LIFE Improving The Conservation Status of Species and Habitats

N AT U R E
LIFE improving the conservation

status of species and habitats
Habitats Directive Article 17 report
LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats
European Commission
Environment Directorate-General
LIFE (“The Financial Instrument for the Environment”) is a programme launched by the European Commission and coordinated by
the Environment Directorate-General (LIFE Units - E.3. and E.4.).
The contents of the publication “LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats: Habitats Directive Article 17
report” do not necessarily reflect the opinions of the institutions of the European Union.
Authors: João Pedro Silva (Nature expert), Justin Toland, Wendy Jones, Jon Eldridge, Tim Hudson, Stephen Gardner, Edward
Thorpe, Eamon O’Hara (AEIDL, Communications Team Coordinator). Managing Editor: Angelo Salsi (European Commission, DG
Environment, LIFE Unit). LIFE Focus series coordination: Simon Goss (DG Environment, LIFE Communications Coordinator),
Evelyne Jussiant (DG Environment, Communications Coordinator). Technical Assistance: Aixa Sopeña, Lubos Halada, Alberto
Cozzi, Mikko Tiira, Katerina Raftopoulou, John Houston, Jan Sliva (Astrale EEIG). The following people also worked on this issue:
Juan Pérez-Lorenzo, Angelika Rubin (DG Environment), Marita Arvela, Doug Evans (ETC on Biological Diversity -Paris) Production:
Monique Braem. Graphic design: Daniel Renders, Anita Cortés (AEIDL). Acknowledgements: Thanks to all LIFE project beneficia-
ries who contributed comments, photos and other useful material for this report. Photos: Unless otherwise specified; photos are
from the respective projects.
Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers

to your questions about the European Union
Freephone number (*):

00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11
(*) Certain mobile telephone operators do not allow access to 00 800 numbers or these calls may be billed.
More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.
Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2010
ISBN 978-92-79-13572-9
ISSN 1725-5619
doi 10.2779/18040
© European Union, 2010

Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.
Printed in Belgium
Printed on recycled paper that has been awarded

the EU Ecolabel for graphic paper (http://ec.europa.eu/ecolabel/)

FOREWORD
Ladislav Miko
Photo: cassandre sturbois
Director
Directorate B – Nature,
DG Environment
European Commission
A rticle 17 of the Habitats Directive requires Member States to submit information on its progress in imple-
mentation every six years. The latest reports, covering 2001-2006, contain a first assessment of the con-
servation status of more than 1182 species and 216 habitat types. This is the most comprehensive survey of EU
biodiversity undertaken to date, providing an invaluable reference point for measuring future trends.
The results show that Europe’s biodiversity is still under heavy pressure, and that only a small proportion of the
habitats and species of Community interest are in a favourable conservation status. These findings highlight the
urgent need to intensify ecological restoration efforts. Where substantial restoration work has been carried out,
it often shows measurable and positive impacts on conservation status.
The LIFE programme has been the most visible EU financial instrument dedicated to nature conservation since
1992. LIFE Nature projects are now well-known across the EU (with more than 1100 projects financed) and are
favourably perceived at local level. Their positive contribution has been shown beyond doubt for different types of
habitat and species. Several specific habitats or species whose conservation status, as reported by the Member
States, is improving have been targeted by LIFE Nature projects.
The link between LIFE projects and improved conservation status has been shown in several cases (for example,
the Spanish lynx and peatlands and bogs in several Member States). It is also clear that LIFE projects have helped
develop and demonstrate best practice that has subsequently been applied to similar situations elsewhere in Europe,
and have made a significant contribution to setting in place the Natura 2000 network and its management.
The overall contribution of LIFE Nature projects remains, however, difficult to quantify as it is heavily dependent
on the scale and timeframe of the project actions as well as on the distributions of the species and habitats. Most
projects only target species and habitats at a local or regional scale, usually on one or a few Natura 2000 sites,
although some have covered the complete distribution range (for example, endemic species and habitats with a
restricted distribution). For many projects, the full impact will only be seen after several years or even decades.
The objective of this publication is to provide an overview of the contribution LIFE Nature projects have made
to improving the conservation status of a considerable range of species and habitats covered by the Habitats
Directive. It must be stressed that this brochure does not aim to show that reported improvements in conserva-
tion status are necessarily linked to LIFE projects. Nature simply does not often react that fast and LIFE projects
are not the only nature restoration projects working on the ground. It is however certain that LIFE Nature and
biodiversity projects will continue to play a vital role in reversing the decline of biodiversity in the EU.

CONTENTS
Foreword ....................... 1 LIFE and Endangered Heathlands........................... 55

Fish Species......................... 33 LIFE demonstrates how to
Status Reports LIFE support for Italy’s regenerate lowland and alpine
Support Action.............. 3 endangered Cobice sturgeon... 33 heathlands .............................. 55
Conservation status reports Better rivers for healthier fish:
Wetlands.............................. 57
confirm need for greater action... 3 salmon conservation in
LIFE helps restore vital wetland
LIFE: improving conservation Scotland . ................................ 35
ecosystems.............................. 57
status......................................... 7 LIFE and Mediterranean
LIFE supports blanket bog resto-
freshwater fish.......................... 36
ration in the UK and Ireland...... 58
SPECIES.............................. 11 LIFE Improving Plant Blocking ditches to bring
Mammals............................. 12 Species................................. 38 back aapa mires....................... 60
LIFE promotes bat LIFE innovations benefit Raised bog restoration in
conservation............................ 12 Europe’s flora........................... 38 Europe...................................... 62
LIFE’s contribution to brown LIFE and plant micro-reserves.. 39
Other Wetlands................... 65
bear conservation.................... 15 Successful LIFE support for
Restoring coastal lagoons to
Securing a future for the endangered Italian daisies ...... 40
a favourable status................... 65
Arctic fox.................................. 18
LIFE aids Mediterranean
A viable future for the monk HABITATS........................... 40 temporary ponds .................... 66
seal........................................... 19
Forests................................. 42 LIFE conservation of a special
LIFE boost for critically
Preserving priority palm forest habitat: petrifying springs with
endangered Iberian lynx ......... 21
habitat on Crete....................... 42 tufa formation.............................. 68
LIFE support for critically
Sustaining the favourable
endangered European mink..... 23 Wet Forests.......................... 69
conservation status of Italian
LIFE conserving wet forests....... 69
Amphibians and Mediterranean beech forest
Reptiles . ............................ 24 habitats.................................... 43 Grasslands........................... 71
LIFE helps Europe’s LIFE support for Europe’s Stepping up actions to conserve
herpetofauna . ..........................24 Atlantic Forests........................ 45 pannonic grasslands . ............. 71
Loggerhead turtles’ long-term LIFE boosts black pine forest Concerted action to halt the
survival through LIFE............... 26 habitats in southern Europe..... 48 decline of Nardus grasslands.. 73
Regeneration and protection
LIFE and Less-Known Dune Habitats...................... 50
of species-rich dry calcareous
Species................................. 27 Atlantic coast LIFE projects
grasslands................................ 75
LIFE benefit for freshwater pearl attempt to reverse dune
Safeguarding Fennoscandian
mussels ................................... 27 deterioration............................. 50
wooded pastures and meadows 77
Bolstering butterfly populations A coastline under pressure:
through LIFE............................. 29 Mediterranean dunes............... 52 Project Index............................... 79
The reintroduction of the white- Protecting Posidonia in the List of available LIFE Nature
clawed crayfish........................ 31 Mediterranean.......................... 54 publications................................. 81
Amphibians (83 species assessed)
Conservation status reports confirm
S TA T U S R E P O R T
need for greater action
Habitats types targeted by LIFE projects (1992-2008)
Amphibians (83 species assessed)
The first-ever systematic assessment of the conservation status of
Europe’s most endangered

&ORESTS habitats and species has been carried

.ATURALANDSEMI NATURAL
out by 25 Member States (Romania and Bulgaria
GRASSLANDFORMATIONS were not part of
&RESHWATERSHABITATS
this reporting exercise), 2AISEDAND"OGS-IRESAND&ENS
as part of the regular reporting on the imple-

#OASTALAND(ALOPHYTIC(ABITATS
mentation of the EU Habitats Directive. The results, covering 2001-
4EMPERATE(EATHAND3CRUB

2OCKY(ABITATS!ND#AVES
2006, show that only a small proportion of the habitats and species of
#OASTAL3AND$UNESAND)NLAND$UNES
3CLEROPHYLLOUS3CRUB-ATORRAL
Community interest are in a ‘favourable’ conservation status. The findings highlight the
critical importance of conservation at EU level for the establishment and development
of the Natura 2000 network and beyond. If the situation is to improve, ecological res-
Habitats types targeted by LIFE projects (1992-2008) Projects
toration efforts should be stepped up at both national and European level.

"IRDS
I
&ORESTS -AMMALS

&ISH

GRASSLANDFORMATIONS !NGIOSPERMAE
n 2007, Member States delivered accordance with Article 17 of!RTHROPOD
the Habitats 31% of species
assessments are classi-
&RESHWATERSHABITATS
the !MPHIBIAN
2AISEDAND"OGS-IRESAND&ENS assessment
first comprehensive Directive. fied as ‘unknown’
due to a lack of infor-
2EPTILE
of the conservation status of the
habi- -OLLUSC mation (see figs
1 and 2).
4EMPERATE(EATHAND3CRUB ,OWERPLANTS

tats and species of Community interest The results – compiled and assessed
2OCKY(ABITATS!ND#AVES 0TERYDOPHYTA
in ‘Article 17’ reports, named
#OASTAL3AND$UNESAND)NLAND$UNES after the by the European Topic Centre on Bio-
'YMNOSPERAMAE As the habitats and species listed in
relevant article in the Habitats Directive.
3CLEROPHYLLOUS3CRUB-ATORRAL logical Diversity (ETC/BD) on behalf of the annexes of the Habitats Directive
The aim of this exercise was to assess the European Commission – indicate were chosen largely because they were
the conservation status of the habitats that overall, across the different biogeo- known to be&)'52%
threatened these results
and species at the EU biogeographical graphical zones and marine regions of come as no surprise. They highlight the
scale in order to prepare the composite Europe, only 17% of habitats and spe-
Projects challenges that were faced in halting the
report that the Commission published in cies assessments show a ‘favourable loss of biodiversity

by 2010, as European
condition’;
while 18% of habitats and governments had committed. This major
"IRDS
&AVOURABLE
-AMMALS

first evaluation effort helps identify habi-
1 “Report
&ISH from the Commission to the
5NFAVOURABLE )NADEQUATE
Council and the European Parliament - Com-

!NGIOSPERMAE The web-based Article 17 Technical Report tats and species that require action.

5NFAVOURABLE BAD
posite !RTHROPOD
Report on the Conservation Status (2001-2006) http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.
!MPHIBIAN
of Habitat Types and Species as required eu/article17 5NKNOWN
under 2EPTILE

Article 17 of the Habitats Directive One of the European Topic Centres of the For many

of these habitats

and species
-OLLUSC
(COM/2009/0358 final) European Environment Agency conservation action is already under-

,OWERPLANTS
0TERYDOPHYTA
'YMNOSPERAMAE
Figure 1: Assessment of conservation status Figure 2: Assessment of conservation status

for Annex 1 habitats (the&)'52%
percentage relates of species (the percentage relates to the number
&)'52%
to the number of assessments made) of assessments made)

&AVOURABLE &AVOURABLE

5NFAVOURABLE )NADEQUATE 5NFAVOURABLE )NADEQUATE
5NFAVOURABLE BAD 5NFAVOURABLE BAD
5NKNOWN 5NKNOWN

Source: ETC/BD, Paris 2009 Source: ETC/BD, Paris 2009
&)'52%

forget-me-not (Mysotis rehsteineri) in

Austria; and habitats such as the priority

habitat types bog woodland (91D0*) and
Caledonian forest (91C0*), both found in
the United Kingdom. Many of the plant
‘micro-reserves’ (small botanical reserves)
that have been established in several EU
countries have also been created as part
of LIFE projects.
Assessment, monitoring
and reporting
Photo: LIFE06 NAT/E/000209

The Paris-based ETC/BD has produced
regional assessments of conservation
status for each habitat and species listed
in the directive’s annexes. It has used 25
Member State’s reported data to assess
The Iberian lynx is one of the most endangered felines in the world and has been the target conservation status across seven ter-
of many LIFE projects. restrial biogeographical zones and four
marine regions of Europe (see Fig. 3).
way, and several countries have reported Nature programme. Examples include
that the conservation status of some projects in Italy and Spain on the brown
particular habitats or species, although bear (Ursus arctos) – once found all over Given Bulgaria and Romania’s recent
unfavourable, is improving. Those noted Europe but now extinct in many areas, accession to the EU, the Steppic region and
the Black Sea are not included. Four marine
include several that have been targeted as well as endemic flora species such as regions were added for the purpose of Article
by projects funded by the EU’s LIFE the highly endangered Lake Constance 17 reporting.
H A B I TATS D I R E C T I V E – T H E B AC KG RO U N D
The Habitats Directive, adopted in 1992, together with the earlier Birds Directive, forms the cornerstone of Europe’s nature
conservation policy. It is also a key component of the EU Biodiversity Action Plan, which aims to halt the decline of EU biodi-
versity by 2010 and beyond.
The directive is built upon two pillars: the Natura 2000 network of protected sites (which also includes sites under the Birds
Directive) and a strict system of species protection. Its objective is for more than 200 habitats and 1 000 species to reach and
be maintained at ‘favourable conservation status’ thus securing their long-term survival.
The directive is made up of a series of articles and annexes. The articles outline the aim of conserving biodiversity and the means
to achieve it. The annexes are lists of habitats and species of Community interest in need of different forms of protection.
Article 1 defines ‘conservation status’ as the sum of the influences on habitats or species that affect their long-term distribution,
structure and function, or abundance. It defines ‘favourable’ conservation status in terms of stability of range and viability.
Article 11 specifies that the habitats and species of Community importance must be monitored to provide a clear picture of their
actual conservation status and trends.
Article 17 specifies – among others - that reports must be made every six years based on such monitoring. The first Article 17
reports, which covered the period 1994-2000, prioritised the transposition of the directive into national laws. The current reports,
covering 2001-2006, are the first to include conservation status assessments of the habitats and species of Community interest.
The Article 17 reports can be viewed as a ‘health check’ for the habitats and species covered by the directive – showing where
the greatest need for action is and whether the directive is effective.
Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (OJ L 206, 22 July 1992, p. 7)
Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds (OJ L 103, 5 April 1979, p. 1)
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/biodiversity/comm2006/index_en.htm

The overall conservation status is These were to cover 216 Annex I habitat as ‘favourable’ and the Atlantic the lowest.
assessed by combining the results of the types and 1 180 species (including sub- The Pannonian and Atlantic biogeograhi-
following parameters in accordance with species and genera) in Annexes II, IV, cal regions have the highest proportion of
an agreed method. and V of the Habitats Directive. The data ‘unfavourable-bad’ assessments.
presented in the Member States’ reports
Species Habitats and in the biogeographical analysis are It is possible to analyse conservation for
Range Range based on the number of assessments of groups of related habitat types, such as
habitats and species, not the number of forests or grasslands (see Fig. 4). Dunes,
Population Area
habitats and species themselves. bogs/mires/fens and grasslands are the
Suitable Structure & habitat groups with the worst conserva-
habitat functions For further details, see: tion status. Rocky habitats, such as scree
Future prospects Future prospects http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/ slopes or caves have the best conserva-
article17. tion status. A higher percentage of ‘prior-
Each of these parameters is reported as ity’ habitats were evaluated as having a
one of the following classes: Habitat assessments bad status, compared with non-priority
habitats. This was most noticeable for
Favourable Overall, 37% of the 701 habitat assess- coastal habitats. ‘Future prospects’ is one
ments indicate an unfavourable-bad of the four parameters of conservation
Unfavourable - inadequate
condition, and a further 28% indicate status. It was ‘unfavourable’ for more than
Unfavourable - bad an ‘unfavourable-inadequate’ condition 50% of the habitat assessments. Habitat
Unknown (see Fig. 1). Only 17% of assessments area trends were negative in over 20% of
are ‘favourable’. Underlying this figure the assessments.
For further details, see: are substantial variations across the bio-
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ geographical regions. For example, three For more information, see:
knowledge/rep_habitats/index_en.htm of the four marine regions and one ter- http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/
restrial region don’t have any habitats in article17/habitatsreport.
In total, 2 756 separate reports were ‘favourable’ condition.
submitted electronically by national Species assessments
authorities for habitat types and 6 064 for The Alpine biogeographical region has the
species, with 16 000 associated maps. highest proportion of habitats assessed Of the 2 240 species assessments, 22%
indicate an ‘unfavourable-bad’ condi-
tion and a further 30% indicate ‘unfa-
Based on the parameters given in the Habi- Further habitats and species were added
tats Directive and agreed with the Habitats to the annexes in January 2007, see http://
Committee, made up of experts from the ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/legislation/ Habitats for which the need for conservation
Member States. habitatsdirective/index_en.htm action is thought to be particularly high.
Figure 3: Biogeographical zones and marine regions used for Article 17 reporting
ALP (Alpine)
ATL (Atlantic)
BOR (Boreal)
CON (Continental)
MAC (Macaronesia)
MED (Mediterranean)
PAN (Pannonian)
MMED (marine Mediterranean)
MMAC (marine Macaronesian)

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

vourable inadequate’ (see Fig. 2). The There is less variation between the bio- ‘unknown’ assessments limits evaluation
proportion of species assessments indi- geographical and marine regions for at the biogeographical level.
cating ‘unfavourable-bad’ is more than species than for habitats. Of the terres-
20% in most biogeographical regions trial biogeographical regions, the Boreal See http://biodiversity.eionet.europa.eu/
and is more than 30% for the molluscs has the highest proportion of species article17/speciesreport
and arthropods, with molluscs the worst assessments indicating ‘favourable’ and
(see Fig. 5). Half of the assessments of the Atlantic the lowest. Molluscs and Marine assessments
the subgroups of marine and freshwa- arthropods are among the most threat-
ter molluscs are ‘unfavourable-bad’; the ened groups in most regions. In the Mac- Marine conservation is still very much a
conservation status of terrestrial snails aronesian region, the highest percentage developing area. According to the ETC/BD,
seems to be better. of ‘unfavourable-bad’ assessments is in the lack of data on marine habitats and spe-
the mammal group, whereas in the Pan- cies has lead to a much higher percentage
Note, however, that the mollusc group nonian region the highest are vascular of ‘unknowns’ for their assessments than
is relatively small (81 assessments). and non-vascular plants. The proportion for the terrestrial assessments. (For terres-
The highest percentage of the favoura- of ‘unknowns’ is higher for species than trial species there are 27% compared with
ble assessments is for vascular plants. for habitats, notably in the Mediterranean 57% for marine species.) In addition, data
In general there are negligible differ- and marine biogeographical regions. For quality for marine populations is noted as
ences between the conservation sta- the parameter ‘future prospects’ and poor almost twice as often as for marine
tus of priority and non-priority Annex analysis of trends of species assess- species (60% for marine species, 35% for
II species. ments, the relatively high proportion of terrestrial species).
Assessment of conservationFigure 4: of
status Assessment of conservation
habitats by status
habitat group ofnumber
(the habitats by
in habitat group
(the number in brackets indicates the number of assessments in each group)
Rocky habitats (64)

Assessment of conservation status of habitats by habitat group (the number in
Sclerophyllous scrub (32)
Forest (181)
Rocky habitats (64)
Heath & scrub

Sclerophyllous scrub (36)
(32)
Freshwater habitats (84)

Forest (181)
Coastal
Heath habitats
& scrub (84)
(36)
Bogs, mireshabitats
Freshwater & fens (56)
(84)
Grasslands
Coastal habitats(102)
(84)
Dunes
Bogs, mireshabitats
& fens (62)
(56)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Grasslands (102)
Favourable Unfavourable - inadequate Unfavourable - bad Unknown
Dunes habitats (62)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Vascular plants (799) Figure 5: Assessment of conservation status of species by species group
Non-vascular plants (the
(92) number in brackets indicates the number of assessments in each group)
Reptiles (149)
Vascular plants (799)
Fish (242)
Non-vascular plants (92)
Molluscs (81)
Reptiles (149)
Amphibians (152)
Fish (242)
Mammals (381)
Molluscs (81)
Arthropods (336)
Amphibians (152)
Others (8)
Mammals (381)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Arthropods (336)
Others (8)
0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%
Favourable Unfavourable - inadequate Unfavourable - bad Unknown

LIFE: improving
conservation status
Across the EU, the positive contribution of the LIFE Nature programme to nature con-
servation has been demonstrated in different types of habitats and species, under dif-
ferent pressures and threats. The conservation status assessment reports confirm the
contribution of dedicated conservation and restoration projects funded by LIFE.
S ince 1992, 1107 nature con-

servation projects have been
funded by the LIFE programme, with a
projects funded since 1992 had some bird
conservation actions. However, the scope
of the Article 17 report is restricted to spe-
vation status of all species and habitats
included in the annexes of the Habitats
Directive, especially the habitats and
total budget of more than e1700 mil- cies and habitats included in the annexes species that are in need of recurring
lion. These projects have targeted a of the Habitats directive. Therefore, bird Amphibians
management (83(not
species assessed)
eligible for co-financ-
wide range of species and habitats species were not part of the Article 17 ing under LIFE). However, LIFE has made
included in the annexes of the Birds report exercise and are the subject of a a significant contribution to implement-
and Habitats Directives. separate reporting exercise, within the ing Natura 2000 in the Member States.
framework of the Birds Directive. According to the ex post evaluation of
Forest, grasslands and freshwater habi- the LIFE programme. LIFE projects are
tats were the habitat types most often Mammals are the second most targeted estimated to have covered 8-9% of
targeted by LIFE, and dune and coastal, species group, with 145 projects. Of the all Natura 2000 sites and a significant
and rocky habitats the least targeted. species included in the annexes of the share of the habitats and species listed
Habitats Directive, the brown bear (Ursus in the Annexes to the Birds and Habitats
The habitat most often targeted by LIFE arctos) is that most often targeted by LIFE Directives. In terms of the area covered,
projects has been the 91E0 - Alluvial for- projects since 1992, with 31 projects. it is estimated to be approximately 3-6%
ests with Alnus glutinosa and Fraxinus Next come the otter (Lutra lutra) and the of the entire Natura 2000 network area
Amphibians (83 species assessed) Habitats
excelsior (Alno-Padion, Alnion incanae, fire-bellied toad (Bombina bombina), withtypes of targeted
the EU-15.Theby LIFEfindingsprojects
indicate(1992-2008)
that
Salicion albae), which has been targeted 21 and 20 projects respectively. an area of approximately 320,000 hec-
directly or indirectly by a total of 191 LIFE tares in Natura 2000 sites was restored
&ORESTS
projects. This is followed by the Hydrophil- The following pages show .ATURALANDSEMI NATURAL as a result of
a selection LIFEprojects
in the evalu-
GRASSLANDFORMATIONS
ous tall herb fringe communities of plains of habitats and species whose conser- ation period. The projects focusing on
&RESHWATERSHABITATS
(6430) and the montane to alpine level vation status has benefited from LIFE
2AISEDAND"OGS-IRESAND&ENS
habitats, with 120 projects. project actions. However,#OASTALAND(ALOPHYTIC(ABITATS
this simple
Ex-Post Evaluation of Projects and Activities

4EMPERATE(EATHAND3CRUB
exercise shows that LIFE, because of its Financed under the LIFE Programme, COWI

2OCKY(ABITATS!ND#AVES (2009) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/

