life after life - european commission · life after life a review of the long-term effects of nine...

T

Life after LIFE

he long-term effects of nine projectsfunded under LIFE-Nature I

EUROPE
AN COMMISSION

Life after LIFE

A review of the long-termeffects of nine projects

funded under LIFE-Nature I

Authors:Anton Gazenbeek & Kerstin Sundseth

Ecosystems LTD

service contract n° B4-3200/2000/286966/MAR/D2

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Many people have helped in the preparation of this report and we are very grateful toeveryone for sparing us some of their precious time to take stock of the situation vis-à-viseach project.

We would like to thank in particular the people we met during our Flashback missions or whoprovided us with information during the course of the assessment:

• In Crete, Greece: Thanos Belalides, Aliki Panagopopoulou + 3 volunteers from Archelon,Ioannis Kotsifakis (Mayor of Platanias), Mechtild Latussek (Tui Group representative),Maria Valerga (Grecotel representative)

• In Lorraine, France: Laurent Godet (PNRL), Frédéric Bréton (CSL), Frédéric Mony(Laboratoire de Phytoécologie, Université de Metz)

• In Sirente-Velino, Italy: Dr Giorgio Boscagli, Matteo Celeste, Dr Luca Gianotti, Arch. Mariadi Loreto, Dr.ssa Paola Morini, Elisenda Pascali, Dr Ruffino Sgammotta, Dr EmilioSinibaldi, Dr.ssa Sonia Stornelli (all Ente Parco Naturale Regionale Sirente-Velino); DrSimone Angelosanto, Ing. Cesare Colorizio, Ing. Emilio Nusca, Ing. Donato Santili (allmayors and members of the Consiglio Direttivo del Parco); Prof. Pierantonio Tetè(Universita dell’Aquila, scientific expert in Consiglio Direttivo), Dr Carlo Console (forestryexpert in Consiglio Direttivo), Mario di Braccio (agricultural expert)

• In Anholt, Denmark: Poul Erik Thystrup (Arhus County) Peter Simonsen, KarenChristensen (Danish Ministry of Environment)

• In Brandenburg and Sachsen-Anhalt, Germany: Thomas Bich, Gunter Braun, BerndGirke, Jutta Zinnecke (all Landkreis Jerichower Land), Dr Wolfgang Wendt (Ministeriumfûr Umwelt, Naturschutz und Raumordnung Land Sachsen-Anhalt), Dr Heinz Litzbarski,Dr Matthias Hille (both Landesumweltamt Brandenburg)

• In Trento, Italy: Dr Claudio Ferrari, Piero Flamini, Dr Diego Zorzi (Provincia Autonoma diTrento, Servizio Parchi e Foreste Demaniali)

• In Baixo Mondego, Portugal: Manuel Ferreira dos Santos, Carlos Manuel da Silva Barata,Deolinda Olivença Borges, Maria Cristina Lopez, Fernando Sabino Rodrigues, PauloJorge de Quadros Tenreiro (all ICN, Mondego section)

• In the Jura, France: Christian Bruneel (PNR-J), Alexandra Besnier, Bernard Leclercq,Marc Montadert (all GTJ), Michel Carteron (DIREN de Franche-Comté), Jean-MichelMourey, Christian Guillemot (both ONF), Jean-Luc Pacis (ONCFS), Thomas Leplaideur,Patrick Lechine (both CRPF), Bruno Allein (ENJ), Adrien Bauer, Stéphane Besnard,Patrick Longchamp, Régis Renaude, Gaël Roy, Jacky Ruat (all FDC)

• In Dorset, UK : John Waldon, Nigel Symes (RSPB)

We would also like to thank members of the external teams, both in MECOMAT andECOSYSTEMS, for their invaluable assistance in guiding us through the history and contextof each project and in assessing the latest state of play. In particular Oliviero Spinelli,Manuela Osmi, Osvaldo Locasciulli (Mecomat/Comunità Ambiente), Ana Guimarães, JesusLavina, Concha Olmeda (Mecomat/Atecma), Marc Maury, Marc Thauront, Mariella Fourli,Stefanos Fotiou (Mecomat/Ecosphere) and Mats Eriksson (Ecosystems).

Last but by no means least we would like to thank members of the Nature Unit of theEuropean Commission’s Environment Directorate for their comments and guidancethroughout the whole exercise, especially Bruno Julien, Angelo Salsi, Bertrand Delpeuch,Maria Dolores Beceril, Joaquim Capitão, Olivier Diana, Maria Gaivão, Micheal O’Briain,Fotios Papoulias, Carlos Romão, Angelika Rubin, Oliver Schall and Isabelle Venti.

TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY ..........................................................................................................page i

INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................................page 1- Purpose of this report..........................................................................................page 1- The LIFE-Nature instrument: a quick recap .......................................................page 2- Evaluating the success of LIFE-Nature ..............................................................page 5

CASE STUDY I – SAVING SEA TURTLE BEACHES IN CRETE ..................................................page 9- The context........................................................................................................page 9- Life after LIFE .................................................................................................page 15- Overall assessment ...........................................................................................page 18- The future .........................................................................................................page 19

CASE STUDY II – AT THE SEASIDE IN THE MEADOWS ................................................... page 21- The context ........................................................................................................page 21- Life after LIFE...................................................................................................page 25- Overall assessment.............................................................................................page 27- The future .........................................................................................................page 30

CASE STUDY III – UPS AND DOWNS IN THE SIRENTE-VELINO NP.................................. page 33- The context ........................................................................................................page 33- Life after LIFE...................................................................................................page 49- Overall assessment.............................................................................................page 44- The future .........................................................................................................page 47

CASE STUDY IV – DESERTS IN THE SEA : RESTORING LICHEN HEATHS .............................9- The context ........................................................................................................page 49- Life after LIFE...................................................................................................page 55- Overall assessment.............................................................................................page 56- The future .........................................................................................................page 57

CASE STUDY V – FARMING FOR BIRDS IN GERMANY .................................................... page 59- The context ........................................................................................................page 59- Life after LIFE...................................................................................................page 65- Overall assessment.............................................................................................page 67- The future .........................................................................................................page 72

CASE STUDY VI – RESTORING WETLANDS ALONG THE TRENTO FLYWAY ...................... page 75- The context ........................................................................................................page 75- Life after LIFE...................................................................................................page 79- Overall assessment.............................................................................................page 82- The future .........................................................................................................page 87

CASE STUDY VII – REEDS AND RICE IN BAIXO MONDEGO ............................................ page 89 - The context ........................................................................................................page 89- Life after LIFE...................................................................................................page 95- Overall assessment.............................................................................................page 99- The future .........................................................................................................page 101

CASE STUDY VIII – ROUND TABLES FOR CAPERCAILLIE .............................................. page 103- The context ........................................................................................................page 103- Life after LIFE...................................................................................................page 108- Overall assessment.............................................................................................page 113- The future .........................................................................................................page 116

CASE STUDY IX – RESTORING DORSET’S LOWLAND HEATHS........................................ page 117- The context ........................................................................................................page 117- Life after LIFE...................................................................................................page 122- Overall assessment.............................................................................................page 124- The future .........................................................................................................page 126

CONCLUSIONS. ......................................................................................................................page 131

Life after LIFE

Page i

Life after LIFE

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Purpose of this report

It’s hard to believe that eight years have already passedsince the first LIFE–Nature project was launched. Thetime has come to take stock of the situation and to seewhether the projects funded in those early yearsactually led to any significant long-term benefits forthe sites concerned. An ex post assessment helps tobring the whole process around full circle as the resultsof such an exercise can help improve the formulationof the projects in the first place and so lead to betterand longer-lasting results.

The present report – entitled ‘Life after LIFE’ – doesnot pretend to be a full-scale assessment of the LIFE-Nature programme. It does attempt however, throughthe study of a handful of projects, to illustrate some ofthe long-term results of LIFE-Nature funding. Theintention is to give an honest appraisal of whetherLIFE-Nature has created any sustainable effects inthese nine projects – without looking just for ‘successstories’. After all, understanding why certain elementshave not worked is as relevant and instructive asknowing what has succeeded.

It should also be borne in mind that the rules forreceiving funding under LIFE-Nature and for carryingout projects have been constantly evolving. Whilst thefocus has always been on the Natura 2000 sites withthe intention of kick-starting their long-termmanagement or demonstrating good practice, the wayprojects are presented, implemented and monitored haschanged significantly over the years. This in turn willhave influenced the outcome for many of them. Itwould not be right therefore to examine the LIFE-Nature projects chosen for this report – all of whichstarted under phase I of LIFE - in the light of thepresent rules and regulations.

We have tried instead, in the concluding section, totease out some general observations from the wholeexercise without ‘pointing the finger’ at any oneproject. For the rest, the report dedicates most of itspages to ‘telling the tale’ of these nine very distinctprojects - from their first attempts at getting aninitiative going, through their experiences with LIFEfunding, to the present-day situation. Each one has aninteresting story to tell and will no doubt strike a chordwith many of the people working in this field. It ishoped that the exercise will not only help improve theLIFE-Nature funding process but also provide anillustration of the kinds of issues Natura 2000 sites arefacing or may face in the future – wherever theirlocation.

SOMMAIRE

Objectifs du rapport

Il est difficile de croire que huit ans ont passé déjàdepuis que le premier projet LIFE-Nature a vu le jour.Il est temps à présent de tirer un premier bilan afind’évaluer si les projets financés au cours de cespremières années ont réellement eu un impact positif etdurable sur les sites visés. L'évaluation ex postpermettra de fermer la boucle: les résultats obtenusdevraient contribuer à améliorer la formulation denouveaux projets, et par là conduire à des résultatsmeilleurs et plus durables.

Le présent rapport - intitulé 'Life after LIFE' (la vieaprès LIFE) - ne se veut pas une évaluation exhaustivedu programme LIFE-Nature. Toutefois, il vise, autravers d'une poignée de projets, à illustrer certains desrésultats à long terme du financement LIFE-Nature.L'intention du rapport est donc de fournir une réponse honnête à la question de savoir si LIFE-Nature a pucréer des effets durables dans les neuf projets décrits -sans se focaliser sur des projets connus pour avoir étéun succès. Car, après tout, comprendre pourquoicertains éléments n'ont pas fonctionné est tout aussiimportant et instructif que de savoir ce qui est sourcede succès.

Il nous faut également garder à l'esprit que les critèresd'octroi d'un financement LIFE-Nature et de la mise enoeuvre des projets évoluent constamment. Si leprogramme s'est toujours focalisé sur les sites Natura2000, avec l'intention de donner un coup d’envoi à lagestion récurrente ou de mettre en lumière les bonnespratiques, la présentation, la mise en oeuvre et le suivides projets ont évolué de façon significative au coursdes années. Ceci en revanche peut avoir influencé leursuccès respectif. C’est pourquoi, il ne serait guèreapproprié d'examiner les neufs projets LIFE-Nature -qui ont tous été approuvés sous la phase I de LIFE - àla lumière des normes et règlements actuellement envigueur.

Dans la conclusion du rapport, nous nous sommesefforcés d'extraire quelques remarques générales, sanspour autant "montrer du doigt" l'un ou autre projet enparticulier. Du reste, la plus grande partie du rapportest consacrée à "raconter l'histoire" de ces neuf projets,tous différents les uns des autres - à partir despremières initiatives, en passant par l'expérience tiréedu financement LIFE-Nature, jusqu'à leur situationactuelle. Chacun de ces projets raconte une histoireintéressante qui n’ira, sans doute, pas sans toucher debon nombre de gens qui oeuvrent sur le terrain pour lapréservation du patrimoine naturel. Nous espérons quecet exercice contribuera non seulement à améliorer leprocessus de financement des projets LIFE-Nature,mais qu’il fournira également une illustration du genrede problèmes auxquels sont confrontés les sites Natura2000, actuellement ou dans le futur – indépendammentde leur localisation.

Life after LIFE

Introduction

The LIFE-Nature instrument : a quick recap

In May 1992 the European Union adopted a Financial Instrument for the Environmentknown as LIFE. Focusing on five priority fields of action, this fund was destined tohelp develop and implement the Union’s environment policy as outlined in the FifthEnvironmental Action Programme. It had an estimated budget of 400 million € forthe first phase running from 1992 - 1995. This was followed up in 1996 and in 2000with a second and third phase. The current LIFE III programme runs from 2000-2004, with an indicative budget of 640 million €.

One of the priority fields - with an indicative amount of 47% of the total annual LIFEbudget - is the protection of nature. Nature conservation actions financed under thisinstrument must contribute to the implementation of:

• Council Directive 92/43/EEC on the conservation of natural habitats and of wildfauna and flora - known as the Habitats Directive – and

• Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds - known as theBirds Directive.

eligible for LIFE co-financing

Habitats Directive

NATURA2000

Nationallist ofsites

List of Sitesof

CommunityImportance

Special Areasof

Conservation

Special ProtectionAreas

Birds Directive

Page

Life after LIFE

2

Eligibility criteriaIn particular, the actions proposed should aim to maintain and restore habitats andspecies listed in both Directives to a favourable conservation status. As the creationof a coherent ecological network of protected areas across the EU - known asNATURA 2000 - is central to both Directives, LIFE-Nature projects should target inparticular the conservation of sites proposed as Sites of Community Importance(pSCIs) or Special Protection Areas (SPAs). These eligibility criteria were enshrined in the Regulation as of LIFE II. Before thattime, and so for the period during which the projects chosen for this report wereapproved by the Commission, the priorities for funding were modified annually infunction of the timetable for implementing the Habitats Directive. Thus, emergencyactions for habitats and species covered by EU nature legislation were stronglysupported but they did not necessarily have to be within already protected areas. Itwas enough to have a commitment to include them in the Natura 2000 network at theend of the project. Inventories and other preparatory work that would help MemberStates to draw up their national list of sites were also encouraged under LIFE I.

