration and management

Nature River Monitoring Species Conservation and management

Third Countries River Basin management River and floodplain management Source: LIFE projects database LIFE projects Source:

Total ammonium ug N/l BOD mg O2/l 200 3.50 180 3.00 160 140 2.50 120 2.00 100 1.50 80

60 1.00 40 0.50 20 0 0.00 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003

Total ammonium (1102) BOD7(44) BOD5(630) LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers

LIFE and Integrated river basin management The river basin is at the heart of the WFD. It is the basic unit around which all water planning and management actions are implemented and reflects the fact that water respects physical and hydrological boundaries, rather than political or administrative boundaries. The Directive calls on Member States to implement River Basin Management Plans at the latest by the end of 2009 – with the overall environmental objective of achieving “good status” for all of Europe’s rivers by 2015. In order to assist WFD implementation, and specifically to meet the 2009 target, the LIFE programme has been co-funding projects that support the elaboration of integrated river basin management.

Finland: Water management on the scale of the river basin

Finnish rivers are some of the least polluted in Europe. However, their value for recreational use has deteriorated over the past decade despite preventative action. One of the reasons for this decline is the lack of an integrated approach to water pollution control. The RiverLIFE project, which was undertaken by a consortium of specialist organisations, developed cost-effective and practical tools using an interactive computer-based decision support system for sustainable river basin management.

All land-uses (agriculture, forestry, peat production etc.) have some environmental impact on a river’s ecosystem, be it through the loading of suspended solids, nutrients, metals and acidifying substances. If these detrimental effects are to be limited, the river basin has to be considered as a whole and better use made of existing water pollution control methods, for example, sedimentation basins, buffer zones and wetlands. General environmental awareness on behalf of the public The River Kyrönjoki, one of the pilot river basin sites also has to be increased so the value of these solutions is understood. opment of computer-based user purpose was to create cost-effective, interfaces. The consortium was led practical tools for sustainable river The RiverLIFE project was developed by the North Ostrobothnia Regional basin management, using an interac- by a consortium with experience in Environment Centre (NOREC), the tive computer-based decision support environmental modelling and devel- project beneficiary. The project’s main system (DSS). LIFE and Integrated river basin management LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers I p. 13

What did LIFE do? Life after LIFE

The system was tested and demon- A follow-up study of the project strated in three pilot rivers: Siuran- was carried out in January 2007 by joki, Simojoki, and Kyrönjoki. Such the LIFE external monitoring team. testing enabled the project team to It showed that the experience and fill in gaps in existing knowledge results from the project have been on water pollution control of rivers extensively used since the end of the and river status assessment, and to project six years ago. Notable exam- draw up guidelines for cost-effec- ples include: the “Kola River Quality” The River Oulujoki, the location of ‘Life tive and adequate monitoring pro- research project (EU Fifth Framework after LIFE’ activities cedures in line with the WFD. The Programme - FP5) to develop water information gained was used to pro- pollution control at the Kola river basin Policy 8: 263-265. The above-men- mote more effective pollution con- in north-west Russia; the PRIMROSE tioned Bothnian Bay LIFE project trol and ecological beneficial land- project 2001-2003 (EU FP5); and the was also presented at this event. use by various target groups from WATERSKETCH project 2004-2007 decision-makers to school children (EU Interreg IIIb Baltic Sea Region Finally, a geographic information through a website. Programme). All these projects used system (GIS) tool from the RiverLIFE or built upon the DSS tools and expe- DSS toolbox is set to be used in the The project achieved its principal riences from the LIFE project. Cer- near future for practical water pol- objective of developing DSS tools for tain aspects of RiverLIFE were also lution control work at the Forestry the management of a river basin. The included in another very successful Centres and the Forestry Develop- system was developed in three lan- LIFE-Environment project led by the ment Centre (Tapio) in Finland. This guages (Finnish, Swedish and Eng- same beneficiary, Bothnian Bay LIFE will increase the cost-effectiveness lish) and was designed to be easily (LIFE00 ENV/FIN/646) of water pollution control planning in transferable to other EU countries. forestry, which in turn should result Wide dissemination was also car- The implementation of the WFD on in better status of watercourses in ried out through conventional means watercourses has also benefited from the north of the country. This will (articles, seminars, conferences etc) the RiverLIFE results and tools, espe- help to increase environmental as well as through the project web- cially in the classification of the water awareness of the environmental site (see address below), project bodies. impacts of land use derived from publications and a video. diffuse source loading. Following project closure in August What was the outcome? 2001, the Finnish environmental administration has established a The testing of the project method- separate river ecology unit in Oulu Project Number: ology resulted in the development (the location of the RiverLIFE bene- LIFE98 ENV/FIN/573 of specific follow-up proposals for ficiary). Key staff members from the Title: ecological monitoring, management earlier LIFE project are now involved A cost-effective decision support system for management of boreal and pollution control in the three with this new unit. river basins river areas, and the drawing up of Beneficiary: general guidelines for river basin The project findings have been North Ostrobothnia Regional Envi- management. In one of the areas: widely disseminated. Among several ronment Centre, Finland the River Kyrönjoki, a national pilot conference and seminar presenta- Contact: Mrs Satu Maaria river basin site for implementing the tions, the results were presented Karjalainen or Dr Kaisa Heikkinen WFD, a plan for ecological manage- at the Pilot River Basin Workshop Email: ment and monitoring was drawn up (Annual Review and Research & [email protected], and an automated river monitoring Technology Integration) held on [email protected] and control system tested. This sys- 4-5 October, 2004 in Ghent, Bel- Website: tem provides continuous, detailed gium. After the event, the following www.ymparisto.fi/riverlife information on water chemistry and paper was published: “The River- Period: hydrology, enabling the authorities Life project and implementation of 01-Sep-1998 to 01-Sep-2001 to respond quickly to any deteriora- the Water Framework Directive” Total Budget: e 845,000 tion in water quality by adjusting the (Karjalainen, S.M. & Heikkinen, K. LIFE Contribution: e 412,000 river flow. 2005). Environmental Science & LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers

Spain: Practical implementation of river management

Well ahead of the EU Water Framework Directive’s 2009 deadline for the development of river basin management plans, a Spanish LIFE project has successfully developed a sustainable management plan for the Guadajoz River basin. This now serves as a useful example of the practical implementation of river management.

River management has to resolve con- terms of the sustainability of the riv- The project has helped the region flicting interests of the major stake- er’s resorts. meet the requirements of the WFD. holders operating in the Guadajoz It has analysed the environmen- River basin. The challenge for this LIFE What did LIFE do? tal problems the river faces and project was to bring together all sec- devised solutions for combating tors of the local community to draw The project: them. Several techniques have up a set of integrated policies for the l Promoted the creation of political and been tested including: erosion con- sustainable development and environ- technical structures that are useful trol; improvement of water quality; mental management of the river and its for the planning and integrated man- monitoring; definition of ‘ecologi- surroundings. agement of river resources – build- cal’ flow levels; and restoration ing necessary capacity; of natural vegetation. Effective

The Guadajoz River is one of the big- l Developed systems to improve techniques were also established gest tributaries of the Guadalquivir, the natural environment, including for regenerating different areas of which flows down to the Vadomojón demonstrating initiatives to combat ‘run down’ or unmanaged riverside Dam. Several small towns – Baena, erosion and control water quality, habitats. Castro del Río, Espejo, Nueva Carteya sponsoring training initiatives and and Valenzuela – are located in the fostering agreements with farmers The most important impact of the river basin area, which has a popula- and industries; project, however, was the creation tion of 40,000 and extends over 700 l Involved the whole local community of a foundation for a follow-up, EU km2. The beneficiary, “Mancomuni- through awareness-raising educa- co-funded programme. This initia- dad de Guadajoz y Campiña Este tional campaigns and the introduc- tive will have a total budget of over de Córdoba”, the region’s municipal tion of new economic activities that e100 million and will introduce association, was founded in 1993 are compatible with river conserva- additional restoration actions in with the main objective of fostering tion; the Guadajoz river basin and its social and economic development in l Developed an integrated model of surrounding environment. environmental management in the Guadajoz River zone that is poten- Environmental river management tially applicable to similar areas of in Spain southern Europe. Project Number: LIFE99 ENV/E/000278 What was the outcome? Title: River agreements – design & implementation of fluvial management The Guadajoz project has had a signifi- policies cant impact on the Guadajoz river basin. Beneficiary: It has introduced institutional coordina- Mancomunidad del Guadajoz y tion, technical innovation and social Campiña Este de Córdoba, Spain participation, which has resulted in an Contact: Luis Moreno Castro integrated model for the environmental Email: management of the river basin. The set- [email protected] ting up of a “River Board” allowed the Period: institutions and organisations that oper- 15-Oct-1999 to 15-Apr-2003 ate in the river area to work together Total Budget: e 521,000 towards sustainable development. e Joint initiatives are ongoing. LIFE Contribution: 494,000 Photo: D. Renders Vienna, aiding the conservation of habitats and species dependent on a more natural river flow.river natural more a on dependent species and habitats of conservation the aiding Vienna, of east the to system floodplain Danube the to dynamics natural more restore to helped project LIFE This floodplain. the into spillage restricted have improvements navigation and alleviation waterway.flood the Consecutive of characteristics ecological and physical the changed radically however,has, navigation facilitate to tributaries main its and Danube today.the so Managing remains and centuries for waterway international important an been has Danube River The floodplain Danube a of dynamics natural the Restoring Austria: develop helps it WFD. the time of implementation the delivering of means same the At (79/409/EEC). Directive Birds and (92/43/EEC) Directive Habitats EU the of requirements the fulfilling habitats and species river of floods and droughts). The LIFE programme supports the conservation and restoration moderating and water, purifying as (such channels drainage natural as role obvious most their besides functions, ecological vital provide also They habitats. and species many to home ecosystem, European of types important most the of one are Rivers cent floodplain has had navigation navigation had has adja the floodplain cent and channel the river main between water the of movement Restricting were modified. banks heavily river the facilitate navigation, and flow the regulate order to In Network. Trans-Euro Transport pean EU’s the under VII” Corridor route, “Transport a as transport classified It important an is activities. economic important supports and high densities population encompasses basin Its flood ing. regular and waters flowing fast- (seasonal) fluctuating by character ised is Danube The Volga). the (after second-longest Europe’s and Union European the in river est long the is Danube the Sea, Black the into km 2,850 of distance eastwards a for flowing and in Forest Germany Black the in Originating Protecting riverine habitats riverine Protecting - - - - - and species and includes a 36 km reach of the Dan the of reach km 36 a and includes hectares 10,000 of area a total covers Austria, Park, in Vienna of east National Donau-Auen The species. and habitats on floodplain impacts negative had has but also benefits, economic other and construction of a hydro-electric station. hydro-electric power a of the prevent construction to order in 1984 ber Decem in Hainburg near the wetlands of occupation the with that started campaign awareness-raising an followed It floodplain. the serve con to 1996, national in created The was park Europe. Central forest in riparian lowland of regions preserved best and largest the of one and Europe in areas floodplain major last the of one is it 2000 network, Natura the in Included ube. LIFE Focus LIFE - - -

Photo: Kovacs corresponds tonewgravel areas) corresponds of theriversidebranches(whitearea The impactoferosionafteropening

LIFE and Europe’sand LIFE rivers

p. 15 LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers

The former flooding regime of the these Danube riverside branches, considered extinct in Austria until Danube favoured an extreme range of resulting in the near local extinction its rediscovery in 1992. The project water level conditions, with associated of certain habitats and species. actions concerning this species con- high biodiversity. However, the river’s sisted of habitat improvement (restor- hydro-dynamics were affected by the This reconnection was achieved by ing ditches and digging ‘survival construction of several kilometres of lowering the cut-off side channels ponds’ at 16 sites around Orth) and flood-alleviation embankments and nav- relative to the main river and chang- the successful re-introduction of more igation structures, such as weirs, along ing existing weirs to bridges to permit mud-minnows. The project also imple- the course of the river, which resulted in flow out of the main channel into the mented a plan for the management changes in the river’s natural course (with adjacent forests and former side chan- of meadows in the “Lower Lobau” meanders and branches straightened nels. The objective was to restore a (Viennese part of the National Park). and re-directed). This disconnection more natural sediment transport sys- This benefited the conservation of the between the river and its floodplains and tem with acceptable and manageable corncrake (Crex crex) in particular. consequent alteration of the duration erosion and deposition. and frequency of flooding, had caused In addition, the project constructed the drying up of former wetlands. Some The reconnection dispersed river six new gravel islands in the main stakeholders wanted to have river water water during flood events and helped channel of the Danube and reshaped back on to the floodplain periodically, for to alleviate flooding in Vienna. the riverbanks. Gravel habitats, which a number of reasons. were once abundant in the Danube, In order to monitor the erosion/dep- had almost disappeared as a result of What did LIFE do? osition process and to chart reap- river regulation. pearing habitats, a monitoring tower Prior to the launch of the LIFE project was installed by the project team. Concerning communication and dis- in 1998, the plan to reconnect the Equipped with a remote camera it semination activities, the beneficiary various river branches and meanders tracked the dynamic process over the carried out substantial media work had already been drawn up. The LIFE three-year project period. The track- about the LIFE project, including the programme provided the opportu- ing tower is still functioning today. publication of a National Park news- nity to start the process of restoring paper (“Aublick”) four times a year. the river/floodplain dynamics of the The increased flow of water into the Other activities included the devel- National Park. LIFE co-funded the floodplain favoured water-dependent opment of a website (which remains reconnection of several cut-off side species such as the European Mud- open at the address below) the host- channels to the main river at Orth and minnow (Umbra krameri) which was ing of information seminars and pres- Schönau. Stone block embankments entations to local schools. The project and towpaths (no longer used) were also established an extensive national Species included on the Annex II of the blocking the natural flow of water into Habitat Directive (92/43/EEC) and international (Slovakia, Germany, Hungary, Romania, Bulgaria) network to promote the innovative side chan- Original site (top left), stone embankment removal (top right), after the machinery (bottom left), and the effects of erosion (bottom right) nel re-connection work, the results of which are potentially of interest and 2005 February 2006 transferable to other river engineering projects.