Birds are the species most targeted by resource and mandate limitations, is not publications/lifepublications/evaluation/docu-
#OASTAL3AND$UNESAND)NLAND$UNES
LIFE projects. More than one-third of the enough to improve by itself the conser- ments/lifeval_nature.pdf
3CLEROPHYLLOUS3CRUB-ATORRAL
Figuretypes
Habitats 6: Habitats
targetedtypes targeted
by LIFE projects (1992-2008) Figure 7: Species groups targeted
by LIFE projects (1992-2008) Projects
by LIFE projects (1992-2008)

&ORESTS "IRDS

-AMMALS

GRASSLANDFORMATIONS &ISH

&RESHWATERSHABITATS !NGIOSPERMAE

!RTHROPOD
2AISEDAND"OGS-IRESAND&ENS
!MPHIBIAN
2EPTILE
4EMPERATE(EATHAND3CRUB -OLLUSC

2OCKY(ABITATS!ND#AVES ,OWERPLANTS

#OASTAL3AND$UNESAND)NLAND$UNES 0TERYDOPHYTA
3CLEROPHYLLOUS3CRUB-ATORRAL 'YMNOSPERAMAE
Source: LIFE projects database

&)'52%
Projects

"IRDS


Habitats
Figure 8: included on the Annex
Habitats included I of the
in Annex I ofHabitats Directive
the Habitats targeted
Directive by LIFE
targeted by LIFE

%

(ABITAT4YPE(ABITATS$IRECTIVE#ODE

%

Source: LIFE projects database (ABITAT4YPE(ABITATS$IRECTIVE#ODE * denotes priority for conservation

Species most targeted by LIFE
Figure 9: Species most targeted by LIFE

Species most targeted by LIFE

A
TA
IS
OS
IO
OLA
S
TTA
INI
S
TIS
TRA
TU

GA
LAR
TO
ER
OB
UR
RE
RE
YO
A
RC
LU
RIE
ICU
ID
IST
SG
SA
LUT
CA
M
SA
OS
RA
VA
CR
RB

LA
YA
TTU
TIS
TTA
T
IPP
SU
A
,U
O
US
TE
R
YO
#O
BIN
RE
5R
YS
YD
SH
UR

US
-
#A
%M
PH
M
IT
-
HU
4R
"O
%U
LOP
INO

2H
Source:

LIFE projects database

habitat restoration most often resulted regional level for one or more species applied in other European regions with
in achieving favourable conservation in the long term. similar problems.
A
A
status and ensured the continued man-

IS
S
IO
OLA
US
TTA
INI
S
AT
TIS
TRA
RO
LAR
TO
OB
AT
IEG
UR
RE
RE
YO
IDE
RC
LU
ICU
IST
SG
SA
LUT
CA
LIFE and Article 17

M
A
OS
TRA
agement of the sites’ area. Thus, fol- Importantly, the results of the first
VA
CR
RB
S
LA
YA
TTU
TIS
TTA
IPP
SU
A
,U
O
US
TE
R
YO
#O
BIN
RE
5R
YS
YD
SH
UR
US
reporting
-
#A
lowing the projects, the areas targeted assessment of the conservation status
%M
PH
M
IT
-
HU
4R
"O
%U
LOP
remained in restored condition in the of species and habitats (the Article 17

INO
2H
long term, or the restored area was Several countries have reported that the report) highlight the importance of the
enlarged. Regarding coverage of spe- conservation status of particular habi- LIFE programme, and in particular LIFE
cies listed in Annex II of the Habitats tats or species, although unfavourable, Nature projects, as the sole source of
Directive, about half of the animals spe- is improving. This includes several habi- funding for the conservation, restoration
cies (especially mammals) have been tats and species targeted by LIFE Nature and management of certain species and
targeted by LIFE projects, whereas the projects. Not only do LIFE projects have habitats at EU level.
coverage for plants is lower. The evalu- a direct impact via the measures they
ation shows that approximately half of implement, but dedicated project man- This brochure is a first attempt to bet-
the projects aiming at species protec- agers (and beneficiaries in general) have ter understand the contribution of LIFE
tion or reintroduction achieved favour- shown that best practices in species/ projects to improving the conservation
able conservation status at local and habitat conservation can be successfully status of species and habitats included

in the annexes of the Habitats Direc- the Trodos grasslands in Cyprus, and campaigns, stakeholder meetings and
tive. This exercise is not intended to more recently, the machairs habitats in conservation training for stakeholders
be exhaustive. The primary objective Scotland. In these cases, some conclu- such as farmers and fishermen.
is to identify examples of LIFE projects sions can indeed be drawn in relation to
that have made a contribution and to the contribution at EU level. Helping to define
examine the lessons, if any, that can be the Natura 2000 network
learned from the project actions. Therefore, this publication cannot and
does not attempt to show that improve- LIFE, and especially LIFE I and II, had a
At this stage, it is impossible to assess ments in conservation status reported significant impact on Natura 2000 site
the overall impact of LIFE on the conser- under Article 17 are a direct result of LIFE proposal and/or delimitation, site man-
vation status of species and habitats at projects. It merely provides examples of agement plans, species conservation
EU level. Moreover, LIFE project actions, LIFE projects that have helped improve plans, new regional/national legislation
although often successful in achieving the conservation status of habitats and etc; these kinds of actions, although
their objectives, generally only cover a species referred to in the report. While they do not contribute directly to the
very restricted area of the species or this may indicate that LIFE projects did improvement of conservation status,
habitat’s EU range and, in many cases, contribute to reported improvements, create a basis and framework for future
it is often only after the project finishes the ETC/BD concise report on Article conservation actions. For example, on
that the real benefits can be identified 17 concludes that further analysis is request from the Estonian Ministry of the
and measured. Such results are there- required to determine to what extent Environment, the project LIFE00 NAT/
fore not reflected in the LIFE reporting such reported improvements in conser- EE/007081 presented a proposal for ten
process. vation status are a direct result of the core Natura 2000 sites for the European
work funded by LIFE. mink on Hiiumaa Island. In this way, the
However, for some species LIFE has project had a clear impact on the Natura
provided funding for conservation LIFE: creating 2000 process in Estonia, with reference
actions covering the entire distribution the conditions for to the proposal of pSCI sites for the tar-
range, as has been the case with a few conservation get species.
endemic species with restricted distribu-
tion, such as some species of fish (see Some LIFE projects have contributed in a Further project actions and outcomes
pages 35-37), plants (see pages 38-40) more indirect way to conserving habitats concerning Natura 2000 and LIFE can be
and amphibians and reptiles (see pages and species. For example, the redefini- found in the publication, ‘LIFE for Natura
24-26). To a lesser extent, LIFE has also tion or delimitation of Natura 2000 sites 2000 – 10 years implementing the regu-
funded actions covering the entire distri- (thus helping set up the Natura 2000 net- lation’. (http://ec.europa.eu/environment/
bution range of certain habitats. Exam- work), preparing species actions plans life/publications/lifepublications/lifefocus/
ples include the Vai Palm forests in Crete, and site management plans, awareness documents/lifefornatura_en.pdf)
LIFE has contributed to the Natura 2000 network of protected sites as a means of improving habitat conservation.
Photo: LIFE05 NAT/IRL/000182
10
site managers to apply them to similar

habitat types in different biogeographi-

cal regions.
LIFE Challenges
This brochure highlights some best prac-

tice examples that have made an impor-
Photo: LIFE04 NAT/GB/000245

tant contribution to improving the con-
servation status of species and habitats.
However, the impact of LIFE is some-
times difficult to measure and is limited
by the resources and mandate assigned
to the programme. To further enhance its
Caught on camera: project actions have commonly included surveys and monitoring activi- role in nature conservation and biodiver-
ties that have greatly added to our knowledge of certain species. sity at EU level, some key challenges for
the LIFE programme are to:
Improving knowledge of For less known species of invertebrates l Further develop the link between the
species and habitats such as some dragonflies species, the LIFE programme and other sources of
project ‘Conservation of endangered funding on nature conservation and
LIFE has also made an important contri- arthropods of Extremadura’ (LIFE03 biodiversity. For example, the use of
bution to improving knowledge of species NAT/E/000057) conducted by far the the European Agricultural Fund for
and habitats. These actions are normally largest and most comprehensive survey Rural Development in recurring habitat
included in LIFE projects as preparatory ever undertaken in the region, and as a management actions;
actions, which establish the conditions result, there are now sufficient manage- l evelop new tools to measure the impact
D
for and help to define the subsequent ment tools to protect and monitor the tar- of the programme at EU level, including
project actions. These include surveys, get species. Management, conservation through the dissemination and take-up
monitoring and some genetic studies, or recovery plans were also drafted and of good practices or approaches devel-
which, while not improving the conser- approved for the four species of odo- oped by LIFE projects;
vation status directly, help to improve nates (dragonflies and damselflies). l Prioritise species and habitats that are
knowledge of the targeted species and reported as having an ‘unfavourable

habitats. For example, as a key part of LIFE contributions to collecting data bad’ conservation status;
the sustainability of the project ‘Regener- has also been important for the marine l B etter link the LIFE programme with
ation and preservation of dry grassland in environment, where a lack informa- applied nature conservation research
Germany’ (LIFE00 NAT/D/007058), the tion and knowledge was highlighted in programmes, such as the Seventh
project developed management plans the Article 17 report. A wealth of expe- Framework Programme, and research
for each of the 14 project Natura 2000 rience and knowledge is being built institutions in order to establish meth-
sub-sites. These were drafted after initial up through the implementation of EU odologies for the implementation of
status surveys and vegetation mapping. marine projects co-funded by LIFE (for nature conservation best practices;
example, the LIFE SCANS projects l Monitor the status of targeted species
(LIFE92 ENV/UK/000065 and LIFE04 and habitats after LIFE projects end, in
LIFE has highlighted best practices in
habitat management.
NAT/GB/000245) to assess the popula- order to assess the success and long-
tion of small cetaceans in the North Sea term effects of project actions;
Photo: LIFE03 NAT/FIN/000039
and European Atlantic continental shelf l Further promote networking at EU level
waters). Such projects encourage inter- to facilitate the transfer of best nature
national co-operation and provide valua- conservation practices for species and
ble data and know-how on which to base habitats.
future policy recommendations.
Several management models imple-

mented by LIFE projects have been For further information on this, and
highlighted as best practice examples on other LIFE case studies cover-
for habitats. For more information see: ing EU forest, plants, wetlands and
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/ marine habitats/ species types see
natura2000/management/habitats/mod-
the publications section of the LIFE
els_en.htm. The aim of these manage-
website:
ment models, based on LIFE project
best practices, is to enable Natura 2000 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life
Specie s
12
LIFE promotes
MAMALS : BATS
bat conservation
Many of the species of bat found in Europe are endangered. Their continued survival is
threatened by human disturbance and changes to their habitats that reduce the avail-
ability of food. As a result, LIFE projects have focused on securing hibernation sites and
conserving habitats as well as increasing knowledge of species that are commonly not
well understood.
A lmost all bats hibernate during

most of the winter. If they are dis-
turbed during this time – by cave explor-
knowledge and public awareness of bat
ecological requirements.
30% of the breeding long-fingered bats
and 38% of the hibernating individu-
als; and about 15% of the Schreiber’s
ers for example – then they are often too The project covered 13 Sites of Com- bat breeders and 2% of the hibernat-
weak to survive the winter. One of the munity Importance (pSCI) across five ing individuals in France. A total of 19
main conservation actions is therefore to regions of southern France, which are roosts were permanently protected in
fence off entrances to caves and other home to more than 56% of the breeding some form during the four-year project:
sites where bats hibernate. Changes in Mediterranean horseshoe bats and 45% 12 were either permanently blocked
agricultural practice, such as the use of of the hibernating individuals; about or blocked at certain key times of the
pesticides and intensive farming have
also altered the food supply of many bat
species. Management of land that takes Conservation status at
into account local wildlife is therefore a Species Biogeographical region Projects
level (main regions)
main priority of conservation initiatives
for bat species. In spite of such activities, Barbastella Unfavourable-inadequate LIFE98 NAT/B/005167
the conservation status of many species barbastellus (Atlantic, Continental, Maca-
remains unfavourable. ronesian)
unfavourable bad (Mediter-
LIFE actions ranean and Boreal)
Miniopterus Unfavourable bad (all LIFE00 NAT/IT/007139

Protection of roosts: schreibersii regions) LIFE04 NAT/FR/000080
One of the most effective ways to ensure
Myotis bechsteini Unknown LIFE98 NAT/B/005167
that bats are not disturbed, particu-
LIFE00 NAT/IT/007139
larly during hibernation, is to construct
LIFE04 NAT/ES/000043
fences around sites and to block off
LIFE06 NAT/B/000095
the entrances using horizontal bars that
allow the bats to fly between them. This Myotis capaccinii Unfavourable bad (all LIFE00 NAT/IT/007139
action was successfully taken at several regions) LIFE04 NAT/FR/000080
sites in the south of France as part of a Myotis emarginatus Favourable (Atlantic and Pan- LIFE98 NAT/B/005167
LIFE project aimed at conserving three nonnian) LIFE00 NAT/IT/007139
species of bat (LIFE04NAT/FR/000080). Unfavourable inadequate LIFE04 NAT/ES/000043
Its target species, the Mediterranean (Continental) LIFE05 NAT/IT/000037
LIFE06 NAT/B/000095
horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus euryale), the
long-fingered bat (Myotis capaccinii) and Rhinolophus euryale Unfavourable bad LIFE04 NAT/FR/000080
the Schreiber’s bat (Miniopterus schreib- (all regions, expect Panno- LIFE04 NAT/ES/000043
ersii), have all experienced a decline in nian - inadequate)
their population numbers. Urbanisation, Rhinolophus mehelyi Unfavourable bad (Mediter- LIFE00 NAT/E/007337
caving and modern agricultural practices ranean) LIFE04 NAT/ES/000043
have disturbed their roosts and adversely
affected their natural habitats. Moreo- Rhinolophus LIFE04 NAT/ES/000043
ferromequinum LIFE05 NAT/IT/000037
ver, there was a lack of basic scientific
13
year, and another nine were protected France and in other countries of Europe,
MAMALS : BATS
by long-term management agreements where the project beneficiary, Société
among local representatives, landown- Française pour l’Etude et la Protection
ers, associations and the municipali- des Mammifères, has presented
ties. In addition, successful long-term its results. According to Mélanie
partnerships were established between Némoz, the project manager,
conservation and caving associations. the guidelines that the project
produced are being used across
The effect on bat populations of the France in similar conservation
project actions was significant: a record initiatives. “The classic way to
number of Mediterranean horseshoe protect a cave is to put up hori-
bats (2 238) were observed in hiberna- zontal bars,” she says, “but for
tion in 2005 at one site in Aquitaine. some sites
Other sites saw the return of bats to – particularly
previously abandoned roosts, such as for small
a cave in Languedoc-Roussillon, which sites – it was
had been unused by bats for 15 years, first neces-
but had a population of 80 long-fingered sary to put up
bats by 2007. The project also created a a false grid, using
new roost by reopening an abandoned plastic bars, to see how
mine and securing it from public access. the bats would react.”
Around 650 Schreiber’s bats were
observed there in late 2007. An ambitious project carried out
in Spain by the regional adminis-
Moreover, the project is continuing to tration of Extremadura (LIFE04 NAT/
have an important role to play in con- ES/000043) also made a big effort in fencing meas-
serving bat populations throughout roost site protection. Apart from similar ures in 13 roosts across the region, the
project undertook actions for stabilising
abandoned mines and constructed new
B AT B OXES refuges for a colony that is to be relo-
The Valencia project is good example of a LIFE project that has intro- cated from the Yuste Monastery (former
residence of the emperor Charles V),
duced bat boxes to complement the natural bat habitat. This action was
as this building now forms part of the
carried out in five forest pSCIs. Two years after installation, 26% of the
European Heritage network. This build-
boxes were occupied, a promising result despite the lack of actual breeding hosted a major breeding colony of
ing in them during the project timeframe. Bat boxes were also installed the greater horseshoe bat (Rhinolophus
– more than 200 in total – as part of the Brussels project to provide extra ferromequinum) in Europe. Bats are now
roosting sites. This project additionally renovated several buildings as gradually taking up the new places pre-
pared for them.
possible shelters.
Information gathering:
Constructing boxes in trees is an effective way of facilitating roosting.
LIFE projects have also aimed to
improve our knowledge of bat species.
The French project used radio tracking
with electronic tags to monitor its target
species. It discovered that the horse-
shoe bat can travel up to 12 km away
from its roosting site, far greater that the
3-4 km previously thought to be normal.
The Schreiber’s bat has a much larger
terrain of 50 km2. Némoz says that such
a wide area is impossible to protect, and
as a result, for this species, conserva-
tion activities focused on safeguarding
roosts. “It was important to protect all
the sites, because there are not many
and they are heavily populated“ she
says. Greater understanding of the
14
different species of bat allows for tar- ing knowledge of fishing techniques, An inventory and distribution atlas of
MAMALS : BATS
geted use of resources and management with a view to identifying the most likely bats in the region of Castilla y León was
plans that are regionally adapted. causes of the sharp decline in numbers: one of the main results of the Spanish
the intensification of citrus orchards has project (LIFE96 NAT/E/003081). Such
Several other LIFE projects that have adversely affected the Mehely’s horse- information enabled important refuges
focused on bats have taken a similar shoe bat and inadequate management for bats in the region to be designated as
approach. The Valencia project (LIFE00 of riparian habitats has harmed the long- pSCIs, with their exact location, threats
NAT/E/007337) aimed to provide valuable fingered bat. The project’s approach was and protection needs identified.
information on two vulnerable species: followed by a similar initiative in Extre-
the long-fingered bat (Myotis capaccinii) madura (LIFE04 NAT/ES/000043) where Awareness raising:
and Mehely’s horseshoe bat (Rhinolo- the presence of forest-dwelling bats was Many of the projects highlighted the need
phus mehelyi). Forest-dwelling bat spe- confirmed by intensive surveys. The for conservation measures to be taken
cies were monitored over a period of two information gained in general for all the with the full support of the local com-
years and cave-dwelling species were species targeted now allows for a suit- munity. The Brussels project responded
monitored over three years. The research able management of this species group. to this need by publishing a manage-
provided updated census data for both As a result of these projects, recovery ment handbook for the managers of the
the long-fingered and Mehely’s horse- plans were officially endorsed for Rhi- public forests and parks covered by the
shoe bat in the project area (2 700 and nolophus mehelyi, Rhinolophus euryale project. It also produced an information
70 individuals respectively), and new data and Myotis beschteinii brochure for owners of houses and other
for some forest species was obtained. buildings, giving simple techniques to
Information gathered as part of the Brus- improve survival of bats, and installed
Such data led to the enlargement of the sels project (LIFE98 NAT/B/005167) had 30 information panels. Awareness-rais-
pSCI network: 18 new pSCIs for bats a direct impact on conservation meas- ing tools are also useful for helping dis-
were designated, and the project area ures. The project made an inventory of seminate the project to a wider audience.
was enlarged to cover 29 pSCIs. Five all trees with potential bat-hosting inter- The south of France project produced a
new refuges, two of them hosting impor- est in the Brussels Natura 2000 network 31-minute film that won the nature con-
tant colonies of long-fingered bat, were and an agreement was reached with the servation prize at the 2007 International
identified. The research also identified services responsible for these public Ornithological Film Festival.
feeding preferences and patterns, includ- owned areas not to cut these trees.
As well as carrying out numerous gen-
eral awareness-raising activities, the
LIFE projects have yielded valuable information about the bahaviour of several lesser
Extremadura project targeted environ-
known species of bat.
mental agents in the region and encour-
aged them to implement the project’s
actions. Co-operation with volunteers
has greatly helped to continue the work
of the project and will guarantee future
monitoring.
Conclusions
LIFE projects have demonstrated that

introducing the above conservation
actions can help stabilise and increase
populations of endangered bat species
on a local level. For the conservation
status of such species to improve on a
Europe-wide level, such actions must be
adapted and replicated in other regions.
Photo:Yoann Peyrard/LIFE04NAT/FR/000080
While gaps remain, the knowledge

gained through LIFE projects has
increased our understanding of key
species and has helped inform conser-
vation measures and priorities. Through
continued monitoring and habitat pro-
tection, LIFE is improving the status of
several target species.
15
The LIFE programme has made a significant contribution to ensur-
M A M M A L S : B ROW N B E A R
ing the long-term conservation of the brown bear in the EU through
numerous projects in several countries. In particular, by promoting
efforts to reconcile conflicts between human needs and those of
bears, much progress has been made in reducing threats to the
species.
Photo:Callisto
LIFE’s contribution to brown

bear conservation
I n the EU there are between 13 500

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

Conservation status
Population Cantabria, Dinaric-Pindos and the Bal-
at Member State /
Species Relevant Projects targeted by kans. These projects undertook a range
region level
the projects of actions, which can nevertheless be
(main regions)
seen to follow similar themes: reconcil-
Ursus arctos Austria LIFE02 NAT/A/008519 ing human and ursine needs; restor-
LIFE00 NAT/A/007055 ing crucial habitats and food sources;
Italy (Bad but Alps population All the Apen- and increasing genetic flow between
improving – Alpine; LIFE96 NAT/IT/003152 nines popula- populations by improving connectivity
Bad but improving LIFE00 NAT/IT/007131 tions and part and reintroducing bears. Many projects
– Continental) LIFE2003 NAT/CP/ of the Alpine monitored bears to improve knowledge
IT/000003 was targeted and understanding of the species and
LIFE03 NAT/IT/000147 by LIFE its needs, and to implement bear-man-
Apennine population agement plans.
All the projects looked to raise stake-
holder (especially farmers, livestock
producers and hunters) awareness of
LIFE04 NAT/IT/000144 the brown bear. Bears are often disliked,
LIFE07 NAT/IT/000502 feared and attacked because of the
damage they cause to livestock, bee-
Greece (Inadequate LIFE99 NAT/GR/006498 hives and crops. The Slovenian project
but improving) LIFE96 NAT/GR/003222 (LIFE02 NAT/SLO/008585) removed
LIFE93 NAT/GR/010800
rubbish dumps that might attract bears
to human settlements. Along with
Slovenia LIFE02 NAT/ other projects (LIFE96 NAT/IT/003152,
SLO/008585 LIFE93 NAT/GR/010800, LIFE96 NAT/
GR/003222, for example), it also pro-
Spain (Inadequate) LIFE98 NAT/E/005305 100% of the
vided compensation to those who had
LIFE98 NAT/E/005326 Cantabrian
LIFE99 NAT/E/006371 suffered damage or loss caused by bears
population
LIFE00 NAT/E/007352 to try to prevent the development of anti-
LIFE07 NAT/E/000735 bear sentiment.
A common intervention is to erect (elec-

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

every three to four years.
17
guarding dog breeding stations (LIFE07
NAT/GR/000291).
Other efforts to tackle poaching of bears

included the use of wardens or patrols,
notably in Spain. These sought to moni-
tor and prevent poaching, while simul-
taneously having an important role in
educating people about the brown bear
(LIFE00 NAT/E/007352 and LIFE98 NAT/
E/005326). A couple of Italian projects
also aimed to capture stray dogs, which
cause problems for the bears (bears are
killed by poisoned bait used illegally by
local farmers against stray dogs) (LIFE97
NAT/IT/004141).
Measures to restore important bear habi-

tats have taken different approaches.
The restoration of forests (LIFE07 NAT/
GR/000291, LIFE03 NAT/IT/000147 and
Photo: Callisto
LIFE99 NAT/E/006371), the planting of

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

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

tative way, but they are an important part
The dens with litters were provided with of a concerted conservation effort. Sav-
extra food (commercial dog pellets) ing an endangered carnivore is a long-
during the project in order to increase term initiative spanning several years.
19
MAMMALS : MONK SEAL