Throughout LIFE, the Community'sfinancial contribution to projects wasset at a maximum of 50% of the totalcost. In exceptional cases, however,the percentage could be increased to75% for those actions aimed atpriority habitats or priority species inthe Habitats Directive – i.e. thoseidentified with an asterisk in theannexes - or for 48 bird speciesconsidered by the Ornis Committeeto be in danger of extinction.

Objectives of LIFE-Nature Being a relatively small fund, LIFE-Naimplementation of the Natura 2000 Necommitments and through the other, muor structural funds. LIFE-Nature was beyond the stage of basic research but sinvestments could be used. The overall aims can be summarised as

• Pump-priming initial heavy invconservation more affordable,

• promote dialogue with the other lanarea to the mutual benefit of all, or a

ture could not hope to pay for the full-scaletwork, this has to be done through nationalch larger, EU funds such as agri-environmenttherefore designed essentially as a catalyst,till at the preliminary phase before large-scale

follows:

estment costs that make the long-term

d users of a site to find ways to conserve ant least not to the detriment of one or the other,

Page

Life after LIFE

3

• providing high-profile demonstration models of how conservation objectives forparticular habitats and species of Community interest can be achieved in practice,

• developing best-practice methods that can in turn initiate larger-scale and longer-term programmes for the management of the area.

The funding agreement Projects were selected on the basis of their ecological value and contribution toNATURA 2000 and on the quality of their proposals, and not in function of anynational quotas. Under LIFE I the agreement on funding was formalised through acontract drawn up between the Commission and the beneficiary detailing the projectobjectives and the administrative rules of procedure that needed to be followed. FromLIFE II on, it was the application itself that became the technical annex to theindividual Commission decisions, thereby providing much more detail about theproject and its actions and timetable. In the interests of good financial management, the Commission undertook to monitorprogress closely. With over 300 projects on-going at any one time under LIFE-Nature, it contracted part of this work out to 'external teams' who assisted theCommission with the technical evaluation of on-going projects and advisedbeneficiaries on Commission procedures. They also contributed to the disseminationof information on LIFE-Nature (such as this present report written by EcosystemsLTD) and provided assistance in the exchange of experience between projects.

The type of actions funded The type of actions co-financed through LIFE-Nature to achieve these objectives canbe broadly grouped into six main categories.

Typical distribution of money according to the actions listed below(A, B, C, D, E and F)

Money allocated per type of action

F17%

E7%

D11%

C24%

B32%

A9%

Page

Life after LIFE

4

As the graph illustrates, a typical project will contain all six actions:

• Preparatory measures (A): actions preparing the ground for on-site conservationwork, e.g. administrative preparation (permit procedures, meetings betweenproject partners..), negotiations with stakeholders, preparation of managementplans, site surveys, technical blueprints etc…

• Land lease or acquisition (B): actions to gain control over land use. Acquisitionand long-term lease may be the only action required in a project as it puts a stop tothe activities that are damaging the site. Subsequent management then wouldprobably involve no more than leaving the site to its own devices. On the otherhand, it may also be a first step in initiating restoration actions for a damaged site.For instance, if a site needs to be re-humidified, it will be more cost-effective tobuy or swap the piece of land to be flooded. It is also more likely to appeal to theowner.

• Non-recurring actions (C): this often involves one-off investment works to kick-start the restoration of a site. Sometimes the work is relatively low-key and‘natural’, sometimes heavy machinery and engineers have to be called in (e.g. tofell trees, remove scrub, re-divert rivers etc….)

• Recurring actions (D): involve actions that have to be undertaken on a regularbasis to maintain or improve habitat conditions. LIFE-Nature often provides theinitial investment (usually as a follow-up to site restoration) through purchase ofequipment, small-scale pilot projects, test runs to get the formula right andpersonnel to go out and negotiate longer-term agreements with other land users.Other EU funds, especially the agri-environment regulation (now part of the RuralDevelopment Regulation) can then step in and take over from LIFE, once theinitial stage has been set.

• Public awareness raising (E): aimed either at visitors, the local community orrelevant stakeholders. Activities include small-scale visitor management methodssuch as construction of footpaths and observation towers, preparation andpublication of brochures, organisation of conferences and public hearings, mediawork and so on. It also involves actions aimed at disseminating information on theproject, such as best-practice examples, networking and experience sharing.

• Project management (F): finally, good project management is essential toachieving long-lasting results. Conservation is, by its very nature, a littleunpredictable, and highly dependent on the attitudes and cooperation of other landusers. Even the best-prepared projects may run into complications. It is thereforeessential for adequate management staff to be dedicated to keeping the project ontrack and to schedule. Several projects that underestimated this task foundthemselves struggling to achieve their original ambitions.

Evaluating the success of LIFE-Nature From the outline given above of the LIFE-Nature instrument, it is clear that one of thedetermining factors in assessing whether it has achieved its objectives, is to look at thelong-term effects on those projects and sites that received funding under thisinstrument. This means looking not only at the success of the projects themselvesduring the lifetime of the EU co-finance but also at the context in which they had tooperate, the threats they were addressing and the follow-up actions undertaken afterthe LIFE funding stopped. Only then is it possible to draw some conclusions as to thesustainability of the projects and their actions.

For the purposes of this study, four

• The most obvious is the consecondition now than it was at habitat type or species populatprotection and management me

• Another important element isdemonstration value: for instmanagement which was later similar example?

• Closely linked to this is its inceor new funds for further workfor instance under the agri-envof the site’s conservation into o

• Last, but by no means leastcommunity and stakeholders: aare they more sympathetic, haillustrate this, have they manag

Conservationbenefit

Demonstrationvalue

Incentivevalue

Successof a

project

Life after LIFE

main criteria were looked at.

rvation effect of the project: is the site in a betterthe start, have the threats been contained, has theion shown any signs of recovery, is there a betterchanism in place for these habitats and species… ?

to determine whether the project had a strongance, did it develop an innovative technique forapplied elsewhere, did it incite others to follow a

ntive effect: did it succeed in mobilising additional or kick-start long-term management programmes,ironment regulation? Did it lead to the integrationther policy sectors?

, is the influence the project had on the localre they now more aware of the conservation needs,ve they introduced any tangible measures which

ed to benefit in any way from the results….?

Socio-economicinfluence

Page

Life after LIFE

6

Choice of projectsThe choice of projects was not an easy task, since, even now, few LIFE-Natureprojects have been finished for a long time. The cut-off date chosen was June 1998 inorder to allow sufficient time between the assessment report and the end of theproject.

Projects with similar size and budgets were also pre-selected, essentially focusing onthose with just one site or a small suite of sites, as this was the most common type ofproject under LIFE I.

Finally, an attempt was also made to have a good geographical spread and to choose across-section of different habitats and species, type of actions, and socio-economicenvironments. This resulted in a shortlist of 22 projects, which was eventuallynarrowed down to the nine illustrated in the following map.

Page

Life after LIFE

7

SOMEVITAL STATISTICS

BeneficiaryThe Sea TurtleProtection Society(now called Archelon)

Budget535.867 €

EC co-finance75%

DurationApril 95 – Dec 97

LocationThree nestingbeaches on Crete

Species/habitats:Loggerhead turtle(Carettacaretta),a priorityspecies

Case study I :Saving sea turtlebeaches in Crete

Well-managed turtle nesting beach in Rethimno, Photo : K Sundseth

The context

The Mediterranean loggerhead seaturtle, Caretta caretta, has beenknown to man for centuries. Earlyliterature often referred to it as asymbol of longevity and tolerance.Yet, despite this long association, itslife history is, to this day, still verypoorly understood, probably becausemost of its time is spent far out atsea, beyond the reach of even themost sophisticated of trackinginstruments. The only clues to thiselusive creature’s lifestyle cometherefore from its short period onland.

Life after LIFE

Page

Life after LIFE

10

We know that thefemale always returnsto the same beachwhere it was born to layits eggs. This it does atregular intervals every2-3 years, once it hasreached sexual maturityat around 25 years old.The nesting seasoncontinues from thebeginning of May to theend of August, duringwhich time the femaleswill usually make 3-4nests, each containing onaverage 120 eggs. This it will keepdoing for another 25-30 years - a verylong reproductive cycle but anessential one considering that only 1 inevery 1000 hatchlings is likely to makeit to adulthood.

Greece hosts the most importantnesting sites in the EU, the main areasbeing on Zakynthos (51%), thePeloponesian mainland (27%) andCrete (22%). On Crete, three mainbeaches are used, two along thenorthern coast and one on the southcoast near the small village of Messara.The first two are renowned tourist hotspots. Rethimno beach spans some 12kms, occupied principally by largehotel complexes which gradually peterout the further away from the town onegoes. By contrast, Chania beach has alarge number of small pensions and‘rooms to let’ along virtually the wholeof its 17 kms. Messara, meanwhile, islittle developed by tourism but it isnext to one of the main cultivationareas in Crete – the Messara Plains.

The threats

Because sea turtles have this uniquehabit of returning to the same nestingbeaches, their survival is dependent on

the existence of these beaches.Destroying them is tantamount todestroying a generation of future seaturtles since the female is unlikely tolook for an alternative nest site.Unfortunately, in Greece, the featuresthat have attracted turtles for eons -fine sand, long stretches of beach, hotsummer days – are also the very thingsthat are now attracting increasinghordes of tourists. As a consequencemany nesting areas are subject toheavy human pressure, and are beingploughed over to make way for newconstructions or destroyed or damagedfrom trampling, umbrellas or vehicles.

Eggs that do manage to hatch also runthe risk of being disoriented by lightsalong the beachfront from tavernas,hotels, bars…. Normally, a hatchlingwill automatically orient itself towardsthe sea, following the reflections of themoon. Unfortunately, with strongartificial lighting they are just as likelyto head for the local disco.

Additionally, a large number of nestsare destroyed by seawater inundation.The cause can be natural or man-made;coastlines are dynamic ecosystems thaterode and accrete according toprevailing conditions such as strong

Less-regulated sea turtle beach in Rethimno, Photo : K Sundseth

Page

Life after LIFE

11

winds, which are predominant in thesummer months. If these natural forcesare constrained, the natural repairprocess is disrupted, causingcontinuous erosion and eventually aloss of part, or all, of the beach. Thisis precisely what happens ifconstructions close to, or on the beach,are badly planned or put up illegally.The lack of a land use strategy in Creteis therefore a major problem not onlyfor the turtles but also for the tourismindustry itself.

The latter is also increasinglyconcerned by the overall trend intourism in Crete. Business has droppedin recent years by as much as 30%. Tocompensate, more and more chartersand cheap deals are being offered, butinstead of boosting revenues this justbrings in more tourists who spend less(average daily expenditure used to be400 €, now it is closer to 260 €). Moretourists also means more people on thebeaches and, as a result, addedpressure on the nesting turtles. Again,the situation is exacerbated by the lackof a tourism strategy to help guidefuture orientations in this sector.

The beneficiary

When Archelon (then known as theSea Turtle Protection Society) was setup in 1983, its primary aim was to

lobby andwork for theprotection ofthe seaturtles on theisland of

Zakynthos.Six yearslater, havingcarried out a

nationwidesurvey of turtle nesting beachesthroughout Greece, it identified threefurther key areas. This stimulated the

Society to try out some of the tacticsthat had worked successfully onZakynthos on Crete. Efforts weresmall-scale at first, for Archelon wasonly a small NGO with few means. Itwas also faced with an initially hostilelocal population who had been awareof Archelon’s ‘reputation’ onZakynthos.

Yet the situation on Crete proved to bevery different. Unlike on Zakynthos,the density of nests per kilometre isrelatively low. This means it should bepossible for turtles and humans tocohabit, provided certain conditionsare respected. But first, the generallevel of awareness about the sea turtlehad to be improved, as few islandershad in fact seen or heard of thisnocturnal creature. Coupled to this wasthe need for sustained action to protectthe nesting sites on the three principalbeaches. Such a major campaign couldnot be funded by the society alone,which is why, in 1995, Archelonapplied to LIFE-Nature for funds.

LIFE objectives

The overall objective of the LIFEproject was to ensure the long-termrecovery of the nesting populations ofCaretta caretta in Crete and to securethe legal protection and sustainablemanagement of its beaches throughNatura 2000.

The specific objectives were to Protect as many clutches of nests

as possible Raise awareness about the sea

turtle with local inhabitants andvisitors

Develop a management plan whichbalances the conservation needs ofthe sea turtle with the local needsfor sustainable development

The actions

The project ran from April 1995 toDecember 1997. It had a total budgetof 535.867 euro, with 75% financingfrom LIFE-Nature (Caretta caretta is apriority species under the HabitatsDirective). Three main actions wereforeseen: recurring on-sitemanagement, awareness raising andcapacity building. As a small andrelatively new NGO, Archelon neededto establish a proper infrastructure tobe able to run the project efficiently.Its first objective was therefore toresource itself in basic equipment -cars, mopeds, computers, fax, taggingequipment… It also established aworking base and living camp at eachof the beaches to accommodate the 100volunteers recruited every summer tohelp carry out most of the seasonalactivities. These were in turn under thesupervision of a core staff of 5 whoorganised their workload, consolidatedthe data and provided the necessarytraining.

Actions on the 40 kms of nestingbeaches included daily patrols to countthe number of turtle “landings” andnests laid and, later in the season,

assess the number of emerginghatchings. In areas of high humanactivity, the nests were protected bybrightly coloured cages designed todeter people from putting umbrellasand deckchairs on top of them. If anest was felt to be too close to the seaand therefore vulnerable to inundationor at very high risk of being damaged,the team would relocate it either higherup the beach out of danger or into oneof the hatcheries. Detailed statistics ofthese daily visits were collated at theend of each season to establish annualrecords of nesting and hatchingsuccess.