Another key achievement was the development of a concept based on the hydrological restoration experiences of the work carried out in the National Park area. This involved a more ‘holistic’, or less intervention- ist, approach to river renaturalisation by encouraging less heavy engineering work. As Project Manager and National Park Director Carl Manzano explains: “Instead of carrying out heavy engineering work, we encour- March 2006 April 2006 aged the river to work for itself.” Protecting riverine habitats and species LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers I p. 17

What was the outcome? Benefiting habitats and species A result of the LIFE project was the transfer of experiences to a second, Both LIFE projects’ actions caused follow-on LIFE project, (LIFE02 NAT/ direct and indirect improvements on A/008518 - Restoration of Danube the river and floodplain habitats and river banks) focusing on restoring river species, especially those directly banks to a semi-natural state. Based linked with river dynamics. Some had on the premise of allowing the river to not been present in the pre-restored work for itself, the follow-on project the area. For example:

implemented an ambitious restoration l the increased gravel banks area plan focusing on the restoration of the provided nesting and feeding sites floodplain Danube dynamics, which is for the common sandpiper (Actitis characterised by the erosion and depo- hypoleucos) and little-ringed plover sition process. (Charadrius dubius); A sandpiper’s (Actitis hypoleucos) nest camouflaged in the newly formed gravel l the kingfisher (Alcedo atthis) ben- banks One of the key actions of the follow-on efited from the increased availability project was the removal of all artificial of nesting sites resulting from the measures they were asking for more”. elements strengthening the banks of a newly eroded river side banks. As This request is already being met by an three kilometre pilot section along the a result, the National Park has one ambitious new project steered by the left bank of the Danube opposite the of the highest number of breeding Danube’s navigation authority – “Inte- town of Hainburg, so that erosion and pairs in Austria; grated River Engineering Project on

accretion processes could generate a l the beaver (Castor fiber), reintro- the Danube” – targeting the restora- natural river bank structure. The effects duced into the park 30 years ago, tion of the National Park floodplain and of the action, involving the removal of is locally widespread, and now has meeting the nautical requirements of more than 50,000 m3 of stones and more available habitat and burrow this section of the Danube. boulders, have been impressive: the sites, it is actively using the recon- subsequent regeneration of the ero- nected river side branches; Project Number: sive river side bank process and inflow l the reduction of human disturbance LIFE98 NAT/A/5422 of water to the floodplain exceeded all resulting from the removal of the Title: expectations. forest roads, is contributing to the Restoration and management of preservation and probably increased the alluvial flood plain of the River The erosion of the river bank was more breeding of endangered birds such Danube intense following the 2002 Danube as the black stork (Ciconia nigra) Beneficiary: flooding (more than 30 meters inland), and the white-tailed eagle (Haliaetus Eesti Energia AS (EE AS) with a recreation of a new gravel bank albicilla). Period: 01-Jul-1998 to 31-Mar-2004 of more that 300 meters in length (see Total Budget: e 2,822,000 pictures). This new river area and bank Life after LIFE LIFE Contribution: e 1,411,000 aided the flood water to disperse. The action has also contributed to the flood Georg Frank, Project Manager of the protection of Hainburg and of the city second LIFE project, explains that Project Number: of Bratislava in Slovakia. originally more than 90% of local LIFE02 NAT/A/8518 people were afraid of, and therefore Title: Restoration of Danube river Another key action of the second against, a more ambitious restora- banks project has been the removal of 36 tion project, because they feared the Beneficiary: dykes on the Orth floodplain, which actions of opening the dykes would Nationalpark Donau-Auen, Austria were constructed for forest roads increase flood-risk. “But once they saw Contact: Carl Manzano (three times more than the initial LIFE the results of the introduction of the Email: [email protected] project proposal). This has resulted in Website: more natural water flow between the Habitat included on the Annex I of the www.donauauen.at river side branches renovated under Habitats Directive: Alpine rivers and their ligneous vegetation with Salix elaeagnos Period: the first LIFE project. This measure had (3240) 01-Jul-2002 to 30-Jun-2006 an additional positive effect of reducing Species included on the Annex II of the Birds Directive (79/409/EEC) Total Budget: e 1,778,000 the human disturbance on the flood- Species included on the Annex II of the plain, especially for sensitive species. Habitat Directive (92/43/EEC) LIFE Contribution: e 711,000 Photo: Paul Glendell/Natural England pressures. Many rivers deemed to to deemed rivers Many pressures. man-made of wide-range a to able vulner be can species and habitats a River is task. challenging and complex value conservation high with systems river of management The Otter elsewhere. strategies similar developing for model a created project Crucially,active. the and sustainable be to proved have that groups stakeholder local established also project The techniques. conservation on produced was publications of range a and species, 11 for developed were protocols monitoring and management Ecological Conservation). of Areas (Special SACs river UK seven for strategies conservation developed It sites. 2000 Natura riverine protect help to tools of set a developed project LIFE-Nature Kingdom United influential This rivers 2000 Natura safeguarding LIFE UK: little is known about the ecological ecological the about known is little relatively systems, habitat other to have compared Arguably, value degraded. been conservation their for level at a European be of importance (Lutra lutra) an Annex II habitats Directive speciestargetedbythisLIFEproject anAnnexIIhabitatsDirective LIFE Focus LIFE

- I

LIFE and Europe’sand LIFE rivers objective was to develop river con river develop to was objective primary the Nature, beneficiary, project the English by Led water habitats. fresh of protection the quality and water for responsible agen cies government of partnership a by implemented was project The them. in live that species the and habitats river of requirements and dynamics - - represent a cross-section of different of different a cross-section represent magaritifera) (Margaritifera salar) pallipes) potamobius lutra) otter the I including Annex species 13 harbour they around km, 872 totalling Together, rivers. SAC seven for Directive Habitats EU the of terms the under plans ment manage and strategies servation , white-clawed crayfish crayfish white-clawed , and freshwater pearl mussel mussel pearl freshwater and , salmon salmon , . . They also (Austro

(Salmo (Salmo (Lutra (Lutra - -

Protecting riverine habitats and species LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers I p. 19

land-uses, socio-economic users and What was the outcome? threats associated with rivers in the UK and parts of Europe. The project successfully developed river conservation strategies/manage- The project has provided a mecha- ment plans for all seven SAC rivers. nism for initiating conservation actions Reports on the ecological require- along each river, in agreement with the ments of the targeted species and local authorities, user groups and land- habitats were published. Monitoring owners. It has also created a model for protocols were also produced to allow developing similar strategies on the assessment of the conservation status other pSCI (proposed Sites of Com- of the species and habitat targeted by munity Importance) rivers in different the project. In addition, the project parts of the UK. identified a number of obstacles to conservation objectives and produced What did LIFE do? publications to address these issues.

First, it was important to understand Life after LIFE the ecological requirements of the

Annex I animals and plants. Conser- A follow-up study of the project was Seven SAC rivers targeted by the project vation objectives were planned and carried out in January 2007 by the LIFE developed for each species and habitat external monitoring team. It showed project sites on the River Avon, under type. This was supported by practical that following project closure, at the end the guidance of the STREAM project experiments such as breeding trials of of 2003, activities and meetings related (LIFE05 NAT/UK/143). Some of the freshwater pearl mussels, the reintro- to dissemination continued throughout staff from the LIFE in UK rivers project duction of freshwater crayfish into one 2004, and additional funding was pro- are working on this project. river, otter studies and vegetation con- vided by the beneficiary for the printing trol for the benefit of fish populations. of extra copies of the project publica- Finally, work identified by the project is Ultimately, the project aimed to develop tions. Demand for these studies contin- ongoing at all seven selected rivers and techniques for addressing key issues ues to be high. is supported by the local stakeholder associated with river conservation and networks and, where possible, by the demonstrate best practice that could Practical restoration measures that beneficiary’s own staff. The Eden Rivers then be widely disseminated within the were identified by the project are Trust in Cumbria has provided some UK and other Member States. now being implemented at one of the further funding for ongoing work.

Examples of the reports on the ecological requirements of rivers species

Project Number: LIFE99 NAT/UK/6088 Title: Safeguarding Natura 2000 Rivers in the UK Beneficiary: English Nature, UK Contact: David Withrington Email: david.withrington@english-nature. org.uk Website: http://www.english-nature.org.uk/ LIFEinUKRivers/index.html Period: 01-Aug-1999 to 31-Dec-2003 Total Budget: e 2,241,000 LIFE Contribution: e 1,120,000 LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers

Greece: LIFE actions to aid endangered freshwater fish – gizani

In this successful Greek pilot initiative, LIFE-Nature funds were allocated for management actions to conserve an endemic priority freshwater fish species – gizani. The project’s value lies not only in the protection of this endangered fish, but also on its implications for the conservation and management of streams with intermittent flow.

Gizani (Ladigesocypris ghigii) is an endangered endemic freshwater fish found exclusively in streams, springs and reservoirs of the Greek island of Rhodes. It prefers slow waters, stay- ing close to the banks among roots of trees, bank cavities, vegetation and dead segments of the stream that form its favourite niches. In these habitats, the water supply and the environmental conditions fluctuate markedly, especially during the dry season, as a result of natural and human causes. Their diet consists of small aquatic insects, insect larvae, invertebrates and plant material. Its lifespan in nature is estimated to be up to three years, and it reaches maturity at the end of the first year of life. The gizani is one of the most endangered European fresh water species and is included as a priority species in Annex II of the EU Habitats Directive.

The main threat for the species is the lack of sufficient quantities of water Gizani (Ladigesocypris ghigii) a priority species in Annex II of the Habitats Directive in the dry season, due to low levels of rainfall and to water abstraction Greece’s National Centre for Marine knowledge of fish breeding in for domestic consumption (notably Research (NCMR), the beneficiary, order to be able to produce artifi- during the peak tourism months) and and also included the collabora- cially large numbers of offspring for irrigation. Habitats have also often tion of the South Aegean District stocking; deteriorated, but to a much lesser Authorities and the municipalities of l The creation of fish stocks to pre- degree, due to pollution of water Arhagellos, Kamiros, Kallithea and serve the genetic diversity of the sources and to interventions in the Southern Rhodes. It included the fol- species; stream banks, for example, waste lowing main project actions for the l Public awareness raising and sup- disposal and gravel and sand col- conservation of gizani at two Natura port for the conservation of this lection. Competition with non-native 2000 sites: unique fish and its habitats; and fish introduced by humans is also a l Research to collect data for the l The setting up of conservation threat locally. sustainable management of the and information centres – to host species; gizani stocks and to increase pub- What did LIFE do? l The establishment of a fish refuge lic awareness. for the conservation of the gizani The 57-month project was launched population; In dry periods the fish instinctively in February 1999. It was led by l Artificial reproduction to increase concentrate in pools, formed usually Protecting riverine habitats and species LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers I p. 21

on the banks of a stream where the launch, four new sites (containing six water is deeper. During the summer, new populations in other streams) most of these pools are cut off from were identified and put forward to the the stream (either because it dries up Greek authorities as proposed Sites locally or because its flow decreases of Community Interest (pSCIs). so much that they are not supplied with water) and the fish become The species’ conservation also trapped. As the main threat faced by proved to be a catalyst for the dis- gizani is summer water abstraction, cussion of water management on the a fish refuge was constructed on the island. The beneficiary managed to banks of the Loutanis stream. The bring together various stakeholders refuge ensures direct water exchange (local and regional authorities, hotel- and free movement of the fish to and iers and the tourism sector farmers’ from the stream. It is constructed in associations, etc.), and involve them such a way to maintain water even in the development and support for

during the dry summer months. the species’ action plan. Valoras Photo: Georgia View of the Loutanis stream, the natural A considerable number of aware- Particularly noteworthy was the suc- habitat of the gizani ness-raising actions were also cessful strategy of combining the undertaken by the project. These areas where breeding stocks were for implementation of its actions and included the hosting of a workshop kept with public awareness initia- to provide advice on the protection in October 2003 on “Mediterranean tives. For example, the Eleoussa res- of the new pSCIs. stream fish ecology and conserva- ervoir, which contains a sub-population” in Rhodes. Talks were also held tion no longer found in the wild, was Finally, the fish refuge established with the authorities and the local provided with an information site, under LIFE is still being maintained communities concerned, and articles equipped with a small kiosk and a by local authorities. Lush vegetation were published in the national and touch screen info-point for visitors. has developed in the refuge, which is regional media. Project deliverables a good source of food for the fish. In included a number of printed and Life after LIFE addition, water turtles and eels have electronic publications, which can been observed, indicating that this be downloaded from the project’s A post-project follow-up study of the part of the system is naturalising in excellent website (published in Ital- project was carried out in January character and is providing broader ian, Greek and English). 2007 by the LIFE external monitor- biodiversity benefits. This type of ing team. It concluded that the LIFE refuge, the first of its kind in Greece, What was the outcome? project significantly improved the has a high demonstration value. chances of survival of the key popu- The project met its overall objec- lations of the target species in two tive to aid the recovery and conser- Natura 2000 sites, and guaranteed Project Number: vation of gizani populations at two the species’ survival ex-situ through LIFE98 NAT/GR/005279 Natura 2000 sites. The project’s the creation of breeding stocks that Title: findings have significantly increased can be used for re-introduction. Conservation measures for the the knowledge of the species’ dis- endangered fish Ladigesocypris tribution. In addition to the popula- An important outcome of the project ghigii tion nuclei already known at project was the development of the gizani Beneficiary: action plan. This plan is the first of Hellenic Centre for Marine Research, Psinthos schoolchildren visit the its kind developed in Greece for a Institute of Inland Waters, Greece Fassouli gizani centre freshwater fish and includes impor- Contact: Maria Stoumboudi tant recommendations for the imple- Email: mentation of the WFD. According to [email protected] the study, the plan has been distrib- Website: www.life-gizani.gr uted to all the local authorities on Period: Rhodes dealing with water manage- 01-Feb-1999 to 31-Oct-2003 ment. To date, the action plan has Total Budget: e 833,000 not been formally adopted. However, e the beneficiary is continuing to push LIFE Contribution: 625,000 LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers

Heavily modified rivers: rural and urban solutions The urban and rural rivers around Europe can have high concentrations of pollutants, as a result of industrial and domestic discharges and intensive agricultural techniques. Also, the ecological status of rivers can be constrained by physical modifications, such as straightening or deepening. A number of LIFE projects have contributed to the implementation of the WFD by demonstrating innovative means to reduce pollutants reaching rivers. For example, LIFE has co-funded projects developing best practice criteria for dealing with effluent resulting from agriculture (wine, olive oil, livestock, etc). Such projects are indirectly also aiding the implementation of the WFD, as well as fulfilling the requirements of associated river-related Directives.

UK: River management in the West Midlands BEST PROJECTS2006-2007 AWARD

The award-winning SMURF project in the West Midlands, England, demonstrated a computer modelling diagnostic approach to river management as well as the benefits of engaging the local community in measures to improve the River Tame.

The large West Midlands conurba- tion, including the city of Birmingham, is in the a 1,515 km2 catchment area of the River Tame, a tributary of the River Trent. The Tame basin is mostly industrial and home to 1.8 million people. The river suffers from industrial pollution, damaged habitats and poor accessibility. It has also been extensively modified and re-routed.

What did LIFE do?

The three-year LIFE project, Sustain- able Management of Urban Rivers Actions taken at the stretch of the river Tame at Perry Hall demonstrated the benefits of and Floodplains, applied sustainable ‘opening up’ the river to the public land-use planning and water-management techniques to tackle the which could be applied to a demon- centred on a stretch of the River problems commonly associated with stration reach of the River Tame in Tame that circles the Perry Hall urban rivers. In 2002, the beneficiary, the later stages of the project. sports fields. Here, the banks of the the UK Environment Agency, began river have been raised as part of an to involve the public in the develop- While two sites were initially selected existing flood-management plan ment of a vision for river management, for demonstration purposes, focus that contains floodwater on sports Heavily modified rivers: rural and urban solutions LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers I p. 23

grounds. Accessibility to the river, however, is compromised, and offers limited amenity.

Three groups were set up in the first phase of the project for two rounds of evening meetings to develop the vision for river management for all rivers in Birmingham. Mr Mark Scott of the Environment Agency says: “A specific part of the project was to find out how the community felt, and the three groups came together one Saturday to arrive at an overall vision.” This part of the project was coordinated with Birmingham Uni- versity, which also gave participants a tour of the city’s rivers. “Many people didn’t know how many rivers the city had,” says Mr Scott. A further single group was set up specifically for the demonstration scheme at the Perry Hall sports fields.

What was the outcome?

Interest in the project was high, and suggested measures included the construction of a gravel path along- side the river, the location of rubbish bins to prevent littering, and the recreation of riverside habitats through the lowering of the banks at certain points to be planted with reeds and wild flowers.

Mr Scott says that the University The banks of the river were lowered to allow the river to follow a more natural course will conduct a follow-up study of the area to determine what effect the the LIFE project. Schools trips have such incidents constitute a positive project has had on the river habi- been made to the site, and school sign. They are testament to a grow- tat. The aim of the project at Perry children along with more than 100 ing relationship between the local Hall, however, was social as well local residents helped plant wild public and the management of its as ecological. Measures taken dur- flowers on a new patch of meadow rivers. Such an increased awareness, ing the project open up the river to created with earth taken from a bend Mr Scott believes, will lead to a greater people and their pets. “Being able to in the river. responsibility among the community. watch your dog swim or families sit- ting down by the river is something This bend has been reworked to allow Life after LIFE that just didn’t happen before the the river to follow a more natural project,” he says. course, and Mr Scott is pleased that The overall legacy of the project is “the river has started to behave like difficult to quantify, but the organis- Even before display boards were a natural river”. Unwelcome objects ers believe its influence will be far- put up providing information about can be found in an urban river, how- reaching. Since the project closed, the project, the local community ever, and littering is now more visible. the local council has provided the were aware of the actions taken by Mr Scott says that there have been Perry Hall site with a park ranger, an the Environment Agency as part of some complaints, but he believes that appointment that could have resulted LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers from the heightened awareness the project generated. Moreover, the Bir- mingham City Council has “built on the project for its planning agenda on how to manage rivers and involve the community,” according to Mr Scott.

The site also serves as an example of good practice that other councils can follow.

“Elements of the project are transferable,” says Mr Scott, “and a lady from Prague attended two of our conferences and made a link with the part of the SMURF project developing the habitat assessment tool.” The subsequent testing of the method in Prague would not otherwise have happened, says Mr Scott. The project created a gravel path with benches and bins

The innovative river modelling ners and requires specialist soft- award-winning website. The user- aspect of the project is continuing ware, but two other less sophisti- friendly innovations of the site to be evaluated. The system used cated versions – a CD-Rom and an were recognised with a prize from during the project was a Geographi- online version – were made avail- the Royal National Institute of the cal Information System (GIS), which able to the public. Blind. links data to spatial information and can produce maps showing the data. Community involvement was key Finally, the project is one of 22 While difficulties remain in applying to the success of the project, and projects recognised in the “Best this technology, Mr Scott says that SMURF can be seen as a case LIFE-Environment Projects 2006- the project “showed new things and study of how you can use pub- 2007” awards. This third review of improved the technology”. lic participation to implement the completed projects funded through Water Framework Directive. More the LIFE-Environment programme, A full version of the system was information about the project was selects projects based on a number delivered to the main project part- made available on the project’s of best practice criteria.

Mark Scott of the Environment Agency (right) chats with a local volunteer at the Project Number: Perry Hall park LIFE02 ENV/UK/000144 Title: Sustainable Management of Urban Rivers & Floodplains Beneficiary: Environment Agency, UK Contact: Mark Scott Email: mark.scott@environment-agency. gov.uk. Website: www.smurf-project.info/ Period: 01-Aug-2002 to 31-Jul-2005 Total Budget: e 3,027,000 LIFE Contribution: e 1,130,000 Photo: Natural England rural and urban solutions urban and rural rivers: modified Heavily The Ythan initiative – encouraging the local community to take responsibility forthestateofriver The Ythaninitiative–encouragingthelocalcommunitytotakeresponsibility directly.pollution tackle to measures of range a implementing as river,well the as of status ecological the improving to community-approach long-term a developed project Ythan The soil particles). and phosphorus (e.g. nitrogen than not other pollutants from site the protect will Zone Vulnerable Nitrate a as designation Additional areas. sea upstream and pollution from adjacent protected from the impact of activities adequately not is it wetlands), of tion conserva the for treaty international an by designated (as status Ramsar has site estuary the Although birds. for food of availability the on impact negative overall an has and waters estuary the in macroalgae green of growth in increase the to contributes river the into nutrients plant these of drainage The Aberdeenshire. in ment catch river Ythan the in increasing steadily been nitrates have of phosphates and levels years, recent In estuary an up cleaning to approach community A UK: - - l included: measures These status. river’s the ecological enhance and pollution reduce to measures intro of to raft a duce aimed also beneficiary, project the Council, Aberdeenshire years. future in signifi damage of cant prevention is the for initiative vital an Such habitats. ing surround its and river the of state the for responsibility take to munity com local the was encourage to up project set LIFE this result, a As What didLIFEdo?

The use of a farm demonstration demonstration farm a of use The particularly to the local farming farming community; local the to particularly practice, best disseminate to site LIFE Focus LIFE - - - -

Photo: Tamsin Morris spawning grounds migrating fishaccesstoupstream A steppedfishpassinstalledtoallow

LIFE and Europe’sand LIFE rivers

BEST PROJECTS AWARD

2005-2006

p. 25 p. LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers

l Working with local farmers to increase applications to agri-environment schemes, develop nutrient budgeting, produce water-management plans and encourage the use of buffer strips; l Bringing together anglers, walkers, local residents and national agencies to select and manage restoration work on sections of the river to create areas of semi-natural habitats; l Working with local residents and others to monitor changes in water

quality and other indicators. Photos: Adrian Devonshire Local people attend a river fun day as part of the Ythan Project (right), and project The project planned to encourage information panel (left) the application of innovative techniques to land management issues. Two demonstration farms were monitoring work was also carried It also aimed to undertake work to established to illustrate the benefits out using four sets of aerial pho- benefit Local Biodiversity Action of agri-environment schemes and tographs (collected in August each habitats and species and to offer a nutrient budgeting. Several tours of year). One set of satellite imagery way of linking up multiple agri-envi- these farms were arranged for local was collected for comparison. Bird ronment applications to achieve farmers, who were also encouraged counts were conducted every two benefits for wildlife. to take training courses on nutrient weeks for two years. Two social sur- budgeting software designed by the veys were carried out, at the begin- What was the outcome? University of Hertfordshire. More ning and end of the project, in the than sixty farmers took advantage Ythan catchment and in comparison Forty-seven public events were organ- of this opportunity and are likely to catchments in north-east Scotland. ised, attracting a wide range of people continue using the software. The These surveys assessed peoples’ from the local community and rais- process of nutrient budgeting high- attitudes to the project and to water ing awareness of the environmental lighted the potential for an average management. issues related to water management. 15% reduction in fertiliser use on The local community (supported the farms. To distribute the results of the project, by Scottish Environment Protection a website was created and dissemi- Agency staff) was also involved in the Farmers were also encouraged to nation materials were published. The collection of water quality data over join the Rural Stewardship Scheme project also hosted a major confer- the three-year period of the project. and at the end of the project more ence in October 2004. Local people took part in water quality than 70km of buffer strip had been sampling at eight sites and in 50 river established. Water sampling data Project Number: habitat surveys. indicates a reduction in suspended LIFE00 ENV/UK/000894 solids in neighbouring streams. The Title: project also worked with farmers to The Ythan floodplain after the clearing Sustainable land management in the of conifer trees from the river banks produce water management plans Ythan catchment for farms adjacent to water courses Beneficiary: (more than a hundred water man- The Ythan Project, c/o Aberdeenshire agement plans were drawn up). Council, UK Contact: Tamsin Morris For direct river enhancement inter- Email: ventions, the local community helped [email protected] select sites including a large forestry Website: www.ythan.org.uk/ project at Gight Woods in Methlick, Period: where a mono-species stand of 01-Aug-2001 to 28-Feb-2005 coniferous trees was removed and e 737,000 replaced by more than two thou- Total Budget: LIFE Contribution: e 358,000 Photo: Tamsin Morris Photo: Tamsin sand broad-leaved trees. Estuary Heavily modified rivers: rural and urban solutions LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers I p. 27

Spain: Restoring river ecosystems

In Spain, since the 1950s, the damning of many rivers to produce hydroelectric power had a negative impact of the spawning success of migratory fish species. A LIFE project aimed to restore the ecosystem upstream of the Frieira Dam on the Miño River in Galicia.