A viable future
for the monk seal
Europe is home to the world’s most endangered seal, the Mediterranean monk seal (Monachus mona-
chus). Despite strenuous conservation efforts, its population is still declining. The species has been on
the IUCN Red List since 1996, classified as critically endangered.
A ccording to the IUCN, only about

350-450 individuals remain in the
wild, with 150-200 in Greek waters and
to kill them because of their impact on
fish stocks. Fatalities are also caused
by entanglement in fishing nets. Lack
projects in Greece. The first benefici-
ary was the WWF, which carried out a
project that also aimed to improve the
about 100 in Turkish waters. The remain- of knowledge and lack of co-opera- conservation status of the loggerhead
der inhabit the western Mediterranean tion with fishermen on these issues has turtle. Since then, three consecutive
and there is a small Atlantic population been a serious threat to the species. projects have been run by the non-
(23 individuals) in the archipelago of As a result, the conservation status of profit, non-governmental environmental
Madeira (Desertas), Portugal. the species was reported by Greece as organisation, The Hellenic Society for
“unfavourable with bad prospects”. the Study and Protection of Monk Seal
The main threats to the monk seal (known as MOm).
are human activities, such as habi- LIFE actions
tat destruction, uncontrolled tourism, MOm’s efforts in Greece over several
marine pollution and depletion of fish To halt the decline of the monk seal, years have led to the establishment
stocks. The seals also suffer at the close to €4 million has been spent since of a strictly protected National Marine
hands of fishermen, who are known 1992 through four different LIFE Nature Park, 35 special areas of conservation
20
MAMMALS : MONK SEAL
Photo: MOm/LIFE00 NAT/GR/007248

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

Species region level (main regions) Relevant Projects species range targeted
by the project(s)
Mediterranean monk seal Unfavourable-bad (Marine Mediterranen) LIFE95 NAT/GR/003225 90 %

(Monachus monachus) Unknown* (Marine Macaronesian) LIFE92 NAT/GR/013800
LIFE98 NAT/P/005236
* even though Portugal provided information on estimated increasing population and habitat trends
21
LIFE projects have succeeded in halting the decline of the rare Iberian lynx in the key
M A M M A L S : I B E R I A N LY N X
region of Andalusia, mainly by restoring numbers of its principal prey, the rabbit. Ongoing
measures are now seeking to improve links between sub-populations, increase their
genetic diversity and reintroduce animals bred in captivity into the wild.
LIFE boost for critically

endangered Iberian lynx
T he Iberian lynx (Lynx pardinus) was
once common all across Spain and
Portugal. However, over recent centuries
open pasture for hunting rabbits. Rab-
bits make up 95% of its diet. The main
causes of the decrease in population
overall conservation status for the Medi-
terranean region is ‘unfavourable-bad’.
With a total population of less than 150
and particularly in the past few decades have been damage and fragmentation of adults, the Iberian lynx is the most threat-
of the 20th century, its population and these habitats and the wiping out of rab- ened feline in the world, assessed as a
range declined dramatically. In 2009 it bit populations, first through epidemics ‘critically endangered’ species on the
was estimated that around 250 lynxes of myxomatosis and then of viral haem- IUCN Red list and described by IUCN in
survived (plus 74 in captivity centres) in orrhagic pneumonia. 2007 as “on the brink of extinction”.
the south-western corner of the Iberian
Peninsula. Populations are now clustered in small LIFE actions
groups that have limited opportunities
This medium-sized feline (8-14 kg) thrives to mix genetically. Only two areas con- Since 1992, LIFE has co-funded most of
in areas characterised by Mediterra- taining sub-populations with chances the conservation initiatives in Portugal
nean woodland and maquis. It favours of long-term viability survive in Doñana and Spain that target directly or indirectly
a mosaic of dense scrub for shelter and and Andújar-Cardeña (Sierra Morena). Its the species. The main actions have been
Most conservations initiatives aimed at the Iberian lynx have been co-funded by LIFE.
Photo: J. Andalucia/ M. Medio Ambiente
22
fences, underpasses and overpasses to

M A M M A L S : I B E R I A N LY N X
reduce fatalities. They have also repaired

or covered dangerous wells to prevent
accidents.
A campaign, including numerous warn-

ing signs for drivers and specifically
addressed campaigns for hunters, raised
public awareness of the plight of the lynx
and its needs.
Apart from these Andalucian LIFE

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

ously was found.
The key action for maintaining and restor-

ing population numbers of the Iberian lynx
has been to increase the population of
rabbits. Sustainable populations of their
23
LIFE support for critically
MAMMALS : EUROPEAN MINK

endangered European
mink
LIFE has aimed to protect the highly endangered European mink. Projects have
explored how to make breeding and release of the species more successful, improved
riverside habitats and tackled key threats, notably the invasive American mink.
T he European mink (Mustela lutreola)

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

herpetofauna
A mphibians and reptiles (collec-

tively known as herpetofauna) are
one of the most endangered groups of
the most northerly lizard species in the
world. Reptiles also thrive in open seas
as shown by marine turtles.
biogeographical region. For amphibians
the scenario is much worse with almost
70% of the assessments being reported
vertebrates in Europe. Nearly a quarter as ‘unfavourable’ and more than 20% of
of amphibians and almost a fifth of rep- A number of factors have led to the them ‘unfavourable-bad’.
tiles species are considered threatened decline in numbers and range of reptiles
in Europe (IUCN, 2009). and amphibians. Threats to herpetofauna Between 1992 and 2006, 59 LIFE
include: projects directly targeted the conser-
Reptiles and amphibians are found in a l irect killing (out of fear and supersti-
D vation of herpetofauna listed under the
range of habitats in Europe. Although tion or for trade); annexes of the Habitats Directive, while
amphibians are linked to wet habitats, l Habitat change and destruction; additional projects indirectly benefit-
they can also be found in drier places, l Invasive alien species (IAS); ted amphibian or reptile species when
particularly in the Mediterranean, or in l Climate change; carrying out conservation actions in a
special habitats, such as the cold, dark l D isease (e.g. the chytrid fungus, a broader context – for example, under
caves in the Dinaric area that are home virulent pathogen that affects many habitat actions, Natura 2000 network
to the endangered olm (Proteus angui- amphibian species). site management plans, or more gen-
nus). Conversely, while reptiles are asso- eral actions.
ciated with warm and sunny locations, More than 40% of the reptile species
they can also be found in wet and cold assessments were classified on the More than two-thirds of the projects that
habitats – the European common lizard Article 17 report as being unfavour- have targeted amphibians and reptiles
(Lacerta vivipara) is able to survive freez- able. Nevertheless, for reptiles, there is have been concentrated in Italy, Spain
ing conditions over winter in the Arctic a high percentage of ‘unknown’ (around and Greece, which is to be expected
parts of Finland and Sweden, making it 40%), particularly in the Mediterranean since the largest number of reptiles and
amphibians are located in the Mediter-
ranean biogeographical region.
Almost a fifth of reptile species are considered threatened in Europe, according to the IUCN.
The majority of LIFE projects targeting

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

included many of the same types of
actions and have normally targeted either
Photo: Halpren Bálint
highly endangered reptile species with

very small populations in restricted areas
or species with very specific requirements
25
such as sea turtles. Common features of directly or indirectly the conservation Typical LIFE project actions to improve
AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES

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

projects to date has been ‘LIFE-Bom-
bina’ (LIFE04 NAT/DE/000028), an inter-
national project targeting the northern-
most populations of the fire-bellied toad
Bombina bombina in the Baltic regions of
Denmark, Sweden, Latvia and Germany.
This project, which built on the work of an

earlier project (LIFE99 NAT/DK/006454),
implemented a range of habitat improve-
ment actions – digging and restoration
of ponds and hibernation sites; encour-
aging more conservation-oriented farm-
ing (hardy whole-year grazing animals
LIFE SUPPORT FOR CRITICALLY ENDANGERED LIZARDS are being used to secure and maintain
The Canary Islands are home to a genus of lizards found nowhere else: the pools for the toads in grassland habi-
Gallotia of the Lacertidae family of wall lizards, which includes eight endemic spe- tats); genetic analysis; and population
cies and two recently rediscovered giant lizards, the El Hierro giant lizard (Gallotia management – that have seen more than
120 ponds dug or restored, more than
simonyi – rediscovered in 1974) and the La Gomera giant lizard (Gallotia bravoana
21 000 eggs collected and more than 23
–1999). These critically endangered giants show very reduced genetic variability 000 young toads released into the wild at
and are under threat from predation by introduced species (particularly feral cats project sites in Denmark, Germany and
and rats) and human activities (tourism and agriculture). A series of LIFE projects Latvia. The ‘LIFE-Bombina’ project also
have targeted the conservation of the giant lizard species. The first of these (LIFE94 attracted widespread media coverage
for its European Bombina Song Contest,
NAT/E/001238 and LIFE97 NAT/E/004190) have developed a management plan and
which has been held on two occasions.
captive breeding programme that are crucial to the El Hierro giant lizard’s chances
of mid-term recovery and survival. Aside from the implementation of the recovery
plan through the captive breeding programme and the release of individuals in suit-
ably prepared habitats, the main management actions for both projects consisted
of the control of possible predators (mainly cats and rats) and competitors for food
Photo: LIFE04 NAT/DE/000028
(goats and other lizards). As a result, there are currently five nuclei of giant lizards
on the island, compared with a single population of some 200 individuals at the
beginning of the project.
Drawing on the lessons of these projects, in 2002, LIFE co-funding was secured for
the ‘Recovery plan for the giant lizard of La Gomera’ project (LIFE02 NAT/E/008614).
A captive breeding centre set up on La Gomera had bred more than 50 individuals
by the end of the project, which has been followed up by a second project (LIFE06
NAT/E/000199) whose main objectives are to continue the conservation strategy
the first project established and to release into the wild some of the lizards bred
in captivity.
26
Populations of the loggerhead turtle (Caretta caretta) in the Atlantic and Mediterranean
AMPHIBIANS AND REPTILES : LOGGERHEAD TURTLES
Sea have declined dramatically in recent decades, and its conservation status in these
regions is unfavourable. Its main threats are interaction with fisheries – it is often the
victim of by-catch – habitat loss and direct killing.
Loggerhead turtles’
long-term survival
through LIFE
L IFE projects have addressed threats

in order to improve the status of this
endangered species (it is listed in Annex
wide toll-free number for reporting acci-
dental catches and for co-ordinating
recovery efforts. This project also dem-
II and Annex IV of the Habitats Directive). onstrated that actions taken to improve
Through information and awareness cam- the conservation status of bottlenose
paigns as well as habitat conservation dolphins (Tursiops truncatus) can also
and the establishment of rehabilitation benefit turtles.
centres, projects have demonstrated a
range of effective measures for combat- Finally, LIFE projects have directly
ing the species decline. addressed habitat loss. In the province
Protecting nesting sites has been a of Agrigento, on the south coast of Sicily,
LIFE actions common LIFE action. a LIFE project (LIFE03 NAT/IT/000163)
targeted two Natura 2000 sites in the
Reducing the high mortality rate of the ing of tagged turtles (a group of 13) was Pelagian Islands, Lampedusa and Linosa
loggerhead turtle was the main focus also undertaken by a Spanish project – the last known nesting sites in Italy.
of the most recent project carried out (LIFE97 NAT/E/004151). It obtained val- The project continued an information
by ARCHELON in Greece (LIFE02 uable information on the species’ behav- campaign, which was launched in an
NAT/GR/008500). One of the key aims iour, habitat use and movements. earlier project (LIFE99 NAT/IT/006271)
was to encourage turtle-friendly fishing and aimed to restrict access by tourists
practices through dialogue with fishing The previous ARCHELON LIFE projects and the local population to the beaches
organisations. Memoranda of under- (LIFE98 NAT/GR/005262, LIFE97 NAT/ used by turtles during the nesting sea-
standing were signed and information on GR/004247, LIFE95 NAT/GR/001115) son. It also advised local fisherman on
good practice (i.e. what to do should a protected nesting beaches in Kyparisia how to reduce by-catch by modifying
turtle become entangled in a fishing net) Bay, Crete, and Lakonikos Bay. In all but fishing gear.
was circulated. Rethymnon (Crete) the populations are
stable; the Rethymnon one is declin- Conclusions
Exact numbers of turtle mortalities ing but after 19 years of monitoring and
resulting from by-catch are difficult to nest protection, many hatchlings have On a local level, LIFE projects have had a
calculate, but ARCHELON has identified returned which would otherwise have direct impact on the conservation status
hot-spots, where it has set up first-aid been lost, providing hope for a reversal of loggerhead turtles. The challenge is
centres for injured turtles. Similar cen- in numbers. for local and regional authorities, in co-
tres have also been established, in part operation with fishing associations and
funded by LIFE, in the Pelagic Islands, The Tartanet project (LIFE04 NAT/ the tourist industry, to implement best
the Canary Islands and Madeira. The last IT/000187) focused on creating a con- practices and conservation measures
ARCHELON project equipped the rescue servation network of five new rescue on a wider scale in order to improve the
centre at Glyfada, Athens, with large out- centres in national parks and marine overall status of the species. Monitoring
door tanks that ease the turtles’ adap- reserves, identified on the basis of their is one area in which different organisa-
tion back into the sea. The beneficiary importance for the presence of the turtle tions could work together. The Tartanet
tracked released individuals using satel- along the Italian coasts. A turtle first-aid project showed that such networking can
lite telemetry and tagging. The monitor- service was established, with a nation- produce demonstrable results.
27
Freshwater pearl mussels in the EU have benefitted from LIFE.
L E S S - K N OW N S PE C I E S : F R E S H WAT E R PE A R L M U S S E L S
Several habitat restoration and species reintroduction techniques
and integrated water management of river basins have been
securing the survival of this species.
LIFE benefit for

freshwater pearl
mussels
T he freshwater pearl mussel (Mar-

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

Photo: LIFE02 NAT/D/008458
differs according to geographical region:

‘unfavourable-bad’ in the Atlantic, Con-
tinental and Mediterranean regions and
‘favourable’ in the Alpine and Boreal
regions. However, the general trend
28
water mussels Unionoidea in the border

L E S S - K N OW N S PE C I E S : F R E S H WAT E R PE A R L M U S S E L S
Freshwater pearl mussel distribution in Europe and LIFE project

area of Bavaria, Saxony and the Czech
locations (adapted from Larsen 2005)
Republic’ (LIFE02 NAT/D/008458)
released five bathes of young freshwater
pearl mussels into the Südliche Regnitz
and Zinnbach creeks and two batches
into the Höllbach and Mähringsbach
creeks. The project used the following
1
technique: brown trout were infected
with mussel larvae in a fish farm. After
nine months the young mussels came
5 off the fish gills and were collected from
the fish tanks using fine sieves and were
infiltrated into the cleaned bottom of
the brook via a tube. Around 342 000
7 individuals were released in total. This
2 technique was also used for another
1 LIFE97 NAT/FIN/004086
6 mussels species, Unio crassus, listed
3 2 LIFE02 NAT/B/008590 in Annex II and V, with the release of
3 LIFE02 NAT/D/008458 115 000 young mussels at the project
sites. Also, the Finnish and Swedish
4 4 LIFE03 NAT/E/000051
projects, after the restoration work was
5 LIFE04 NAT/SE/000231 completed, reintroduced pearl mussels
6 LIFE05 NAT/L/000116 to selected streams at other locations
– 116 and 1000 individuals respectively.
7 LIFE08 NAT UK/000201
The recent UK project (LIFE08 NAT/
UK/000201) will develop an assisted
breeding programme to reintroduce the
project replaced stones on the riverbed the watercourse and poor buffer zones) species to the Irfon catchment area.
that had been removed to facilitate tim- were addressed first, and the project
ber floating. This helped recreate a more blocked several riverside ditches to Conclusions
natural habitat for the host fish. prevent leakages of sediments from the
source zones, so that the new gravel riv- The conservation of the pearl mus-
However, the Swedish project had also erbeds do not become clogged again sel is complex, as it requires action be
direct actions on the river bed, such as by new sediment. In addition, a new taken at various levels. Mussel survival
placing gravel and stones at appropri- method to improve riverbeds was tested and reintroduction success depends
ate locations in the watercourse, thus in the stream Bratteforsån. A pump and not only on habitat conservation (e.g.
helping small juvenile mussels to find hose were used to rinse away sedi- adequate water quality and substrate)
suitable substrate in areas where silta- ment through a screen frame, leaving but also on the availability of host
tion may have caused decline in recruit- a clean, oxygen-rich bottom substrate. fish populations, such as salmonids.
ment. This action also benefited spawn- Conversely, a German project (LIFE02 The outcome of the conservation and
ing grounds for brown trout. NAT/D/008458) constructed eight silt reintroduction actions taken across the
traps. EU are difficult to assess at this early
New riverbeds were created in nine stage. Though the projects reported in
of the project’s watercourses. Several The Swedish project also developed a their monitoring surveys that no glo-
restored locations were difficult to reach comprehensive restoration and man- chidia have been found in trout gills
due to the presence of bogs and dense agement handbook on freshwater pearl and that no juveniles had been found
riverside forests. The action was there- mussels, compiling all the projects out- yet in the rivers surveyed, recruitment
fore carried out with the help of a heli- comes and techniques used as well as is expected within the coming 10–20
copter, thus preventing damages to the all available information produced by years. LIFE projects have developed
riverside zone. Before restoration meas- several LIFE projects around the EU. and demonstrated techniques of site
ures were carried out, landowners and restoration and ex-situ reproduction
forestry stakeholders were advised and Reintroduction of fresh- of the target species that potentially
informed in order to minimise any future water pearl mussels contribute to the strengthening of pearl
impacts on the watercourse. mussels within their natural habitats and
Some projects established the release that are transferable at EU level in order
The sources of siltation (dredging, of infected host fish and juvenile mus- to improve the conservation status of
clearing of ditches, vehicle damage in sels. The German project ‘Large fresh- this endangered species.
29
Bolstering butterfly
L E S S - K N OW N S PE C I E S : BU T T E R F L I E S
populations through LIFE
Most butterfly populations and numbers are in decline throughout Europe, with Member
States reporting the conservation status of species in their countries is ‘inadequate’, or
‘unfavourable-bad’ (see table). However, by actions targeting the conservation of habi-
tats, LIFE projects should have a positive long-term impact on populations of especially
vulnerable European butterfly species at a local level.
T he decline of European butterflies

has been long recognised, but it
was not until the publication of the Red
Data Book of European Butterflies in 1999
that the full extent of the problem became
clear. The study showed that 71 of the 576
species known in Europe were threatened
(12% of the total), and a further 43 species
were classed as near threatened.
Over half of European butterfly species are

linked to grassland habitat types, with the
highest number of species occurring in
Photo: LIFE03 NAT/UK/000042
farmland habitat – typically open grassy

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

L E S S - K N OW N S PE C I E S : BU T T E R F L I E S
Conservation status at
remain, and thus the actions of the Dan-
Species Member State / region level Projects
(main regions) ish project (LIFE05 NAT/DK/000151) were
crucial to reverse this negative trend and to
Coenonympha Unfavourable-bad (Alpine) LIFE06 NAT/PL/000100 ensure the butterfly species continues to
oedippus and Unfavourable - exist there. As well as habitats for Euphy-
Inadequate (Continental)
dryas aurinia, a Polish project also tar-
Colias myrmidone Unfavourable - LIFE02 NAT/IT/008574 geted the conservation and improvement
Inadequate (Continental) of habitats for five other rare butterflies of
wet, semi-natural meadows (LIFE06 NAT/
Erebia christi Unfavourable bad (Alpine) LIFE99 NAT/GR/006498 PL/000100).
Meanwhile, LIFE actions have also indi-
rectly benefited another of Europe’s rarest
Euphydryas Unfavourable bad (Atlantic LIFE03NAT/UK/000042 butterfly species: Raetzer’s ringlet (Ere-
aurinia and Continental) LIFE05 NAT/DK/000151 bia Christi) – found almost exclusively in
LIFE06 NAT/SK/000115 a small SCI area of the Ossola valley (Val
LIFE06 NAT/PL/000100 d’Ossola) on the Italian-Swiss border. Here,
LIFE07 NAT/B/000039 the project’s valuable monitoring work has
Graellsia isabelae Unknown LIFE03 NAT/E/000057 greatly added to the knowledge of this spe-
cies, first sighted in the area in the 1970s.
Lycaena dispar Favourable (Boreal) LIFE05 NAT/SK/000112 During the three years of the LIFE project
Unfavourable - LIFE06 NAT/PL/000100
(LIFE02 NAT/IT/008574), the presence of
Inadequate (Continental) LIFE07 NAT/B/000039
the species was confirmed (22 individuals
Lycaena helle Unfavourable-bad LIFE06 NAT/PL/000100 were recorded in 2004) and, apart from its
(Continental and Boreal) LIFE07 NAT/B/000039 very limited distribution, the researchers
found no other threats to its survival.
Maculinea arion Unfavourable-bad LIFE06 NAT/SK/000115
(Continental and Alpine) LIFE04 NAT/DK/000020
Conclusions
Maculinea Unfavourable-bad LIFE05 NAT/SK/000112
nausithous (Continental) LIFE06 NAT/PL/000100 While many European butterfly species still
Maculinea teleius Unfavourable-bad (Conti- LIFE05 NAT/SK/000112 have an ‘unfavourable-bad’ conservation
nental) LIFE06 NAT/PL/000100 status, the habitat conservation actions
undertaken by LIFE projects should have
a positive long-term impact on individual
has also funded a range of awareness-rais- The marsh fritillary has also suffered rapid populations of highly endangered spe-
ing campaigns. decline in Denmark, due to fragmentation cies. Through surveys and demonstration
of habitats and populations. Together with of best practice approaches to habitat
In the UK, one of the species’ main strong- a continuing decline in the quality of exist- improvement, LIFE has also added signifi-
holds in Europe, the marsh fritillary has ing and potentially suitable habitats, this cantly to our understanding of the ecology
undergone a dramatic decline in recent has caused the conservation status of the and conservation of some of Europe’s rar-
years, with a 66% loss in populations marsh fritillary today to be highly unfavour- est butterflies.
nationally since 1990. The project that was
carried out on the mid-Cornwall moors,
(LIFE03 NAT/UK/000042), demonstrated
best practices for supporting habitats asso-
‘Metapopulation’ approach benefits marsh fritillary
ciated with some of the larger populations Between 2003-07 the mid-Cornwall moors project focused on increasing the
of the species in England. Project work has extent and improving the quality of marsh fritillary breeding habitats at nine sites. A
successfully targeted habitat management key objective was to restore the connectivity between breeding patches on the sites
over several sites, using a metapopulation
where marsh fritillaries already occurred. Making connections between marsh fritillary
strategy deemed necessary for the long-
breeding places is considered particularly important because the insects thrive as a
term maintenance of populations (see
box). collection of colonies, and the adults need to be able to fly between different sites.
A major achievement was the redirection of a section of a busy road that intersected
these butterfly colonies. Useful ‘information sheets’ can be downloaded from the
A metapopulation consists of a group of project website: http://www.midcornwallmoors.org.uk/. These cover the background
geographically separated populations of the
same species which interact at some level. to the project, the science underpinning it and conservation grazing.
31
L E S S - K N OW N S PE C I E S : W H I T E C L AW E D C R AY F I S H
Photo: Graia srl
The reintroduction of the white-

clawed crayfish
Many LIFE projects have undertaken habitat-restoration measures that include the
white-clawed crayfish as a target species. Six Italian projects, however, have focused
directly on breeding and reintroducing this species to identified target areas.
T he white-clawed crayfish (Aus-

tropotamobius pallipes) is a
freshwater species mainly found in
Habitats Directive and is classified as
vulnerable in the IUCN Red List.
can signal crayfish (Pacifastacus leni-
usculus and Procambarus clarkii) com-
petes directly with the native crayfish
mineral-rich waters, notably in small, European populations, however, are for habitat and resources. In all geo-
fast-moving mountain streams. The increasingly sporadic, mainly due to graphical regions where white-clawed
animal is particularly susceptible to habitat degradation, water removal, crayfish occur (Alpine, Atlantic, Conti-
water pollution and requires high oxy- pollution – including sewage, insecti- nental and Mediterranean) its conser-
gen levels. Its presence is considered cides and farm waste effluent, poach- vation status was assessed as ‘bad’.
an indicator of good water quality. It ing and crayfish plague. Moreover, the Germany is the only country where it
is included in Annexes II and V of the plague resistant invasive North Ameri- is performing well.
32
Italy (at least 250 crayfish were released