The increasing problem of sunbeds andumbrellas was also tackled. Thislucrative business is not so much aproblem during the day, provided thatthe sunbeds are not put on top of thenests, but they are a real danger atnight. The large and heavy sea turtle isunable to manoeuvre between thechairs and will either abandon the nestsite completely or lay too close to thewater. So a major campaign waslaunched to persuade hotels andsunbed operators to stack their chairsat night at the back of the beach.Similar campaigns were run to reducelight pollution at night to avoid

Life after LIFE

disorienting the hatchlings, and to curbthe use of vehicles on the beaches.

Regarding public awareness, all themajor interest groups were targeted:local authorities, businesses, hotels,tourists and local schools. A panoplyof brochures, colouring books andother documents were distributed.Presentations were made at the mainhotels, information kiosks were set upat strategic points (e.g. the old harbour)in the three neighbouring towns andspecific meetings were held for local

Brightly coloured cages designed to protect nesting sitesPhoto : K Sundseth

Page

Life after LIFE

13

businesses and authorities. Schoolswere also actively targeted, talks weregiven and competitions were launchedhighlighting the turtles’ history andbehaviour.

Lastly, a management plan for thelong-term conservation of the sea turtlein Crete was written up and circulatedwidely for consultation. The finalversion was presented to the localauthorities for adoption at the end ofthe project.

Results

The backbone of the projectwas its army of volunteers.Archelon’s ability to recruitsuch a large number ofvolunteers every year fromacross Europe made it possibleto monitor all three beachessystematically. Without thismanpower, only a proportion ofwhat had been achieved couldhave been achieved. As aresult, all identified nests wereprotected, an important point,considering that as many as63% needed some form ofactive management – be itprotection by cages (41%),relocation (22%) or transfer tohatcheries (7%). Regarding the use of sunbeds,the project tried at first to stackthese beds on behalf of thehoteliers, using the volunteers,but this was felt not to be a viablesolution in the long term. Theemphasis turned instead on raisingawareness, but this was met with onlypartial success; hotels conscious oftheir ‘green’ image were more likely torespond positively to such pleas thanthe small operators. It was clear thatvoluntary agreements and awarenessraising on their own would not be

enough to solve the problem;legislation was needed to bring aboutthe necessary changes.

The same is true for dimming lights atnight, but thanks to the project,mitigating measures could be found toreduce the effect of light pollutionwithout necessarily disrupting localbusinesses. For instance, the lampscould be painted black on the halffacing the beach. Altogether some 25operators were eventually persuaded tointroduce some changes for the sake ofthe turtle.

As far as awareness raising isconcerned, altogether some 300presentations were made at hotels toinform tourists of the conservationneeds of sea turtles. This is estimatedto have reached around a quarter of amillion visitors over the three years.

Simple measures can be used to stop lights fromdazzling hatchlings on the beach Photo : K Sundseth

Page

Life after LIFE

14

On the domestic front the projectmanaged to capture the imagination ofthe local press and radio stations. As aresult, regular news releases andnewspaper articles were written. This,coupled with the constant presence ofthe volunteers every summer, meantthat most interest groups had, at somestage, come into contact with Archelonand been made aware of the needs ofthe species.

Did the project achieve its objectives?

Thanks to its consensus buildingapproach and clear strategy, thebeneficiary managed to establish itselfin a short space of time as a powerfuladvocate for the turtle on the island. Italso succeeded in achieving all theobjectives set out under the LIFEproject. The consistently high numberof volunteers every summer meant thatall known turtle nesting sites on thethree beaches could be protected usingsimple but highly effective tools. Thisin turn provided enough informationabout the sea turtles’ habits to gain abetter understanding of the effects ofcertain activities on their behaviour.

As for raising awareness, the projectdecided at the outset that its approachwould be a pragmatic one, basedfirmly on cooperation andcollaboration. In such heavily touristedareas, it would have been

counterproductive to insist on sea turtleprotection ‘above all’. Nor was thistotally necessary, as the statisticsindicated it should be possible for thetwo to co-exist side by side providedcertain precautions are taken.However, in order to achieve this, thelocal communities, businesses andauthorities would have to want tocooperate, and the only way ofachieving this was to raise theirawareness of the sea turtles and of theirpotential added value for an ailingtourism industry.

This, the project achieved with somedegree of success: the number oftourists informed about sea turtleconservation was substantial, enoughto have an influence on the touroperators, who later brought pressureto bear on the hotels to adopt moreturtle- friendly practices. Some of thelarger hotel chains, such as Grechotel,were particularly cooperative as theyalso recognise the potentialcompetitive edge green credentialsmight give them.

At a more local level, whereas at theoutset almost nobody had heard of thesea turtle, by the end of the projectvirtually everybody was aware of itsexistence on the island, and the generalattitude towards Archelon turned frominitial hostility to general tolerance.

��

��

��

��

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

70%

80%

90%

100%

1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997

Missed��Unprotected

Hatchery

Caged

Changes 1992-97 inmanagement techniquesfor nests in Rethimno(Data from Archelon)

However, when it came tocurbing certain activities suchas sunbeds or night lighting,the response was rather moremixed, illustrating thatvoluntary agreements alonewould probably not be able todeliver the significantchanges required. Hence theimportance of themanagement plan. But,although the beneficiary haddone its part in presenting adetailed plan to theauthorities, the latter had fewmeans of translating this into nlaw until the adoption later on law requiring Specific EnvironmStudies. As a consequencemanagement plan was not trainto law as such by the end project.

Did the project require a follow-

The project achieved a tremamount in a short space of timvoluntary agreements with coophoteliers, and seasonal beach by volunteers - whilst importtheir own right –, were unlikbring about viable long-term sofor the conservation of the sea tuCrete. This could only reaachieved through the adoptiappropriate legislation andimplementation of a stmanagement plan for the species

The ideal follow-up would therefor the NGO to continue its awacampaign and voluntary beach pbut at the same time, for the authto introduce legislation to rcertain potentially destructive acand agree an overall sustadevelopment plan, marrying theof the sea turtle with thosustainable land use.

Life after LIFE

legalationalof theental.

, thenslatedof the

up?

endouse. Yeterativepatrolsant inely tolutionsrtle in

lly beon of therategic.

fore berenessatrols,orities

egulatetivitiesinable needsse of

Life after LIFE

Nest protection

Since the end of the project, thenumber of volunteers coming to Creteevery summer to work with Archelonalmost doubled to 200. As many as20% are repeat volunteers from theprevious year, illustrating thepopularity of this scheme. This meansthat Archelon could maintain and evenenhance its presence on the threebeaches. As a result, all nests andhatchings are still monitored and theinformation is, as before, assimilatedinto annual reports on nesting andhatching success in Crete. The highvolunteer levels also means that allidentified nests continue to beprotected. Up to now no part of thebeach has had to be sacrificed for lackof manpower.

In terms of the techniques used, onlyone substantial change was introduced.Transfers of vulnerable nests tohatcheries used to be fairly systematicunder the LIFE project, but, followinginternational consultation and furthertrial work, it was decided that too littlewas known about the potentiallydamaging effects of these transfers towarrant such a high level of

Information kiosk in Chania’s old harbour Photo : K Sundseth

Page

Life after LIFE

16

intervention. Instead, only the neststhat were sure to be destroyed are nowmoved.

Public awareness raising

Public awareness raising continues tobe central to all of Archelon’sactivities. The number of presentationsmade at the hotels increased to almost600 a year, touching an average of200,000 tourists – almost ten percentof all tourists coming to Creteannually. The information kiosks havealso kept going and are regularlyresourced with new informationmaterial, leaflets, T-shirts, CDs,postcards, games etc…

On a more local level, over a hundredpresentations are made annually tolocal schools around Crete, this timeusing more unconventional techniqueslike story telling and dance to get themessage across. Archelon found thatchildren are so up to date with thelatest information technologies thatthey fail to be impressed by yet moreeducational material delivered in thisformat. The theatre and expressiongroups, on the other hand, have theadvantage not only of being fun butalso novel.

Finally, thanks largely to thevolunteers, regular contacts aremaintained with local businessesaround the beaches. The volunteers’presence is now implicitly acceptedand although the level of interest orwillingness to change existingpractices remains mixed, at least adialogue has been established.Archelon will now often receive callsfrom local tavernas informing themthat young hatchlings were ‘going thewrong way’, or from localentrepreneurs who wanted to checkthat their new initiatives would notconflict with the sea turtles.

Capacity building

Archelon itself has gone from strengthto strength since the end of the project.Overall the Society has almost doubledin size since 1996 and is now one ofthe most important NGOs in Greece.On Crete, it has expanded its staff fromjust one and a half at the end of theLIFE project to three and a half full-times plus twelve seasonal workers. Ithas also managed to diversify itssource of funding: sale of merchandise,collections, corporate sponsorship,individual adoption programmesetc…altogether the annual revenuefrom these activities represents morethan was available under LIFE.Archelon also receives a lot ofcontributions in kind, e.g. the use ofland for their camp sites, or offices fortheir operations etc… but there havebeen no specific grants since LIFE.

Legislation

Here, a distinction has to be madebetween the local and national context.In the case of the latter, the adoption ofa national law obliging all Natura 2000sites to have a ‘strategic environmentalstudy’ done to determine themanagement prescriptions and rulesneeded, could have a major impact onthe sea turtle sites in Crete in duecourse. But for the moment the processis only just getting off the ground andso it will be some time before therecommendations made in themanagement plan developed under theLIFE project will see the light of day.

Nevertheless, some progress was madein terms of the extent to which theturtle nesting beaches in Crete weredesignated as Natura 2000. By the endof the LIFE project only about 20 % ofthe beaches had been put forward butby 1999 this had increased to 85%thanks to the constant lobby ofArchelon.

Page

Life after LIFE

17

On a more local level, things look, onthe surface of it, rather more positive.The beneficiary succeeded in lobbyingfor strict conditions to be imposed onthe issuing of sunbed licences. Thus,only half the beach could be used andall beds had to be 3 metres apart andstacked at night. Other measures wereintroduced through cross-compliancewith more general legal schemes suchas the Blue Flag initiative. Originallythis award had little value in Greecesince it was based on bathing waterquality (virtually all beachesqualified!), but once the implementingbody, the Hellenic Society for NatureConservation, introduced stricterconditions, the Blue Flag became amuch more prestigious award and aparticularly important one for thetourism industry. One of theconditions was that beaches harbouringthe sea turtle were also obliged tocomply with a whole range ofmeasures, from sunbeds to lighting, tobeach cleaning, use of vehicles etc…

Unfortunately, whilst these laws wereboth strong and theoretically effective,it seems that they are poorlyimplemented. Only 40% of the sunbedowners, for instance, comply with thelicensing conditions. That 40%compliance has been reached is mostlikely due to the continued pressure

and contact with the Sea TurtleProtection Society rather than as aresult of local authority intervention. Infact nobody has yet been fined or hadtheir licence revoked for not respectingits conditions.

It is not clear why the local authoritieshave not taken up their responsibilitiesfor the sea turtle, which is after all aprotected species; perhaps because ofrecent changes in government structureor lack of human resources.Alternatively, it may be that certainauthorities remain convinced that masstourism, even at the expense of high-quality tourism, is essential for Crete’seconomy and are reluctant to supportanything that could be perceived as abrake on this development.

Archelon continues to lobby for a morestrategic approach to land use planningin Crete, but in the meantime, it is alsotrying to find other ways to encouragea more sustainable approach totourism. It is, for instance,collaborating with some of the moreenlightened municipalities on Crete todevelop proposals for funding underthe EU’s regional programmes. Twosuch proposals are currently beingconsidered. Their main focus will beon beach erosion surveys, dunerestoration, establishment of an

The loggerheadsea turtle,Caretta carettaPhoto : Archelon

Page

Life after LIFE

18

environmental centre for educationetc… By being involved so early on,Archelon is able to ensure that theneeds of the sea turtle are also takeninto account and wherever possiblebenefit from the actions proposed.

Overall assessment

Conservation benefit

It is clear that the LIFE project hasbeen vital for the survival of the seaturtle on the island of Crete. Thanks tothis project, all identified nest siteshave been protected. It will of coursebe a long time before the true extent ofthis action on the species will beknown, if at all. But already at thisstage it is fair to say that one of themost important achievements of theproject has been its ability to convincepeople that tourism and sea turtles canco-habit on the same beaches, providedthat certain restrictions are respected. Itdoes not have to be a question ofdevelopment versus conservation.

Looking at the conservation status ofthe sea turtle in Greece as a whole, it isinteresting to note that this LIFEproject was in fact one of several runby the same NGO. LIFE projects havealso taken place in Zakythnos and inthe bay of Lakonikos, using similarapproaches as for Crete: nestprotection and public awarenessraising. There are therefore effortsunderway to protect all of the principalnesting sites for the sea turtle inGreece. But little has been done so farto address the threats to the adultpopulation whilst at sea, for instancefrom bycatches or collision with ships.This was not in the remit of the presentLIFE project but, if the sea turtle is tosurvive, it will be essential to startworking on this massive problem.

Incentive value

The principal pump-priming effect ofthe project was the influence it had onthe beneficiary itself. This small NGOwas just struggling to establish itselfon Crete when it applied to LIFE. Theproject not only gave it much-neededfunding to get started, but also themoral support needed to be takenseriously. The beneficiary is now self-sustaining. As a result most of thework started up under the LIFE projecthas continued and even expanded –and, according the beneficiary, it willprobably stay that way now for as longas there are sea turtles nesting onCrete.

Demonstration value/ local interest

The project set out to demonstrate thatsea turtles and tourism can live side byside provided certain precautions aretaken. The relative simplicity of someof the measures used (e.g. cagesaround sites, painting lamps …) help toillustrate this and encourage hoteliersto adopt similar measures. From thisperspective alone, the project had astrong demonstration value.The beneficiary’s strong publicawareness campaign and the fact that itplaced so much emphasis oncooperation and collaboration, has alsoundoubtedly helped to change people’sattitudes – both locally andinternationally. Since 1995, it isestimated that over three quarters of amillion tourists listened to one of thesea turtle presentations at the hotels.This change in attitude can have apowerful lobbying effect. For instance,the major German tour operator TUIwrote to the local authorities and hotelchains to insist on further changes infavour of the sea turtle so as to be ableto address the large number ofcomplaints it had received from recentvisitors to the island.