Completed in 1970, the 33 metre-high the 33 metre-high Frieira dam by pro- Frieira Dam had a clear impact on viding passage facilities to encourage the fluvial ecosystem, impeding the upstream fish migration. It set out to:

reproductive migration of the popula- l Increase the number of fish passing tions of salmon (Salmo salar), brown over the dam;

trout (Salmo trutta), shad (Alosa alosa, l Increase biomass in the upstream Alosa fallax), eel (Anguilla anguilla) part of the dam (reservoir and and lamprey (Petromyzon marinus), river);

and affecting the lifecycle of other l Improve the whole fluvial ecosys- fish and mollusc species. The dam tem on the upstream side to the is one of nearly 50 that were built in benefit of other animals and bird Galicia between 1950 and 1990, when populations;

environmental considerations were l Maximise the usage of spawning Thérad Photo: Audrey considered to be less important than areas; Frieira hydroelectric dam on the River

other demands on water resources. l Improve management of fish stocks Minho and bring about an increase in fish- During the migration period, the adult ing related economic activities. mental principles at the other 17 migratory fish populations accumu- hydraulic centres in Galicia owned late at the bottom of the dam and The construction of adult fish passage by Union Fenosa. An environmen- are unable to go further upstream facilities comprised three steps. A fish tal agreement (“Pacto Ambiental”), to reach the upper area with suit- ladder was built in the lower part of which was reached between the able spawning conditions. As well as the dam that allows water flow to be company and the regional govern- leading to considerable reductions in regulated according to volume and the ment shortly after the start of the populations of fish species, the dams demand for energy. This structure also project, is renewed on a yearly also had an indirect impact on birds allows fish to be captured in a “bas- basis. The agreement implements and animals that were dependent on ket”, ready to be then transported. Galician legislation that requires these for foods. the commitment of private entities The second step entailed the con- to implement specific actions of What did LIFE do? struction of an elevator system to environmental improvement. transport the fish, consisting of a This LIFE project aimed to address cable-car system (250m long) that the negative environmental impact of carries the fish in tanks from the cap- Project Number: ture pools to the restitution channel LIFE99 ENV/E/000347 Cable car used to lift the fish over situated upstream of the dam. Finally, Title: International restoring project the dam restitution channels were built (125 m for the Miño river… long) in order to guide the fish from Beneficiary: the elevator device to the reservoir. Unión Fenosa SA, Spain Contact: Francisco Bustio Gutierrez What was the outcome? Email: Photo: Union Fenosa [email protected] In the course of its use and fol- Website: lowing damage caused by floods http://www.unionfenosa.es/ in 2002, modifications have been Period: made to the system and it is now 20-Sep-1999 to 20-Jun-2002 working very efficiently. Other Total Budget: e 1,088,000 long-term benefits of the project e 297,000 include the adoption of environ- LIFE Contribution: LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers

Monitoring the status of EU Rivers The WFD requires an integrated monitoring programme to be established in each river basin district in order to monitor the “ecological and chemical status” of a river. This is based on ‘biological elements’ (plankton, macrophytes, macroinvertebrates and fish) and ‘supporting elements’ (chemical and hydromorphological) that provide data necessary to assess the ecological status of surface and groundwater bodies in each river basin district. The LIFE programme is helping to provide the tools necessary for the development of methodologies that could be used in monitoring the status of the rivers. LIFE is also developing expertise to help establish operational standards and best practice management.

Belgium: Ecological quality assessment based on the fish populations of the Meuse

This LIFE project was the first international research initiative in Europe to focus on the standardisation and adaptation of a fish-based index for an entire European river basin in order to evaluate the ecological status of running waters.

The WFD requires that rivers attain useful for Europe. These tools need These characteristics provide addi- good ecological status (or at least to be ecologically based, efficient, tional and complementary informa- good ecological potential) by 2015. cost-effective, rapid and consist- tion to that already available from Assessment of this status or ‘health’ ently applicable to different ecologi- monitoring other organisms. How- of aquatic ecosystems, involves cal regions. ever, there are relatively few suitable examining their physical, chemical ecological tools based on fish popu- and biological characteristics. If the For aquatic ecosystems, biological lations available for the assessment requirements of the WFD are to be indicators can be chosen from a of river conditions in Europe. met, effective monitoring tools are range of flora and fauna. The advan- needed to measure the status of tages of using fish are that 1) they What did LIFE do? rivers at scales large enough to be are present in many water bodies, 2) their taxonomy, ecological require- With the aim of assessing the ecologi- The Meuse river basin, Belgium ments and lifespans are generally cal quality of international rivers in line better known than for other aquatic with the WFD, the project’s benefici- species, 3) they occupy a variety of ary, the University of Namur (FUNDP, trophic levels and habitats, 4) they Belgium), and its partners (the French have both economic and aesthetic Conseil Supérieur de la pêche (CSP), or amenity value, and thus help raise the Flemish Instituut voor Bosbouw awareness about the necessity of en Wildbeheer (IBW) for Flanders and conserving aquatic habitats, and 5) the Nederlands Instituut voor Visserij some of them are migratory or are Onderzoek (RIVO), developed two new dependant on long reaches or areas. fish-based indices.

Monitoring the status of EU rivers LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers I p. 29

The Trisection Method Index (TMI), the l Study of IBI spatio-temporal variation Index of Biotic Integrity (IBI) Belgian strategy for designing a fish and comparison of its sensitivity to

based index, is based on the Index of other physico-chemical and biologi- Originally developed in the United Sta- Biotic Integrity (IBI). Ideally, environ- cal indicators. tes for use in small, warm water streams mental conditions at the site of con- (that is, those too warm to support cern are compared with the attributes What was the outcome? salmonids), IBI is a multi-metric index expected in undisturbed streams or based on the hypothesis that there are rivers of similar size and habitat type TMI and MMI proved to be satisfac- predictable relationships between fish located in a similar geographic region. tory methods for assessing the biotic population structures and the physical, The Multivariate Model Index (MMI), integrity of streams and rivers in the chemical and biological conditions of based on a Fish-Based Index method- Meuse basin. These indices were very stream systems. This index employs ology previously developed for French efficient in discriminating over a range a series of metrics based on popula- rivers, uses statistical models to predict of anthropogenic perturbations. They tion structure that give reliable signals the site-specific fauna to be expected were also consistent over time, flexible of river condition to calculate an index in the absence of major environmental and widely adaptable. score at a site, which is then compared stress. The aim was to predict the char- to the score expected at an unimpaired acteristics of fish populatons at a given The overall proportion of presumed comparable site. Each metric reflects site as a function of a set of variables errors of classification was roughly the quality of a different aspect of the reflecting natural conditions at different the same for both indices. The project fish population that responds in a dif- scales, from local to regional. showed a significant difference between ferent manner to aquatic ecosystem the distribution of fish integrity classes ‘stressors’. Both indices have been developed dur- and those obtained from indicators of ing the following four phases, which water and habitat quality for TMI. This have been implemented in close col- discrepancy was greater on the Flem- factors better than the TMI. Neverthe- laboration between the countries ish sites and with large rivers. less, it becomes more complex and concerned (France, Belgium and The its application requires a preliminary Netherlands): The project also showed no signifi- selection of reference sites, a difficult

l Determination of potential zoning in cant differences between the distribu- and subjective task. the whole Meuse River basin through tion of fish integrity classes and those an analysis of historical and recent obtained from indicators of water and Pending validation in other European data. Testing and standardisation habitat quality for MMI. The main devi- river basins, MMI should be recom- of sampling methodologies used ations, while not statistically significant, mended as more suitable for interna- by the different partners during their relate to a tendency in underscoring tional contexts, while the TMI is best regional or national programmes, small rivers. suited to a regional context. and definition of ecological guilds for autochthonous fish species. The TMI is simple to design and is good l Determination of reference systems by at assessing anthropogenic impacts. It Project Number: prospecting sites without significant does not require many environmental LIFE97 ENV/B/000419 perturbations in the tributaries and the parameters or initial selection of refer- Title: less altered sites in the main channel. ence sites to be built. However, it also A Biotic Index of Fish Integrity (IBIP) to evaluate the ecological quality of l Selection of IBI metrics (such as spe- doesn’t implicitly integrate all major lotic ecosystems - application to the cies’ abundance, ecological needs environmental factors that cause, or at Meuse River basin etc.,) for tributaries and the main least explain, the patterns of assem- Beneficiary: channel, and study of the influence blage composition and distribution Facultés Universitaires N.D. de la of the potential zoning in the Meuse within and among water bodies at Paix, France basin. For the main channel, special various spatio-temporal scales under Contact: J.C. Micha attention was paid to the identifica- natural conditions. The index tended Email: tion of specific metrics based on the to underscore systematically the eco- [email protected] spatio-temporal variations of the fish logical quality of sites, particularly the Website: (beneficiary’s) populations. To this aim, population Flemish and the large river sites. http://www.ibw.vlaanderen.be dynamics and relative abundance Period: of the different populations in some The MMI seemed to be the more 01-Dec-1997 to 30-Nov-2000 target fish species were monitored appropriate index for an application Total Budget: e 857,000 since these are good indicators of to the whole river Meuse basin. It also quality in large rivers. integrates the relevant environmental LIFE Contribution: e 427,000 LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers

The Netherlands: Implementing a common approach to river management in Northern Europe

Differences in the management of sediments in the rivers Meuse and Scheldt in the Netherlands, Belgium and France have held back the development and implementation of a common river basin approach to this issue. A LIFE project developed a methodology for monitoring and assessment of sediments in both rivers, with a view to broader application.

Rijkswaterstaat (the Department for assessment. A broad agreement has Public Works and Water Management) been reached on the parameters for for inland waters in the Netherlands and physico-chemical analysis, and spe- AKWA (Advisory and Knowledge Cen- cialists agreed upon a proposal for tre on Sediments), a joint cooperation both the ecotoxicological as the bio- between several specialised institutes logical assessment method. More of the Rijkswaterstaat. Together with data, however, are still needed in order partners in the four regions (Flanders, to come to definite conclusions and to Wallonia, France and The Netherlands), establish reliable common standards. River Scheldt (left) and an illustration they created four areas of activity: depicting sediment-sampling l Legal aspects and regulation of con- Finally, the project developed a model for taminated sediments. destinations of contaminated dredged

The International Commissions for l Methods for monitoring and assess- sediments and a decision support sys- the Protection of the Meuse and the ment of contaminated sediments. tem. The model includes information on

Scheldt (ICPM and ICPS) play an l Field testing of the common method- the characterisation of sediments, pos- important role in drawing up interna- ology. sible destinations, dredging techniques, tional agreements for improving the l Destination of dredged contaminated and transport and treatment technolo- quality of water and sediments in the sediments (treatment and reuse). gies. Based on the physical/chemical catchments of the two rivers. Man- properties of the dredged sediments, agement of contaminated sediments, Assessment of contaminated sediments the most suitable treatment technique however, differs from country to coun- was advanced by the project through was subsequently determined. try and hamper the implementation of the optimisation of sampling and the a common river basin approach in line determination of appropriate indicators. with the WFD. Such a move towards obtaining a com- Project Number: mon view of assessing contamination LIFE99 ENV/NL/000263 ICPM and ICPS have drawn up a list of has prompted scientists from institutes Title: Development of a common differences and similarities in the man- in other regions of Western Europe to method in quality assessment and agement of contaminated sediments develop a similar approach. A common approach of contaminated sediments to improve understanding between monitoring system and common stand- the countries and serve as a starting ards can be used to define the objective Beneficiary: AKWA, RIZA, Rijkswaterstaat, the point for harmonising policy. Taking of “good ecological status” in the WFD Netherlands into account these national differences, and to prepare an inventory of the status Contact: Daniel Clement this LIFE project aimed to develop a of sediments in different river basins. common method for monitoring and Email: [email protected] assessing contaminated sediments. The project also pointed the way towards long-term harmonisation of Website: www.minvenw.nl/rws/ projects/akwa/html/producten/ What did LIFE do? sampling, assessment criteria and index_producten.html dredging regulation, which differs in The project was implemented by the the regions of the project. The common Period: 01-Nov-1999 to 01-Apr-2002 RIZA (Institute for Inland Water Man- method for the assessment of sedi- e agement and Waste Water Treatment), ments is based on a dual approach, Total Budget: 251,000 the research and advisory body of the incorporating bio-assays and field LIFE Contribution: e 251,000 LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers I p. 31

Improving the status of European Rivers Improving the ecological quality and function of rivers implies the implementation of river enhancement or restoration techniques as part of wider management strategies all aimed at achieving good status. The LIFE programme is contributing to the improvement of the status of rivers by co-financing river restoration and enhancement activities ranging from channel engineering, renewal of riparian vegetation, bank stabilisation and natural habitats improvement and conservation. LIFE also helped to found the European Centre for River Restoration – building capacity and establishing a Europe-wide network for the exchange of knowledge and best practices.

Denmark: Establishing a European Centre for River Restoration

In recognition of the need to improve means of sharing knowledge and experience of river management, a LIFE project was set up to develop a European Centre for River Restoration. The centre established a Europe-wide network for the exchange of knowledge and best practice.