L E S S - K N OW N S PE C I E S : W H I T E C L AW E D C R AY F I S H
in each site). Surveillance and scientific

monitoring activities were also carried
out to reduce poaching.
Another Italian project (LIFE03 NAT/

IT/000147) aimed to prevent the extinc-
tion of the white-clawed crayfish in the
Valvestino and Corno della Marogna
Natura 2000 sites. First, a survey was
conducted to assess the ecological
conditions and the local crayfish popu-
Photo: LIFE03 NAT/IT/000147

lation. The resulting data showed that
it was possible to reinforce the existing
populations with new individuals in the
Valvestino, where the species had natu-
ral reproduction, and to reintroduce the
species in a selected water course in the
LIFE has contributed to the development of captive breeding techniques for the white-
Corno della Marogna, where no cray-
clawed crayfish.
fish were found in the survey. In order
to achieve this goal a crayfish breeding
LIFE actions turing healthy specimens and breeding facility was built with ten tanks and an
them in captivity before releasing the artificial pond. The project improved the
Since 1992, LIFE has co-funded 17 offspring into the wild to recolonise breeding techniques and 610 juvenile
projects that directly or indirectly tar- habitats and add genetic diversity to crayfish were released in the predefined
geted the species. Most of the project weak sub-populations. The released locations. Juveniles were bred from
actions included improving water qual- specimens and their habitats were care- reproductive crayfish that were cap-
ity and stream habitats, but just eight fully monitored and awareness-raising tured in rivers and water courses within
have focused specifically on the white- activities carried out. the two sites and then released after the
clawed crayfish - most of them taking reproduction period.
place in Italy, one in France and the One Italian project (LIFE03 NAT/
other in the UK. Although the species is IT/000137) prepared and adopted an Using the experience gathered by
still found across the Italian peninsula, action plan for the species with seven these two Italian projects, an ongoing
numbers have fallen sharply and many Italian provinces in central Italy and project (LIFE08 NAT/IT/000352) aims
local populations have been elimi- gave technical training courses. This to reintroduce crayfish in 47 Natura
nated. This vulnerable crustacean is project also restored two breeding facil- 2000 sites by breeding 23 200 juvenile
now confined to isolated groups in the ities in order to raise juvenile crayfish crayfish in newly established/restored
least polluted watercourses and faces a to release into the wild and to improve breeding centres.
high risk of local extinction and loss of breeding techniques. After a preliminary
genetic diversity. study of the distribution and ecological Elsewhere in the EU, a French project
conditions of the local crayfish popula- (LIFE04 NAT/FR/000082) and a recent
All projects focused significant efforts tions, more than 4 400 juvenile crayfish, UK project (LIFE08 NAT/UK/000201)
on the breeding and reintroduction of born by captive breeding, and 270 adult are also aiming to reintroduce the
crayfish into carefully targeted areas of crayfish were released in 18 selected white-clawed crayfish in two Natura
appropriate habitat. This involved cap- sites in three different regions of central 2000 sites.
Conclusions
Species Biogeographical region level Projects
Though LIFE project actions have
(main regions)
been taken at a local level, they have
Austropotamobius Unfavourable-bad (Alpine, LIFE00 NAT/IT/007159 improved the conservation status of
pallipes Atlantic, Continental and LIFE03 NAT/IT/000137 white-tailed crayfish in certain areas,
Mediterranean) LIFE03 NAT/IT/000147 such as central Italy. Nevertheless, the
LIFE04 NAT/FR/000082 conservation status throughout EU is
LIFE08 NAT/IT/000352 not favourable, and the actions dem-
LIFE04 NAT/IT/000159 onstrated by LIFE projects must be
LIFE08 NAT/UK/000201
adopted on a wider scale to ensure the
long-term survival of this species.
33
ENDANGERED FISH SPECIES : COBICE

LIFE support for Italy’s
endangered Cobice
sturgeon
Fish protection bodies in northern Italy have made good use of LIFE co-financing to
help improve the conservation status of one of Europe’s most endangered species,
the Cobice sturgeon.
E urope’s last remaining populations

of the Cobice or Adriatic sturgeon
(Acipenser naccarii) are found in Italy, the
LIFE involvement
One LIFE Nature project (LIFE04 NAT/

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

bad’ in the Continental region, where a
large decline has occurred in the Italian
Photo: LIFE 04NAT/IT/000126
rivers during the past few decades due

to intensive overfishing, construction of
dams that block the rivers where stur-
geons spawn, water pollution and habitat
destruction.
34
ENDANGERED FISH SPECIES : COBICE
Photo: LIFE 04NAT/IT/000126

Captured cobice at the breeding centre.
With the aim of restoring viable popu- Policy in practice Studies also focused on genetic analysis
lations of the priority species, LIFE of fish stocks, and findings underscored
co-financed the release of more than A programme of practical policy-driven the importance of expanding gene pool
162 000 captive-bred Cobice sturgeon conservation work was carried out to diversity in captive breeding systems.
in 12 different rivers (LIFE04 NAT/ help reinforce the effectiveness of LIFE’s
IT/000126). Around 23 500 of these restocking efforts. New facilities were Conclusions
were grown to an average length of provided at two hatcheries to expand
50 cm, and 12 000 were fitted with the LIFE project’s potential and increase The LIFE-funded action plan has been
microchips, in order to monitor their the hatcheries’ efficiency. These capi- widely welcomed by Cobice stur-
movement and track the LIFE project’s tal investments were complemented by geon stakeholders. It takes a holistic
overall impacts. improved scientific knowledge of the approach, also incorporating actions on
sturgeon’s favoured habitat features and Natura 2000 sites, and has been adopted
A wide network of stakeholders (fish- its captive breeding. Hydrological studies by environmental management authori-
ermen, rangers and volunteers) was were completed and data was mapped ties from three different regions. LIFE’s
created to monitor the released stur- using a GIS system to identify optimum interventions have played a significant
geons. Results from the still ongoing release points. This informed the content role in meeting the Habitat Directive’s
monitoring are expected to confirm the of an action plan, which also included river requirements by strengthening the con-
long-term survival and reproduction of management recommendations support- servation status of this protected Euro-
more than 2 000 sturgeon. ing the survival of sturgeon populations. pean species.
Percentage of the species
Species Biogeographical region level Projects
range targeted by the project(s)
(main regions)
Acipenser naccarii, Unfavourable-bad (Continental) LIFE03 NAT/IT/000113 About 100 %

(known as the Cobice LIFE04 NAT/IT/000126
or Adriatic sturgeon)
35
Better rivers for healthier fish:
ENDANGERED FISH SPECIES : ATLANTIC SALMON

salmon conservation
in Scotland
The Atlantic salmon (Salmo salar), the so-called ‘king of fish’, is widely distributed
throughout the North Atlantic, including Europe. However, it has declined because of
pollution, acidification, introduction of non-native salmon stocks, overfishing, physical
barriers to migration and degradation of spawning and nursery habitats.
I n all geographical regions the status

of this species is assessed as ‘bad’
in the Article 17 report. In Finland and
project also planned to improve the
extent and quality of spawning-grounds
and habitats for juvenile fish through in-
The project’s results were impressive,
and in some areas performed better
than expected. For example, the project
Latvia, however, the Atlantic salmon is stream works. aimed to improve 40 000 m2 of degraded
bucking the overall trend (assessed as streams, but in fact restored more than
‘favourable’). Other aims of the project were to prevent 70 000 m2. It aimed to fence 52 km of riv-
the erosion of riverbank habitats due to erbank to prevent uncontrolled grazing,
Scottish rivers are a European stronghold livestock; to reduce the amount of agri- but a total of 80 km was fenced. Other
for the species, where the salmon is an cultural sediment going into one river; to goals such as easing the 25 man-made
indicator species for habitat quality. The improve riverbank woodland habitats; obstacles, managing riverbank forest
salmon is also economically important to stimulate natural recolonisation and and restocking of rivers were comfort-
to Scotland. Therefore, Scottish Natural spawning in newly restored areas; to ably achieved.
Heritage, the government conservation encourage sustainable use of gravel in
agency, with support from the LIFE pro- salmon rivers, and to purchase netting Communication activities were also
gramme, carried out the wide-ranging rights on two rivers. highly effective. The team produced a
‘Conservation of Atlantic salmon in Scot- DVD showing completed actions at vari-
land’ (LIFE04 NAT/GB/000250) project, The project benefited from having a wide ous locations on the river and organised
one of the most significant initiatives of range of high-profile participants. Scottish a «Salmon in the Classroom» programme
this kind ever undertaken. Natural Heritage was joined by the Dis- at local primary schools. The final con-
trict Salmon Fisheries Boards, Fisheries ference, which was held in June 2008,
LIFE actions Trusts, the Scottish Executive, the For- attracted more than 80 delegates.
estry Commission, the Crown Estate and
The project encompassed various sub- companies such as Scottish Hydro Elec- Several other LIFE projects have also
projects, starting in 2004 and running tric. This showed the importance placed indirectly benefitted the salmon. For
until 2008. They took place in eight on restoring salmon habitats. The project example, two projects (LIFE06 NAT/
Scottish rivers, aiming to improve fresh- enabled partners to develop expertise NL/000078 and LIFE05 NAT/S/000109)
water habitats for salmon and bypass- and technical understanding in a number aimed to remove the barriers for migrat-
ing, removing or mitigating 25 man-made of areas, such as fish-passage installa- ing fish in Netherlands and Sweden, an
obstacles to the passage of salmon. The tion, riparian work and in-stream work. action that might also benefit salmon
among other migrating fish.
Removing salmon migration obstacles has improved the status of the salmon.
Conclusions
The project showed the benefits that

can arise from concerted conservation
actions, involving a wide range of stake-
Photo: LIFE04 NAT/GB/000250
holders undertaking a broad range of

actions. In this respect, the project could
be a model for future activities in areas
affected by conservation problems that
require a joined-up approach.
36
Through in situ habitat-management actions, ex situ captive breeding programmes and

ENDANGERED FISH SPECIES : MEDITERRANEAN FRESHWATER FISH
management-capacity development, LIFE projects have helped improve the conserva-
tion status of some of the most endangered freshwater fish in Europe.
LIFE and Mediterranean

freshwater fish
Photo: E. C. vertebrados acuáticos - U. Murcia
M editerranean biogeographi-
cal region freshwater fish are
those found in any river basin flowing
reported in 2006 on the ‘Status and Dis-
tribution of Freshwater Fish Endemic to
the Mediterranean Basin’. It found that
and the pollution of water sources exac-
erbate this problem, while bank altera-
tions, the collection of gravel and sand,
into the Mediterranean Sea. The princi- 18% of these endemic species are ‘criti- and the release of non-native fish can
pal European waterways are the Rhone, cally endangered’, 18% ‘endangered’ negatively affect the delicate ecosystems
Ebro and Po rivers – in which a total of and 20% ‘vulnerable’. Thus a total of in which the fish survive.
253 endemic fish species can be found. 56% of these species are threatened.
Areas of species richness include the LIFE Actions
Po river basin in northern Italy, the lower The main threat to their survival is the lack
Guadiana in southern Spain and Portu- of water. Rainfall in the region is relatively LIFE projects have for the most part
gal, several parts of the Mediterranean low and a significant amount of water is aimed to protect specific species in
Spanish coastline, and the Acheloos, extracted for domestic consumption, targeted areas. This is partly because
Axios and the lower Pinios river basins notably during peak tourism periods, and many of the endangered freshwater
in Greece. for agriculture. The construction of dams fish have a very restricted distribu-
tion, often limited to one country or
IUCN carried out a Freshwater Biodi- http://www.uicnmed.org/web2007/cd_ one area. Habitat management was an
versity Assessment Programme, which fwfish/index.html important feature of all these projects.
37
A Greek project created a model biotope
ENDANGERED FISH SPECIES : MEDITERRANEAN FRESHWATER FISH

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

Photo: Maria Th. Stoumboudi, Institute of Inland Waters, HCMR
situ captive breeding programmes to

create stocks of the endangered fish for
reintroduction and to prevent the possi-
bility of total extinction.
Improving the understanding of the needs

of these little-known fish was an important
element of each project. Habitats, water
quality, fish abundance and genetic diver-
sity were explored. This in turn informed
the development of management, con-
servation and recovery plans for the spe-
Gizani in its natural habitat, feeding on the substrate.
cies, the revision of Natura 2000 sites to
include the species, and the proposal of
new SCIs. In most cases, beneficial dia- in river management. Finally, information with effective reintroduction programmes
logue and co-operation was established sites were developed to engender public and legal mechanisms to protect the spe-
with the relevant administrations involved support for these species and to engage cies raise hope for a better future for these
relevant stakeholders, including local inconspicuous fish species.
authorities and private organisations in
Iberian toothcarp (Aphanius iberus)
leisure and tourism. Their conservation status has therefore
been improved in the areas where LIFE
Conclusions projects were undertaken and increases in
population numbers on a local level were
LIFE projects have increased under- recorded. As a result of the Greek project,
standing of endangered endemic Medi- the gizani is now generally stable and was
Photo: Carlos Gonzalez Revelles
terranean freshwater fish (distribution, assessed as ‘favourable’ thanks mostly

biology and ecology) and what is needed to LIFE project actions. Another relevant
to ensure survival and restore their habi- contribution of these projects is that they
tats. Very little was known previously in help to protect streams that host the spe-
most cases. Habitat improvement and the cies and therefore contribute to the resto-
establishment of protected areas together ration of some very fragile habitats.
Endangered Mediter- Conservation

Country Projects Where found Project location
ranean fish status
Greece LIFE98 NAT/GR/005279 Gizani (Ladigesocy- Endemic to the Greek Rhodes Favourable
pris ghigii) island of Rhodes.
Spain* LIFE04 NAT/ES/000035 Iberian toothcarp Endemic to the Spa- Murcia region Unfavourable-
(Aphanius iberus) nish coastline inadequate
Portugal LIFE97 NAT/P/004075 Anaecypris hispanica Endemic to Iberia Guadiana basin Unfavourable-
bad
* In Spain many other projects have directly or indirectly contributed to the protection and enhancement of both Aphanius iberus and Valencia hispa-
nica (LIFE96 NAT/E/003180, LIFE96 NAT/E/003118, LIFE98 NAT/E/005323, LIFE00 NAT/E/7339, LIFE04 NAT/E/0044), though it was generally not
their main objective.
38
LIFE innovations benefit

LIFE IMPROVING PLANT SPECIES
Europe’s flora
The status of many plant species has been improved by LIFE projects. The programme
has helped foster important innovations such as the plant micro-reserve (PMR) concept.
E urope’s varied geography and

climate provides a vast range of
habitats that support more than 12 500
vascular plants (flowering plants, conifers
and ferns). Centres of particularly high
plant diversity include the mountainous
areas around the Mediterranean and the
Black Sea. The floras of Spain, Greece,
Italy, Bulgaria and Romania support the
highest numbers of both endemic and
endangered plant species.
Wild plants in Europe are under severe

threat, however, and significant losses
of plant species and habitat have taken
Photo: LIFE00 NAT/A/007069
place. According to the IUCN, some 21%

of Europe’s vascular plant species are
classified as threatened and half of the
continent’s 4 700 vascular endemic spe-
cies are in danger of extinction.
The conservation status of the Lake Constance forget-me-not (Myosotis rehsteineri) was
The highest percentage of the ‘favour- improved thanks to two LIFE projects.
able’ assessments in the Art 17 report
is for vascular plants, where more than ably according to each individual plant D/005940) projects, targeting the Lake
20% of the assessments are favourable species targeted by the project. The Constance forget-me-not (Myosotis reh-
and less than 20% ‘unfavourable bad’. complexity of the projects means that steineri), and the Italian project (LIFE03
However there are still more than 35% of many benefit from close collaboration NAT/IT/000147) targeting (Saxifraga
‘unfavourable inadequate’ assessments. with stakeholders and from national and tombeanensis).
This group includes a large number of international partnerships.
endemic plants. When it comes to restricted species
LIFE projects focusing on plants com- populations on a group of sites, LIFE has
The main factors that have contributed monly target several plant species – with helped pioneer a new approach that has
to the progressive decline of European different ecological requirements, habi- spread from Spain across the EU: the
plant diversity are: tats and locations (e.g. the project ‘Con- plant micro-reserve (see box).
l abitat loss and degradation;
H servation and restoration of calcareous
l Introduction of invasive alien species; fens in Friuli’ (LIFE06 NAT/IT/000060),
l Pollution and disease; which targeted the species Armeria To read more about LIFE’s work in
l Climate change. helodes, Erucastrum palustre, Euphra- this area, download the publication
sia marchesettii and Gladiolus palustris). ‘LIFE and endangered plants – con-
A particular characteristic of LIFE plant Projects also focus on very restricted serving Europe’s threatened flora’
projects is that they typically have highly populations – with few individuals in very
from the LIFE website:
specific objectives (e.g. many target small areas. Examples include those that
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/
endemic or very rare species). Meeting focus on only one or a few Natura 2000
these objectives often involves carrying sites, such as the Austrian (LIFE00 NAT/ publications/lifepublications/lifefo-
out complex actions that differ consider- A/007069) and German (LIFE99 NAT/ cus/nat.htm#plants
39
LIFE IMPROVING PLANT SPECIES

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

LIFE IMPROVING PLANT SPECIES : ASTER SORRENTINII
for endangered
Italian daisies
LIFE project interventions have helped contribute to securing a favourable conservation
status for Aster sorrentinii, a previously endangered plant species found only in Sicily.
A ster sorrentinii, a small plant from

the daisy family (Asteraceae), is
listed as a priority species for conserva-
pressures, combined with habitat dam-
age by fires or fragmentation, led to a
significant decline in the size of the natu-
tion had also led to new specimens being
observed on other project sites.
tion under Annex II of the Habitats Direc- ral Aster sorrentinii population. By 2004 Conclusions
tive. This rare and delicate daisy has a numbers of this protected plant species
highly limited distribution, being found had dropped significantly. Urgent actions LIFE’s project results have made con-
nowhere else in the world other than a were thus required to prevent the species siderable contributions to the long-term
small number of locations in Sicily. from completely disappearing. sustainability of Aster sorrentinii, as more
than 270 plant specimens were noted
Sites favoured by Aster sorrentinii include LIFE support interventions growing in the wild following the project’s
gas mud volcanic areas with and feature final phases. Italy’s Article 17 report now
habitats, such as Mediterranean salt LIFE support was harnessed to help records the species as having a favour-
meadows, temporary ponds and steppe intervene in this species’ conservation able conservation status and the ben-
grasslands. Agriculture has had a major programme, which was actively pursued eficiary acknowledges that key success
influence on the make-up of these types by the regional government’s compe- factors can be attributed to the shift in
of habitats in recent decades, which saw tent bodies. Their four-year LIFE project land-use approaches. Land acquisition
Sicilian farmers introducing increasingly (LIFE04 NAT/IT/000182) began in 2004 facilitated these changes, allowing a halt
intensive patterns of land-use manage- and was carried out in the ‘Maccalube to excessive sheep grazing and silvicul-
ment. di Aragona’ Natura 2000 site, one of the ture, the main threats to availability of
few sites with Aster sorrentinii, and ini- suitable habitats for Aster sorrentinii.
Herbicides and artificial fertilisers have tially focused on maximising protection
been used to boost the Island’s poten- for the existing Aster sorrentinii popu- Longer term expansion of the plant
tial for supporting larger numbers of lation. Land covering some 66 ha was populations remains reliant on address-
livestock. However, increased grazing acquired and contractors installed 4 600 ing these concerns and LIFE project staff
m of fencing to reduce grazing-related developed conservation methods that
Aster sorrentinii.
threats around plant locations. Fire encourages stakeholder involvement
breaks were also introduced and habi- from local landowners. These actions aim
tat support works were complemented to broaden a sense of understanding and
by trials to identify optimal parameters ownership of the plant preservation pro-
for a proactive campaign of transplanta- gramme among farmers and foresters.
tion. The trials were carried out at a new
acclimatisation station that stocks plants Mainstreaming more environmentally
coming from a nearby nursery. sensitive approaches within these key
sectors remains a challenge throughout
Results from earlier plant propagation work the EU. However, while policy support is
provided valuable lessons in how best to now moving in this direction, more sus-
approach nurturing the growth of wild tainable benefits for Europe’s biodiversity
Aster sorrentinii populations. Knowledge will only be achieved when land holders
gained from this conservation process convert policy rhetoric into action on the
helped to ensure a successful re-estab- ground. LIFE continues to play an impor-
lishment of the endangered daisy species tant role in testing and demonstrating
in specified target areas. Moreover, by practical techniques for reaching these
the end of the project, natural dissemina- essential conservation goals.
HAB I TATS
42
Preserving priority palm

F O R E S TS : PA L M G ROV E S
forest habitat on Crete
A combination of practical conservation actions and sustainable tourism principles
have contributed to the success of a LIFE project that aimed to conserve and expand
the rare Greek palm grove habitat.
G reece’s ‘Palm groves of Phoenix’

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

sustainable management of rare Apennine beech forest habitats.
Sustaining the favourable

conservation status of
Italian Mediterranean
beech forest habitats
Photo: Alberto Cozzi
I taly is home to two beech forest

habitats: European temperate for-
ests and the Mediterranean mountain
of the presence of silver fir in Tuscany’s
beech forest habitats include:
l Unsustainable timber extraction meth-
l
local forests’ genetic make up;
S pread of pathogen fungi, such
as Heterobasidium and Armillaria,
broadleaf forests in southern Italy, ods targeting fir species; caused by the substitution of the nat-
which includes two Apennine beech l Introduction and proliferation of exotic ural mixed broadleaf-silver fir forests
habitats that are characterised by their silver firs which dilute and weaken the with 100% silver fir plantation.
diversified species composition – both
are classified as priority for protection Conservation status
by the Habitats Directive and contain Habitats at Member State / region Projects
mixtures of beech and silver fir (Abies level (main regions)
alba) (9220*), or beech with yew (Taxus
baccata) and holly (Ilex aquifolium) 9210* Apennine beech Favourable LIFE04 NAT/IT/000191
forest with Taxus and Ilex LIFE04 NAT/IT/000190
(9210*).
ad aquifolium
In the Tuscany region these distinctive 9220* Apennine Beech Favourable LIFE95 NAT/IT/000610
mixed forest habitats were once more forests with Abies alba LIFE96 NAT/IT/003169
prolific but are now restricted to small LIFE97 NAT/IT/004163
isolated patches along the Apennines LIFE99 NAT/IT/006260
and in the isolated area of Monte Amiata. LIFE04 NAT/IT/000190
Key factors contributing to the decline LIFE04 NAT/IT/000191
44
Such pressures on the habitats’ con-