However, not all those who introducedturtle-friendly measures were able tofully exploit their good works in theirpublicity material. This is because itcreates the impression that Crete is asea turtle haven with pristine beachesand well-regulated activities. Whilstthis may be true for the hotel’s ownbeaches, it is definitely not the case forthose outside the hotel’s control. Onlyproperly enforced legislation will bringabout the necessary changes.

And here, as this case study has shown,the results are less tangible. Clearly theLIFE project has helped to bring aboutsome of the necessary changes, buttheir impact is severely compromisedby the fact that the authoritiesresponsible for enforcing them seemunable or unwilling to ensure theireffective implementation. All the NGOcan do is ensure a regular presence onthe beach and highlight any abuses ofthe law when they come across them.

The Future

So, despite the success of the LIFEproject, there is still much to do toprotect the sea turtle in Crete and inGreece generally. The most importanttask now is for the governmentauthorities to draw up a SpecificEnvironmental Study for theNATURA 2000 sites hosting sea turtlenesting sites. This should tackle notonly the ‘simpler’ issues such as

sunbed stacking or lighting, but alsothe more strategic problems of coastalerosion, illegal constructions and anailing tourism trade. If the Studymanages to address these problems in away that is favourable to the sea turtle,then things will be going the right way.Then the next major challenge will beto ensure that the managementprescriptions are properly implemented– even if it means grasping the nettleof illegal constructions, which is amajor issue in Greece generally.

As for the survival of the sea turtle?Up to now, the focus has been on onlyone part of its life cycle, when it comeson land. Yet if there is to be any hopeof saving the species from extinction,in the longer run it will be essential toaddress the problems it faces as anadult out at sea. Not only does thisinvolve complex logistics but it is alsolikely to tread on the toes of some verypowerful vested interests, such as thefishing industry. This is a verychallenging task.

For further information, contact:Mr Thanos Belalides, ArchelonSolomou 57, 10432 Athens, Greecetel/fax +30 1 523342,email: [email protected],web: www.archelon.gr

Alprthno20intadpr

Conservationbenefit

Incentive value Demonstrationpotential

Public interest

l nest sites NGO now well Demonstrated that 10% of all tourists on

Life after LIFE

otected, 85% ofe nesting beachesw under NATURA00. Local lawsroduced todress some of theoblems

established andcontinues to work forthe turtle. Severalhotel chains adoptedturtle protectionmeasures of theirown initiative.

turtles and tourismcan live togetherprovided certainprecautions aretaken

Crete were givenpresentations on thefate of the sea turtle,local awareness alsosignificantlyincreased

mailto:[email protected]

Case Study II:At the seaside inthe meadows

The context

415 km from the nearest coast, in themiddle of the sweeping farmland ofLorraine, salt marshes (‘prés salés’)suddenly pop up, with briny water,expanses of Salicornia and othersalt-loving plants normally found onthe seaside, and even miniature mudflats and creeks just like in the


Beneficiary:Parc Naturel Régionalde Lorraine (PNRL)with Conservatoiredes Sites Lorrains(CSL) as partner

Budget:800,000 €

EC co-finance:50%

DurationSept 1992 – Oct 1997

LocationLorraine, France

Habitat /species:Continental saltmarshes – a priorityhabitattype

Etang Hamant : a continental salt marsh Photo : A Gazenbeek

Life after LIFE

Wadden Sea. Altogetherincongruous, and an unusualoccurrence indeed – such inland (or‘continental’) salt marshes areamong the rarest habitats in the EU.There is only one in Great Britain, afew near the Austro-Hungarianborder and a handful in northern andeastern Germany. That’s it.

Page

Life after LIFE

22

The Lorraine salt marsh territory (and LIFE-Nature project area) covers 3,000 ha andextends over three broad, shallow valleysoccupied by the Seille river and its tributariesbetween Chateau-Salins and Dieuze. Theunderlying geological formations include salt-bearing strata laid down in ancient seas over200 million years ago. When groundwaterpercolates through them, the salt is dissolved,making the water as briny as the North Sea.Wherever this water wells up, salt marshesoccur as islands in the grassland of thevalleys.

Fair enough, but how did the Salicornia andother halophytic (salt-loving) plants normallyfound hundreds of km away along the coast,get here? They are true copies of thePuccinellietalia distantis association ofcoastal salt marshes, even with one endemic,found nowhere else in Europe, Salicorniavicensis. No-one knows for sure, but theoriesare that seeds were blown by the wind, orwere brought here by waterfowl flying inlandfrom the coast.

Threats and trends

There used to be more salt marshes inLorraine, but these disappeared under theimpact of civilisation. Only the Seille is left,but 50% of its halophytic habitats were lost inthe past 100 years.

As early as 1000 BC, brine from springs inthe Seille was boiled in clay pots(‘briquetage’) leaving the salt behind.Although this industry depleted local forests,it did give reason for maintaining the saltsprings and their vegetation. In 1800 theSeille valley was still largely a swamp.

Then the first drainage ditches were dug inthe 1840s, and the drained land was used ashayfield in spring and as pasture in summerand autumn (ironically, it is this 19th centuryland use that the agri-environment contractsproduced by the LIFE-Nature project try torestore). In the 1960s this relatively benignland use began to shift. Fencing allowed moreintensive grazing. Fertiliser use stimulatedgrass growth and allowed earlier mowing(first mowing in mid-May, second in mid-July). Deeper drains allowed cereals to begrown. All this crowded out the unique saltmarsh vegetation.

Also, the wettest parts of the valley and itssalt marshes had previously been mowedusing horses, but as these animals werereplaced by tractors, it was found that tractorssimply are too heavy for this sort of land.These sections were abandoned and becameinvaded by Phragmites reeds, which chokedthe Salicornia vegetation. Lastly, at least 4springs were converted into ponds forwaterfowl shooting (‘étangs cynegetiques’) inthe late 1980s.

Salicornia vicensisPhoto : Conservatoire des Sites Lorrains

Page

Life after LIFE

23

LIFE objectives

To stop the continuing degradation of the saltmarshes, two entities (the Parc NaturelRégional de Lorraine (PNRL)i and theConservatoire des Sites Lorrains (CSL))ii

formed a partnership and applied for LIFE-Nature funding. Cofinance was supplied bythe Direction Régionale de l’Environnement(DIREN) de Lorraine.iii

The project had a three-pronged approach:1. First, a vegetation survey to find the exact

boundaries of the most critical zones,followed by management plans for all ofthe 10 salt marsh subsites in the Seille.

2. Gaining control over the 250 ha of saltmarshes (core zone) through purchase orlong-term lease, and then installing asystem of land use based on low-key haycutting and grazing. I.e. a return to thepast!

3. Promoting the introduction of an agri-environment regime to the remaining 2750ha of land in the valleys, to provide abuffer around the salt marshes.

4. These were flanked by awareness-raisingmeasures for the local interest groups.

Because the management contracts forfarmers were later included in the agri-environment schemes cofinanced by 2078/92,so that LIFE-Nature no longer needed to payfor them as originally thought, a considerableslice of the budget was subsequently re-assigned to land purchase.

A prolongation was granted by theCommission to give more opportunity forland purchase, but this did not fully work out.The project thus ended up spending only653,000 euro, instead of the 800,000 foreseen.

The actions

Vegetation survey and management plansThe vegetation survey carried out at the startof the project found 10 salt marsh subsitescovering 231 ha in all, plus transition zonesaround some of them, covering a further 187ha. All ten subsites are scattered within themeadows of the three valleys. They rangefrom spectacular subsites such as EtangHamant, a botanically and morphologicallyperfect ‘coastal salt marsh in miniature’, tothe more discreet, such as Grands Roseaux orAncienne Saline, where unusual plants aretucked away between the grasses of ameadow. The survey also provided a baselinefor future monitoring. Later on, LIFE-Naturecofinanced the first systematic entomologicalstudy of these sites.

Management plans were also drawn up for allsites, except the two, where land purchasefailed (see below).

Land acquisitionAcquisition was considered necessarybecause the salt marsh habitats were no longerbeing managed appropriately or were evennot being used at all. Ownership would make

it possible to restore the sites to theirformer glory. In total 87 ha waspurchased by the CSL in the 231 ha corezone. With the 20.5 ha bought and 0.8 haleased before LIFE-Nature, this meant thata total of 108 ha (almost half of the corezone) was in conservation ownership bythe end of the project. In the transitionzone, only 14.9 ha was bought, and 3.7 haleased for 18 years.

Although this was well short of the fullcontrol envisaged, at subsite level theoutcome is more subtle. The entire core

Etang Hamant Photo :A Gazenbeek

Page

Life after LIFE

24

HOW WAS THE LIFE-NATURE PROJECT VIEWED BY THE AGRICULTURAL SECTOR?

The farmers are the stakeholders most affected by this project, so we met with a representative of the localfarmers, M. Remillon, who has himself entered into management contracts (mostly C) for 30 ha altogether.According to him, local agriculture is viable. Farmers grow grain on the higher land while the Seille valleys aremainly grassland (grazing and hay) with some cropping. Income is sufficient; any farm on the market easilydraws 20 or more punters. The problem is that the high capital cost of buying into a farm makes it financiallycrippling for young farmers to enter the profession.

Land purchase by the LIFE project was tolerated, because the land remained in agricultural use (being leasedback via the C contracts), we were told. M. Remillon said that mowing makes farming sense on its own, and isnot done simply to pocket agri-environment premia. The hay is used, even when it is mowed as late as July,for, although unsuitable for dairy cattle, such late hay is fine for suckler cows and sheep. Furthermore,because farmers can sign up to a mixture of contracts, they usually end up with different mowing times spreadover their holding, leading to a constant supply of hay, with the most humid, halophytic areas being mowedlast of all. Overall, M. Remillon underlined that the LIFE-Nature project management was diplomatic in itsdealings and had always made it clear that collaboration by farmers would be voluntary.

Initially many farmers feared conservation prescriptions would be imposed, but some were willing to try andwhen agri-environment proved a success, most farmers changed their minds .One criticism he did have wasthat he, and other farmers participating in the agri-environment contracts, would like to know more about theimpact on the flora of the management they do. According to him, there is a chronic communications deficit inthis regard with farmers (and others too: many locals are still not aware of the uniqueness of the saltmarshes). This interesting point was also raised by foresters in the Jura.

zone of Etang Hamant, one of the bestsubsites, and nearly half its transition zonewas acquired. In three other subsites,including Pré Léo, one of only two placeswith the endemic Salicornia vicensis, two-thirds of the core zone was acquired. Thesubsite Les Malaquits already belonged to amunicipality, which was interested inmaintaining it for nature tourism (a trail andobservation point were built). In three furthersubsites results were only middling, between25 and 45% acquired, whilst the project failedcompletely in the subsites Basse Récourt andGrange Fouquet, where nothing was acquiredat all.

On some of the core or transition zone landwhich was not acquired, agri-environmentcontracts were concluded with the farmers touse this land in a manner which is notharming the halophytic habitats. For instance,although 6 ha in the Etang Hamant subsite’stransition zone was not purchased, nearly allof it (5.5 ha) is under such agri-environmentcontracts, which means that 98% of thisparticular subsite (core and transition zone) isnow under conservation-oriented manage-ment.

Ensuring appropriate recurring managementvia agri-environment The next step after acquisition was to makesure that the salt marsh habitats would bemanaged appropriately. This would have to bedone through regular management activitiessuch as hay cutting and grazing. Rather thandoing it with own (limited) resources, thebeneficiary formulated a specific managementcontract (dubbed the ‘contrat C’) for the landit owns. In it, the CSL remains owner of theland but makes it available free of charge for5 years to a farmer, who is obliged to use it inthe way prescribed.

The 'contrat C' terms sought to restore the19th - early 20th century form of farming(late mowing after July 1, no fertilisers, nophytopharmaceuticals, grazing from July toNovember 1st only). The consequent loss ofoutput to be compensated was calculated at213 €/ha/year, but 91 €/ha/year was deductedto account for the gain to the farmer of notpaying a lease. This left a net annual paymentof 122 €/ha/year. C contracts were onlyoffered for land owned by CSL. Farmers whodid not want to sign up, nonetheless hadprescriptions imposed if they used CSLproperty and they had to pay rent.

Parallel to the conservation-oriented Ccontract, other agri-environment contracts,dubbed A & B, were formulated to offer tofarmers who still owned land in the corezones, or to farmers in the buffer zones. Theseimposed varying degrees of constraint interms of mowing dates and grazing densities.A number of farmers in the core andtransition zones did indeed take up suchcontracts.

All these contracts were approved by theFrench Ministry of Agriculture and theEuropean Commission in July-Oct. 1995,which meant they could be cofinanced by EURegulation 2078/92. This was a turning pointfor the LIFE-Nature project. Until then,farmers had been sceptical, holding back oncommitting themselves, but when they sawthat the grants were in the bag, there was arush to sign up. At project end (early 1997)78.7 ha was under contract C, involving 20different farmers, which means 3/4 of the landowned by the CSL was being managed infavour of halophytic plant communities.

Other recurring managementIn areas like reedbeds where farmers couldnot operate, the CSL’s own workmen clearedreeds to re-open the salt marshes.

Communications with the wider community A newsletter, 'Horizons', was published in10,000 copies in June 1994 by the LIFE-Nature project. It gives a user-friendlyintroduction to the salt marshes and theirhistory, describes the project and its goals andgives an overview of all the agri-environmentcontracts. Truly a quality product! It is a pitythat it was not been followed up with a secondand third issue.

Site visits were also organised for farmers,during which the rare salt marsh plants wereshown. This led to reactions like, “So that’swhat it is! I have been mowing 30 years anddid not realise this plant was so special”.Often enough, once farmers realised this, theywere more willing to help via managementcontracts.