River restoration is widely accepted but experiences and achievements as an effective way of alleviating both cannot easily be exchanged on a water quality and flooding problems. European level. Restoration initiatives are seen as being part of the means to satisfy the What did LIFE do? WFD requirements to achieve good status in all surface- and ground This LIFE project developed a Euro- waters by 2015. pean Centre for River Restoration to promote the restoration of riv- While many projects have been ers and riparian areas in Europe. European Centre for River Restoration undertaken in recent years in Europe, The beneficiary was the Freshwater logo including those in Eastern Europe Department of the National Environ- through the PHARE and TACIS pro- mental Research Institute, Denmark, national institutions and river resto- grammes, the exchange of informa- a research institution that forms part ration organisations from as many tion and experiences between local of the Danish Ministry of the Envi- European countries as possible. authorities both on a national and an ronment. international level proved inadequate. The ECRR brought together des- In some countries (Denmark, Ger- The Freshwater Department set up ignated institutions from each EU many and the UK) national informa- the European Centre for Restoration Member State. Information on river tion centres have been established, of Rivers (ECRR) to generate cost- restoration was distributed through efficient benefits for the protection newsletters, a website and scientific

Programme of Community aid to the of biodiversity, flood defence and journals, and several online data- countries of Central and Eastern Europe. water quality. It was charged with bases were established. Its main Technical Aid to the Commonwealth of developing a European network of objectives were to: Independent States. LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers l Encourage more river restoration; ECRR activities l Achieve greater benefits from river

restoration projects; l Networking - putting people in touch with each other l Improve the cost-benefit ratio of l Reporting - newsletters, Internet river restoration works; l Promoting good practice in the implementation of the WFD l Obtain greater biodiversity, and l Creating a catalogue of case studies and a database (with decentralised mainte- better water quality and flood nance) management; l Devising a common glossary for river restoration l Improve confidence in promoting l Training and education - referral service and facilitate exchange and implementing river restora- l Organising workshops, meetings and conferences tion; l Developing guidelines l Bring about changes in policy and l Developing standards for appraisal and monitoring practice on river restoration to l Demonstrating projects and site visits reflect the needs of the 21st Cen- l Research and monitoring - referral service tury - including having river res- l Reporting on the state of the environment toration accepted as an integral l Transfering knowledge part of sustainable water manage- l Finding compatible solutions for flood defence and ecological restoration ment; l Improve European access to, and exchange of information from worldwide experience in river res- the ECRR activities and national evaluation, carried out by the LIFE toration. and international activities on river external monitoring team in May restoration was made available on 2004, showed that the project has What was the outcome? a new website. Databases on key had a long-term impact and that the institutions and contacts are also network is still operating and grow- The project established the centre available online. ing. The secretariat was taken over and its network and databases, and by RIZA (the Netherlands National organised an international confer- A five-day international conference Institute for Integrated Water Man- ence. At the end of the project, the “River restoration 2000- Practical agement and Wastewater Treatment), ECRR network consisted of 350 approaches” was held in Wagenin- and then by its Italian counterpart. institutions and private individuals. gen, the Netherlands in May 2000. The ECRR, RIZA and Croatian Water In addition, national networks have More than a hundred delegates from hosted the 3rd International Confer- also been established in the UK, 24 European and four non-European ence on River Restoration – “River Denmark, Romania, Russia, Italy, countries attended. A conference Restoration 2004:- Principles, proc- Spain and Norway. Further co-oper- report is available in a hard-copy esses & practices” held in May 2004 ation has also been established with version as well as a PDF version, in Zagreb, Croatia. several other organisations includ- which can be downloaded from the ing the Netherlands Centre for River website below. Studies, the European Centre for Project Number: Nature Restoration, WWF, Ramsar, A follow-up study was conducted a LIFE99 ENV/DK/000619 IUCN and EIONET. A guideline for year after the event to evaluate the Title: establishing national networks was extent of contacts established at European Centre for River drawn up, and information about the conference. A follow-up ex-post Restoration Beneficiary: Restoration project on the River Dinkel, the Netherlands (left), an ECRR river tour, National Environmental Research 2002 (right) Institute (NERI), Denmark Contact: Ulrik Lorenzen Email: [email protected] Website: www.ecrr.org/ Period: 01-Apr-1999 to 01-Apr-2002 Total Budget: e 270,000 LIFE Contribution: e 134,000 Improving the status of European Rivers LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers I p. 33

Germany / Austria: Restoring the River Inn’s hydrological dynamics and floodplain habitats

More than five years after official closure, the achievements of this Austrian-German LIFE-Nature project are still visible. It targeted the restoration of the hydrological dynamics along the Lower Inn floodplain, the conservation of its fauna and flora and the maintenance of the area’s considerable ornithological value.

The Inn valley straddling the Ger- man-Austrian border is one of the most important areas for wildfowl and waders in Central Europe. The birds are attracted to four artificial lakes, which were created in the 1950s when hydro dams were constructed across the River Inn. Thanks to the river’s strategic location at the foot of the Alps, and under the influence of the Inn’s river dynamics, these lakes are now a haven for more than 120,000 water birds annually, with some 285 bird species recorded since the 1960s. This birds’ paradise (recognised under the Ramsar Convention) is also surrounded by alluvial forests dominated by alders (Alnus gluti- nosa) and willows (Salix spp.) and oak-elm-ash communities. The River Inn, straddling the German-Austrian border

By the late 1990s there was a grow- tities of natural silt brought down transforming the wetlands habitats ing awareness that the high quan- by the River Inn from the Alps were into dryer habitats) threatening its putting this area at risk in the longer attraction to birds both as a staging Convention on Wetlands of Internatio- term. These fine sediments were point and as an over-wintering site nal Importance especially as Waterfowl causing an accelerated ‘terrestri- for waders and waterfowl. Habitat, 2 February 1971. UN Treaty Series No. 14583. alisation’ of the site’s habitats (i.e What did LIFE do?

Together with the Upper Austrian Gov- ernment the Bavarian Environment Ministry applied for funding for this first German-Austrian trans-bound- Common Sandpiper ary LIFE project. Its main objectives (Actitis hypoleucos) were to restore the river’s sediment transport dynamics, as well as to preserve the terrestrial habitats of the floodplain. The project area covered 3,200 ha, including a 46 km reach of the river Inn, as well as the riparian woodlands on the Bavarian side. LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers

In order to restore or enhance the terrestrial habitats of the floodplain and to facilitate nature conservation management actions, the project also purchased 108 ha of alluvial forests. This action included:

l The management of 73 ha of alluvial oak-elm-ash forests or grey alder forests, where 10.2 ha of non- native trees were removed;

l The reinstatement of traditional coppicing management of grey alders on 1.7 ha;

l The conversion of 22 ha of arable land to grey alder forest, and the testing of various techniques to speed up alder growth;

l The recreation of a mosaic of habitats consisting of hay meadows, ponds, sedge wetlands, dunes and gravel flats. The most important example was realised behind the flood dyke near the village of Eglsee, where 7 ha of formerly arable land were recreated in this mosaic of habitats, which had almost disappeared over the last century.

In order to reconnect two sections of a cut-off river meander at the “Auf- hausener Au”, a channel was dug across purchased land. In the same area, six new pools for amphibians were excavated, three of which are adequate for the Great crested newt (Triturus cristatus) and the yellow-bel- lied toad (Bombina variegate); both Annex-II species.

River Inn embankment opening – before the project work (top) and after (below) Restoration of dry species-rich grassland patches within the floodplain forests The project aimed to prevent the area. This ‘river enhancement’ action Inn’s habitat types from becoming was based on detailed flow models, progressively choked with sediment. which enabled the preparation of the This would be achieved by restoring works and an assessment of potential the hydrological dynamics of the river/ risks, including the possible erosion floodplain, more specifically by restor- of the flood dykes. The hydrological ing the erosion, sediment transport, models recommended the opening and sedimentation processes in the of the dyke, determined the optimal area. To this aim, the Austrian partner size and location of the opening, and opened up 100 metres of the river provided a scientific basis that could dyke to allow the water to drain into potentially be applied to other areas of the Hagenauer Bucht, a 2 km2 wetland the Inn floodplain. Improving the status of European Rivers LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers I p. 35

The project also tackled the restoration of so-called ‘Brennen’ sites (dry species-rich grassland patches within the floodplain forests) by cut- ting overgrowth. The total area of the Brennen grassland habitats increased from 0.5 ha to more than 5 ha. Rudi Tändler, in charge of on-site project implementation at the Landkreis Rot- tal-Inn, commented: “The necessary Brennen restoration would not have been possible without LIFE funding”. LIFE-Project Manager, Dr. Willy Zahl- heimer, added: “The project actions were realised just in time. Within a few more years the remains of the Bren- nen would have totally disappeared and their flora and fauna would have been further degraded.” Birds benefiting from the LIFE project actions – black-winged stilt (Himantopus himantopus) (left) bittern (Botaurus stellaris) (right), reed warbler (Acrocephalus scirpaceus) (below left) Sheep grazing was reinstated along 10 km of dyke. This proved a cost- effective ecological measure to main- What was the outcome? bine resources and expertise from both tain the flower-rich dyke grasslands sides of the Inn. Collaboration with in the longer term. The project actions had a direct ben- another EU programme – the Interreg efit on habitats, species and birds II project ‘AENUS’, which targeted a The project hired local farmers and of the Habitats and Birds Directives. trans-boundary, integrated zoning con- forestry workers to do much of the The project managed to create 21.9 cept for tourism and the local economy, work. This helped to increase the ha of alluvial forest and new aquatic contributed to the integrated approach local acceptance and support of the habitats on the floodplain suitable taken by the LIFE team. project, as following the project’s for amphibians and wildfowl and closure, some locals continue to waders. Moreover, the restoration of A good deal of media/public rela- be employed in ‘After-LIFE’ mainte- the river hydrodynamics had a posi- tions work was also undertaken by nance work. tive impact on the shallow water and sand habitats, thus increasing local LIFE project information panel biodiversity.

“It was great to learn that local and trans-boundary conflicts of interest can be solved satisfactorily due to EU funding and within a concrete, time- restricted project.” said Dr. Zahlhe- imer. “LIFE also contributed to a good relationship between local authorities, hunters and anglers as well as the general public, which still exists five years after the project’s closure.” added Christine Kotz of the Landrat- samt Passau, a project partner.

This close cooperation with all concerned parties and with the local elec- tricity companies, who were project partners, helped guarantee the project’s success and made it possible to com- LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers

Alluvial forest on the margins of the lower Inn the project. This resulted in the pub- by the Landkreis Rottall Inn, one of He is confident that this trend will lication of a number of press articles, the project’s areas. continue. information sheets, two brochures and a LIFE project calendar. Public Life After LIFE Dr. Zahlheimer concluded: “The meetings were held in the villages results already achieved, together and an exhibition toured schools and Since the work undertaken to restore with the ongoing commitment of municipalities. A seminar was held in or enhance the River Inn’s hydro- the former project-team, underline October 2001, on restoring floodplain dynamics was new and innovative, that the Lower Inn LIFE project dynamics, and the project participated and the long-term conservation ben- was indeed a success-story.” at the Green Week in Brussels as well efits were not quantified, the Upper as at the ‘Nature Conservation Day’ of Austrian Government financed a Project Number: the Bavarian Parliament. In addition, five-year monitoring programme LIFE98 NAT/D/005372 two visitor platforms and five informa- after LIFE. Although the final results tion panels were erected in order to will not be available until the end of Title: Lower Inn with riparian woodland guide and channel visitors. The Info 2007, mid-term results are already Centre Ering still offers monthly tours encouraging. Bird songs moni- Beneficiary: Bayrisches Staatsministerium für in the LIFE area. For March 2007, a tored over the years at five different Landesentwicklung und special ‘Naturerlebnispfad’ is planned points showed a promising increase Umweltfragen in bird species (in 2000, 25 out of Contact: Harald Lippert Green toad (Bufo viridis) Annex IV of the 52 bird species chosen for obser- Habitats Directive Email: vation have been counted, in 2006 [email protected] the figure rose to 42). Josef Eisner, Website: http://www.web.rottal-inn. the Austrian project manager, says: de/sg_55/life-projekt/life_natur_ “While the positive results with index.htm regard to the bird populations have Period: been expected, the fish-results 01-Jul-1998 to 31-Mar-2002 were quite surprising.” According to Total Budget: e 3,823,000 Eisner there seem to be more and LIFE Contribution: e 1,911,000 bigger fish species than expected. Photo: Freiwasser of European Rivers European of status the Improving further upstream and downstream. and upstream further initiatives particular,follow-up in two aiding projects LIFE other of number a by adopted been has strategy project’ssuccessful The habitats. spawning improving and aids migration building by populations boost to aimed project LIFE ambitious An migration. in difficulties suffered years recent in have Danube river the in fish endangered other and salmon, of species a huchen, The lations. Moreover, watercourse watercourse Moreover, lations. subpopu between exchange vent pre to also barriers These obstacles migration. other creation and the dams from of result ences over- influ and negative recent more fishing, pollution by affected been long have populations While EU. the in largest the are – Gail and Drau Pielach, Mur, – tributaries Danube Austrian four the in stocks huchen remaining the and Bavaria, in disappeared sal but all has It monid. European central is and largest the tributaries its and Danube salmon hucho) Danube (Hucho or huchen The Danube the in fish endangered of migration Aiding Austria: Danube salmon (Huchohucho) is found only in the the in only found is - - - - important spawning and feeding feeding grounds. and of spawning loss the important to led has regulation introduction of canals. of introduction the and regulation by altered considerably been has Melk the state, natural/semi-natural their in still are Pielach the of stretches some While Austria. Lower in Mank and Melk Pielach, of rivers the stretches lower and middle the of consisted area project The project. of LIFE part the as barriers these of overcoming some towards worked ity, author water the and authority tion protec nature the with ity, together author regional Austrian lower The LIFE Focus LIFE - - - suitable spawning grounds. spawning suitable of development the aid to created be would meanders river the banks where the along strips buffer tion, addi In fish. of passage to the permit obstacles other and weirs alter would project The region. Wachau the in Danube the of stretch flowing free- the with them linking and Mank and Melk Pielach, rivers the up ing open by km 78 of length total a over nasus) ( Nase Freshwater as such fish river endangered other and huchen, the for migration of ity possibil the improve to was aim The What didLIFEdo?