FORESTS : APENNINE BEACH
servation status are reflected by the

Article 17 report, which highlights
problems of inappropriate forest man-
agement techniques. It assessed these
habitats as ‘favourable’, but under-
scored concerns affecting the future
sustainability of priority Apennine
beech habitats, in particular due to
forest conversions to grazing pastures
and the impact of ski routes.
Italian LIFE involvement
Italian authorities have recognised

that a long-term outlook is required to
address these pressures on the Apen-
nine beech woods, and LIFE was iden-
tified as an appropriate vehicle to help
protect and preserve future prospects
for the two priority habitats. Indeed,
habitats 9210* and 9220* are the for-
est habitat most targeted by the Italian
LIFE projects, both in the Continental
and Mediterranean biogeographical
region. In the northern Apennines it was
targeted by the project LIFE95 NAT/
IT/000610 and its follow-up LIFE97
NAT/IT/004163, and in the central and
Photo: Alberto Cozzi
the southern Apennines by the projects

LIFE96 NAT/IT/003169 and follow-
up projects LIFE99 NAT/IT/006260,
LIFE04 NAT/IT/000190, LIFE06 NAT/
IT/000053. Another project, LIFE04 LIFE has played an important role in establishing management methodologies and restora-
tion of the Apennine Beech forests with Abies alba habitat (9220*).
NAT/IT/000191, focused on the Nat-
ura 2000 SCI IT5180013 “Foreste del
Siele e Pigelleto di Piancastagnaio”, eased silver fir trees and initiating a tion managers to operate more freely
where both habitats survive. The local programme to gradually extract all and effectively.
ecotype of silver fir was characterised exotic silver firs from the beech for-
from a genetic and morphological point est. Further conservation gains were Conclusions
of view. achieved via the reproduction and
subsequent planting of around 6 In quantitative terms, the LIFE pro-
Long-term considerations featured 000 native tree seedlings (including gramme has helped to reconstitute 32
prominently in this particular LIFE 3 000 yews) in the project area, which ha of Apennine beech forest with silver
project. It established a carefully co- has now been designated as a Special fir, ‘renaturalise’ 18 ha of artificial coni-
ordinated framework of forest con- Conservation Area (SCA) by the Prov- fer stands with allochthonous silver fir,
servation commitments based on a ince of Siena. and restore 20 ha of Apennine beech
25-year management plan. Following woods with yew and holly. These tan-
development of the plan, LIFE actions LIFE funding for the long-term man- gible project outcomes are augmented
centred on a series of habitat reme- agement plan was crucial in attaining by more qualitative impacts relating to
diation measures that were required to this legal habitat protection. Another LIFE’s securing of a long-term commit-
help facilitate the beech forest’s future notable success was allocating time ment to the conservation of Tuscany’s
vitality. for the labour-intensive determination rare beech forest habitats. Such a leg-
of the genetic origins for individual acy demonstrates the real potential of
This involved silvicultural interven- silver fir specimens. In addition, LIFE the LIFE programme and will safeguard
tions across 36.7 ha that improved support for the purchase of priority for- the favourable conservation status of
natural regeneration conditions for est habitat sections (for a 7 ha dedi- this valuable European forest habitat
indigenous species by removing dis- cated reserve) has allowed conserva- for future generations.
45
LIFE support for Europe’s
FORESTS : ATLANTIC FOREST

Atlantic Forests
While the Article 17 report has confirmed that many Atlantic forest habitats remain threa-
tened, LIFE support has shown how key conservation concerns can be addressed.
E urope’s Atlantic forest habitats

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

EU natural resources include excessive
The Caledonian Forest (91C0*)
exploitation and negative impacts from A forest habitat type unique to Scotland is the Caledonian forest, comprising a
non-native species. Air pollution, habitat blend of Scots pine (Pinus sylvestris), birch (Betula) and juniper (Juniperus) wood-
fragmentation and overgrazing are also lands. This priority habitat previously enjoyed widespread coverage across northern
major problems in many threatened
parts of Scotland but its distribution is now limited and at EU level its status is
Atlantic woodlands. These conservation
‘unfavourable bad’. But conservation efforts (in some cases with LIFE support) over
concerns often occur in combination
thus exacerbating threats to the habi- many years mean that its conservation status is improving.
tats’ status. Decline of this Scottish habitat has been associated with pressures from steep
increases in deer and sheep populations. These have had a major impact on the
LIFE and Europe’s Atlantic Caledonian Forest’s ability to regenerate and are highlighted in the UK’s Article
forest habitats
17 report as an obstacle to this forest’s future expansion. Inappropriate forestry
A series of LIFE projects have targe- operations were also identified during the Article 17 assessment, and the large-scale
ted the restoration of habitat quality in felling of Caledonian timber resources has fragmented the integrity of remaining
these special woodland habitats. The indigenous pine, birch and juniper populations. Subsequent replanting with non-
first of these (LIFE94 NAT/UK/000580)
native species has further hampered the forest’s natural regeneration capacities and
focused on the conservation of the
Caledonian forest. Several LIFE pro-
also weakened its genetic make-up.
46
The following review of these LIFE pro-

jects’ outputs highlights the most com-

mon conservation actions that ensure a
more promising future for Europe’s threa-
tened Atlantic forest habitats.
Control of invasive and

non native species
Exotic shrubs, such as laurel and rho-

dodendron, can spread vigorously in
Atlantic forests to form a dense canopy
which prevents the growth of native
woodland species. LIFE projects have
been at the forefront of campaigns to Taxus baccata woods IN THE British Isles (91J0)
eradicate or control the spread of these The remnants of Europe’s yew (Taxus baccata) forests can be found in dry
prolific species.
valleys or scarp slopes on chalk and limestone hills in England and Ireland.
As part of its restoration of Atlantic oak

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

control of non-native or commercial
species focus on improving the ability
of forests to regenerate naturally, and so
strengthen the durability of their associa-
47

Old sessile oak woods with Ilex and Blechnum in the British Isles (91A0)
Referred to as ‘Atlantic oakwoods’ these acidophilous sessile oak (Quercus petraea) forests are characterised by
low-branched trees, evergreen bushes and ferns, mosses, and lichens. Frequently, this oak woodland occurs as part of
a mosaic of forest types and the habitat was once common in many maritime regions of the British Isles, as well as
northwest France. However, the range of Europe’s old sessile oak woods has significantly retracted and its current con-
servation status is now rated as ‘unfavourable bad’ at EU level, although reported as improving in the UK which hosts
the biggest area of this habitat.
Habitat isolation is identified in the Article 17 report as one of the main threats to oak woods. Fragmentation
has been aggravated in upland
areas by overgrazing, and control-
ling the invasion of non-native
species continues to present a
persistent challenge. The rapid
spread of rhododendron-related
risks is especially problematic and
inappropriate forestry practices
are also assessed as a contribut-
ing factor in the demise of British
oak woods. A similar situation has
arisen in Ireland, where the habitat
area is still decreasing.
Grazing controls have been a common Awareness-raising techniques, realising sustainable scrub-
component of LIFE projects, such as legacies level controls and instigating conserva-
the previously mentioned UK project tion methodologies for farm woodland
(LIFE97 NAT/UK/004244), which bloc- Guidance manuals on these and other areas. A another UK project (LIFE00
ked access to forest regeneration sites types of restoration techniques for NAT/UK/007074) produced guidance
using more than 61 km of deer fen- Atlantic forest habitats represent ano- on thinning Atlantic oak woods and
cing at three sites and around 14 km ther common conservation tool har- stand dynamics in Tilio-Acerion woo-
of stock fencing at six additional sites. nessed with effect by LIFE projects. dlands, among other measures.
The results provided a total of 148 ha Good practices are included in the
of protected oak habitat and have made ‘Conservation Toolbox’ produced by a Much of this guidance is available online
important contributions to improving UK project (LIFE03 NAT/UK/000044), from the LIFE project websites, which
natural conditions in seven of the UK’s which features a database of technical continue to provide valuable peer lear-
most extensive Atlantic woodlands. information on topics such as managing ning opportunities for those involved in
Long-term benefits were gained from sycamore in semi-natural woodlands, improving the unfavourable, often bad,
a co-ordinated deer cull carried out by addressing forest grazing pressures, conservation status of Europe’s Atlantic
the same LIFE project, and its findings implementing appropriate coppicing forest habitats.
informed a high-level debate about the
reduction of deer numbers in Scottish
SACs. Habitat Biogeographical region Projects
The only Irish woodland project so far
(LIFE05 NAT/IRL/000182) also recogni- 91A0 Old sessile Unfavourable-bad LIFE97NAT/UK/004244
ses the need for effective techniques to oak woods LIFE00NAT/UK/007074
LIFE03NAT/UK/000044
address grazing pressures. For example,
fencing in protected areas where young 91C0* Caledonian Unfavourable-bad LIFE94NAT/UK/000580
native seedlings are being planted. The Forest LIFE97NAT/UK/004244
project is regenerating around 33.5 ha
of yew forest at five sites by transplan- 91J0 Taxus Unfavourable-bad LIFE05 NAT/IRL/000182
baccata forest LIFE99NAT/UK/006094
ting young trees propagated from local
LIFE03NAT/UK/000044
native cuttings.
48
Significant parts of the Mediterranean black pine forests remain in unfavourable, inad-
FORESTS : MEDITERRANEAN PINE FOREST
equate or bad condition and LIFE projects have been working towards improving the
conservation status of this priority EU habitat.
LIFE boosts black pine forest

habitats in southern
Europe
C oniferous forest habitats are

present throughout Europe and
include upland forests dominated by
black pines of the Pinus nigra group.
Included under Annex I of the Habi-
tats Directive as an EU conservation
priority, this ‘(Sub-) Mediterranean
pine forest with endemic black pine’
(9530*) habitat is mainly found in the
mountain ranges of southern Member
States, where distribution of the black
pine habitat remains fragmented.
Often containing trees as high as 30

m or more, the black pine forests tend
to comprise mixed-age classes. These
habitat features commonly create
closed arboreal canopies which help
maintain a variety of fauna and offer
useful protection against soil erosion
following heavy rain showers.
At the European level, this habitat’s

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

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

approved for specific sites and suitable
management plans were drafted for
vast areas, serving as a model for man-
agement of similar sites.
Other outputs offering good demon-

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

Beneficial results
Beneficial results have emerged from

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

D U N E S : A T L A N T I C A N D C O N T I N E N TA L D U N E S
attempt to reverse
dune deterioration
The coast of the Atlantic biogeographical region stretching from western Denmark
to the north-western corner of Portugal, and including the British Isles, contains the
most extensive range of coastal sand dunes in the EU. However, with the exception of
Denmark, the condition of the dunes is ‘bad’.
T he table, below, shows the situa-

tion for two Atlantic and continen-
tal dune habitat types: fixed (grey) dunes
Restoration activities include the removal
of planted conifers, the control of native
and non-native scrub and the introduction
in an informal European dune network,
supported by the European Coastal and
Marine Union.
and humid dune slacks (areas between of sustainable grazing. Special attention
dune ridges). has been given to the restoration of natural In the UK, only one LIFE project relating to
hydrological cycles in the dunes, including dunes has been carried out, but it has had
The dune systems along Europe’s western the management of humid dune slacks. In a significant impact. The project (LIFE95
flank share common problems. Although some areas, for example along the Belgian NAT/UK/000818) took place in the north-
still under pressure from development, coast, debris from the First and Second west of England in the area between the
including residential housing, holiday World War, such as concrete bunkers that estuaries of the rivers Mersey and Ribble.
homes and golf courses, the situation here impede sand drift, can still be found. The sand dunes, beaches and marshes
is less critical than that in the Mediterra- of the 4565 ha Sefton Coast Natura 2000
nean. Recreational pressure is a concern LIFE actions site is one of the most important areas in
in many areas and has to be managed in the UK and the main site for the natter-
a way which does not damage the dune LIFE has supported a number of projects jack toad (Bufo calamita). The project pur-
habitats. Much of the focus of project across the Atlantic region, helping to chased private land (after the owners had
work in the UK, France, Belgium, Nether- formulate good practice and promote failed to develop it as a golf course), des-
lands and Denmark has been on the man- information on dune restoration and con- ignated it as nature reserve, established
agement of the mosaic of Annex I habi- servation. These projects have encour- nature trails, and prepared a management
tats which characterise a dune system. aged conservation experts to co-operate plan in co-operation with local landown-
ers. A significant amount of habitat resto-
ration and species-recovery actions also
Situation for two Atlantic and continental dune habitat types took place.
2130* Fixed (grey) dunes 2190 Humid dune slacks The project contributed to the develop-
Member State % of habitat Status % of habitat Status ment of the UK Habitat Action Plan for
sand dunes and encouraged the sharing
UK 35.80% Bad and 13.40% Bad and of good practice. However, this project by
deteriorating deteriorating itself was not sufficient to improve the UK
Ireland 11.30% Bad 1.60% Bad assessment of its dunes, which remain
‘bad and deteriorating’.
France 19.90%i Inadequate 44.90% Bad The UK project’s approach has since been
mirrored by, for example, the large-scale
Belgium 1.40% Bad 0.40% Bad
dune and dune-heath restoration project
Germany 5.50% Favourable 5.90% Inadequate in Denmark, ‘Restoration of Dune Habi-
tats along the Danish West Coast’ (LIFE02
Denmark 10.00% Inadequate 26.50% Inadequate
Netherlands 16.10% Bad 7.40% Inadequate

http://www.eucc.net
Note: No information is available for Spain or Portugal.
51
D U N E S : A T L A N T I C A N D C O N T I N E N TA L D U N E S
Photo: LIFE06 NAT/F/000146
LIFE project actions, such as fencing sensitive areas to restore sand dynamics and re-vegetation, have improved the status of dunes at
a local level.
NAT/DK/008584) and an equally-ambi- restoration; removal of soil for restoration Lessons learned during these projects
tious current project in the Netherlands, of humid dune slacks; and excavation of have informed the ongoing ‘Zwindunes
‘Restoration of dune habitats along the 17 permanent pools. These pools have Ecological Nature Optimalisation’ project
Dutch coast’ (LIFE05 NAT/NL/000124). since been colonised by the great crested (LIFE06 NAT/B/000087), which is restor-
In France, the project, ‘Preservation of the newt (Triturus cristatus) and natterjack ing and maintaining a nature reserve near
coast biodiversity on the Gavres-Quiberon toad. Knokke-Heist, in the northern-most part
site’ (LIFE06 NAT/F/000146) is working of the Belgian coast. The project’s main
on a 2 500 ha sand dune area in Brittany. The project concluded in 2001, but follow- objective is to improve the natural habi-
Within this area are almost 1000 ha of the up work was carried out in 2004. A con- tat that typically exists among coastal
priority habitat ‘grey dunes’. This project crete dyke between the dunes and beach dunes, and to encourage transition to salt
aims to protect this rich dune area and to foreshore of the De Westhoek nature marshes, where amphibians and birds can
control some of the more damaging rec- reserve was partially removed, allowing thrive. To this end, scrub expansion has to
reational activities such as horse-riding, the sea to penetrate further into the dunes. be reversed, and plantation trees will be
use of quad bikes and rubbish dumping. This was followed by acquisition of Shet- removed to help to restore the humid dune
In most projects concerning sand dunes land ponies and other animals for grazing slacks and fixed dune habitat.
public education is an important element management. LIFE helped the beneficiary
of the work. gain a better understanding of the benefits Conclusions
of grazing for dune habitats, in particular
Belgium through exchanges with the British dune LIFE projects dealing with Atlantic dunes
management project, which used sheep have generated management models that
It is in Belgium, however, that LIFE Atlan- to graze grey dunes. are applicable to these habitats in other
tic dune projects have been particularly areas and to similar habitats. When con-
effective, even though actions have been Subsequently, the FEYDRA report (LIFE02 sidered as a suite of interlinked initiatives,
carried out over a relatively small area. An NAT/B/008591) restored wet grasslands the Atlantic biogeographical region dune
early project, ‘Integral Coastal Conserva- and opened dune vegetation on former projects combine with those in the Baltic
tion Initiative’ (LIFE96 NAT/B/003032) wooded areas and the site of a disused Sea and the Mediterranean to make a sig-
had a significant pump-priming effect, sewage plant. The project took place in Ter nificant contribution to the Natura 2000
leading to many spin-off actions. The Yde, an area close to the French border network. The Belgian, Danish and Dutch
project started a political debate about created in the 14th Century by the dam- dune projects in particular have been
the purchase of dunes for conservation. ming of part of the Ijzer estuary. The project extensive and strategic.
This led to the adoption by the Flemish established management approaches for
government in 1998 of a legal instrument controlling the water level in the area, thus However, Atlantic and Continental dune
for acquiring coastal dunes. The project helping ensure the long-term protection of habitats remain under considerable threat.
carried out restoration actions, including the Ter Yde Natura 2000 sites. Their status is generally poor throughout
scrub clearance over an area of 32 ha the EU. More work is needed to build on
to restore humid dune slacks and grey ‘Fossil Estuary of the Yzer Dunes Restora-
the results of past LIFE projects if this situ-
dunes; sod cutting for coastal heathland tion Area’ ation is to be addressed.
52
DUNES : MEDITERRANEAN DUNES
A coastline under pressure:

Mediterranean dunes
Threatened by urban sprawl, increasing tourism, invasive species, sand extraction,
pollution and rising tides, Mediterranean dunes are an endangered habitat that need
protecting. LIFE projects have shown how their long-term survival can be ensured.
M editerranean dunes are charac-

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

its ecological condition along 3 km of
DUNES : MEDITERRANEAN DUNES

coastline in southeast Sicily.
Italy
Since 1992, more than 15 LIFE projects

have targeted Mediterranean dune hab-
itats along the Italian coast. However,
as stated by the Italian report under
Article 17, the impact of these actions
was localised, and the projects lacked
an integrated approach and strategy Directing tourist access to the beach through wooden passages is helping restore Mediter-
ranean dunes habitats.
that could have led to more wide-rang-
ing improvements.
part of the habitat in the project site was extensive awareness campaigns were
The Italian projects had three main con- fenced off and thus protected from graz- required to inform beach users of the
cerns: the protection of dunes from public ing pressure and vehicles trespassing on need to protect the dune habitats.
disturbance by installing fences; the con- the dunes. The project also planted and
struction of walkways to reduce damage fenced off 4 000 young umbrella pines, Conclusions
caused by people accessing the beach and installed dune restoration fences
through the dunes; and the installation alongside the most affected parts of LIFE project restoration actions have
of small artificial barriers to promote the the dunes. These actions enabled dune made a very important contribution to
establishment of dune vegetation. ‘rebuilding’ and sand accumulation to improving the conservation status of
occur. The conservation activities were Mediterranean dune habitats. However,
Greece accompanied by the marking off of park- the pressures on the dunes continue to
ing areas and visitor access points, and build up, and while projects have brought
The ‘Conservation management in the placing of information signs. localised benefits, the conservation status
Strofylia-Kotychi’ project (LIFE02 NAT/ for many habitats remains ‘unfavourable
GR/008491) targeted the umbrella For most projects carried out in these bad’. Nevertheless, the projects provide
(stone) pine dune habitat. A significant countries, dune plant production was good practice examples, the principles
a relevant management measure, as of which could be applied more widely.
reintroductions need to be carried out Future projects could be based on the
http://www2.minambiente.it/pdf_www2/
dpn/pubblicazioni/attuazione_direttiva_Habi- with native species to ensure the best useful data gathered by past projects,
tat.pdf: “il carattere locale di molti interventi chance of adaptation. Good management and on the tried and tested restoration
insieme alla frammentazione di questi
ambienti in molto tratti del nostro territorio,
practices and the establishment of effec- techniques that have been shown to
rende ancora molto lontano il raggiungimento tive germination protocols were another improve the status of these threatened
di un obbiettivo di conservazione di questo key aspect of these LIFE projects. Finally, habitats.
habitat nel loro complesso”
Habitats Conservation status Relevant Projects
2220 - Dunes with Euphorbia terracina Unfavourable-bad LIFE00 NAT/E/007339

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

(Mediterranean) LIFE04 NAT/ES/000044
2250* - Coastal dunes with various Unfavourable-inadequate LIFE00 NAT/E/007339, LIFE04 NAT/ES/000044,
species of juniper (Juniperus spp) (Mediterranean) LIFE99 NAT/IT/006189, LIFE03 NAT/IT/000141,
LIFE05 NAT/IT/000050, LIFE06 NAT/IT/000050,
LIFE98 NAT/P/005235, LIFE04 NAT/P/000212
2260 - Cisto-Lavenduletalia dune sclero- Unknown LIFE03 NAT/E/000054, LIFE00 NAT/E/007339,

phyllous scrubs LIFE04 NAT/ES/000044, LIFE99 NAT/IT/006189,
LIFE04 NAT/P/000212
2270* - Wooded dunes with Unfavourable-inadequate LIFE02 NAT/GR/008491, LIFE00 NAT/E/007339,

Pinus pinea and/or Pinus pinaster (Mediterranean) LIFE04 NAT/ES/000044, LIFE99 NAT/IT/006189,
LIFE06 NAT/IT/000050, LIFE98 NAT/P/005235
54
Protecting Posidonia
DUNES : POSIDONIA BEDS
in the Mediterranean
Posidonia oceanica is a species of seagrass only found in under-
water fields along the Mediterranean coastline. The Posidonia beds
provide a refuge for a number of species, but they are under threat
from several human activities, such as trawling and dredging, ran-
dom mooring of pleasure boats, construction and pollution. The
beds are also threatened by invasive algae species.
P osidonia beds are listed in the

annex I of the Habitats Direc-
tive as priority for conservation, as
department of agriculture and fisheries
and the main scientific research insti-
tutions in Spain, worked towards their
Cyprus has also taken action to pro-
tect its Posidonia beds. A recent LIFE
project, ‘Conservation management in
they have an essential role as a refuge suitable protection by gathering vital Natura 2000 sites of Cyprus’ (LIFE04
and an area for feeding and breeding information about the relevant marine NAT/CY/000013), installed a floating
for a large number of marine species. sites and species. anchoring system for vessels for the
Over the past few decades, nearly protection of Posidonia beds
50% of the underwater meadows in The first measures taken by the
the Mediterranean have experienced regional government were the map- A Portuguese project (LIFE06 NAT/
some reduction in range, density and/ ping and surveying of the Posidonia P/000192) has been targeting other
or coverage, and 20% have severely beds together with a set of scientific species of seagrass habitat in the
regressed since the 1970s. For this studies on clonal growth and species A t l a n t i c . T h e p ro j e c t h a s t r a n s -
reason, their Article 17 assessment is presence. This allowed assessments planted several species ( Zostera
‘unfavourable-inadequate’ for all Mem- to be made of the factors impacting marina, Zostera noltii and Cymodo-
ber States in the Mediterranean. Posidonia and its conservation status, cea nodosa) collected from donor
as well as factors negatively affecting meadows (such as the Sado estuary
LIFE actions species living among the beds. The and Ria Formosa). So far the project
work carried out provided the basis for h a s s u c c e s s f u l l y p l a n t e d u n d e r-
A few projects have directly targeted a range of plans and regulations, such water sea grasses with innovative
this habitat in the Mediterreanean: a as a regulation to control mooring by techniques.
Spanish project for the Balearic Islands boats in seven priority sites of commu-
was fully dedicated to the protection nity interest (SCIs). The authority also Conclusions
of the Posidonia seabeds, and in the created three marine reserves and put
1990s two French projects (LIFE92 in place monitoring teams at Cala Rat- Although the conservation status of
ENV/F/000066 and LIFE95 ENV/ jada (jointly managed with the Spanish Posidonia beds is still ‘unfavourable-
F/000782) tried to prevent the spread Ministry), Migjorn and Malgrats. The inadequate’, the Spanish project in the
of Caulerpa taxifolia. project also developed and approved Baleares, in particular, has accumu-
14 comprehensive management plans lated a great deal of information about
The Spanish LIFE project, “Protection for the 14 marine SCIs declared for their sites. Valuable management
of Posidonia beds in the Baleares” Posidonia oceanica. tools were created and legal mecha-
(LIFE00 NAT/E/007303), set out to nisms adopted, which are central to
show how Posidonia conservation Finally, the region organised exhi- the management of the marine SCI
could be improved. A considerable bitions on the three main Balearic of the Balearic Islands and adequate
proportion of the Balearic coastline islands to increase public awareness protection of the Posidonia meadows.
had been proposed for inclusion in of the value of Posidonia. At present, The experience gained during the dif-
the Natura 2000 network. The project regulated areas and close surveillance ferent LIFE projects could be exported
beneficiary, a biodiversity department continue to ensure that the most valu- to other sites in the Mediterranean
within the regional government of the able areas for Posidonia meadows will to help improve conservation of this
Balearic Islands, in partnership with the be protected in the future. important marine habitat.
55
Though a characteristic feature of the Atlantic region, European
HEATHLANDS
heathlands are under threat, with Member States reporting that the
conservation status of heathlands in their countries is ‘inadequate’
or ‘unfavourable’.
LIFE demonstrates
how to
regenerate low
land and alpine
heathlands
L IFE projects are having a signifi-

cant impact on the conservation
status of lowland and alpine heath-
Annex I of the Habitat Directive, mainly
as a result of inadequate management
and direct habitat destruction (uncon-
nitrogen and waste) are also a problem
for heathlands.
lands on a local and regional level, trolled fires). Threats to the habitats LIFE actions
acting as a valuable testing ground for include poor grazing practices and
new approaches to conservation with replacement by commercial forests Though several LIFE projects have imple-
potential for wider application. and other land uses (recreation, urban- mented actions that have had an indirect
isation, etc.). Invasive species (espe- impact on heathlands, few projects have
Several heathland habitats are listed cially alien scrub and trees) and nutri- specifically targeted these threatened
as priority (*) for conservation in the ent deposition (mainly atmospheric habitats. In several projects, actions
Main heathlands habitats targeted by LIFE projects (1992-2008)