Parallel to the LIFE-Nature project, butfunded from other sources, a nature trail withobservation point and information panels waslaid out at the Les Malaquits saline springnear Marsal, which has a local heritagemuseum, the Musée de Sel (visited by 15,000people a year). Combining the two is clever,but unfortunately there is no reference toLIFE-Nature or Natura 2000 to be foundalong this trail, which is a bit of a missedopportunity. The LIFE-Nature project didcollaborate with the museum in a joint natureeducation programme, which was being usedby 1200-1400 people a year by the end of theproject.

Life after LIFE

Life after LIFE

Land purchase

The CSL has continued acquisition, but at amuch slower rate (15.8 ha since LIFE) as ithas to be financed out of its annual operatingbudget. A factor to bear in mind is that landprices have risen above the maximum priceused during the LIFE-Nature project becauseof the demand for land among farmers(agriculture is doing well in this district). In1998 and 1999 8.8 ha was bought. Since July2000, changes to national law allow theSAFER (French agri-structural authority) theright of first option if it is buying forenvironmental reasons. This has alreadyproved helpful - the SAFER Lorraine used

Information panel at Etang Hamant Photo : A Gazenbeek

Page

Life after LIFE

26

this right to buy 6 of the 7 ha acquired by theCSL in 2000.

However, no breakthrough yet at the twosubsites where purchase did not succeedduring the LIFE project:• Le Grange Fouquet: its owner is viscerally

opposed to conservation and refuses tosell, or manage the site. This is serious, asLe Grange Fouquet is the only subsite,apart from Pré Léo, which hosts theendemic plant Salicornia vicensis. It isbeing choked by reeds and biotopemanagement is urgently needed

• Basse Récourt: its owner wanted to keepthe land, but negotiations for an 18-yearlease are currently going on. Here,therefore, a happy end is possible.

Natura 2000 designation

It is very surprising that not one of the tenLIFE-Nature subsites had any legal protectionunder French law at the end of the project.They were not part of the Natura 2000network either. Given their value at EU level,this was quite unacceptable. Because largeparts of the core zones had been purchased bya conservation body, designating these couldhardly be a political problem.

In September 1998 1345 hawere finally proposed aspSCI (‘Vallee de la Seille’)by the DIREN. Althoughconsiderably smaller thanthe LIFE project area, thepSCI does cover the greaterpart of the lowlands alongthe Seille river and itstributaries with the notableexception of the Marsal-Lezey valley, where onlyfragments are designated.However, all ten LIFEsubsites are included.

Recurring biotope management Reed cutting and other management work inthe wettest, most inaccessible areas no longerused by farmers, has continued, using theCSL’s workers. The area covered by the C contracts withfarmers, cofinanced by the agri-environmentprogramme, has remained the same in thecore zones. These contracts all had 5 yearsduration, and started coming to an end inDecember 2000. It appears that the farmerswant to continue the contracts. However, because of the current transitionfrom Regulation 2078/92 to the newprogrammes foreseen under Regulation1257/99, and various political delays, newcontracts can only start again in 2002, leavinga one-year gap. Finally, a new measure was undertaken afterLIFE to try to save the endemic plantSalicornia vicensis which is only found in twosubsites (Pré Léo and Le Grange Fouquet),one of which is out of bounds to conservationmanagement, and which appears to be losingground. Seeds have been brought to thebotanical garden in Nancy, where it has beensuccessfully cultivated (just in case...).

Anciennes Salines where reeds were cut in 2000 Photo : A Gazenbeek

Page

Life after LIFE

27

Management plans The 8 management plans produced by LIFE-Nature will be revised by the CSL in 2001 tofit into the management planning for the newNatura 2000 site. In the French nationalstrategy for pSCI management planning, aframework document (Document d’Objectif)valid for 6 years at a time will set theconservation objectives, describe all thestakeholders and define the responsibilities ofeach of them. The procedure to draw up a Documentd’Objectif for the Seille valley was launchedin October 2000 by the DIREN via an ‘ArrêtéPréfectoral’ (decree of the prefect of theDépartement de Moselle). The PNRL togetherwith the Chambre d’Agriculture will beresponsible for drafting the document, whichis expected to focus on the role of the farmersand to define the technical and financialaspects of the measures and managementcontracts for the salt marshes and humidgrasslands. This Document d’Objectif is to beready by March 2002.

Scientific monitoring and research Monitoring plots laid out to compare thesituation of the 1994 LIFE-Nature vegetationstudy with development since, were surveyedin 1997 and in 2000. A follow-up study toexamine in depth the discoveries made by theLIFE-Nature entomological survey waslaunched after the project by the RégionLorraine. The phytosociological map made atthe beginning of the LIFE project is beingupdated. LIFE-Nature revealed where the gaps inknowledge were; studies to fill these gaps willbe a task for the Natura 2000 managementplans being made for the Seille valley pSCI.

Communications with the wider community Direct publicity for the salt marsh habitatsappears to have come to an end after theLIFE-Nature project (CSL and PNRL wereinstead much absorbed by the regional Natura

2000 process). There are talks with the Muséedu Sel at Marsal to add exhibits on salt marshhabitats to the other heritage aspects ondisplay. This is a great pity considering the level ofinterest and curiosity expressed by thefarmers themselves about the salt marshes.

Overall assessment Conservation benefit The action taken by the project (land purchasewith leaseback under strict conditions,recurring management via own staff or agri-environment measures) has definitely hadtangible, positive effects:• 50% of the 231 ha of core zones

harbouring the unique salt marsh habitatsis now owned by the CSL, guaranteeingtheir long-term preservation andconservation management

• destruction of humid grasslands throughdrainage or ploughing has stopped

• the wettest, most central zones, which werebeing abandoned, are now being mowedannually, so that their invasion byPhragmites reeds is being rolled back

• less humid zones around these wet cores,which were being mowed, but toointensively, and were becoming eutrophicthrough fertiliser application, are nowfarmed more appropriately.

These broad-brush improvements should bereflected in the evolution of the vegetation.The monitoring plot surveys of 1997 notedonly a slight increase in biodiversity vis-à-visthe 1994 baseline, but the 2000 results, whichare currently being evaluated, do show adefinite conservation benefit. A preview ofthis research indicates that, in the very salineareas, the number of plant species hasincreased by 25% on the plots subjected toagricultural extensification since 1995.

The species which have benefited are mainlyhalophytes of high conservation interest;

Page

Life after LIFE

28

some did not even occur on the plotspreviously. In the meadows with a medium tolow salinity, the increase in plant diversity(expressed in species) varies from 42% to63%, depending on the level of agriculturalextensification.

A summary of these results will be publishedin a brochure by the Agence de l’Eau Rhin-Meuse in April 2001 and a full scientificpublication on the dynamics of the halophyticvegetation and the impact of agri-environmental measures, is foreseen byFrédéric Mony in 2002.

In terms of legislation now all ten sites areproposed as pSCIs thanks to the project. Thiswill be particularly important for those siteswhere the owners have shown strongopposition to any cooperation or support formore conservation-friendly practices.

The example of Grange Fouquet illustrateshow legal protection can make a difference.During and after the LIFE-Nature project, LeGrange Fouquet was at the mercy of itsprivate owner, with almost no possibility tointervene if the habitats there were destroyed.This shows the limit of the conciliatoryapproach. However, since the subsite hasbeen included in the Seille pSCI, Art. 6 of theHabitats Directive can be invoked at leastagainst site destruction (but can not be used toforce appropriate management or habitatimprovement - here the classic instrumentslike land purchase or management agreementsremain as valid as before). Similarly,concerning the on-going risk of drainage andintensification of land around the ten coresites, pSCI designation means that Article 6now applies to these too.

In short, the saline springs with their highlyspecialised fauna and flora have beenmaintained in a good condition, which isalready an important result, and the meadowsaround them, including their halophyticvegetation, are reacting favourably to themanagement regimes.

The incentive value

The CSL and PNRL had been collaboratingon salt marshes since 1984. The CSL had alsobuilt up experience with managementcontracts for farmers elsewhere, and saw theirpotential in the Seille valley.

What LIFE-Nature did, was to provide a bigenough investment fund to allow landpurchase and biotope management to reallymake a giant step forward. That was certainlythe project’s ambition. The CSL wasresponsible for all of Lorraine and the PNRLcovered a very large area of land, so insideboth organisations the Seille salt marshes hadto stand in line for a share of the normalbudgets. This meant a slow and piecemealinvestment process. The LIFE-Nature budgetwas about equivalent to the entire annualbudget of either PNRL or CSL, which showswhat a difference EU support made!

Although the original ambition to secure allthe salt marshes in one fell swoop did notcome about (simply too ambitious!), at theend of the LIFE-Nature project CSL owned 5times as much land as before, and in four ofthe ten subsites it had become the dominantlandowner. So LIFE did give a major boost toearlier conservation efforts.

Moreover, the management contracts forfarmers developed by the project wereintegrated into the agri-environment schemesfunded via Regulation 2078/92, whichdemonstrates its strong incentive effect. It isalso a good example of integratingconservation into other policies and ofsynergy between EU instruments.

Demonstration potential

Promotion of agri-environmental contractswith farmers, to ensure recurringmanagement, was very successful; the projectdid good work here in convincing farmers tosign up. These contracts are now coming to anend but farmers appear to wish to continuethem. Relations seem to be good, and that canonly be applauded.

Page

Life after LIFE

29

There was also a shift in overall farmingpolicy which will have had an indirect impacton the success of the project as well. Up to1992 there was a trend to convert grassland inthe Seille valley to maize or wheat. Althoughthe salt marshes themselves are unsuitable forcorn, the humid grasslands surrounding themwere very much affected. Arable conversionand abandonment of land use in the corezones were the two principal threats to theecosystem. Reversing them was one of themain justifications for the LIFE-Natureproject, particularly its land purchase strategy.However, the 1992 CAP reform stoppedarable conversion - premia for grain are nowonly given if the farmer can prove the landwas first ploughed before 1992.

Grassland converted after that does notqualify. This external development has thusremoved an incentive to convert meadows tomaize, lessening the threat of agriculturalintensification and drainage inside the LIFE-Nature project area. It also must have

contributed to willingness to sell land andenter into agri-environmental managementcontracts. This is a classic example of howeven minor changes to complex and abstrusesubsidy and market support structures like theCAP maize premia, have considerable knock-on effects, for good or for bad, at a localconservation level

Relations with local interest groups

The effects of the project on local interestgroups have been multiple, if rather modest.In terms of influencing damaging activities,the following examples illustrate the benefitof having a focus and presence on the sitethrough LIFE in the absence of legislativeprotection.

During the LIFE-Nature project, plans byutility companies to lay power lines andtelecommunications cables through salt marshareas cropped up. After talks, the plans weremodified to avoid valuable habitats.Moreover, a military reconnaisance unit basedat barracks near Etang Hamant often went onmaneouvres through the salt marsh there.Interventions by CSL and PNRL havebrought this to an end.

The LIFE-Nature label itself played a role,through the positive awareness effect whenlocal people discover to their surprise thattheir familiar ordinary hay meadows havevalue at European level. This effectapparently helped win over several farmers.

Interesting is that the farmer we spoke to saidhe would like to know more about the impactof the management he does on the flora. Asimilar remark was made by private forestersin the Flashback project for capercaillie in theJura. Feedback between the projectmanagement and the stakeholders whocooperate with a project is certainly a kind ofawareness work that deserves to be promoted,as its added value is very high. It is a pitytherefore that the project did not continuewith its publications, such as the excellent“Horizon Seille’

Anciennes Salines – salty pools returning after managementPhoto: A Gazenbeek

Page

Life after LIFE

30

In the same vein, although continuation of theLIFE work is chugging along, there is not thesame level of drive and exploitation ofopportunities there would be if there was atleast one person fully dedicated to salt marshconservation. Employees of PNRL and CSLare taking care of the Seille, but have to dothis besides their many other tasks over thelarge geographic area covered by the twobodies.

Still, all in all the project and its continuationseem to be addressing three of the fiveprincipal factors affecting conservation status(recurring management of the meadows,counteracting reed proliferation, preventingintensification of land use) rather well. Thefourth, legislative protection, has finally beenachieved, while the fifth, hydrology, has sofar been neglected. Research has howeverbegun into the hydrology of the salinesources, as this is little known but could bevery important for the overall conservationstatus.

The future

The most important task now is to ensure thatrecurring management continues. On the 142ha land acquired so far, prospects lookreassuring. If, for whatever reason, farmers donot renew their agri-environment contractsfrom 2001 onwards, the land remains underthe control of the ex-LIFE beneficiaries,although they would of course have a problemin managing it. The situation is rather morecomplex for the rest of the project area, wherea farmer who has completed a five-year agri-environment contract for the meadows heowns could decide to stop and go back to amore intensive use, negating whateverconservation benefit has been achieved. Landpurchase as conservation strategy is thuscompletely vindicated here.

About 500 ha of the 1345 ha pSCIsurrounding the salt marshes is under somesort of agri-environment regime, which is

good, but far short of the original target. Anyexpansion of these buffers, especially whenthey eliminate maizefields still near the corezones, would be positive. At the momentalmost half of the pSCI is ‘improvedgrassland’ and arable land; the rest is saltmarsh and semi-natural humid meadows withconservation value.

Improvement of plant biodiversity can onlybe expected on land used by farmers undermanagement contract, or mowed by theCSL’s own workers (reedbeds). The veryheart of the core zones, the springs, mudflatsand patches of open salty water (‘mares’)where Salicornia and the other really extremehalophytic plants grow, are not affected byany of these measures. Yet do they needmanagement? The ex-beneficiaries arecurrently in contact with the Tour du Valatwetland ecology station to examine whichfactors determine the conservation status ofthese extreme saline environments. The CSLand PNRL are also starting a programme tomonitor the salinity and hydrology of thesubsites, to see if hydrological actions areneeded.