LIFE and Europe’sand LIFE rivers and Barbel ( Barbel and Barbus barbus) Barbus Chondrostoma Chondrostoma

p. - - - , 37 LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers

Central to the success of the project was the involvement of local landowners, holders of rights to use water and licensed anglers. Other partners included the town of Loosdorf, the Austrian Friends of Nature, WWF and the Federal Envi- ronment Ministry.

What was the outcome?

At the end of the project, 11 obstacles to fish migration had been adapted through the construction of fish by-passes. As a result, Dan- ube fish are again able to enter the rivers Melk and Pielach during their spawning migrations. Monitoring carried out as part of the project by the University of Natural Resources LIFE project work – top (left to right): opening a new side channel that allows for the and Applied Life Sciences of Vienna migration for fish at the weir ‘Eibelsau’ – weir, and construction of the side channel confirmed this result. A fish inven- – below (left to right) first water flowing into the new channel, and channel with flowing tory for 68 ha of riverbed was water and vegetation allowing the fish to migrate upstream mapped out. Along 2.6 km of regulated river sec- This LIFE project was the first of its kind The project also purchased 75 ha tions at Mank and Melk, a free-flowing in Austria, to ambitiously target the elim- of alluvial land and buffer strips for stream with many different types of ination of fish migration obstacles along habitat restoration. As well as cre- river habitats was restored. This has a large-scale river section. A key output ating spawning grounds, river bed had a positive impact on fish spaw- was that a number of later LIFE projects enlargement and the planting of allu- ing and Chondrostoma nasus was followed this strategy (e.g. Donau-Ybbs, vial forests on this land will ensure observed for the first time in 2004 in Wachau, Lafnitz, Obere Mur, Lech). that the river continues to pursue a the Mank river section. Otters were Specifically, the LIFE projects Wachau natural course in the future. also spotted using this restored sec- (LIFE03 NAT/A/000009) and Donau- tion for feeding and hunting. On the Ybbs (LIFE04 NAT/A/000006) are logical Melk section, kingfisher, little ringed continuations of this project, enlarging Restoring the migration route for fish at plover and goosander started to sections of the Danube course further the ‘Weißer Stein’ weir breed again. upstream and downstream.

Project Number: LIFE99 NAT/A/006054 Title: Living space of Danube salmon Beneficiary: Region of Lower Austria (Land Nied- erösterreich), Austria Contact: Erhard Kraus Email: [email protected] Website: www.life-huchen.at Period: 01-Jul-1999 to 30-Jun-2004 Total Budget: e 3,561,000 LIFE Contribution: e 1,780,000 LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers I p. 39

Reconnecting rivers and floodplains Some European rivers are heavily modified and characterised by channels with dis- aggregated floodplains and altered water-level periods. As a consequence, former extensive aquatic/terrestrial flood transition zones lack most of their past hydrological functions such as flood prevention, protection and regulation, as well as their ecological functions. Along the large rivers of Europe, various LIFE floodplain restoration and rehabilitation projects have been realised in recent years, albeit at demonstration scale. These actions involve the restoration of semi-aquatic components of floodplains, the rehabilitation of secondary channels, reconnecting disconnected and temporary waters (ox-bow lakes) as well as other wetlands. There are also LIFE funded projects that establish flood-alert systems and flood mapping risk assessment. LIFE projects have found solutions which are acceptable to local stakeholders.

Belgium: Flood management and ecological restoration in the Dijle valley

A cost-effective and environmentally attractive alternative to dam construction to prevent flooding of the river Dijle in Leuven, Belgium, was made possible with the aid of LIFE-Nature co-funding. Natuurpunt, a Flemish conservation NGO that owns an area of land to the south of the city, was able to implement a management plan for the river valley over an area 4km long by 1km wide.

LIFE funding enabled Natuurpunt to convince the regional authorities of acquire sufficient land and remove the effectiveness of the plan – there obstacles to flooding, such as poplars was some initial local resistance and maize crops, to demonstrate that – it has been shown to be successful. creating a ‘natural’ river that overflows River managers from other countries, into floodplains can alleviate flooding such as France (Lille) and Germany further downstream. Before the intro- (Koblenz), as well as other regions in duction of the river management plan Belgium, have visited the site with a of the river Dijle, flooding would regu- view to implementing similar plans for larly affect areas of Leuven including their rivers. the famous University campus. What did LIFE do? Organisers of the plan say that the Improved flood alleviation is not the city hasn’t experienced flooding for only benefit of the project. The project several years following the start of area is extremely species rich and its the project. While it was difficult to grassland habitats are protected by LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers

beginning to change its course as the process of meandering takes place. Piet De Becker, an eco-hydrologist at the Institute for Nature and For- est Research says that the size of the floodplain is essential to the success of the plan. “If the floodplain is too small, then the silt-rich floodwater will create too much mud and destroy vegetation. So it was important for us to create a large floodplain that would allow for a richer environment,” he says.

What was the outcome?

The 500 ha of land managed by Nat- uurpunt at Doode Bemde, which the A 4 km stretch of the River Dijle has been made more ‘natural’ Dijle passes through, has been an established nature reserve for many the Birds and Habitats Directives. areas land bought by the benefici- years. Several ponds, which were cre- Agricultural activity including crop ary, Natuurpunt, is now leased back ated in the 1940s and 1950s for the farming and the plantation of poplar to farmers for grazing, free of charge. cultivation of carp, are home to many trees for wood pulp, however, has It was necessary to destroy weekend migratory birds in spring time and the altered the land in recent years. Given cottages in the creation of the new restoration of the floodplain ecosys- the changes in the water level man- floodplains. tem is attracting many more. The Dijl- agement regime of the area resulting evallei LIFE project constructed two from the project, and arguably for The project aimed to create a more wooden viewing huts for keen bird other reasons, it is no longer profitable ‘natural’ river, by allowing it to follow watchers, and for more casual amen- to cultivate poplar plantations. Conse- a natural course, and build up sedi- ity use, a raised wooden path was also quently, the project made provision to ments on the banks and allowing ero- built. Riverine mammals are expected compensate some farmers. In many sion to occur. In this way, the river is to benefit from the improved habitat,

Allowing the river to regularly flood upstream can prevent flood damage further down Reconnecting rivers and floodplains LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers I p. 41

in particular beavers that were previ- Summary of activities ously reintroduced to the area.

A summary of the main activities of the project (that were carried out by four hired The organisers of the LIFE project rec- staff members and a local employment initiative for disadvantaged youth and volun- ognise that while it was important to teers): first convince the authorities that the l 43 ha of poplars were removed, including the total removal of stumps on 18 ha. management plan would help allevi- l Four weekend cottages were demolished. ate flooding in Leuven, they say that l A 4 ha maize field was converted to extensively managed grassland. its conservation benefits mean that l 7.6 ha of grassland was restored to Annex I habitat status by appropriate recurrent it is a “win-win situation”. Says De mowing and grazing. Becker: “It is also a cheaper solution l Shrubby overgrowth was removed to restore 3.4 ha of former habitats of the Des- than constructing a large dam near moulin’s whorl snail (Vertigo moulinsiana). the city even if you have to buy a large l 4 km fences were installed to improve grazing management: 10 ha of the Doode amount of land.” Bemde is now managed by grazing and 40 ha by hay mowing followed by grazing. Natuurpunt’s target areas of land for l The banks of the 24 ha Langerode pond were cleared of trees and bushes and re- purchase targets, however, changed graded in order to stimulate reed growth. A small pond was restored in order to act markedly during the project, as the as an amphibian habitat and as a nature education site. government authorities began acquir- l 5 ha of degraded woods and poplars were ring-barked to provide standing dead ing land originally earmarked for pur- wood. chase by the beneficiary. As part of l A 400 m stretch of a ditch that drains the Langerode wood was filled in. the LIFE project, Natuurpunt bought 54.3 ha of land that was mostly former grasslands planted with poplars or overgrown as a result of aban- in Belgium is assessed using a biotic there is a growing awareness of eco- donment, as well as fish ponds and index, and the Dijle was given the low- logical issues that initiatives such patches of degraded woodland. An est possible ranking when the idea of as the LIFE project are helping to additional 44.8 ha, acquired by AMI- the flood-management plan was first strengthen. Around 1,800 people NAL-Natuur and AMINAL-Water, and considered. The river flows through attended an open day held at the start 10 ha, acquired by VLM (agri-structural several industrial towns in Wallonia of the project, and information boards authority), was leased to Natuurpunt before arriving in the Leuven area. With around the site inform visitors about to manage. Before the LIFE project such poor water quality, the project the conservation work. Natuurpunt managed 99 ha (20% of would not have been viable and Natu- the project area), but this amount has urpunt campaigned for a reduction in The Dijlevallei project continues to be now increased to 208 ha (42% of the pollution. The biotic index for the Dijle influential and has collaborated with project area), and consists mainly of has steadily improved and is now six a research project undertaken by the large coherent blocks. out of a possible score of 10. University of Cardiff on the role of LIFE in Natura 2000 sites. The ecological benefits of the project, Generations of local schoolchildren however, are dependent on the quality have visited the reserve at Doode of the river water. River water quality Bemde, but De Becker says that Project Number: LIFE98 NAT/B/005171

View from an observational hut constructed by LIFE for viewing migratory birds Title: Dijlevallei Beneficiary: Natuurpunt Beheer, Belgium Contact: Joost Dewyspelaere Email: [email protected] Website: www.natuurpunt.be Period: 01-Sep-1998 to 01-Sep-2001 Total Budget: e 845,000 LIFE Contribution: e 412,000 LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers

Denmark: restoration of habitats and wildlife of the River Skjern

The River Skjern in western Jutland is the largest river in Denmark in terms of water flow and has a catchment area of 250,000 hectares. At the mouth of the river, there was once a huge expanse of marshland (4,000 ha) harbouring a mixture of wetland habitats: meadows; reed-swamps; meandering watercourses; fens and shallow lakes. This floodplain was a haven for wildlife.

The restored valley with meadows and lakes

In addition to the thousands of (Chlidonias niger) and corncrake In 1987, the Danish government migrating birds who used it as a (Crex crex). Other species such as decided to launch a major strategy for stop over point along the Western the otter (Lutra lutra) and Atlantic marginal lands, for example farmlands Palaearctic flyway, there were also salmon (Salmo salar) were also rela- of poor quality and high maintenance stable breeding populations of bit- tively common. requirements in areas that used to be tern (Botaurus stellaris), black tern of high conservation value. The inten- But these habitats were virtually tion was to restore these to their former Reconstruction work on the River destroyed following a relentless natural state and to introduce more Skjern campaign of land reclamation, river compatible land use such as extensive canalisation and drainage in the grazing or recreational activities. The 1960s. Initially, arable crops were River Skjern was to be the showpiece fairly successful, providing some of this strategy. income from the newly created fields. As time went by however, What did LIFE do? these revenues began to diminish rapidly despite the large quantities The objective of this ambitious LIFE of fertiliser used and because of soil project – implemented by the project collapse of arable land. beneficiary, Denmark’s National Forest Reconnecting rivers and floodplains LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers I p. 43

and Nature Agency – was to restore 875 ha of the river valley and to improve the biological diversity of over 1,600 ha by re-introducing grazing. To rectify poor physical conditions in the riverbed and its tributaries (due to chan- nelling), heavy-duty construction work was undertaken to re-meander the river along a more natural course over a stretch of 20 km. As a result, when the river runs high it is able to break its banks and flood the meadows. This enables the content of nutrients, mostly from agriculture and fish farming, to be deposited and assimilated by the plants of the meadow and benefits both habitats and species. Once this physical work was completed, appropriate management measures were devised and introduced to encourage the return of the wide array of birds and other animals that formerly used the area. Aerial view showing the former straightened river section (right) and the re-meandered The main targets were to: section during the construction period (left)

l Improve the living conditions for bird species listed in Annex I of were reached and the expected nature its actions did not add to the risk of the Birds Directive, including: ruff conservation benefits were met. The flooding outside the project area, (Philomachus pugnax); sandwich re-meandering of 20 km of the river which might have negative effects on tern (Sterna sandvicensis); black along a more natural course in the the drainage of surrounding farmland. tern (Chlidonias niger); common eastern part of the project site was The monitoring results indicated a tern (Sterna hirundo); marsh har- successfully carried out. By the end water-level increase inside the area rier (Circus aeruginosus); kingfisher of project, about 1,200 ha of grass- but no negative impact to upstream (Alcedo atthis); and spotted crake land were established, which was less neighbours. A management plan for (Porzana porzana); than originally foreseen (1,600 ha). The the long-term sustainability of the site,

l Create possibilities for priority bird reason is that the restoration work over the period 2005-2020, was also species, corncrake and great bit- finally resulted in increased areas of drawn up. tern to re-establish breeding in the floodplain. However, these extended area; wetland areas have benefited impor- Project Number: l Improve the conditions for migrat- tant species such as the spotted crake, LIFE00 NAT/DK/7116 ing birds in the Palearctic flyway, in avocet and bittern and consequently Title: particular Pink-footed goose (Anser will lead to more enhanced nature Restoration of habitats and wildlife of brachyrhynchus); conservation. The targets set up at the the Skjern River l Improve the conditions for the start of project for the site to qualify for Beneficiary: Annex I habitats and the Annex II SPA status were also met. The official The National Forest and Nature species, as well as for a number of designation took almost two years and Agency, Denmark animal species in Annex IV of the was finally completed in August 2006. Contact: Habitats Directive; Bendt Egede Andersen l Improve the spawning grounds and Overall, most of the expected envi- Email: [email protected] the possibilities for migration of the ronmental and nature conserva- Website: wild Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar). tion objectives were met during the www.SkjernEnge.dk project, except for the expected Period: result concerning nutrient retention, What was the outcome? 01-Jan-2001 to 31-Dec-2004 which was still only around 10% at Total Budget: e 7,357,000 The main project objectives regard- the end of the project. With regards to e ing the restoration of wetland habitats floods, the project took care to ensure LIFE Contribution: 2,207,000 LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers

France: Integrated development and management of the Saône Valley

On the basis of the Saône Valley Management Plan – the first such plan to have been drawn up for a French river – this LIFE-Nature project aimed to solve the valley’s flood-related problems and restore its natural heritage in an integrated and sustainable way.