Habitat Conservation status at Biogeographical region Projects
4010 – Northen Atlantic wet Unfavourable-bad (Atlantic) LIFE99 NAT/B/006298

heaths with Erica tetralix LIFE97NAT/UK/004242
LIFE00NAT/UK/007079
LIFE02 NAT/B/008595
LIFE04 NAT/NL/000206
4030 - European dry heaths Unfavourable-bad (Atlantic, Med and continental) LIFE00NAT/UK/007079
LIFE05 NAT/D/000055
LIFE05 NAT/D/000051
LIFE06 NAT/SK/000115
4040* - Dry Atlantic coastal Unknown (Atlantic ) - Assessed as ‘unknown’ as Spain, LIFE95NAT/UK/000832
heaths with Erica vagans which has some 90% of the habitat area, reported all
parameters as ‘unknown’. Reported as ‘unfavourable-
inadequate’ by France and ‘favourable’ by the UK where
this habitat is restricted to a single locality.
4060 - Alpine and boreal heaths Favourable (Continental) - Unfavourable-Inadequate LIFE05 NAT/A/000078
(Boreal and Alpine)
24070* - Bushes with Pinus mugo Favourable (Alpine) LLIFE00 NAT/A/007053

and Rhododendron hirsutum
(Mugo-Rhododendretum hirsuti)
* Priority for conservation - Source: LIFE Database, Astrale Monitoring team and Art 17 technical report
56
were undertaken primarily for bogs and sive conifers, while a German project in
HEATHLANDS
mires which had a beneficial impact on Lower Saxony (LIFE05 NAT/D/000051),

associated heathland habitats. The Dutch targeted the non-native woody plant spe-
project carried out in the region of Dren- cies, black cherry (Prunus serotina).
the (LIFE04 NAT/NL/000206) is a good
example of a project that targeted bogs Other management actions undertaken
but had an indirect impact on wet heath- by LIFE projects include grazing with Gal-
lands. The construction of dykes and loway cattle (LIFE99 NAT/B/006298) and
water storage reservoirs primarily to stim- ponies (LIFE97NAT/UK/004242) and for
ulate the formation of a raised bog also wet heaths, water-level modification. A
increased the area of wet heathland, and German project (LIFE05 NAT/D/000051),
locally boosted its conservation status. which focused on the coastal heaths near
the North Sea, has introduced grazing
Several projects, however, have directly with large herbivores such as heck cattle,
targeted heathland habitats, which are wild horses (Equus przewalskii) and Euro-
mainly located in the Atlantic biogeo- pean bisons (Bison bonasus). Grazing will
Photo: LIFE04 NAT/B/0010

graphical region (Belgium, France and suppress the current invasion of shrubs
the UK), though it is found elsewhere to and pioneer grass species. As a result,
a lesser degree. Most projects include an area of about 400 ha of open coastal
actions for both Northern Atlantic wet heath landscape will be established and
heaths and European dry heaths which maintained.
are often found together in a mosaic of Erica tetralix heathlands (4010) were
habitat types. Lack of good management LIFE projects have also aimed to increase restored by managing the bogs’ water
levels.
(balanced grazing and controlled fire) has public awareness of the value of heath-
led to habitats becoming dominated by lands, which are often treated as dump-
trees and therefore the most common ing grounds and are subject to loss by Conclusions
restoration activity is tree removal. In fire. The Dorset Heaths LIFE project
some cases, tree removal is not sufficient (LIFE00 NAT/UK/007079) carried out While European heathland habitats still
for the regeneration of natural heathland a schools education programme and have an unfavourable conservation sta-
and the top layer of leaf litter and soil involved community groups in monitoring tus, many of the actions taken by LIFE
must also be removed. activities. It also introduced fire-preven- projects have had a significant impact on
tion measures, such as the construction the conservation status of heathlands on
The project to protect Juniper heaths of firebreaks and fences to protect partic- a local and regional level.
in Osteifel, Germany (LIFE05 NAT/ ularly sensitive areas, the employment of
D/000055) took this measure to speed wardens throughout the summer period LIFE projects have provided valuable
up the restoration of heathlands on the and increased policing. opportunities for testing and implement-
cleared areas (it was also necessary to ing best practices and management
sow heather (Calluna vulgaris) and other Finally, land purchase has been a com- tools for this habitat. For example, a
typical heathland species). Some projects mon action for conserving this type of Belgian project (LIFE99 NAT/B/006298)
have also eliminated alien plant species. habitat. Areas of heathland have been developed a ‘Rescue Plan for Atlantic
One of the actions taken as part of the UK bought by LIFE projects and added to Heathlands in Flanders’. Though the
project in the New Forest (LIFE97 NAT/ the Natura 2000 network sites, ensuring project’s actions had no direct impact
UK/004242) was the removal of inva- their continued management. on the conservation status of the target
habitat (wet heaths, habitat 4010), they
provided data for the long-term conser-
Heathlands habitat restoration benefitted vation of the habitat in Flanders.
dependent species
The demonstration of new techniques
Project actions targeting heathlands have also indirectly benefitted sev-
and the sharing of information and
eral species. By tackling the fluctuations in the water levels affecting the experience exemplify LIFE projects‘s
wet heathlands and bogs in Bargerveen, the Netherlands, a LIFE project important role in improving the conser-
(LIFE04 NAT/NL/000206) indirectly addressed the threats posed to the vation status of heathlands, even though
Member States do not mention LIFE in
amphibians, reptiles and invertebrates found in the area. It has also
their reports. The challenge for the future
improved the site as a habitat for wintering birds. Combating the destruc- is, therefore, to ensure a wider uptake of
tion of heathlands in Dorset (UK) also helped to stabilise the population these new techniques and approaches
of nesting birds, which was decreasing. in order to improve the impact at Euro-
pean level.
57
LIFE Focus I LIFE improving the conservation status of species and habitats : Habitats Directive Article 17 report
WETLANDS
LIFE helps restore vital
wetland ecosystems
LIFE has done much to improve the conservation status of wetlands, one of Europe’s
most threatened habitat types.
A n estimated 6% of the Earth’s

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

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

WETLANDS : BLANKET BOGS
restoration in the UK
and Ireland
Within the EU, active blanket bog is mainly found in the UK and Ireland. The LIFE pro-
gramme has already helped improve the habitat’s status in these countries and contin-
ues to support restoration efforts.
B lanket bogs develop where the

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

and restore mire habitats, the LIFE pro-
gramme has supported five projects in the
UK and one in Ireland, with another project
getting underway in the UK in 2010 (LIFE08
NAT/UK/000202). The projects have made Blanket bog habitats are recovering after management of the water levels.
a major contribution at a national, biogeo-
graphical and EU level. The ‘improving’ extraction and forestry are widespread, these activities has been a key conserva-
assessment for the UK is probably partly numerous and not easily controlled, tion problem which has been addressed
a result of the projects, since the assess- due largely to the nature of the damag- by several LIFE projects.
ment makes specific mention of the LIFE ing operations, the remoteness of the
project, ‘Restoring active blanket bog of sites and the large areas over which Developing restoration
European importance in North Scotland’ they occur. Moreover, peatland habitats techniques
(LIFE00 NAT/UK/007075). are particularly sensitive to hydrological
changes brought about by drainage for The first LIFE project to target blan-
The threats facing blanket bogs, such agricultural improvement, forestry and ket bogs was the ‘Conservation of
as drainage, burning, overgrazing, peat peat extraction. The lack of control over Active Blanket Bog in Scotland and
Northern Ireland’ project (LIFE94 NAT/
UK/000802), which raised awareness
Conservation status
Habitat area about the threats to the vast 400 000
at Member State /
Habitats Projects targeted by ha Flow Country of north Scotland and
region level
the projects began to champion the natural values of
(main regions)
this remote corner of the British Isles
7130 – Unfavourable- LIFE94 NAT/UK/000802 <50%
Blanket bogs bad (Atlantic) and LIFE98 NAT/UK/005432 A second project, ‘The Border Mires-
(* active only) Favourable (Alpine) LIFE00 NAT/UK/007075 Active Blanket Bog Rehabilitation
LIFE02 NAT/IRL/008490 Project’ (LIFE98 NAT/UK/005432),
was located in the Kielder Forest area
of northern England. The principal
59
objective was to restore about 2 000 publishing a paper on the advantages
WETLANDS : BLANKET BOGS

ha of blanket bog on 20 sites within and disadvantages of different materi-
the Border Mires Kielder-Butterburn als for this purpose. Other LIFE projects
part of the Natura 2000 network and, have drawn inspiration from this pio-
in particular, to extend the area of blan- neering work.
ket bog by means of tree removal. The
LIFE makes plans

project focused on the Natura 2000
sites in the wider border mires area of for Scotland
raised and blanket bog sites (59 sites in
total). The project exceeded its objec- A second LIFE project in the Flow Coun-
tives and managed to complete around try, using the tried and tested techniques
a quarter of the tasks set by the Border for conifer removal and damming of drain-
Mires Management Committee for this age ditches, successfully restored large The drainage channels of large bogs were
complex and vast site. This is an exam- areas of blanket bog in Caithness and commonly blocked with peat.
ple of LIFE funding acting as a catalyst Sutherland, in north Scotland, between
in what was originally foreseen as a July 2001 and December 2006. The areas, blocking ditches to restore the
20-year programme of restoration but project, ‘Restoring active blanket bog of integrity of the bogs’ hydrological systems,
was in fact completed in 2009 ahead European importance in North Scotland removing forestry plantations of poor qual-
of schedule. (LIFE00 NAT/UK/007075), purchased ity on 500 ha of bog that was still capable
1 556 ha of afforested blanket bog and of natural regeneration, and removal of
In total, 500 ha of mires were partially removed the plantations. It also acquired naturally regenerated trees. The overall
restored through the LIFE project, 2 275 ha of active blanket bog, and drain aim of the project was to demonstrate that
improving the condition of the sites blocking benefitted the condition of more the restoration of suitable active blanket
from ‘unfavourable’ to ‘unfavourable- than 18 000 ha of peatlands. bog sites is a real management option for
recovering’: it may take another 20 afforested peatlands.
years before the sites can be said to be A crucial element of this project was the
in ‘favourable condition’. development (led by Scottish Natural Conclusions
Heritage) of the ‘Peatlands of Caithness
The target of clearing 197 ha of conifers & Sutherland Management Strategy The LIFE programme has undoubtedly
was exceeded. The project tried several 2005-2015’. The strategy is the prin- made a significant difference to the con-
techniques of tree removal: cutting and cipal means of securing the long-term servation status of blanket bogs in the UK
chipping on-site, felling to waste, cable- benefits of the project and the sustain- and Ireland. There has been good shar-
craning to lift whole trees clear of the able management of the peatlands, by ing of experience between the projects
bog, conventional harvesting techniques bringing together the conservation aims and the development of landscape-scale
and killing standing trees by ring-bark- of the project beneficiary (the Royal Soci- strategies for the long-term management
ing or herbicide. Increasing the area ety for the Protection of Birds) and the of the habitat.
free from the effects of afforestation will economic objectives of local stakehold-
increase the likelihood of recolonisation ers. This has led to the formation of a LIFE Nature continues to actively sup-
with Annex I habitat species. Peatlands Partnership that will continue port blanket bog restoration in the region
to work towards the key objectives of the through an ongoing project, ‘Restoring
The project refined techniques for dam- strategic plan. active blanket bog in the Berwyn and
ming drainage ditches in peat bogs, Migneint SACs in Wales’ (LIFE06 NAT/
Restoring active blanket UK/000134), and a project, ‘Active blan-
bog in Ireland ket bog restoration in the South Pen-
By removing trees it is possible to enhance
nine Moors (LIFE08 NAT/UK/000202),
natural regeneration of the bog.
Networking between LIFE projects in the starting in 2010. The Welsh project,
early 2000s helped Coillte Teoranta (the which runs until March 2011, seeks to
Irish Forestry Board) establish the project, implement restoration and conservation
‘Restoring active blanket bog in Ireland’ actions over 5 039 ha of the Berwyn and
(LIFE02 NAT/IRL/008490), the first of its South Clwyd Mountains SAC, benefiting
kind in Ireland to be run by a key Natura 2 955 ha of blanket bog within the con-
2000 landowner and stakeholder. Using servation area. Practical restoration and
its own land, Coillte Teoranta carried out conservation actions will also be carried
an extensive restoration programme on out over 440 ha of the Migneint Arenig

14 sites covering more than 1 200 ha. Dduallt SAC, benefiting 274 ha of blanket
bog habitat. The South Pennines project
Actions included erecting stock-proof in England targets the restoration of 1600
fences to control grazing on open bog ha of blanket bog.
60
WETLANDS : MIRES
Photo: Mikko Tiira

Blocking ditches to bring back
aapa mires
Finland’s aapa mires are under threat from inappropriate land use and management. LIFE
is helping to improve the ‘unfavourable-inadequate’ status of this important habitat.
W i t h i n t h e h a b i t a t g ro u p
of bogs, mires and fens,
aapa mires (7310) are limited to the
with ‘structure’, ‘function’ and ‘future
prospects’ considered poor in both
Finland and Sweden, and ‘area’ also
A number of LIFE projects in Finland
have targeted this important habitat.
Restoration of mires in each case was
northern Boreal region and the adja- poor in Finland. Threats and pressures achieved through blocking and filling
cent part of the Alpine region. They are mostly related to inappropriate of ditches and, in some cases, through
are complexes of several types of land use and management, including the removal of excess trees.
mires, such as string fens, flarks and drainage to boost commercial forest
unraised bog moss (Sphagnum) spp. growth – though this intervention was LIFE and Finland’s aapa
While the conservation status of this unsuccessful in several mires as trees mires
habitat is ‘favourable’ in the Alpine (mainly pine) did not grow. The mires
region, it is assessed as ‘unfavoura- were lost without gaining any commer- The LIFE project, ‘Protection of aapa
ble-inadequate’ for the Boreal region, cially valuable forests. mire wilderness in Ostrobothnia and
61
Kainuu’ (LIFE02 NAT/FIN/008469), ods were used to recreate flarks, peat servation purposes and a further 225
WETLANDS : MIRES
drew up 12 restoration plans for mires, banks and former streams to recreate ha leased on a five-year contract. The
forest, old forest roads and meadows, the former hydrological conditions. project restored some 80 ha of mires,
which have now been fully imple- as well as wet meadows and forests.
mented (some after the project ended). An earlier project, ‘Protection and
Some 924 ha (mainly aapa mires) were usage of aapa mires with a rich avi- Conclusions
acquired by the state for nature conser- fauna’ (LIFE00 NAT/FIN/007060), tar-
vation purposes and a total of 606 ha of geted the central Lapland aapa mire Thanks to LIFE, thousands of hectares
aapa mires were restored. The project zone, which is important as a nesting, of mires have been being restored
also restored 154 ha of mainly boreal resting and feeding area for birds. The and their recovery is being monitored.
forests (9010) through controlled burn- 48 200 ha area covered by the project Projects selected areas on the basis of
ing and increasing the amount of dead- is home to 1 800 pairs of wood sandpi- expected results: increased water levels
wood, 10 km of old forest roads and 2.4 pers (Tringa clareola), 400 pairs of ruffs leading to thriving Sphagnum mosses
ha of meadows. In addition, extensive (Philomachus pugnax) and 180 pairs and the return of mire birds. However,
basic inventories of habitats, bracket of golden plovers (Pluvialis apricaria), restoring mires is a long-term invest-
fungi, birds, epiphytic lichens and his- as well as bears, wolves and wolver- ment and results are mostly visible
torical land use were taken as a basis ines. The Annex-II listed plant species only several decades after restoration.
for the management plans. An ecologi- Hamatocaulis lapponicus, Ranunculus A recently approved project in Finland
cal survey and conservation plan was lapponicus and Saxifraga hirculus also (LIFE08 NAT/FIN/000596) is aiming to
also drawn up for the moss species grow in the area. restore the conservation status of mires
Hamatocaulis lapponicus. (and aapa mires in particular) in 54
The project drew up management plans Natura 2000 sites, and another project
‘Karelian mires and virgin forests - pearls for five areas, and more than 6 300 ha (LIFE08 NAT/S/000268) is aiming to
in the chain of geohistory’ (LIFE03 of land was acquired for nature con- restore mires in 35 sites in Sweden.
NAT/FIN/000036) set out to restore the
boreal old-growth forests of northern
Water levels in the aapa mires have increased thanks to LIFE actions.
Karelia, which act as ’stepping stones’
for species between Russian forests
and those in Finland. The mires of this
region are equally important since they
make up the transition zone between
aapa mires and active raised bogs.
As part of a wider series of actions,

the project restored a total of 479 ha
of mires by blocking and filling approxi-
mately 125 km of ditches. As a result
of these actions the water level in the
restored mires has increased, leading to
the recovery of typical mire vegetation,
butterflies and birds.
The project, ‘the Natural Forests and

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

by filling and blocking ditches and by
clearing excess trees. Innovative meth-
62
WETLANDS : RAISED BOGS
Photo: Justin Toland

Raised bog restoration
in Europe
An exemplary project in the Irish Midlands provides a great insight into the actions LIFE
projects across Europe have taken to restore active raised bog habitats.
T he most significant areas of active

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

with Coillte Teoranta’s objective of man-
aging 15% of its estate for biodiversity.
Within a total project area of 571 ha, the

beneficiary removed almost 450 ha of
plantations and blocked drains to restore
raised bog habitat. Building on the resto-
ration techniques pioneered in earlier LIFE
projects in the UK and Ireland (includ-
ing LIFE02 NAT/IRL/8490), the project
sought to have its own dissemination
Photo: Jan Sliva
effect, with two sites – at Cloonshanville

Bog near Frenchpark in Co. Roscommon
and Carn Park Bog near Baylin Village in
Drain blocks have improved the water levels on the raised bogs.
Co. Westmeath – turned into demonstra-
tion sites for restoration techniques and
for general awareness-raising. ha on the 240 ha SAC near Frenchpark. include cranberry (Vaccinium oxycoc-
The actions took place on land neigh- cus), cross-leaved heath (Erica tetralix),
Visiting Cloonshanville bouring 152 ha of intact bog. The veg- bog asphodel (Narthecium ossifragum)
Bog etation of this intact area is dominated and common cottongrass (Eriophorum
by common heather (Calluna vulgaris), angustifolium), as well as a large popu-
As site manager John Tarney explains, deer grass (Trichophorum cespitosum) lation of Sphagnum pulchrum, a rare
conifer plantations were removed and and hare’s tail cottongrass (Eriopho- species of peatmoss in the Republic of
drains blocked in three areas totalling 34 rum vaginatum). Other frequent species Ireland. The SAC also contains 14 ha of
Other LIFE Nature projects targeting raised bogs

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

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

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

Photo: Jan Sliva
65
Restoring
O T H E R W E T L A N D S : C O A S TA L L A G O O N S
coastal lagoons
to a favourable status
Europe’s coastal lagoons are reported as having an unfavour-
able status. LIFE is supporting projects that aim to improve this
situation.
C oastal lagoons are found in all

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

temporary ponds
A priority habitat for conservation
listed in the Habitats Directive,
MTPs are vulnerable to human activities
and changes to their natural dynamic.
Their continued existence is threatened
by agricultural practices and land man-
agement that does not take into account
their particular requirements.
Conservation efforts have, as a result,

aimed to reverse the negative effects of
Photo: LIFE05 NAT/ES/00058
these activities and to restore the eco-

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

land-owners to commit them to manag-
ing the land according to the plans.
A Spanish project in Valencia (LIFE05

NAT/E/000060), which aimed to protect
amphibians, also resulted in important
limnological discoveries. It surveyed,
characterised and classified all tempo-
rary ponds hosting amphibian species.
Restoration has also been the focus

of LIFE projects. The Karst project
cleaned and removed invasive flora and
fauna from 45 ponds. Restoration also
included deepening the bottoms of the
ponds and their subsequent sealing
The main LIFE project actions were to restore the winter water levels and quality of ponds.
with a layer of clay, and the replanting of
native vegetation. In the case of a Span-
ish project in La Albuera, Extremadura edge of the habitat and management of long-term survival of this habitat. The
(LIFE03 NAT/E/000052), restoration temporary ponds, not only on the seven Crete project made extensive efforts to
included reconnecting a lagoon com- sites of the project, but also in the French inform the local communities and to enlist
plex that had been drained and altered Mediterranean area in general. Experi- the support of local authorities in the
by agricultural practices. The negative mental management work took place on conservation of the ponds. The Minorca
impact of overgrazing was tackled by most of the sites, including scrub clearing, project constructed a temporary pond
constructing alternative water points for digging-out of pools, removal of invasive for educational purposes. The Slovenian
livestock and through fencing and shore exotic species, and restoration of filled-in project carried out a particularly strong
restoration. pools. Most of this work was accompa- awareness campaign that included estab-
nied by careful monitoring of its impact, lishing an information centre for tourists
In addition to restoration measures, the in order to draw lessons that could be and visitors that has a permanent exhibi-
LIFE projects dealing with the creation of of relevance elsewhere. The project pro- tion about the ponds.
a network of flora microreserves in the duced a ponds management handbook.
Valencia region (LIFE93 NAT/E/011100, The conservation status of the seven sites Conclusions
LIFE99 NAT/E/006417) included land directly targeted by the project was signifi-
purchase as a long-term protection of cantly improved. LIFE projects have successfully demon-
this type of habitat. strated how the unfavourable conserva-
Finally, awareness raising and the involve- tion status of MTPs can be improved in
The French project (LIFE99 NAT/ ment of land owners and the local com- Crete, France, Spain and Slovenia. This
F/006304) helped to increase the knowl- munity have had a positive effect on the type of habitat has a very quick and
positive response to simple restoration
Project actions involved the clearing of scrubs and the elimination of invasive species.
and management actions, with results
seen in the very short-term, as showed
by these projects. While having only a
local impact, these projects have helped
to gain knowledge of a habitat that was
scarcely studied, contributing to an
increased representation of MTPs in the
Natura 2000 network and to the discovery
of new species in the regions covered. In
addition, the French project pushed for a
resolution calling for the conservation of
temporary pools that was adopted at the
eighth Ramsar Conference in November
2002. It is hoped that through the spread

of best practise implemented success-
fully by LIFE projects, an overall good
conservation status of this habitat will
be achieved across Europe.
68
Though often only a few square metres in area, petrifying springs with tufa formation
OTHER WETLANDS : PETRIFYING SPRINGS
and their immediate surroundings are a valuable and unique habitat for certain species.
LIFE conservation of a special

habitat: petrifying
springs with tufa formation
M any petrifying springs have

suffered from human interfer-
ence such as attempts to make them
LIFE actions
One of the largest concentrations of pet-