Although, thanks to the purchases, drainageof meadows no longer is an issue in the corezones, the rest of the Seille valley is stillsubject to drainage plans. In Lorraine theauthorities subsidise farmland drainage workand the Conseil Général de Moselle, whichcoordinates these subsidies, had by 1996adopted a procedure to check all applicationsfor subsidies which affected the LIFE-Natureproject area, with CSL and PNRL. Thissounds encouraging, but the system is not yetfoolproof as various near-misses havetestified. Clearly, communicating theconservation values to all decision-makersneeds to be stepped up, but it also highlightsthe lack of legal protection for so long. Nowthe sites have been designated pSCI, morenotice will presumably be taken of them byall concerned.

During the LIFE-Nature project, the new roadChesny-Heming cropped up as a threat, as itwas planned to cut through the Basse Récourtsubsite. The road is now being built, but nolonger affects Basse Récourt. Instead, whereit by-passes Moyenvic village, the route mightaffect the Pré Léo subsite, one of the mostvaluable. The exact route is still underdiscussion, but there is a dilemma betweendamaging the salt marsh or having the roadtoo close to the village (noise!).

In this context of threats and risks, an ‘AtlasCommunal’ is being prepared by aconsortium of conservation entities andexperts, which maps each municipality in theregion, grading the territory according to itsecological value and fragility. This will beuseful to assess which drainage, road-buildingand other activities could be harmful, andwould make planning much easier.

i The Parc Naturel Régional de Lorraine (PNRL) is a voluntarycollaborative structure between 186 municipalities covering 220,000ha in Lorraine with a population of 80,000. The municipalities agreeto support a charter (which has to be approved by the nationalEnvironment Ministry to get the regional nature park label) tosafeguard the natural and cultural heritage and promote rationalland use and sustainable economic development.iiThe Conservatoire des Sites Lorrains (CSL) is a regional NGOwhose mission is to manage nature areas. It does this via landpurchase or lease and/or ensuring appropriate use of conservationland, either directly or via contracts with landowners or land users.There is a ‘conservatoire’ in each French region and they have setup an umbrella organisation called Espaces Naturels de France(ENF).iii France’s Ministry for the Environment and Land Use Planning(Ministère de l’Amenagement du Territoire et de l’Environnement) hasa decentralised network of agencies covering the national territory, onein each of the administrative regions making up the country. Theseagencies are called Direction Régionale de l’Environnement (DIREN)and the one responsible for Lorraine was the partner in this project.

Athrough Natura 2000 now,conservation within 50%of the core areas securedand conservation- friendlytechniques adopted insignificant tracts ofremainder, includingbuffer areas.

earlier small-scaleconservation action forthis priority habitat typethrough injection ofsignificant funds. Ballhas kept rolling since.

potential link that canbe establishedbetween conservationand farming throughthe use of agri-environment schemesfor active managementof the salt marshes.

the LIFE project butcould besubstantiallyimproved in view oflocal interest,especially byfarmers, to knowmore about thesehabitat types.

For further information, contact:• Frédéric Bréton, Conservatoire des Sites

Lorrains, 7 place Albert Schweitzer, F-57930 Fénétrange, tel +33-387.03.00.90,fax +33-387-03.00.97, [email protected]

• Laurent Godet, Parc Régional de Lorraine,Chemin des Clos, Domaine de Charmilly,F-54703 Pont-a-Mousson. Tel +33 383 8167 67, fax +33 383 81 33 60 email:[email protected]

• Frédéric Mony (for scientific questions)Equipe de Phytoécologie – UPRES,EBSE Campus Bridous – Université deMetz,2 Rue du Général Delestraint, 57070Metz, Tel +33 387 37 84 24, fax +33 38737 84 23 email: [email protected]

Conservation benefit Incentive value Demonstrationpotential

Public interest

ll core sites protected Quantum leap after Demonstrated the Raised thanks to

Life after LIFE

Page

Life after LIFE

33


Beneficiary:Ente Parco NaturaleRegionale Sirente-Velino

Budget:400.000 €

EC co-finance:75%

DurationJan 1995 – July 1997

LocationApennines, Italy

Habitat /species:Brown bear (a priorityspecies), Chasmophyticvegetation on rockyslopes

Case Study III:Ups and Downs inSirente-Velino NP

The context

Describing a project area extendingover 60,000 ha, in a few words, isnot an easy task. The LIFE-Natureproject ‘Habitat Gole Rupestri’,named after the gorges (gole) whichwere one of its prime targets,coincided with an SPA, most ofwhich is now also pSCI. Two greatmountain massifs, one in the west(Velino) and one in the middle(Sirente), both rising to over 2000metres, dominate the Natura 2000area. Their jagged limestone peaksrise over extensive ‘altipiani’,haunting, high-altitude landscapes ofdesolate steppe-like grassland dottedby rocky outcrops.

View down main north-south valley between Monte Sirente andMonte Velino Photo: A Gazenbeek

Page

Life after LIFE

34

Lower down are forests of oak andbeech, which because of a long historyof coppicing mainly consist of scrubbytrees with thin trunks, but here andthere are squat, gnarled, thick-setbeeches that are 200 years and moreold. Deep gorges with remarkablechasmophytic vegetation cut into thesouth rim of this plateau, where theland falls away to the Avezzano basin.

Between the two mountains is a north-south valley (Ovindoli-Rocca diCambio), with meadows, fields andseveral villages. Within easy motorwayreach of Rome, it has attracted wintersporters, day trippers and peoplebuying houses to use as summergetaways. Another valley, the ValSubequana, lies north-east of Mt.Sirente. It is more populated, anddevoted to farming (hay, grain, small-scale vineyards and orchards). It usedto be very prosperous, with water millsin every village, but it is now the mostdepressed part of the park, withconstant depopulation and emigrationsince 1945. Most inhabitants are nowelderly people living off their pensions;young people tend to move out.

This diverse landscape has a richwildlife. The golden eagle and manyother Annex I birds occur here,including the vulture Gyps fulvus

which was released in the Mt. Velinoarea recently. Lynx and wild cat arealso found here; the latter has evenbeen spotted in the farmland of the ValSubequana. Meanwhile, bears, apriority species under the HabitatsDirective, occur as wanderingindividuals, mainly in spring andsummer, more rarely in autumn, but donot winter here. Between 1996 and2000 the park wardens collected a totalof 81 signs (visual sightings,droppings, prints, carcasses) of wolfpresence and 83 of bear presence. It isthought there are two packs of wolves(maybe 15 individuals together) andfrom 2 to 5 transient bears.

Sirente-Velino lies smack between thefamed Abruzzo national park andMaiella to the south and Gran Sasso,Monti Sibillini and the new Ernici-Simbruini regional park to the north.These outstanding natural areas form acoherent mega-complex of trulyEuropean significance, which could bemarketed as one of the crown jewels inthe Natura 2000 network. Within thismega-complex Sirente-Velino has apivotal position. The Rome-Pescaramotorway has created a barrier toterrestrial migration from Maiella andthe Abruzzo park to the other four. Theonly place where wildlife can cross iswhere this motorway goes under the

Page

Life after LIFE

35

ranges in tunnels, whichhappens to be immediatelyadjacent to the southeastcorner of Sirente-Velino.So, it represents a criticalecological corridor whichallows gene flow throughthe central Apennineparks, thus preventingpopulation fragmentationand genetic isolation formany important animaland plant species.

Lead-up to the LIFE project

Given all this, a movement to establisha nature park covering Sirente-Velinobegan in the 1960s. After persistentcampaigning, the Parco NaturaleRegionale Sirente-Velino was finallydesignated in July 1989 by theAbruzzo regional government. Itcovers 90% of the SPA. 13municipalities lie entirely within it,another 9 partially. Total populationinside the park is 10,000 (in 41settlements). All 22 municipalities withterritory inside the park are membersof the Comunita del Parco. Thisplatform appoints 6 members of theConsiglio Direttivo (governing board)of the park, 5 other members aretechnical experts appointed by theAbruzzo Region. The day-to-day workis done by an agency under the board’ssupervision, but with its own staff andbudget (the Ente Parco NaturaleRegionale Sirente-Velino). However, for years the new parkremained a purely paper entity. Itsgoverning board was not appointeduntil 1992 and when in 1994 anapplication was made for LIFE-Naturefunding, the park still did not have anystaff. Nevertheless, from 1989 onwardsthe Abruzzo Region earmarked about

250,000 €/year for the park’soperational costs. During the first 6years, these annual budgets wereaccumulated as an investment fund,which grew to 1.25 million € by 1994and was further topped up by leftoversfrom subsequent budgets.

With an investment fund of that size,why was LIFE needed at all? The park,with so many municipalities inside itsborders, had to dedicate attention toother issues such as cultural heritage,tourism development or land useplanning. LIFE-Nature was called onfor investments in habitats and specieswhile the rest of the investment fundwas used for projects which were lessdirectly nature conservation and moresustainable development.

For instance, one of the most recentprojects bankrolled by this investmentfund is a 300,000 € project to extendthe natural gas supply lines to 6municipalities. In return, thesemunicipalities sign conventions thatthey will reduce the cutting offirewood in their woods. Besidesreducing the impact on forests, the ideais to prove that the park supportspositive development of direct humanbenefit.

Top of the Gole di Aielli-CelanoPhoto: A Gazenbeek

Page

Life after LIFE

36

LIFE objectives

In keeping with several other projectsduring the early years of LIFE I, theproject contract had generally vaguetechnical descriptions and impreciselocations for many of its actions, withalmost no quantified outputs. From acurrent perspective, the applicationwas poorly prepared: everything wasspeculative – the detailed plans had tobe worked out during the project!

Nevertheless, it was eventually agreedthat the project would focus on thefollowing main actions:• Increasing the ecological knowledge

of this vast area, and preparing amanagement plan. LIFE wouldfinance inventories and preparatorystudies.

• Introducing surveillance, both tohelp with monitoring wildlife, as toaddress problems like illicit rubbishdumping or herdsmen putting outpoison against stray dogs andwolves preying on their livestock.

• Removing rubbish dumps andcontrolling the use of motorbikesand 4WD vehicles, which weregoing into the limestone gorges forjaunts, disturbing wildlife anddamaging vegetation. The projectintended to close all access tracks,set up signs and wooden fences, andbuy up land around the gorges tocreate a buffer.

• Improving foraging conditions forwandering bears by planting fruittrees and pruning existing ones.

• Allowing some oak-beech woodsand upland meadows, which weredegenerating ecologically due toinappropriate or excessiveexploitation, to recover by takingthem out of use via lease andcompensation.

These were to be flanked by aninformation campaign aimed atstakeholders and inhabitants of thepark.

The Gole Rupestri LIFE-Natureproject officially began in January1995, but the park agency, which wassupposed to implement the project, hadno staff (the director, Dr Boscagli, wasonly appointed in Nov 1995) andimmediately faced political andadministrative difficulties at regionaland municipal level. Progress was sopoor that on Feb. 29 1996 a DG ENVaudit mission took place with a view tocancelling the project and claimingback the advance payment. Becausethe political authorities gave firmcommitments to do better, theCommission agreed to give the projectanother chance. This was all reportedextensively by the local press as if theproject had passed an exam!

After Dr Boscagli finally hired 3collaborators in autumn 1996, usingLIFE as a lever, things speeded up.The project was further streamlined viaan additional clause, which gave 7months prolongation and replacedsome of the original measures, whichhad proved to be impracticable. Thisrevised programme was carried out and95% of the budget was spent in the last9 months.

At the end of the day, the project wasquite successful, albeit in a much morelimited way than originally foreseen,despite the fact that the beneficiarywas attacked by two citizens’ petitionsand by several regional politicians oversome actions (such as the closure ofthe gorges).

Page

Life after LIFE

37

The actions

Inventories and surveys Three large-scale studies werecarried out by consultingscientists: • a botanical survey of the

chasmophytic vegetation inthe gorges (which concludedthat Celano is one of the mostimportant sites in Europe forthis habitat type) and a surveyof the most appropriate sitesfor planting fruit trees forbears.

• a geological study of thegorges which revealed thatthe Celano gorge, thebiological hot spot of theSirente-Velino, is vulnerableto slumps and landslides, andrecommended furtherassessments of this risk.

• an ornithological inventory ofthe Annex I species present.Recommendations were made fortheir protection (notably preventionof disturbance).

These were to be used after LIFE tohelp prepare the park management plan(piano del parco)

Surveillance The LIFE-Nature project hired 6wardens (all local people) on contractsof limited duration. Their tasks: • Surveillance of the most critical

areas (particularly for bears andwolves) within the park.

• Awareness-raising among residents• Monitoring species on the Habitats

and Birds Directives. Observationswere collated into a data bank.

According to the beneficiary, this wasone of the most important actions ofthe whole project as it was the firsttime the regional park was visiblypresent in the field via staff. Eliminating rubbish dumps The wardens also made an inventory ofall the rubbish tips in the park. A localcontractor was hired in Feb 1997 toclean up several of them, while at thebeneficiary’s request, militaryengineers cleared up old projectilesfrom a former military training area(Monte S. Nicola) near the Valled'Inferno gorge.