The River Saône, 482 km long, is The results include: characterised by major and fre- l Improved navigation work man- quent floods that concern more agement. For the automation of than 220 communities and 72,500 the management of five Saône ha of flood-prone land. Since the navigation dams, a mathematical 1850s the Saône Valley has been algorithm was devised enabling the subject to significant embank- plotting of different water levels. ment and river management pro- Instructions could then be com- grammes. The most recent of municated to operate the valves these is the Saône Valley Manage- from the upstream water level. ment Plan, drawn up in 1996 and This ensures better compatibility adopted in 1997, which consists of between navigational and agri- 104 measures and recommenda- cultural interests during periods tions with more than 1,000 local of minor flooding, and maintains actions tailored to the specific fea- flooding in sectors that will benefit tures of the valley. from it environmentally.

l Restoration of the floodland. Sev- Photo: Mickaëlle Rousseleau This action plan was the result eral different sub-projects, aimed Restoration work was carried out on the of numerous studies carried out at the restoration of a meander in flood area by the Syndicat Mixte Saône and the High Saône, a marshland in the Doubs, the LIFE project’s ben- Rhone department and an irrigation mental). The lessons drawn from the eficiary, a development associa- canal, supplied information about LIFE project can be used as a model tion which groups together three the state of the current functioning for future valley management plans, regions, eight departments and six of the flood land. Recommendations such as for the Doubs, the Ognon and cities with more than 25,000 inhab- for restoration works and manage- the Loue. itants. Its central idea was that the ment decisions were developed in a prevention of floods, the protection floodland maintenance guide. of inhabited zones and business l Design and setting up an online Project Number: parks against major floods and the environment service network (http:// LIFE97 ENV/F/000194 development of tourist, agricultural www.observatoire-saone.fr/). A list of Title: and economic activities must take indicators describing the state of the Integrated development and management of the Saône Valley into account the conservation of valley, factors putting pressure on drinkable water resources and eco- the environment and environmental Beneficiary: Syndicat Mixte d’Etude pour logical heritage. impacts was established. This soft- l’Aménagement du Bassin de la ware enables the transfer of infor- Saône et du Doubs What did LIFE do? mation to administrators, users and Contact: Eric Leplus waterside populations and serves as Email: The LIFE-Environment project began a management and decision-making [email protected] in 1997 to implement the management tool for the sustainable development Website: plan, enabling the various steps to be policy of the valley. http://www.smesd.com/ planned and co-ordinated throughout the Saône Valley, as well as the set- The sub-projects implemented were Period: 01-Oct-1997 to 31-Dec-2001 ting-up of the long-term process to in line with the management plan’s e apply the agreed management and recommendations and constraints Total Budget: 1,087,000 development measures. (agricultural, hydraulic and environ- LIFE Contribution: e 522,000 LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers I p. 45

Stakeholder participation Since 1992, that is well ahead of the adoption of the WFD, LIFE projects have been promoting mechanisms for active participation in planning and decision-making for the implementation of successful river restoration actions. On the following pages we highlight a successful trans-national partnership lead by the UK’s RSPB, Europe’s largest wildlife conservation charity. However, there are many more examples of LIFE projects aiding long-term sustainable development with consensus from river communities including the Ythan project on page 25. For other Natura 2000 best practice examples, see the LIFE Focus publication, “LIFE-Nature: communicating with stakeholders and the general public”, which is available for download from the LIFE website: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ infoproducts/naturecommunicating_lowres_en.pdf

UK: wise use of floodplains – a trans-national partnership

This participatory project was led by the United Kingdom’s Royal Society for the Protection of Birds (RSPB), Europe’s largest wildlife conservation charity. The RSPB brought together 14 partners from France, Ireland and the UK to provide comparative analysis of the wetland management methods used in different catchment areas.

In the past, river management in Europe has drained floodplain wetlands and isolated rivers from their floodplains. Problems such as flooding, water shortages and over-enrichment of water have been made worse in some areas by this approach. Mod- ern thinking is that rivers cannot be managed in isolation from their floodplains, and rivers and their floodplains cannot be managed without balancing the demands put upon them by agriculture, industry, nature conservation and other interests. A floodplain site in Somerset in South West England

The WFD aims to solve these prob- ment of floodplains, a crucial part of gaining the active participation of lems by introducing integrated river of the water cycle, is fundamental in stakeholders in decision-making at a basin management and requires EU meeting these objectives. Member catchment scale in an operational, as Member States to meet new ecologi- States face problems in implement- opposed to a political, context. The cally based objectives on the quality ing the Directive, partly because they difficulties could be compounded of water. The sustainable manage- lack experience of the practicalities because the value of wetlands is not LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers well understood by a wide range of These tools included: stakeholders l The establishment of an international communication network between What did LIFE do? project stakeholders; l An action plan for each area to pro- The project included an international mote options for floodplain wetland comparison of participative methods restoration; used in different types of catchment l A series of national and European areas for the management of wet- workshops, looking at changes lands. Tools were tested, produced needed in policy and practice. and disseminated. It was designed These were published in a report on to help Member States implement “Opportunities and Barriers to Sus- the WFD by demonstrating the value tainable Management of Water”; The Fens in Eastern England: of floodplains and how their associ- l The creation of a website and the a project site ated wetlands can contribute to the promotion of the findings of the sustainable management of water project; logue with communities to secure resources within river basins. l The presentation of key recommen- the future sustainable management dations for European policy and of coastal habitats; and the ‘Ribble It was implemented by a trans-national funding changes needed to imple- Pilot Project’ on public participation. partnership, involving the UK’s RSPB, ment the WFD at national and EU Says the beneficiary: “The principles together with 13 other partners in six level. and lessons learnt have informed project areas in the UK and France. proposals by Defra (the Depart- The project highlighted the impor- Life after LIFE ment for Environment, Food and tance of organisations and commu- Rural Affairs), in relation to flood-risk nities working together to create a A post-project follow-up study of the management, and the Environment holistic and sustainable approach to project was carried out in June 2005 Agency, in relation to River Basin the management of water resources. by the LIFE external monitoring team. Planning, to roll out public participa- It showed that the environmental tion programmes across England.” What was the outcome? benefits of the scheme arose from its use in advocating the more sustain- Finally, the beneficiary says the This was a successful participatory able use and restoration of floodplain methodology for a component of the project. The vast array of stakehold- habitats, which are of vital importance UNDP/GEF Danube Regional Project ers involved at different levels in the to wetland wildlife. with special reference to wetland and management of wetlands led to the floodplain management was “directly development of a range of tools to aid The project’s recommendations for influenced (even inspired)” by the LIFE floodplain managers to implement the floodplain management have been project. WFD with implications on a Europe- fed into guidance notes to aid the wide basis. implementation of the WFD, and have formed the basis of lobbying in a vari- Project Number: ety of related policy areas. According LIFE99 ENV/UK/000203 Youngsters explore the project’s to the beneficiary, teams running flood- Title: Wise use of floodplains - a participative methods plain catchment projects throughout demonstration of techniques to eval- Europe are using the results of this uate and plan floodplain restoration project to shape their initiatives, and Beneficiary: work is being undertaken within the The Royal Society for the Protection catchments targeted by the project of Birds, UK to turn the project recommendations Contact: Russell Cryer into reality. Email: [email protected] Among the many projects related to Website: www.floodplains.org stakeholder dialogue that are cur- Period: rently using the outputs of the project 01-Apr-1999 to 01-Apr-2002 are the UK ‘Invest to Save’ partner- e 2,108,000 ship of Government agencies and Total Budget: NGOs project, which is seeking dia- LIFE Contribution: e 1,052,000 LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers I p. 47

Further projects focusing on rivers

The table below provides further examples of LIFE projects focusing on rivers. For more information on individual projects, visit the online database at: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Projects/ index.cfm The database provides useful, detailed search fields – for example under “keyword” (alphabetical or thematic) users may search under “river”, “river management”, “hydrographic basin”, “international river basin” etc. Start Country Number Title 1998 Austria LIFE98 NAT/A/005420 Region Wildernessriver Lafnitz 1999 Austria LIFE99 NAT/A/006055 Combine of the flood plain-forests of the Upper Drau-river valley (Kärnten) 2000 Austria LIFE00 NAT/A/007053 Wild river landscape of the Tyrolean Lech Living River Liesing - Demonstrative Ecological Reconstruction of a Heavily 2002 Austria LIFE02 ENV/A/000282 Modified Waterbody in an Urban 2004 Austria LIFE04 NAT/AT/000001 Lafnitz - habitat cross-linking on an Alpine pannonical river 2004 Austria LIFE04 NAT/AT/000006 Donau- Ybbs Linkage 2005 Austria LIFE05 NAT/A/000078 Conservation strategies for woodlands and rivers in the Gesäuse Mountains 2006 Austria LIFE06 NAT/A/000127 Life in Upper Drau River 2002 Belgium LIFE02 NAT/B/008590 Pearlmussels (in Belgium) 2005 Belgium LIFE05 NAT/B/000085 Restoration of European otter habitats (Be & Lu) 2005 Belgium LIFE05 NAT/B/000091 Transboundary habitat restoration in the valley of the Dommel 2004 Croatia LIFE04 TCY/CRO/000030 Establishing institutional capacities for protection of river Mura landscape 1999 Cyprus LIFE99 TCY/CY/000111 The River Valleys Project, Cyprus 2006 Czech Republic LIFE06 NAT/CZ/000121 Preservation of alluvial forest habitats in the Morávka river Basin 2004 Denmark LIFE04 NAT/DK/000022 Regional Actions to Improve Nature in River Odense and Odense Fjord 2005 Denmark LIFE05 ENV/DK/000145 Odense Pilot River Basin - Agricultural Programme of Measures 2005 Denmark LIFE05 NAT/DK/000153 Urgent actions for the endangered Houting “Coregonus oxyrhunchus” 1998 Finland LIFE98 ENV/FIN/000573 A cost-effective decision support system for management of boreal river basins Environmental protection in agriculture and local Agenda 21 applied to the river 1998 Finland LIFE98 ENV/FIN/000579 Vantaa Area Integrated river basin management - a network for optimized water manage- 2000 Finland LIFE00 ENV/FIN/000668 ment, rehabilitation and protection of aquatic ecosystems in Karjaanjoki area Analyses and comparison of assessment methods related to industrial pollu- 1997 France LIFE97 ENV/F/000205 tion of water in the countries forming the Meuse watershed: Belgium, France, Germany and the Netherlands 1998 France LIFE98 ENV/F/000299 Contribution of the alluvial woodland to the integrated management of the Tarn river Efficiency of applied policies regarding prevention and control of diffuse and 1999 France LIFE99 ENV/F/000457 dispersed pollution in surface waters: inventory and comparison of approaches in Germany, Belgium, France, Netherlands, United Kingdom and Sweden. 1999 France LIFE99 ENV/F/000492 Multi-parameters surveillance and protection of water quality 1999 France LIFE99 ENV/F/000497 Local vegetation benefiting the restoration of every day nature 2004 France LIFE04 NAT/FR/000082 Headwater streams and faunistic Heritage associated 2004 France LIFE04 NAT/FR/000083 Programme for the conservation of the Rhône-Apron (Zingel asper) and its habitats 2006 France LIFE06 ENV/F/000158 Improved management of nitrate pollution in water using isotopic monitoring 1994 Germany LIFE94 NAT/D/000029 Restoration of the alluvial biotopes along the Elbe in Brandenburg 1996 Germany LIFE96 NAT/D/003040 Stabilization of the population of beaver and otter 1998 Germany LIFE98 NAT/D/005064 Rhön Biotope region - Building Block for Natura 2000 Ems flood plain : uninterrupted passage for fauna, lengthening of the course of 1999 Germany LIFE99 NAT/D/005931 the river, dynamic flood plain processes 1999 Germany LIFE99 NAT/D/005936 Regeneration of the “Rambower Moor” for protecting bittern (Botaurus stellaris) 1999 Germany LIFE99 NAT/D/005938 Restoration of the river country Sude-Schaale LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers

Start Country Number Title 2003 Germany LIFE03 NAT/D/000003 Restoration of the habitat type “oligotropic low mountain stream” 2003 Germany LIFE03 NAT/D/000006 River dynamics of the Ems River being close to nature location: Lower Saxony 2004 Germany LIFE04 NAT/DE/000025 Living Rhine floodplain near Karlsruhe 2005 Germany LIFE05 NAT/D/000057 Optimisation of the pSCI “Lippe flood plain between Hamm and Hangfort” 2006 Germany LIFE06 ENV/D/000485 Demonstration Plant in the Kinzig River: Moveable Hydroelectric Power Plant for Ecological River Imp 2006 Germany LIFE06 NAT/D/000006 Swabian Danube valley 2003 Hungary LIFE03 ENV/H/000280 Sustainable use and management rehabilitation of flood plain in the Middle Tisza District 1997 Israel LIFE97 TCY/IL/044 Restoration of the rivers in Israel’s coastal plain 1997 Italy LIFE97 NAT/IT/004089 N.EC.TO.N Project (New Ecosystems on the Noce River) : urgent action for renaturalisation in the La Rocchetta biotope (Trentino, Italy) 1997 Italy LIFE97 NAT/IT/004134 Restoration of alluvial woods and oak woods along the Ticino River 2000 Italy LIFE00 ENV/IT/000065 Planning and implementation of integrated methods for restoration of the catchment in Val Sellustra 2000 Italy LIFE00 NAT/IT/007268 Conservation of Salmo marmoratus and Rutilus pigus in the River Ticino 2002 Italy LIFE02 NAT/IT/008572 Toce River: conservation of riparian habitats in favour of breeding and migratory birds 2004 Italy LIFE04 ENV/IT/000503 Serchio River alimented well-fields integrated rehabilitation 2005 Italy LIFE05 NAT/IT/000026 Urgent conservation actions for Fortore River pSCI 2000 Latvia LIFE00 ENV/LV/000961 Innovative methods of Barta river basin management system 2002 Latvia LIFE02 ENV/LV/000481 Elaboration of a new comprehensive Ziemelsuseja River Basin Management System based on ecosystem approach 2002 Malta LIFE02 TCY/MA/029 Protection of biodiversity and water resources in the Moulouya River Basin (MRB) 2004 The Netherlands LIFE04 NAT/NL/000202 Tiengemeten, restoration of freshwater tidal area in the Haringvliet estuary, the Netherlands 2006 The Netherlands LIFE06 NAT/NL/000078 Restoring migration possibilities for 8 Annex II species in the Roer 1997 Portugal LIFE97 NAT/P/004075 A conservation strategy for Anaecypris hispanica 1999 Romania LIFE99 NAT/RO/006429 Survival of Romanichthys valsanicola 2000 Romania LIFE00 ENV/RO/000986 The protection of RIVER LIFE by mitigation of flood damage 2003 Romania LIFE03 ENV/RO/000539 Development of an Integrated Basin Management System in order to corre- late water quality and quantity analysis with socio-economical analysis, using Open-GIS technology 1996 Spain LIFE96 NAT/E/003098 Restoration of riparian ecosystem in the natural reserve of Galachos, Spain 1999 Spain LIFE99 ENV/E/000278 River agreements: design and implementation of fluvial management policies in the Mediterranean European 1999 Spain LIFE99 ENV/E/000347 International restoring project for the Miño river: an example of sustainable hydroelectrical development 1999 Spain LIFE99 NAT/E/006333 Biodiversity conservation and recovery in the river basin of Asón 1999 Spain LIFE99 NAT/E/006343 Restoration of an integral reserve zone in the SPA for birds “Riberas de Castronuño” 2000 Spain LIFE00 ENV/E/000425 Model for Restoring and Integrating water resources in a mining area. Actions for alternative development 2000 Spain LIFE00 ENV/E/000539 Sustainable management, at local level, of the alluvial aquifer of the River Tordera, through the reuse of waste water 2000 Spain LIFE00 ENV/E/000547 Design and Application of a Sustainable Soil Management Model for Orchard Crops in the Doñana National Park Area 2003 Spain LIFE03 ENV/E/000149 New public uses in management and planning of basin resources 2005 Spain LIFE05 NAT/E/000073 Ecosystemic management of rivers with European mink 2004 Sweden LIFE04 NAT/SE/000231 Freshwater Pearl Mussel and its habitats in Sweden 2005 Sweden LIFE05 NAT/S/000109 From source to sea, restoring River Moälven 2005 United Kingdom LIFE05 ENV/UK/000127 Maintaining quality urban environments for river corridors users and stakeholders 2005 United Kingdom LIFE05 NAT/UK/000143 River Avon cSAC: demonstrating strategic restoration and management

LIFE Focus I LIFE and Europe’s rivers I p. 49

Available LIFE publications

LIFE-Focus brochures Other publications

A number of LIFE publications are A cleaner, greener Europe - LIFE and Best LIFE-Environment Projects 2005- available on the LIFE website: the European Union waste policy 2006 (2006, 40 pp.-ISBN 92-79-02123-0) (2004 - 28 pp. – ISBN 92-894-6018-0 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ LIFE and Energy – Innovative solutions – ISSN 1725-5619) http://ec.europa. infoproducts/bestlifeenv/bestenv_0506_lr.pdf for sustainable and efficient energy in eu/environment/life/infoproducts/life- Europe (2007 – 64pp. ISBN 978 92-79- waste_en.pdf Best LIFE-Environment Projects 2004- 04969-9 - ISSN 1725-5619) 2005 (2005, 44 pp. – ISBN 92-79-00889-7) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ Alien species and nature conserva- http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ infoproducts/energy/energy_lr.pdf tion in the EU - The role of the LIFE infoproducts/bestlifeenv/bestenv.pdf programme (2004 - 56 pp. – ISBN 92- LIFE and the marine environment 894-6022-9 – ISSN 1725-5619) LIFE-Environment 1992 – 2004 “Dem- (2006 – 54pp. ISBN 92-79-03447-2- ISSN http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ onstrating excellence in environmen- 1725-5619) infoproducts/alienspecies_en.pdf tal innovation” (2005, 124 pp. – ISBN http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ 92-894-7699-3 – ISSN 1725-5619) infoproducts/marine/marine_lr.pdf Industrial pollution, European solu- http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ tions: clean technologies - LIFE and infoproducts/bilanlife/lifeenv1992_ LIFE and European forests (2006 - 68pp. the Directive on integrated pollution 2004_en.pdf ISBN 92-79-02255-5 - ISSN 1725-5619) prevention and control (IPPC Direc- http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ tive) (2003 - 32 pp. – ISBN 92-894- LIFE-Environment in Action. 56 new suc- infoproducts/forests/forest_lr.pdf 6020-2 – ISSN 1725-5619) cess stories for Europe’s environment http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ (2001 -131 pp. – ISBN 92-894-0272-5) LIFE in the City – Innovative solutions infoproducts/cleantechnologies_en.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ for Europe’s urban environment (2006, infoproducts/successstories2001_ 64pp. - ISBN 92-79-02254-7 – ISSN LIFE and agri-environment support- en.pdf 1725-5619) ing Natura 2000 - Experience from the http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ LIFE programme (2003 - 72 pp. – ISBN LIFE-Environment Projects 2006 compi- infoproducts/urban/urban_lr.pdf 92-894-6023-7 – ISSN N° 1725-5619) lation (2006, 56 pp.-ISBN 92-79-02786-7) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ Integrated management of Natura 2000 infoproducts/agrienvironmentreport_ infoproducts/lifeenvcompilation_06.pdf sites (2005 - 48 pp. – ISBN 92-79-00388- en.pdf 7) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ LIFE-Nature Projects 2006 compilation infoproducts/managingnatura_highres.pdf LIFE for Natura 2000 - 10 years imple- (2006, 67 pp. – ISBN 92-79-02788-3) menting the regulation (2003 - 108 pp. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ LIFE, Natura 2000 and the military – ISBN 92-894-4337-5) infoproducts/lifenatcompilation_06.pdf (2005 - 86 pp. – ISBN 92-894-9213-9 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ – ISSN 1725-5619) infoproducts/lifepournatura2000_en.pdf LIFE-Third Countries Projects 2006 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ compilation (2006, 20 pp. – ISBN infoproducts/lifeandmilitary_en.pdf A sustainable approach for the envi- 92-79-02787-5) http://ec.europa.eu/ ronment - LIFE and the Community environment/life/infoproducts/ LIFE for birds - 25 years of the Birds Eco-Management and Audit Scheme lifetcycompilation_06.pdf Directive: the contribution of LIFE- (EMAS) (2003 - 32 pp. – ISBN 92-894- Nature projects (2004 - 48 pp. – ISBN 0543-0) LIFE-Environment Projects 2005 compi- 92-894-7452-1 – ISSN 1725-5619) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ lation (2005, 97 pp.-ISBN 92-79-00104-3) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ infoproducts/emas_en.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ infoproducts/lifeforbirds_en.pdf infoproducts/lifeenvcompilation_05_ Water, an essential resource - LIFE lowres.pdf The air we breathe - LIFE and the Euro- and the new European water policy pean Union clean air policy (2004 - 32 pp. (2002 - 28 pp. – ISBN 92-894-0538-4) LIFE-Nature Projects 2005 compilation – ISBN 92-894-7899-3 – ISSN 1725-5619) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ (2005, 55 pp. – ISBN 92-79-00102-7) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ infoproducts/water_en.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ infoproducts/focusair/lifeair_hr_en.pdf infoproducts/lifenatcompilation_05_ lowres.pdf LIFE-Nature: communicating with stakeholders and the general public A number of printed copies of cer- LIFE-Third Countries Projects 2005 - Best practice examples for Natura tain LIFE publications are availa- compilation (2005, 19 pp. – ISBN 92- 2000 (2004 - 72 pp. – ISBN 92-894-7898- ble and can be ordered free-of- 79-00103-5) 5 – ISSN 1725-5619) http://ec.europa. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ charge at: http://ec.europa.eu/ eu/environment/life/infoproducts/natu- infoproducts/lifetcycompilation_05_ recommunicating_lowres_en.pdf environment/env-informa/ lowres.pdf Name LIFE (“L’Instrument Financier pour l’Environnement” / The financial instrument for the environment)

Type of intervention co-financing of actions in favour of the environment in the twenty-seven Member States of the European Union, in the candidate countries who are associated to LIFE and in certain third countries bordering the Mediterranean and the Baltic Sea.

LIFE is made up of three thematic components: “LIFE-Nature”, “LIFE-Environment” and “LIFE-Third countries”. Objectives > with a view to sustainable development in the European Union, contribute to the drawing up, implementation and updating of Community policy and legislation in the area of the environment; > explore new solutions to environmental problems on a Community scale.

Beneficiaries any natural or legal person, provided that the projects financed meet the following general criteria: > they are of Community interest and make a significant contribution to the general objectives; > they are carried out by technically and financially sound participants; > they are feasible in terms of technical proposals, timetable, budget and value for money. KH-AJ-07-002-EN-C Types of project > Eligible for LIFE-Environment are innovative pilot and demonstration projects which bring environment-related and sustainable development considerations together in land management, which promote sustainable water and waste management or which minimise the environmental impact of economic activities, products and services. LIFE-Environment also finances preparatory projects aiming at the development or updating of Community environmental actions, instruments, legislation or policies. > Eligible for LIFE-Nature are nature conservation projects which contribute to maintaining or restoring natural habitats and/or populations of species in a favourable state of conservation within the meaning of the “Birds” (79/409/EEC) and “Habitats” (92/43/EEC) Community Directives and which contribute to the establishment of the European network of protected areas – NATURA 2000. LIFE-Nature also finances “co-op” projects aiming to develop the exchange of experiences between projects. > Eligible for LIFE-Third countries are projects which contribute to the establishment of capacities and administrative structures needed in the environmental sector and in the development of environmental policy and action programmes in some countries bordering the Mediterranean and the Baltic Sea.

Implementation Every year, the Commission publishes a call for proposals of projects to be co-financed.The Commission evaluates these proposals and selects those that will be co-financed. It closely monitors these projects and supports the dissemination of their results.

Period covered (LIFE III) 2000-2006.

Funds from the Community approximately EUR 638 million for 2000-2004 and EUR 317 million for 2005-2006. Contact European Commission D6 Environment E4 (LIFE Unit) B-1049 Brussels Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/life

LIFE Focus / LIFE and Europe’s rivers: Protecting and improving our water resources

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

2007 - 52p - 21 x 29.7 cm ISBN 978-92-79-05543-0 ISSN 1725-5619

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

ISSN 1725-5619