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

restoring the natural conditions for this
unique micro-habitat can have a ben-
eficial effect on its long-term survival. A
wide range of site-specific hydromor-
phological actions have been carried
out at strategically important sites in
Europe.
69
Wet forests are dependent on the good management of the river
WET FORESTS
systems and the catchment areas on which they rely. A decrease
in water levels, as a result of water abstraction and drainage, and
regulation of watercourses, has resulted in the ‘unfavourable bad’
conservation status of this habitat in all regions.
LIFE conserving
Photo: Jan Sliva
wet forests
P oor water quality resulting from

agricultural run-off, industrial
effluents or rubbish dumping, expansive
project (LIFE97 NAT/UK/004242) high-
lighted problems relating to the hydrolog-
ical networks on which they depend. The
and strategic approach to the manage-
ment of the water basins, supported by
local interest groups and communities.
spreading of aggressive invasive spe- new project created a Water Basin Man- Direct actions included mire restora-
cies and large-scale plantations of pop- agement Forum, made up of key statu- tion, the re-installment of debris dams to
lar hybrids in river alluvia are factors that tory agencies and stakeholder groups. restore natural river channel features, the
adversely affect the status of wet forests. Its remit was to introduce an integrated restoration of alluvial forests, bog wood-
Moreover, the richness of the associated
soils has made them attractive for con- Alluvial forests (91E0) is a habitat that has greatly benefited from LIFE projects.
version to agriculture, particularly in the
uplands. The abundance of semi-natural
habitats and interconnecting features
within the wider countryside has also
declined, increasing ecological isola-
tion.
Wet forests are a varied habitat type that

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

actions that LIFE has demonstrated for
this habitat is the adoption of an inte-
grated management approach. A LIFE
Photo: Jan Sliva
project (LIFE02 NAT/UK/008544) car-

ried out in the UK’s New Forest focused
on restoring woodlands, which an earlier
70
land and wet grassland habitats, and the success of the NIMOS project (LIFE95 to come to the surface and sediments of
WET FORESTS
creation of conditions to allow the natural NAT/IT/000742) in the Trento province of the surrounding pools were removed. In
regeneration of these habitats. Italy was also dependent on the partici- some areas, the pools were enlarged to
pation of local farmers. create new open waters. The efficiency
Alluvial forests with common alder of these measures was reduced by
(Alnus glutinosa) and European ash Another important conservation action canals in the area, which took off sur-
(Fraxinus excelsior) (91E0) is a habitat for wet forests is information gathering. face water and caused periodic lowering
that has benefitted from several other Alder woodlands are strongly affected by of the water table, mostly during winter
LIFE projects. The objective of the Slo- the changes in water availability, and the periods. To avoid these problems, canal
vakian project (LIFE03 NAT/SK/000097) Pavia project focused therefore on moni- profiles and existing throughways were
was to preserve the last remaining nat- toring the water table. The data gathered reshaped and specially shaped metal
ural floodplain forests in the Slovakian allowed comparisons to be made for the and wooden sluices were installed to
part of the Danube floodplain, and to first time of water tables by geological retain water and regulate water levels in
introduce sustainable forest manage- location, season, irrigation and land use some areas.
ment in the area. Most of the residual of the surrounding areas. Additionally,
alluvial forests within the project area field surveys were carried out in order Conclusions
were under real threat of being cut to classify the botanical value of the
down or degraded by forest manage- area and to explore differences between Actions carried out by LIFE projects point
ment practices. These forest habitats woodlands managed according to differ- the way forward for the conservation of
benefited from the change of forest ent criteria. wet forests, namely, the restoration of
management plans, designation of new whole floodplain systems, the regen-
nature reserves (or enlargement of exist- To achieve the favourable conservation eration of natural ground water tables
ing ones) and large-scale removal of status of alder forests, water should be and the stopping of unfavourable man-
invasive tree species. present above or close to the surface agement practices. Wide-scale imple-
throughout the year. Hence, springs, mentation of such measures will greatly
An Austrian project (LIFE04 NAT/ which had long been abandoned, were contribute to the improvement of the
AT/000001) focused on the river Laf- drilled in order to allow the upper aquifer conservation status of this habitat.
nitz, one of the last lowland rivers in the
country to have retained a semi-natural
Reconnecting floodplains and improving water levels have benefited wet forest habitats.
state, having been left to meander with-
out intervention for over three-quar-
ters of its 112 km course. As a result,
it hosts numerous Annex II-listed fish
species, amphibians and Annex I-listed
birds in and around its loops, oxbow
lakes, side channels and associated
alluvial forests. The entire river area has
been designated an EU Special Area of
Conservation within the Natura 2000
network.
Alder forests were also targeted by an

Italian project (LIFE03 NAT/IT/000109) in
the Pavia province. Changes in irrigation
systems and irrigation canals, a reduc-
tion in the level of the water table and
invading exotic vegetation had impacted
on the conservation status of the for-
est. To combat these threats the project
extended reforested and flooded areas,
created new wetlands, and restored
hydrological systems.
A key aspect of the project was the

active involvement of local farmers in
the interventions. For the maintenance
Photo: Jan Sliva
of these results, especially the hydrologi-

cal system, their involvement is vital. The
71
The vast majority of pannonic grasslands and steppe habitats are found in the
G R A S S L A N D S : PA N N O M I C G R A S S L A N D S
Pannonian biogeographical region, though some of these habitats also occur in adja-
cent parts of the Continental region. Under threat from changes in agricultural prac-
tices and inappropriate land use, Member States report that their conservation status
is ‘unfavourable-bad’.
Stepping up actions to
conserve pannonic
grasslands
T he characteristic pannonic grass-

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

following actions: the re-introduction
of appropriate levels of grazing (with
low inputs and low stocking densities
accompanied by late mowing), hydro-
logical works for the restoration of wet
grasslands and marshes and the clearing
of encroaching woodlands. Particularly
successful are actions to encourage the
reintroduction of hardy grazing stock of
endemic or native breeds of cattle, such
Photo: Jan Sliva
as Hungarian flecked and Hungarian

grey, Racka sheep, goats and Mangalica
pigs.
72
National Park’ (LIFE02 NAT/H/008634),

G R A S S L A N D S : PA N N O M I C G R A S S L A N D S
whose main focus was the large-scale

restoration of 10 000 ha of the grass-
land habitats that had been adversely
affected by a complex network of dykes
and channels built as an irrigation sys-
tem during the socialist era. The project
re-established the natural water-flow
dynamics to create more favourable
habitat conditions. At the same time,
extensive cattle grazing was introduced
in certain areas.
Two other LIFE projects (LIFE02 NAT/

H/008638 and LIFE04 NAT/HU/000119)
have also focused on the restoration
of dry and wet grasslands and salt
Photo: Jan Sliva
marshes in the Hortobágy region. The

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

species-rich Nardus grasslands, included in Annex I of the Habitats Directive, occurs in
almost all EU Member States. However, due to the abandonment of traditional agricul-
tural practices, these priority grasslands have lost more than 90% of their original area
in Europe and Member States report a sharp decline across all regions.
Concerted action to halt

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

conservation of Nardus and other
mountain grasslands found in the “Alpe
Photo: Conny Schmitz
Veglia-Alpe Devero” national park in

the Ossola valley, on the Italian-Swiss
border. The main habitat actions of the
project, ‘Alpe Veglia and Alpe Devero:
74
GRASSLANDS : NARDUS GRASSLAND
Photo: Conny Schmitz

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

species-rich dry
calcareous grasslands
Semi-natural dry grasslands are under threat, especially those associated with vari-
ous orchid species. Many Member States report that the conservation status in their
countries is ‘unfavourable-bad’. LIFE projects, however, are having a positive impact
on the conservation status of these priority grasslands at a local and regional level.
Importantly, they demonstrate new approaches to their conservation with potential for
wider application.
Photo: LIFE04 NAT/IE/000125
S emi-natural dry grasslands are

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

GRASSLANDS : SEMI-NATRUAL DRY GRASSLAND
Many species benefit from DRY LAND HABITAT and international agri-environmental pro-
restoration actions grammes for at least five years after the
As well as rare and endangered orchids, many other species – herbs such end of the project in 2008.
as trefoil, grazing animals, butterflies, reptiles and birds – benefit from

Finally, LIFE Nature projects in Austria
habitat improvement and restoration actions. For example, raptors and (LIFE06 NAT/A/000123) and in Germany
other birds of prey such as lanner falcon (Falco biarmicus) and Montagu’s (LIFE00 NAT/D/007058 and LIFE02 NAT/
harrier (Circus pygargus) rely on these grassland habitats for an abundant D/008461) have shown considerable suc-
cess in the restoration and conservation
food supply during winter. Many passerine (migrating) species including
of areas of dry and semi-dry grasslands.
the ortolan bunting (Emberiza hortulana) and the woodlark (Lullula arbo-
The German project targeted the special
rea) also use the habitats; while a number of invertebrate fauna – notably xeric grasslands of Rhineland-Palatinate
butterflies – are also associated with these grasslands. –- home to up to 25 species of rare and
endangered orchids (including Cypripe-
dum calcedus, Ophrys insectifea, Orchis
A regional project to restore natural cant areas of other grasslands habitats mascula and Himantoglassum hircinum)
pastures and hay meadows in Jämtland in Denmark. – under threat from invading shrubs and
and Härjedalen, Sweden, (LIFE03 NAT/ human actions. Thanks to the project, 76
S/000070) used a combination of these The project’s habitat conservation works ha of xeric grasslands have been suc-
measures to restore various grass- included clearing, mowing and graz- cessfully restored and a long-term man-
land habitats, including the orchid-rich ing with hardy breeds of cattle, horses, agement plan put in place to preserve a
(6210*) habitat type over 31 Natura 2000 sheep and goats. The project helped to unique natural resource.
sites. The project achieved a good level promote agri-environmental contracts
of co-operation with local farmers and, under the Danish Rural Development Conclusions
in particular, helped to promote good Programme whereby local farmers have
grassland management practices, sup- undertaken to maintain grazing in certain Despite their continuing unfavourable-
ported by agri-environment schemes, areas for the next ten years. The project bad condition, prospects for achiev-
among the mainly small-scale farming also successfully reintroduced the large ing favourable conservation status for
communities. blue butterfly (Maculinea arion) at one priority dry and calcareous grasslands
site – this is especially significant as the in areas of northern Europe have been
Another very successful large-scale butterfly is considered an indicator spe- enhanced by LIFE actions at a local and
Swedish project is the 2000-05 LIFE cies for habitat quality. regional level. Moreover, LIFE has also
project to protect important grass- been a driver of stakeholder co-opera-
lands over 18 sites within the agricul- In Latvia, a nationwide programme for tion among communities responsible for
tural landscape of the island of Öland the restoration and long-term manage- the future sustainable management of
(LIFE00 NAT/S/007117). This project ment of priority and other important dry these grasslands.
– a continuation of an earlier 1996-99 and calcareous grasslands occurring in
project (LIFE96 NAT/S/003185) in the floodplain meadows was introduced by
These xeric grasslands are of special bio-
same region – successfully cleared and a LIFE project (LIFE04 NAT/LV/000198). geographical importance since they straddle
restored to a favourable conservation Run by a non-governmental organisation, the divide between the sub-Mediterranean/
Atlantic and Continental climactic areas.
status more than 1 400 ha of calcareous the Latvian Fund for Nature, the ‘Mead- Rhineland-Palatinate represents the northern
grasslands, mostly the priority habitat ows’ project restored a total of 2 500 ha limit of propagation for many species that are
otherwise more native to the Mediterranean
type Nordic Alvar grasslands (6280*) but of grasslands of Community importance
area or the Balkans.
also the orchid-rich grasslands (6210*). over 15 sites, including about a half of
Latvian area of Fennoscandian wooded
As in other parts of Europe, Denmark’s meadows (6530), considerable patches
dry grasslands are under threat from the of Species-rich Nardus grasslands (6230),
combined effects of scrub encroach- Fennoscandian lowland species-rich dry
ment, lack of grazing and the invasion to mesic grasslands (6270), semi-natu-
of non-native species. The LIFE project ral dry grasslands and scrubland facies
(LIFE04 NAT/DK/000020) launched a on calcareous substrates (6210). The
national strategy to restore many valu- main actions focused on shrub cutting
able Danish grassland sites within the and removal of shrub roots, controlled
Natura 2000 network to a favourable burning and early mowing/grazing. To
conservation status. The 11 project ensure the continuity of the manage-
sites house a quarter of the priority dry ment activities, contracts were signed on
grasslands (6210*), as well as signifi- the agreement that landowners involved
77
Wooded pastures and meadows have been disappearing in the Fennoscandia and Baltic.
GRASSLANDS : FENNOSCANDIAN GRASSLAND

LIFE is contributing to the reversal of the decline of these rich habitats by restoring and
re-establishing management for their long-term conservation.
Safeguarding Fennoscandian
wooded pastures
and meadows
A s late as the 1920s, forest graz-

ing was the predominant form
of pasture in Sweden and other Nordic
Baltic countries – in Finland, the practice
continued up to the 1960s. However, in
Sweden and Finland a major shift in the
landscape followed the introduction of
Photo: ROSORIS LIFE05 NAT/S/000108
a law establishing forestry activities as

the economic basis of forestland. In Bal-
tic countries the decline in forest graz-
ing followed the collapse of the Soviet
Union. Cattle were removed from the
woodland pastures and meadows and
put to graze in fertilised grasslands and
subsequently enclosures where they LIFE project actions for wooded meadows and grasslands often included mowing or
were artificially fed. grazing, reintroduced in partnership with local farmers.
After 1945, the wooded grassland and trees are not pollarded. A similar pas- ing for collecting fallen twigs, mowing
meadow habitats (9070 and 6530 in ture habitat, the ‘dehesa’ or ‘montados’ after midsummer followed by grazing
the Habitat directive) suffered a drastic (6310), is found in Spain and Portugal, and pollarding of trees (i.e. collecting
reduction and almost disappeared, with but consists of evergreen oaks. bundles of young twig for winter fod-
just 1% of the original area still remaining der). Most of the wooded meadows are
in Sweden and Finland. These habitats The impact of mowing or grazing defines found in southwest Finland especially in
are pastures characterised by the more the species composition and richness, the Baltic archipelago.
or less scattered presence of decidu- resulting in meadows or grasslands
ous trees, such as lime tree, ash and respectively. In Sweden, grazing and Moreover, these habitats are very diverse
oak. In addition in Sweden and Finland mowing practices distinguish the two and hold several plant and invertebrate
the wooded meadows broadleaf trees habitat types defined in the Annex I of the species such as the Annex II and IV bee-
are often pollarded for feeding the cat- Habitats Directive: 6530 wooded mead- tle Osmoderma eremita.
tle, creating typical candlestick-shaped ows (mowing) and 9070, wooded grass-
trees. lands (grazed). These habitats occur LIFE Actions
together in a mosaic and are sometimes
Wooded meadows (6530) are a mosaic related to other grasslands/meadows or All projects included actions that can
of open meadows and scattered decid- forest habitat types. More than 70% of be divided into two stages: first the res-
uous trees and bush. It is a very spe- the 9070 habitat area is in Sweden, with toration of the grassland and meadow,
cies-rich habitat type with up to 85 the remaining in Estonia, Finland and followed by recurring habitat manage-
vascular plants in 1m2 (wooded mead- Latvia. And the bulk of the habitat 6530 ment activities based on mowing and/
ows are often combined with calcare- area is in Estonia and Sweden. or grazing and in a few cases pollarding
ous grasslands and may have very rich was also re-established. For example,
orchid flora). Wooded pastures (9070) Typical management practices that are in one Swedish project (LIFE05 NAT/
have fewer open meadow patches and carried out in Finland include spring rak- S/000108), which was carried out on 41
78
Natura 2000 sites in Östergötland, the Pollarding was not undertaken but pre-
GRASSLANDS : FENNOSCANDIAN GRASSLAND
restoration stage consisted of clear- viously pollarded trees were protected

ing the areas by removing overgrown and their surroundings were opened. In
woods and scrubs – i.e. spruce and Estonia a clearing was made and mowing
other trees were eliminated, while key carried out.
trees species, such as old oaks that
characterise the habitats and grant the For these LIFE projects the challenge is
long-term conservation of the habitat, the continuity of the grazing and mowing
were protected. actions after the project. The projects
are very successful at implementing the
The restoration of the grasslands and restoration measures, but without con-
meadows poses some problems as fol- tinuous management the habitats will
lowing the cutting of trees and scrubs decline once more in species-poor for-
nutrients are released into the soil, favour- est and scrubs habitat. The involvement
Photo: ROSORIS LIFE05 NAT/S/000108

ing nitrofilous species. The continued of the farmers and cattle owners from
success of one Swedish project (LIFE02 the beginning of the project is crucial for
NAT/S/008484) is dependent on immedi- the success of the project actions.
ate grazing and mowing after restoration.
Grazing is mostly done by cattle (though According to one Swedish project
sheep and horses are also sometimes (LIFE05 NAT/S/000108), the cost of res-
used) from spring to autumn, and hay is toration is on average around € 2 000 per
mowed between July and September. In hectare, including the first pollarding, and In Sweden LIFE projects have reintro-
the case of wooded meadows, the winter the mowing around € 2 000 per ha per duced pollarding as a restoration action.
stock is fed with the stored mowed hay year. In order to ensure the continuity of
as well as with leaves and more tender the mowing and grazing activities, the meadows. A recent project (LIFE08
branches of pollard trees.The pollarding Latvian project (LIFE04 NAT/LV/000198) NAT/S/000262) proposes to restore
has almost disappeared as livestock is and the Finnish project, (LIFE00 NAT/ more than 600 ha of grasslands and
now fed artificially. FIN/007067), which also included Swe- meadow habitats including wooded
den and Estonia, signed contracts with ones. Moreover, the projects have
The Östergötland project (LIFE05 NAT/ the landowners that will apply for fund- defined techniques and methodologies
S/000108) is resuming pollarding of old ing under agri-environmental schemes that are transferable and are proven to
deciduous trees, especially lime trees and for at least five years after the end of the be successful for the restoration and
ash, in order to benefit the many species project. Therefore, agri-environmental management of these unique habitats.
of flora and fauna that need old trees for schemes included in the new Rural Devel-
their survival, such as the eremite beetle. opment Plan for Latvia for the time period The challenge is to ensure the conti-
The pollarding is performed in the tradi- of 2007-13 will be the main financial tool nuity of the project actions after the
tional way but also with new techniques for the maintenance of the habitats. The project ends. LIFE is giving support to
with the help of experts, in order to LIFE projects combined offered hundreds the implementation of best practices
enhance the tree’s longevity and the res- of farmers assistance with applying for for the management of these habitats
toration of the former pollarded trees. In funds for grassland management of the and the European Agricultural Fund for
addition, new oak trees are being planted projects areas. Rural Development has the potential to
in the project sites to ensure its long- fund the recurring actions that are rel-
term conservation. In the Finnish project Conclusions evant for wooded pastures and mead-
(LIFE00 NAT/FIN/007067), wooded ows. These actions have to be covered
meadows were cleared and typical spring Though on a small scale, LIFE projects in National Strategic Plans and related
raking, mowing and grazing was initiated have been improving the conservation Rural Development plans in order to be
in island pastures in southwest Finland. status of the wooded grasslands and eligible at the national level. Costs for
grazing and mowing these habitats are
Habitats Conservation Status Relevant projects mainly eligible for agri-environmental
subsidies within this programme.
6530* – Fennoscandian Unfavourable-bad LIFE02 NAT/S/008484
wooded meadows (Boreal) LIFE05 NAT/S/000108
The LIFE+ programme does not finan-
LIFE00 NAT/FIN/007067
cially support recurring management
9070 – Fennoscandian Unfavourable-bad LIFE04 NAT/LV/000198 but projects that promote recurring
wooded pastures (Boreal) LIFE02 NAT/S/008484 management. LIFE+ can be used for
LIFE03 NAT/S/000070 implementing restoration measures but
LIFE05 NAT/S/000108 continued management must be funded
LIFE00 NAT/FIN/007067 from other sources.
79
Projects Index
AUSTRIA LIFE05 NAT/DK/000151 LIFE02 NAT/D/008461