Controlling access The project originally targeted 3gorges, but one (Vallone di Teve) wasunder the jurisdiction of the Ministryof Agriculture, which closed the foottrack into the gorge of its own accord.Vehicle access to the other two gorges

Valle d’Inferno, Gole di Aielli-Celano – were intended to be closed byputting up a steel bar across theunsealed roads leading into them. Onlyfarmers, landowners and herdsmenwere to be allowed in. This measure was however highlyunpopular. A 1996 petition, backed bystakeholders like hunters, farmers andthe local motorbike club, complainedagainst it and received politicalbacking in the regional parliament.Parallel LIFE-Nature plans to buy landaround the gorges and fence it off as anadditional protection, were alsoopposed by the municipalities andnever got off the ground. Improving foraging for bears Work for the bears proved to be easier.The LIFE-Nature project planted 4,200fruit trees split between 10-15 macro-sites (large numbers of trees plantedclose together) and 15-20 micro-sites(trees planted sporadically), all locatedalong probable routes of passage ofbears. Initially the young trees werefenced to protect them againstbrowsing livestock and wildlife.During the project a better techniquewas found: sheaths of biodegradable

plastic which protect against grazersbut which also create a microclimatespeeding up tree growth. While waiting for these fruit trees tomature, 80 feeding plots of maize andcarrots totalling 1 ha altogether wereplanted by the project, along the bearcorridors - some plots were even rightnext to fruit trees. Seven local farmerswere paid to plough the plots, sowthem and check that nobody stole thecrops. The beneficiary discovered that theplots were easy to plant but taking careof them (the plants need water andother care) was too much extra workfor the staff and too expensive to payfor. Also, it turned out that instead ofbears, it was mainly wild pig and deerwhich were attracted to these crops. Restoring forests and pastures The project leased 14 sections ofpasture or woodland totalling 157 ha infour municipalities (Aielli, Celano,Gagliano Aterno and Ovindoli) for 20years. Because the point was to leavethese meadows and woodsundisturbed, the project alsocompensated the municipalities for the

loss of use

Life after LIFE

over that time.This wholeexercise costabout 100,000€ - equivalentto a quarter ofthe total LIFEbudget.

One of the fruittrees plantedfor bearsPhoto: A.Gazenbeek

Information dissemination

A series of didactic publications wereproduced as part of the project toincrease awareness of the challengesfacing the park, while signposts andinformation notices were put up atvarious strategic spots.

Drawing up a management plan

For such a complex area involving somany different interest groups, anagreed management plan wouldprovide an essential mechanism forworking towards common, definableobjectives. Its adoption was thereforeconsidered central to the Park’s future

conservation work, but would

Sg

Life after LIFE

Life after LIFE

After the LIFE-Nature project ended inJuly 1997, its work was continued bythe ‘Progetto Ponte’ or ‘bridgingproject’, a grant of 200,000 € from theAbruzzo Region to allow the park tocontinue its bear conservation work.

Meanwhile, a project relatingspecifically to bears was formulatedand sent to Brussels, where it wasapproved in summer 1998 as a secondLIFE-Nature project, called ‘Urgentactions for bears in Sirente-Velino’.This project has a budget of 640,000 €(55% paid by LIFE) and lasts fromSept. 1998 to Sept. 2001.

Actions undertaken after the GoleRupestri project include the following:

of course require a lot ofnegotiation and debate. In Italy, a regional or nationalpark management plan is notjust a wish list, it has force oflaw. It is adopted by theregional authority and istherefore hierarchically higherthan municipal zoning plans,which it overrides. The zoningplans of the municipalities

even have to be amended to conformwith the management plan! Hence theinherent difficulty in reaching aconsensus for adoption. Further studies were undertakensubsequent to 1997 by the Universityof l’Aquila, which discovered speciesof insect not previously known tooccur here and demonstrated that bearsand lynx wander across the park alongNW to SE trending corridors, assuspected already. Maps based on allthe surveys are now ready . So far, over 125,000 € has beeninvested in drawing up the plan (all ofit regional funding). The next phasewill be to interpret the ecological datato suggest policies and to translatethese into territorial zoning andmanagement prescriptions. This willinvolve widespread consultations, butthese talks will not be easy, as, giventhe power of a management plan inItaly, a lot is at stake. Already, just thepresentation of the maps has led tolively debate!

ome of the Park management team and mayors on itsoverning board Photo: A Gazenbeek

Page

Life after LIFE

40

Surveillance

Streamlined to three persons on half-time contracts, the wardening teamwas kept after 1997, via the ProgettoPonte and the LIFE bears project, butwhen the latter ends in Sept. 2001, thewardens will lose their jobs if othersources of finance are not found.

Eliminating rubbish dumps

Since the Gole Rupestri project,municipal rubbish dumps are slowlybeing closed and cleaned up. Thestrategy is to collect rubbish at centralpoints and transport it out of the parkto acknowledged processing facilities.90% of the dumps in the ValSubequana have gone; the problemzone is Ovindoli-Rocca di Mezzo,where there are some big dumps,which will be expensive to dismantle.There is difference of opinion betweenpark and municipalities over whoshould be responsible for this work.

Controlling access The Gole Rupestri project did putup the barriers to the gorgesdespite local opposition. They arestill there but some are now openpermanently. In view of theattitude of the municipalities andlocal people, closing them would

have been a public relations disaster. Itwould also be very difficult to stopwalkers and bikers from going aroundthe barriers unless there was constantsurveillance (which the park is unableto assure). Trail biking and rallies with4WD vehicles still occur around MonteSirente and the gorges, and are difficultto bring under control.

Improving foraging for bears This aspect of the work has gone fromstrength to strength, thanks especiallyto the adoption of a further LIFE-Nature project focusing on the bears.The latter has vigorously continuedfruit tree planting. Around 9,000 extratrees will have been planted by 2001,mostly in a NW-SE band acrossSirente-Velino. This corresponds to themain route followed by bearswandering across the park, throughbeech woods which form naturalmonocultures in which few wild fruittrees grow.

Above: barrier put up during the project inthe Valle d’Inferno gorge

Left: barrier removed since at Gole di Aielli-Celano, which is now permanently open

Photos: A. Gazenbeek

Page

Life after LIFE

41

The work of rejuvenatingwild fruit trees bypruning has alsocontinued, using localfarmers trained by thepark (1,000 trees prunedin the 1999-2000 period).Whether it will bepossible to continue afterthe LIFE-Nature bearsproject, which is nowfunding this work, endsin Sept. 2001 is stillunclear, although thepark thinks it would be desirable tocontinue.

Restoring forests and pastures The fact that the land in the park is tiedup with ‘uso civico’, ancient use rightsto wood, grazing land, fish and waterfrom springs, meant that the idea ofcompensating loss of use and leasingland to allow forests and uplandmeadows to regenerate, had to beabandoned to prevent a perpetualfinancial drain. It turns out that uso civico can never beextinguished. Therefore, although notexercising use rights can becompensated, for 20, 50, even 100years, afterwards one must pay again.Uso civico cannot be stopped forever.So, when the 20 years for the landleased by the Gole Rupestri project areup, the park will have to paycompensations again if it wants to stopuse for another 20 years. Instead, the park now onlycompensates for non-use of individualtrees (200-400 year old big Quercusrobur trees or trees used by birds fornesting). Moreover, this compensationis only offered when and where an areais coming up for tree cutting.

The compensation is paid from thepark’s annual budget; so far a dozen ofsuch mini-sites have been secured forabout 13,000 €. The trend is now towards hands-onsylvicultural work. Beech, as a resultof traditional coppicing, is crowdingout other trees. To restore diversity andgive more food resources to e.g. bears,excess beech is to be removed(although normal succession wouldalso lead to a beech climax forest, sothis measure can be considered ratherartificial).

The target for the near future is totackle 40 ha (30 ha beech, 10 hapines), starting autumn 2000. This isone-off work - it takes 50 years for theforest to return to the situation ofbefore the intervention. Under the lawon uso civico, if the park wants to doforestry work like beech removal it hasto follow a complex approvalprocedure. When this is concluded, thebeech is cut by local agents undercontract to, and paid by, the park, butthe timber is given to the municipalitywhich either distributes it among itscitizens (holders of the uso civico) orsells it and uses the money formunicipal projects. No compensationthen needs to be paid.

Altipiano di Baullo Photo: A Gazenbeek

Page

Life after LIFE

42

A general problem affecting theuplands of the park is that they havebeen abandoned to succession,purchased by investors to convert intoski-ing areas (Ovindoli-Rocca diCambio) or actively afforested (ValSubequana). Consequently, blocks ofafforested conifers now often interruptexpanses of upland grassland.However, the park has successfullytaken up the matter with the forestryservice, which now accepts the specialecological situation of Sirente-Velinoand has committed itself not to plantconifers and to consult the park beforeany new afforestation with indigenousspecies.

Damages to crops and livestock

A problem that has been aired time andagain at public meetings with the localcommunity is the damage to livestockand crops caused by wild pig, straydogs, wolves and bears. People oftenadded their fear that bears, as a resultof the two LIFE-Nature projects’ work,would become a pest like wild pig andstray dogs. Many complained thatpayment of compensation for damagesis slow and inefficient.

Damages to livestock are indeed aproblem. Wolves and, above all, straydogs are responsible, although bearshave been observed eating livestockcarrion. To protect their animals,stockfarmers lay poison, which killsindiscriminately. Even though illegal,it is difficult to stop this practice.Eradication of stray dogs would go along way towards tackling the rootcause, but this is virtually impossibleas a new Italian animal welfare lawforbids killing dogs unless the animalis caught in flagrante delicto attackinganother animal or person.

Damages to crops have already hadunpleasant consequences for the park.

In 1998-99 mass complaints in the ValSubequana about damages caused byproliferating wild pig led to a politicaldecision (regional decree of March 72000) to take a block of land betweenSecinaro, Gagliano and Castel Ieri outof the park, so that the pigs could behunted (by law, hunting is not allowedin a regional nature park). The result isthat the park’s area has been reducedfrom 59,186 ha to 54,725 ha.

To an outsider, this outcome seemsrather bizarre. Why not take apragmatic attitude and organise a cullof pigs, instead of de-designating alarge slice of park? True, the ban onhunting in protected natural areas doesmake it very difficult to get aderogation for a cull. For variousreasons, Italian conservationists arereluctant to involve recreationalhunters in any such culls. Still,technical solutions (e.g. culling by parkstaff) were possible. We have notenough information to commentfurther..

Information dissemination

The park has recognised theimportance of communications interms of getting acceptance forconservation measures and hastherefore invested significantly here.This includes the hiring of a full-timepublic relations officer, Luca Gianotti.One of his first activities has been toorganise a round of public meetings inFeb-March 2000, at which all couldcome and air their views andgrievances.

Meetings were held in 18 villagesthroughout the park. Attendance variedfrom half a dozen to 40-50 people(over 400 in total). A summary wasmade, and it makes interesting reading.Besides various complaints mentionedpreviously, a common concern was

Page

Life after LIFE

43

whether the park is doing enough topromote ‘our village’ or whether thedivision of funds and projects betweenmunicipalities was fair and equitable.

The Environment Ministry’s PTTA(Programma Triennale TutelaAmbiente) budget line has also beentapped to fund a centre forenvironmental education and plan anetwork of nature trails. 15 youngpeople have been trained via PTTA tobecome “spokesmen for the park”, e.g.during visits to schools. In March2000 a training seminar, attended by50 teachers from local schools, washeld to promote nature education basedon the park’s assets.

Networking The project also allowed the park tonetwork and learn from other LIFEprojects, especially foreign ones. Thenetwork of the European LIFE-Naturebear projects with its quasi-annualmeetings and the Oct. 99 LIFE Weekwere particularly useful.

Closer to home, the mega-complex ofcentral Apennine nature areas of whichSirente-Velino is part, has attracted aseries of LIFE projects dealing withlarge mammals. In 1996, the parkdirector, Dr Boscagli, was invited intothe coordination committee of the bearsubproject of theLIFE-Nature project‘Mammiferi’, tocontribute hisexpertise. This wasreciprocated withMammiferi’ssuccessor project,the LIFE-Natureproject ‘Orso bruno’.In July 2000 the parktrained the ‘Orso

bruno’ project how to catch bears. A third central Italian LIFE-Natureproject, ‘Lupo e orso’, does notoverlap geographically with Sirente -Velino, but its main innovation -training sheepdogs to protect livestockagainst bears and wolves - might beuseful. The park is currently evaluatingif Lupo e orso’s outputs cansuccessfully be transposed to Sirente-Velino. The ‘Mammiferi’ LIFE-Nature projectalso selected Sirente-Velino as apossible site for reintroduction of theAbruzzo chamois (Rupicapra ornata,an endangered endemic species foundnowhere else in the world but theAbruzzo region). It started a feasibilitystudy which is being continued under asecond LIFE-Nature project(‘Rupicapra’).

Meanwhile, to pave the way forreintroduction, the Sirente-Velino parkhas begun work on a so-called ‘areafaunistica’ on a bluff beside the villageof Rovere. This is a big fenced-offenclosure of several hectares, whichwill double as a facility for captivebreeding and as a tourist attraction. Itcosts 125,000 €, funded by the ERDF,and will be ready in 2001. It ishowever still unclear how the runningcosts (permanent staff, veterinary careetc) will be financed once it is stocked.

Hill at Rovere wherethe area faunistica

will be builtPhoto A Gazenbeek

Page

Life after LIFE

44

Overall assessment


Prior to LIFE-Nature, apart from theslow progress towards establishing aregional park, very little hands-onconservation work had been done otherthan a few inventories.

Although some measures under LIFE-Nature proved unsuccessful in the longrun, the project did achieve threeimportant results:1. it allowed the first nucleus of staff

and a group of wardens to beemployed

2. it laid the basis for a comprehensivesurvey of the area and thepreparation of a management plan

3. it started off work in the field toclean up rubbish dumps, improvediversity in woodlands and providebetter foraging conditions for bears.

All three have been carried on since,joined by important new initiativessuch as hiring a PR officer ornetworking with similar conservationprojects. So, in 1996-97, the LIFE-Nature project gave an initial impetusto conservation work in the Sirente-Velino park, and the momentum hasbeen kept up since. There is, however,a somewhat dangerous reliance onfollow-up EU financing (via the LIFE-Nature bears project) to continueimportant work like surveillance,which is not a one-off investment likefruit tree planting or forestry work.Hopefully more permanent funding forsurveillance can be found.