Action for sustaining the population Restoration and conservation of xeric
LIFE00 NAT/A/007055 of Euphydryas aurinia........................ p. 30 grasslands in Germany
Schütt-Dobratsch............................... p. 17 (Rheinland-Pfalz)................................ p. 76
LIFE00 NAT/A/007069 ESTONIA LIFE03 NAT/D/000002
Protecting the habitat of myosotis Measures of optimisation of
LIFE00 NAT/EE/007081
rehsteineri in Bregenz........................ p. 38 petrifying springs with tufa formation
Recovery of Mustela lutreola in
LIFE02 NAT/A/008519 (Cratoneurion) and their surroundings
Estonia: captive and island
Conservation and management of in the Franconian Alb......................... p. 68
populations.................................... p. 9, 23
the brown bear in Austria.................. p. 17 LIFE04 NAT/DE/000028
LIFE00 NAT/EE/007082
LIFE04 NAT/AT/000001 Management of fire-bellied toads in
Restoration and management of the
Lafnitz - habitat cross-linking on an the Baltic region................................. p. 25
Häädemeeste wetland complex........ p. 63
Alpine pannonical river...................... p. 70 LIFE05 NAT/D/000051
LIFE04 NAT/AT/000002 FINLAND Large Herbivores for Maintenance
Pannonic Steppes and Dry and Conservation of Coastal
Grasslands.......................................... p. 72 LIFE00 NAT/FIN/007060 Heaths................................................. p. 56
Protection and usage of aapa mires
LIFE06 NAT/A/000123 LIFE05 NAT/D/000053
with a rich avifauna............................ p. 61
Bisamberg habitat management....... p. 76 Rosenheimer master basin bogs...... p. 63
LIFE05 NAT/D/000055
Restoration and management of
BELGIUM Protection and cultivation of the
meadows in Finland, Sweden and
Juniper heaths of the Osteifel........... p. 56
LIFE96 NAT/B/003032 Estonia..................................................p. 78
Integral Coastal Conservation LIFE06 NAT/D/000008
Initiative............................................... p. 51 Conservation and regeneration of
Protection of aapa mire wilderness
Nardus Grasslands in Central
LIFE98 NAT/B/005167 in Ostrobothnia and Kainuu......... p. 61, 64
Europe................................................. p. 74
Habitat improvement in the SAC of LIFE03 NAT/FIN/000036
the Brussels-Capital Region............. p. 14 Karelian mires and virgin forests - GREECE
LIFE99 NAT/B/006298 pearls in the chain of geohistory p. 61, 63
Intermediate Atlantic heathlands in LIFE93 NAT/GR/010800
LIFE04 NAT/FI/000078
the Flanders........................................ p. 56 Protection and Management of the
Natural Forests and mires in the
Population and Habitats of Ursus
LIFE02 NAT/B/008591 ‘Green Belt’ of Koillismaa and
arctos in Greece (first phase)...... p. 16, 17
FEYDRA: Fossil Estuary of the Yzer Kainuu.................................................. p. 61
Dunes Restoration Action.................. p. 51 LIFE95 NAT/GR/001115
Recovery of the Loggerhead Sea
LIFE06 NAT/B/000087 Restoring the Natura 2000 network
Turtle (Caretta caretta) population
Zwindunes Ecological Nature of Boreal Peatland Ecosystems
nesting on Crete................................. p. 26
Optimalisation..................................... p. 51 Boreal Peatland Life........................... p. 61
BULGARIA FRANCE Conservation and management of sites
of community importance in Greece
LIFE08 NAT/BG/000279 LIFE92 ENV/F/000066 (directive 92/43/EEC).......................... p. 42
A Pilot Network of Small Protected Expansion of the tropical green algae
Sites for Plant Species in Bulgaria Caulerpa Taxifolia in the Mediterranean
Conservation of Ursus arctos
Using the Plant Micro-reserve Sea............................................................p. 54
and its habitats in Greece
Model................................................... p. 39 LIFE95 ENV/F/000782 (2nd phase).................................... p. 16, 17
Control of the Caulerpa Taxifolia
CHYPRE extention in the Mediterranean Sea.. p. 54
Implementation of management plan
LIFE04 NAT/CY/000013 LIFE99 NAT/F/006304 for Pylos Lagoon and Evrotas
Conservation management in Conservation of Mediterranean Delta..................................................... p. 26
Natura 2000 sites of Cyprus.............. p. 54 temporary ponds................................ p. 67
LIFE08 NAT/CY/000453 LIFE04 NAT/FR/000080 Application of Management Plan for
Establishment of a Plant Micro-reserve Conservation of 3 cave-dwelling bats Caretta caretta in southern
Network in Cyprus for the Conservation in Southern France............................. p. 12 Kyparissia Bay.................................... p. 26
of Priority Species and Habitats....... p. 39 LIFE04 NAT/FR/000082 LIFE98 NAT/GR/005264
Headwater streams and faunistic Conservation measures for the Palm
DENMARK Heritage associated........................... p. 32 Forest of Vai, Greece.......................... p. 42
LIFE99 NAT/DK/006454 LIFE06 NAT/F/000146 LIFE99 NAT/GR/006498
Consolidation of Bombina bombina Preservation of the coast biodiversity Implementation of Management
in Denmark.......................................... p. 25 on the Gâvres-Quiberon site............. p. 51 Plans in Gramos and Rodopi Areas,
Greece................................................. p. 17
LIFE02 NAT/DK/008584 GERMANY
Restoration of Dune Habitats along LIFE02 NAT/GR/008491
the Danish West Coast....................... p. 51 LIFE99 NAT/D/005940 Conservation management in
Biotope-Network ‘Westlicher Untersee’ Strofylia-Kotychi................................. p. 53
LIFE02 NAT/DK/008588
Improving status of coastal lagoon (Lake Constance)................................ p. 38 LIFE02 NAT/GR/008500
Tryggelev Nor, Denmark - IMAGE..... p. 65 LIFE00 NAT/D/007058 Reduction of mortality of Caretta
Regeneration and preservation of caretta in the Greek seas................... p. 26
LIFE02 NAT/DK/008589
Restoration of Lake Fure dry grassland in Germany............ p. 10, 76 LIFE04 NAT/GR/000104
- a nutrient-rich lake near LIFE02 NAT/D/008458 A pilot network of plant micro-
Copenhagen........................................ p. 57 Large freshwater mussels Unionoidea reserves in Western Crete........... p. 39, 42
LIFE04 NAT/DK/000020 in the border area of Bavaria, Saxonia
Restoration of Dry Grasslands in and the Czech Republic..................... p. 28
Denmark.............................................. p. 76
80
LIFE04 NAT/GR/000105 LIFE00 NAT/IT/007131 THE NETHERLANDS

PROJECTS INDEX
Actions for the conservation of Project URSUS - protection of the

Mediterranean temporary ponds in brown bear population of LIFE04 NAT/NL/000206
Crete.....................................................p. 66 Brenta............................................ p. 16, 17 From degraded to active raised bogs
pSCI Bargerveen ............................... p. 56
LIFE07 NAT/GR/000291 LIFE02 NAT/IT/008533
Demonstration of Conservation Actions Conservation and improvement of LIFE05 NAT/NL/000124
for Ursus artcos - and habitat type habitats inthe SPA of Vendicari......... p. 52 Restoration of dune habitats along
9530 - in Northern Pindos N.P., the Dutch coast.................................. p. 51
Grevena Prefecture, Greece........ p. 16, 17 Alpe Veglia and Alpe Devero: actions LIFE06 NAT/NL/000078
of conservation of mountain Restoring migration possibilities for
HUNGARY grasslands and peatlands...... p. 30, 63, 74 8 Annex II species in the Roer........... p. 35
LIFE02 NAT/H/008634 LIFE03 NAT/IT/000109
Restoration of pannonic steppes, Conservation of Alder woods in POLAND
marshes of Hortobágy National Park p. 72 Lomellina area’s SIC........................... p. 70 LIFE04 NAT/PL/000208
LIFE02 NAT/H/008638 LIFE03 NAT/IT/000113 Conservation of baltic raised bogs in
Habitat management of Hortóbagy Conservation of Acipenser naccarii Pomerania, Poland............................. p. 63
eco-region for bird protection........... p. 72 in the River Ticino and in the middle LIFE06 NAT/PL/000100
reach of the River Po.......................... p. 33 Conservation and upgrading of habitats
LIFE04 NAT/HU/000119
Grassland restoration and marsh LIFE03 NAT/IT/000137 for rare butterflies of wet, semi-natural
protectin in Egyek-Pusztakócs......... p. 72 Austropotamobius pallipes: protection meadows............................................. p. 30
and management in SAC sites of
LIFE05 NAT/H/000117
Central Italy......................................... p. 32 PORTUGAL
Habitat management on the Pannonian
grasslands in Hungary....................... p. 72 LIFE03 NAT/IT/000139
LIFE06 NAT/P/000192
RETICNET. 5 SCI for the conservation
Restoration and Management of
IRELAND of wetlands and main habitats.......... p. 73
Biodiversity in the Marine Park Site
LIFE03 NAT/IT/000147 Arrábida-Espichel............................... p. 54
LIFE02 NAT/IRL/008490
Biocenosis restoration in Valvestino
Restoring Active Blanket Bog
Corno della Marogna 2.......... p. 17, 32, 38 SLOVAKIA
in Ireland........................................ p. 59, 63
LIFE04 NAT/IE/000121 LIFE03 NAT/SK/000097
Conservation of Brown bear in the
Restoring raised bogs in Ireland....... p. 62 Conservation and management of
sites of the Sirente-Velino Regional
LIFE05 NAT/IRL/000182 Park...................................................... p. 17 Danube floodplain forests................. p. 70
Restoring Priority Woodland
LIFE03 NAT/IT/000163 SLOVENIA
Habitats in Ireland.................. p. 45, 46, 47
Reduction of the impact of human
activity on Caretta and Tursiops and LIFE02 NAT/SLO/008585
I TA LY their conservation in Sicily................ p. 26 Conservation of large Carnivores in
LIFE95 NAT/IT/000610 LIFE2003NAT/CP/IT/000003 Slovenia - Phase I (Ursus Arctos).. p. 16, 17
Protection of relic population of Abies Principles for the establishment of an LIFE02 NAT/SLO/008587
alba Miller, Picea excelsa Lam., Taxus alpine brow bear metapopulation..... p. 17 Conservation of endangered habitats/
baccata L. and of their natural habitat LIFE04 NAT/IT/000126 species in the future Karst Park... p. 39, 66
in the Emilian Appenines................... p. 44 Conservation and breeding of Italian
LIFE95 NAT/IT/000742 cobice endemic sturgeon............ p. 33, 34 SPAIN
NIBBIO:Improvement of the carrying LIFE04 NAT/IT/000144 LIFE93 NAT/E/011100
capacity for birds of biotopes along Improving coexistence of large Creation of a network of flora
the main migratory routes of carnivores and agriculture in S. microreserves in the Valencia region
Trentino (Italy)..................................... p. 70 Europe................................................. p. 16 (first phase)................................... p. 39, 67
LIFE96 NAT/IT/003152 LIFE04 NAT/IT/000187 LIFE94 NAT/E/001238
URSUS Project : Brenta brown bear Tartanet, a network for the Programme for the restoration of
conservation plan......................... p. 16, 17 conservation of sea turtles in Italy.... p. 26 Hierro giant lizard Gallotia simonyi... p. 25
LIFE96 NAT/IT/003169 LIFE04 NAT/IT/000190 LIFE95 NAT/E/000856
Conservation of priority habitats with Conservation actions in NATURA 2000 Second phase of the creation of a
Abies alba in Natura 2000 Sites in sites managed by the State Forest network of flora microreserves and
central and southern Italy.................. p. 44 Service................................................. p. 44 acquisition of land of botanical
LIFE97 NAT/IT/004141 LIFE04 NAT/IT/000191 interest................................................. p. 39
Conservation of wolf and bear in the Conservation of Apennine beech LIFE96 NAT/E/003081
new parks of Central Apennines....... p. 17 forests with Abies alba SIC Pigelleto - Priority actions to protect bats in
LIFE97 NAT/IT/004163 M. Amiata............................................ p. 44 Castilla y León Communitary interesting
Conservation acts for Apennine Abies LIFE06 NAT/IT/000053 zones................................................... p. 14
alba and Picea excelsa forests and Management of the network of LIFE97 NAT/E/004151
Apennine beech forests with Abies pSCIs and SPAs in the Cilento Project to support the conservation of
alba...................................................... p. 44 National Park...................................... p. 44 Caretta caretta and Tursiops truncatus
LIFE98 NAT/IT/005037 LIFE06 NAT/IT/000060 in the Canary Islands.......................... p. 26
V. Curone - V. S. Croce: protection Conservation and restoration of LIFE97 NAT/E/004190
priority habitats................................... p. 68 calcareous fens in Friuli..................... p. 38 Reintroduction of el Hierro Giant Lizzard
LIFE98 NAT/IT/005114 LIFE07 NAT/IT/000502 in its former natural habitat............... p. 25
Urgent actions for Bear in the SIC of Improving the conditions for large LIFE98 NAT/E/005326
the Sirente-Velino Regional Park...... p. 17 carnivore conservation - a transfer Conservation of the cantabrian Brown
LIFE99 NAT/IT/006244 of best practices................................. p. 17 bear breeding nucleus....................... p. 16
Brown bear (Ursus arctos) LIFE08 NAT/IT/000352 LIFE99 NAT/E/006371
conservation in Central Apennines... p. 17 Conservation and Recovery of Ancares Project: co-ordinate
LIFE99 NAT/IT/006260 Austropotamobius pallipes in Italian management of two adjoining sites of
Protection of habitats featuring the Natura2000 Sites................................ p. 32 community interest............................ p. 17
Silver Fir in the SCIs of the central
LIFE99 NAT/E/006386
and southern Apennines (phase II)... p. 44 LATVIA Arrangement and management of the
LIFE99 NAT/IT/006271 LIFE04 NAT/LV/000198 Baix Ter Coastal lagoons and
Urgent conservation measures of Restoration of Latvian floodplains for marshes............................................... p. 65
Caretta caretta in the Pelagian EU priority species and habitats p. 74, 76, 78 LIFE99 NAT/E/006417
Islands................................................. p. 26
Conservation of priority habitats in the
Valencian Community........................ p. 67
81
LIFE00 NAT/E/007299 LIFE05 NAT/E/000060 LIFE92 NAT/UK/013400
PROJECTS INDEX
Conservation of european mink Restoration of priority habitats for Conservation of Scottish lowland
(Mustela lutreola) in Castilla y Léon.. p. 23 amphibians.......................................... p. 67 raised bogs......................................... p. 62
Protection of Posidonia grasses in Ecosystemic management of rivers Scotland’s caledonian forest....... p. 45, 46
SCIs of Baleares................................. p. 54 with European mink........................... p. 23 LIFE94 NAT/UK/000802
LIFE00 NAT/E/007331 LIFE06 NAT/E/000199 Conservation of active blanket bog in
Conservation of european mink Program for the recovery of Gallotia Scotland and Northern Ireland.......... p. 58
(Mustela lutreola) in La Rioja............. p. 23 bravoana and its distribution area.... p. 25
LIFE00 NAT/E/007335 LIFE06 NAT/E/000209 A Conservation Strategy for the Sand
Conservation of the European mink Conservation and reintroduction of Dunes of the Sefton Coast,
(Mustela lutreola) in Álava................. p. 23 the Iberian lynx in Andalucia............. p. 22 North West England........................... p. 50
Bats conservation plan in the Corridors for cantabrian brown Bear Securing Natura 2000 objectives
Valencian community......................... p. 14 conservation....................................... p. 17 in the New Forest......................... p. 56, 69
LIFE00 NAT/E/007339 LIFE97 NAT/UK/004244
Model of restoration of dunes SWEDEN Restoration of Atlantic
habitats in ‘L’Albufera de Valencia’... p. 52 Oakwoods................................ p. 45, 46, 47
LIFE96 NAT/S/003185
LIFE00 NAT/E/007352 Protection and restoration of parts of LIFE98 NAT/UK/005432
Conserving the Cantabrian brown Stora Alvaret....................................... p. 76 The Border Mires - Active Blanket
Bear and combating poaching.......... p. 16 Bog Rehabilitation Project........... p. 58, 64
LIFE98 NAT/S/005371
LIFE00 NAT/E/007355 Preservation of the Arctic Fox, Alopex LIFE00 NAT/UK/007074
Conservation of areas with threatened lagopus, in Sweden and Finland....... p. 18 Woodland Habitat Restoration:
species of the flora in the island Core sites for a forest habitat
Minorca................................................... p. 39 LIFE00 NAT/S/007117
Coastal Meadows and Wetlands in network.................................... p. 45, 46, 47
LIFE02 NAT/E/008604 the Agricultural Landscape of Öland.. p. 76 LIFE00 NAT/UK/007075
Conservation of european mink (Mus-
LIFE02 NAT/S/008484 Restoring active blanket bog of
tela lutreola) in Catalonia (Spain)...... p. 23
Kinnekulle plateau mountain European importance in North
LIFE02 NAT/E/008609 - restoration and conservation.......... p. 78 Scotland........................................ p. 58, 59
Population recovery of Iberian Lynx
LIFE03 NAT/S/000070 LIFE00 NAT/UK/007078
in Andalusia......................................... p. 22
Natural pastures and hay meadows in Restoration of Scottish raised bogs p. 63
LIFE02 NAT/E/008614 Jämtland/Härjedalen . ....................... p. 76 LIFE00 NAT/UK/007079
Recovery plan for the giant lizard of
LIFE03 NAT/S/000073 Combatting urban pressures degrading
La Gomera........................................... p. 25
Saving the endangered Fennoscandian European heathlands in Dorset......... p. 56
LIFE2003NAT/CP/E/000002 Alopex lagopus (SEFALO+)................ p. 18
Collaboration actions for the LIFE02 NAT/UK/008544
conservation of Mustela lutreola...... p. 23 LIFE04 NAT/SE/000231 Sustainable Wetland Restoration in
Freshwater Pearl Mussel and its the New Forest.................................... p. 69
LIFE03 NAT/E/000052 habitats in Sweden............................. p. 27
Conservation and management of the LIFE03 NAT/UK/000042
SPA for Birds site of Community interest LIFE05 NAT/S/000108 Restoration of the mid Cornwall
wetland ‘La Albuera’ in Extremadura p. 67 Natural meadows and pastures of Moors for the Euphydryas aurinia..... p. 30
™stergötland - restoration and LIFE03 NAT/UK/000044
LIFE03 NAT/E/000057 maintenance................................. p. 77, 78
Conservation of endangered Restoration of the Core Ravine
arthropods of Extremadura .............. p. 10 LIFE05 NAT/S/000109 Woodlands of England & Wales.. p. 46, 47
From source to sea, retoring river LIFE04 NAT/GB/000245
LIFE03 NAT/E/000064 Moälven............................................... p. 35
Gestión y puesta en valor de 3 Small Cetaceans in the European
hábitats de alta montaña................... p. 49 LIFE08 NAT/S/000262 Atlantic and North Sea....................... p. 10
Traditionella fodermarker i mellansverige
LIFE03 NAT/E/000067 LIFE04 NAT/GB/000250
(Pastures and meadows in the
Recuperation of the aquatic Conservation of Atlantic salmon in
middlemost part of Sweden)............. p. 78
environment of Porqueres and the Scotland.............................................. p. 35
lake of Banyoles................................. p. 57 LIFE08 NAT/S/000268
Life to ad(d)mire Restoring drained
LIFE04 NAT/ES/000043 Restoring active blanket bog in the
and overgrowing wetlands................ p. 61
Conservation of threatened Berwyn and Migneint SACs in Wales p. 59
chiropters of Extremadura........... p. 13, 14 LIFE08 NAT/UK/000201
UNITED KINGDOM
LIFE04 NAT/ES/000044 Irfon Special Area of Conservation
Recovery of the littoral sand dunes LIFE92 ENV/UK/000065 Project........................................... p. 28, 32
with Juniper spp in Valencia.............. p. 52 Distribution and abundance of
the harbour porpoise and other small
LIFE05 NAT/E/000058 MoorLIFE: Active blanket bog
cetaceous in the North Sea............... p. 10
Management and conservation of restoration in the South Pennine
temporary ponds in Minorca............. p. 66 Moors............................................. p. 58, 59
Available LIFE Nature publications

LIFE and Europe’s reptiles and amphib- LIFE and endangered plants: Conserving A number of LIFE publications are
ians: Conservation in practice (2009 – Europe’s threatened flora available on the LIFE website:
60 pp. - ISBN 978-92-79-12567-6) (2007 – 52 pp. – ISBN 978-92-79-08815-5) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/
Nature & Biodiversity: Projects 2007 LIFE and Europe’s wetlands: Restoring a life/publications/lifepublications/
(2009 – 63 pp. - ISBN 978-92-79-12257-6) vital ecosystem index.htm
Learning from LIFE: Nature conservation (2007 - 68 pp. – ISBN 978-92-79-07617-6)
A number of printed copies of certain
best practices LIFE and Europe’s rivers: Protecting and
LIFE publications are available and
(2008 - 68 pp. – ISBN 978-92-79-11635-3) improving our water resources
can be ordered free-of-charge at:
LIFE and Europe’s grasslands: Restoring (2007 – 52pp. ISBN 978-92-79-05543-0
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/
a forgotten habitat – ISSN 1725-5619)
life/publications/order.htm
(2008 - 54 pp. – ISBN 978-92-79-10159-5)
LIFE+ “L’Instrument Financier pour l’Environnement” / The financial instrument for the environment
Period covered (LIFE+) 2007-2013.

EU funding available approximately EUR 2,143 million
Type of intervention at least 78% of the budget is for co-financing actions in favour of the environment (LIFE+
projects) in the Member States of the European Union and in certain non-EU countries.
LIFE+ projects
> LIFE Nature projects improve the conservation status of endangered species and natural habitats. They support the
implementation of the Birds and Habitats Directives and the Natura 2000 network.
T
> LIFE+ Biodiversity projects improve biodiversity in the EU. They contribute to the implementation of the objectives of
the Commission Communication, “Halting the loss of Biodiversity by 2010 – and beyond” (COM (2006) 216 final).
he Iron Gates Natural Park is
> LIFE+ Environment Policy and Governance projects contribute to the development and demonstration of innovative
located
policy on the left
approaches, bank of the
technologies, methods and instruments in support of European environmental policy and legislation.
Danube,
> LIFE+close to Romania’s
Information and border with
Communication projects are communication and awareness raising campaigns related to the
implementation,
Serbia. This protectedupdating
area hosts and development of European environmental policy and legislation, including the prevention
species
KH-AJ-10-001-EN-C
of forest
and natural fires and
habitats of training for forest fire agents.
great importance
at European level and it is considered an
Further information further information on LIFE and LIFE+ is available at http://ec.europa.eu/life.
Important Bird Area. The most interest-
How
ing to apply
species presentfor LIFE+
in the funding The European Commission organises annual calls for proposals. Full details are
area include
birdsavailable
such asatEgretta
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/funding/lifeplus.htm
garzetta, Ardea
purpurea and Falco naumanni and two
Contact
reptiles - vipera ammodytes and Testudo
European Commission – Directorate-General for the Environment
hermanni. A total
LIFE Unit of 196
– BU-9 02/1different
– B-1049habi-
Brussels – Internet: http://ec.europa.eu/life
tat types have been described on-site,
LIFE
of Focus
which 17 /are
LIFE improving
endemic the area.
to the conservation status of species and habitats: Habitats Directive Article 17 report
Luxembourg:
The Office
main threats for park
to the Official
arePublications
habitat of the European Union
degradation and species decline caused
2010 - 84p - 21 x 29.7 cm
ISBN 978-92-79-13572-9
ISSN 1725-5619
doi: 10.2779/18040
ISSN 1725-5619

LIFE Improving The Conservation Status of Species and Habitats

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

LIFE Improving The Conservation Status of Species and Habitats

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

N AT U R E

LIFE improving the conservation

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answers

Freephone number (*):

More information on the European Union is available on the Internet (http://europa.eu).

Luxembourg: Publications Office of the European Union, 2010

© European Union, 2010

Printed on recycled paper that has been awarded

Foreword ....................... 1 LIFE and Endangered Heathlands........................... 55

Conservation status reports confirm

Europe’s most endangered

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

Council and the European Parliament - Com-

Figure 1: Assessment of conservation status Figure 2: Assessment of conservation status

  

&AVOURABLE  &AVOURABLE

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

forget-me-not (Mysotis rehsteineri) in

Austria; and habitats such as the priority

Photo: LIFE06 NAT/E/000209

MMED (marine Mediterranean)

MMAC (marine Macaronesian)

MBAL (marine Baltic)

MATL (marine Atlantic)

Rocky habitats (64)

Heath & scrub

Freshwater habitats (84)

Source: ETC/BD, Paris 2009

contribution of dedicated conservation and restoration projects funded by LIFE.

S ince 1992, 1107 nature con-

GRASSLANDFORMATIONS  &ISH  

Source: LIFE projects database

Source: LIFE projects database (ABITAT4YPE(ABITATS$IRECTIVE#ODE * denotes priority for conservation

status and ensured the continued man-

LIFE and Article 17

remained in restored condition in the of species and habitats (the Article 17

site managers to apply them to similar

habitat types in different biogeographi-

This brochure highlights some best prac-

Photo: LIFE04 NAT/GB/000245

knowledge of the targeted species and reported as having an ‘unfavourable

and European Atlantic continental shelf l Further promote networking at EU level

Several management models imple-

A lmost all bats hibernate during

Miniopterus Unfavourable bad (all LIFE00 NAT/IT/007139

LIFE projects have demonstrated that

While gaps remain, the knowledge

The LIFE programme has made a significant contribution to ensur-

numerous projects in several countries. In particular, by promoting

efforts to reconcile conflicts between human needs and those of

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

LIFE’s contribution to brown

I n the EU there are between 13 500

mainly those in the Apennines, Alps,

A common intervention is to erect (elec-

low productivity rate of only one cub

guarding dog breeding stations (LIFE07

Other efforts to tackle poaching of bears

Measures to restore important bear habi-

LIFE99 NAT/E/006371), the planting of

for the Arctic fox

mented and isolated from the strongholds in western Siberia.

W hen the first LIFE project

&AVOURABLE &AVOURABLE

GRASSLANDFORMATIONS &ISH

Source: LIFE projects database (ABITAT4YPE(ABITATS$IRECTIVE#ODE * denotes priority for conservation

and European Atlantic continental shelf l Further promote networking at EU level