In terms of conservation benefit per se,the effects are perhaps rather ad hocand localised, most attention havingbeen focused on the high-profilepriority species such as the bear.However, it should not be forgottenthat this is a huge area where the

natural environment and the culturallandscape mix, and both, by and large,are still in good shape. It is nocoincidence that the LIFE project andits successors focus their conservationwork on large, rare mammals (bears,chamois, wolf) which do need ahelping hand. If these animals surviveand prosper, it enhances the value ofthe Sirente-Velino park, and isimportant for the overall conservationstatus of these species in central Italy.For bears, the park is even astrategically vital lynchpin allowingexchange between the centralApennine populations.

Incentive effectIn our opinion, the real value of theLIFE-Nature support lay in thepolitical sphere: it helped unblock alog jam of inertia which waspreventing the park from reallyfunctioning. The park had beenproclaimed 6 years before the LIFEproject was submitted in 94/95, butthere was no staff or infrastructure.The political will to use the budgetsmade available by the regionalgovernment was just not there.Because of the LIFE funds, for whichthe park, as beneficiary, was notdependent on local authorities, it waspossible to get the ball rolling. Thestaff employed via LIFE for technicalwork on bears and scientific surveys,simultaneously helped build up thepark as a functioning entity at alllevels. Once this fait accompli wasachieved, the local/regional authoritiesfollowed up by bringing the core staffunder the operating budgets earmarkedfor the park.

The prestige of EU support for thepark, and more importantly, the factthat the Commission followed theproject closely and intervened when itappeared to be stalling, played a vitalrole in this process. This is a classic

case where a Commission missionon-site (in Feb. 1996, at a moment ofcrisis in the project) had a powerfuland positive local political impact.The joint technical and financialaudit mission was apparently asalutary lesson for all those who hada tendency, fuelled by years ofstructural funds largesse, to view EUfunds as a one-way process wherenothing had to be accounted for toanybody. They realised that withLIFE, there was a direct relationshipwith the Commission in which itwanted to know what happened withthe funds.

Local attitudes - the political context

Sirente-Velino’s natural beauty andvalue is agreed by all, but thechallenge, we were told, lies inmatching this to aspirations of socialand economic development among thecommunities in the park. As Mr CesareColorizio, past president of the parkgoverning board, put it, the park mustapply a credible policy, which meansallowing room for legitimate projectscompatible with the environment.

Which projects are compatible/sustainable is of course the crucialquestion. Even the core tasks of thepark are not agreed upon between thedifferent members of the governingboard. Meanwhile, the party whichwon the spring 2000 regional electionsin Abruzzo (Alleanza Nazionale)campaigned on reducing the park from55,000 to 15,000 ha and generally

overhauling conservation policy in theregion. It is still unclear if and how thiswill be put into effect.

From all sides it appears that localinhabitants expected economicmiracles from the park when it finallybegan, and did not understand thatsuch things take time. Theconsiderable investments in buying anew park headquarters, carrying outstudies and planting fruit trees forbears are contrasted by some with thelack of tangible economic spin-offs orwith what is perceived as neglect ofother important ‘nature’ issues likepreventing wildfire or cleaning up theremaining rubbish dumps. Yet at thesame there is suspicion of the personalrestrictions the park might bring.

The park administration agrees that ithas to boost confidence in its policiesamong the municipalities and thecitizens, - hence the appointment of aPR officer and the round of villagemeetings in 2000.

Village of Acciano – Val Subequana Photo : A Gazenbeek

InsufobeofMfodr

Conservationbenefit


Public interest

creased Managed to get the park Little demonstra- Public interest
rveillance, moreraging areas forars, reintroduction chamois planned.anagement planr pSCI beingawn up.
finally off the groundthrough an initial imof dedicated fundingMuch of the work hacontinued since. Alsstimulated networkiwith other parks anLIFE projects.

Life after LIFE

petus.so

ngd

tion value at thisstage. Sometechniques forimprovingforaging forbears could beusefulelsewhere.

stimulated by projectbut still a long way togo in winningsupport for the park.Efforts underway forsustainable tourismcould help to swaypublic opinion.

Page

Life after LIFE

46

Bringing about sustainable solutions

So what are the main socio-economic options for this park? Tourism is being eyed as a possibility, butthere is the good, the bad and the ugly, all vying for space in the Park.

Winter tourismTwo downhill ski-ing resorts (Ovindoli and Campo Felice), financed by EU structural funds and other publicmoney back in the 1970s-80s, lie inside the park and Natura 2000 area. Although snow is limited to a fewmonths a year, these resorts are close enough to Rome to be attractive for weekend or single-day ski-ingtrips (123,000 visitors per season in Ovindoli). Projects are still being pushed to expand these resorts, forinstance, by linking the two skifields, tar-sealing the track to Prati di Pezza or building a new parking lot atthe Campo Felice field to relieve congestion. These have already led to complaints from conservationbodies because of the potential damage to valuable habitats.

Controversy over winter sports development has spilled over into municipal politics. There is a master planfor winter sports produced by the Region, but it dates from the 1980s and is oriented towards maximumwinter sports development. Sceptics say that winter sports is concentrated in a few congested weekendsand creates no permanent jobs, while outside investors control the chairlifts and hotels and pocket theprofits. On the other hand, protagonists say these ski-fields are already affected by man-madeinfrastructures, so improving the technical quality and throughput of what there is, is better than openingnew fields in unspoilt areas. At the local level, Dr Angelosanto, the mayor of the winter sports townOvindoli, is strongly opposed to the sprawl and clutter of buildings put up previously. A new, strictermunicipal land use plan strongly advocated by him, was adopted in July 2000, legalising what is alreadythere but not allowing new buildings. Ten years ago this would have been politically impossible to evenpropose, but new fiscal rules for second residences have lessened market interest in them.

Summer tourismThe regional park is particularly keen to develop nature- and heritage-based summer tourism, so that thenatural capital of the district is seen to be bringing economic benefits. Compared to winter sports, summertourists tend to stay longer and engage in a greater variety of activities. Revenue is thus spread moreevenly among operators and there is more human contact between locals and visitors. However, localmayors consider that the park has not managed to significantly increase summer tourism yet, which is stillunderperforming. Currently there are 30-40,000 overnight stays each summer in the Ovindoli-Rocca diMezzo zone but very few in the Val Subequana - usually day trippers from Ovindoli.

The regional park counters that tourism development is hampered by a lack of local initiative, even apathy.It cited several cases where it had launched ideas or contacted tour operators and the media, but with noresponse from the municipalities. Mr Santili, mayor of Castelvecchio, says this is because mostmunicipalities only have a population of around 200 and no structures or capacity to organize tourisminitiatives, market themselves or their local products. Collective projects, under the aegis of the park,seems the only logical solution for him. In this respect some collective projects have already beenundertaken. Besides the conservation-oriented posters and leaflets produced through LIFE-Nature, thepark has published two high-quality, almost encyclopaedic booklets. One presents all the municipalitieswith their principal sights and a list of hotels; the other describes a whole series of hiking trails. These areexcellent tourism material! Using its ‘investment fund’ the park has also opened 11 information centres, butit seems that only 6 or 7 function properly - finding people willing to take care of the centres is a majorproblem.

The structural funds have also made a considerable contribution. The 1994-2000 ERDF made availablenearly 1.7 million €, administered by the park or the municipalities, for projects targeted towardsdeveloping sustainable tourism. These were:• two visitor centres with small botanical gardens• three combined nature and history trails with panels• a geological and agricultural heritage museum in Ovindoli• a mountain refuge for hikers near Mt. Velino• restoration of old water mills in the Aterno valley• construction of the captive breeding centre for Abruzzo chamoisThe Abruzzo Region’s Operational Programme for the 2000-2006 roundof structural funds assigns 13 million € to all the parks in Abruzzo together,including Sirente-Velino.

An initiative is now also starting to promote the six central Apennine parks,including Sirente-Velino, as a European mega-complex of naturereserves. Called ‘Appennino Parco d’Europa’, and funded by conservationNGOs, regional bodies and the Environment Ministry, it wants tostimulate the parks to work together, involve the unprotected districts between them, start up joint subprojects, e.g. on the Abruzzo chamois,and present the parks together at trade fairs.

The Future

Sirente-Velino is almost a classic caseof where the future of an attractive andlargely unspoilt semi-natural areadepends on whether or not the localinhabitants and their politicalrepresentatives consider thatsustainability, conservation, naturepark/Natura 2000 status e tutti quantiis bringing them tangible benefits.

So far, the jury is still very definitelyout on this one. In Sirente-Velino,sustainability would have to be basedon agriculture, tourism and possiblysome traditional artisanal outputs(there is actually a plan to introduce alabel of ‘park origin’). Withinagriculture, stockraising is critical, asthe most unusual landscapes in thepark (the altipiani upland meadows)depend on it, but it is not too robust.

Tourism is a two-headed beast here:winter sports is already important inone part of the park (Ovindoli-Roccadi Mezzo) but is more likely tothreaten than enhance habitats here,while the rest of the park suffers froma lack of tourists. Summer tourism,farm tourism, cultural heritage tourismand nature-based tourism are all under-developed. Efforts to redress this arebeing made, but without overwhelmingsuccess so far.

The park administration, the formerLIFE-Nature beneficiary, is investingtime and effort in the sustainabledevelopment work. Whether it isenough, is impossible to gauge at thisstage. Certain is that the parkmanagement is willing to learn fromexperience. Thus it has recently hired aPR officer specifically for communityrelations, and organised publicmeetings in every village in the park.

Meanwhile, the local communityseems divided. It is abundantly clearthat the park has supporters (citizensand mayors), but it also faces morethan enough critics and opponents atall levels. Plus, it seems, indifference -the park management complainedabout the lack of response fromcitizens and local authorities when itactually did propose projects that couldlead to socio-economic benefits.

At the end of the day, the park has tobe seen to be delivering benefits (notjust deliver - if nobody notices, it’s nogood) to win over its critics andenthuse the apathetic. These benefitscould be more tourists, or developmentof new niche markets, or removal ofeyesores like rubbish dumps anduncontrolled building that trouble localpeople. Whatever. The important thingis that there are benefits - according tothe citizens! Pure conservationsuccesses are unfortunately muchharder to sell, even though the work onlarge mammals is justified andstrategically important in the overallApennine context and must becontinued.

Tragically, in spite of its efforts in thesocial environment, which certainlyshould be stepped up, and its goodconservation work, the park is stillunder a cloud: the contract of the parkagency director, Dr Boscagli, whoconceived and managed the LIFE-Nature project and got the park off theground, was not renewed in Sept.2000. What happens now is not clear…

For further information contact

Edoardo AlonzoParco Naturale Regionale Sirente-VelinoVia Orti di Santa Maria67048 Rocca Di Mezzo (L’Aquila)Tel: +39 0862 916343Fax: +39 0862 916018Email: [email protected]

Life after LIFE


Beneficiary:Århus County

Budget:490.000 €

EC co-finance:50%

DurationOct 1994 – Dec 1996

LocationThe island of Anholt inthe Kattegat sea

Habitat /species:Northern grey dunesand Crowberry browndunes – priorityhabitat types

Case Study IV:Deserts in the sea:restoring lichen heaths

The context

Located in the middle of theKattegat sea between Sweden andDenmark, the small island ofAnholt is an unusual place. The

Aerial view of Anholt Island Photo K Sundseth

Life after LIFE

rugged and austere landscape,devoid of hills or trees, remindsone more of a desert, or even thesurface of the moon, than aDanish island. In fact the easternpart of the island is often referredto as the ‘Anholt desert’. This isbecause it harbours a very specialtype of habitat: the lichen heaths.

Page

Life after LIFE

50

Covering 1100 ha, it is one of the largestexpanses of dune and lichen heathsremaining in north-west Europe. No lessthan 8 habitat types have been foundhere, three of which are priority underthe Habitats Directive (fixed coastaldunes with herbaceous vegetation,decalcified fixed dunes with Empetrumnigrum and coastal dunes withJuniperus spp.). The wildlife interest isalso significant: the tawny pipit, Anthuscampestris, nests on the island and thesurrounding waters are home toimportant concentrations of grey sealsand harbour seals. As a result, 13 357 hahave been designated both as SPA andpSCI - 1804 ha being on land.

Not surprisingly, the island is sparselypopulated – 174 inhabitants live all yearround on the island, earning theirincome from tourism. However, in thesummer months the place changescompletely, because large numbers ofvisitors are drawn by the beautifulbeaches and quiet atmosphere –sometimes there may be up to 6000staying overnight on the island at thesame time, usually in holiday cottages.Yet, because the coastline is so long,people are easily scattered and there israrely a feeling of overcrowding.

The threats

The main threat to this fragile heathcomes only indirectly from tourism.Few people actually venture inland ontothe heaths because it is so barren anddifficult to walk across. Also, cars andbikes are restricted to certain paths, sovisitor pressure is minimal. But becausethe island is flat it is often subject tostrong winds. As a result most holidaycottage owners have planted treeshelters around their houses, using themountain pine Pinus mugo.

This exotic species has adapted well tothe local conditions and is nowspreading rapidly of its own accordacross the heaths, destroying theunderlying habitat along the way. Bythe early 1990s it was estimated that asmuch as 40% of the heath had beenaffected. How to remove these trees isanother cause for concern, for the heathsare unable to withstand the damagingeffects of heavy vehicles or regulartrampling. Little guidance could begleaned from other similar areas sincethere were few precedents for thishabitat type to work from.

Area of trees to be removed in dark From beneficiary’s application file

Page

Life after LIFE

51

The beneficiary

The Anholt heath has long beenrecognised as an area of outstandingnatural heritage. Legislation goes backas far as 1939 but it was only in 1980,after it had been protected through theDanish nature conservation law, thatattention turned towards activelymanaging it. This was the responsibilityof the local authority, Århus Amt,located on the mainland. But in order todo so they had first to pay the privateindividual who owns this part of theisland a fee for the right to manage.

Some years later, a small area ofovergrown heath was restored using avariety of techniques. The purpose wasessentially to assess which techniqueswould be most appropriate and cost-effective to use, with a view todetermining how much money would berequired to run a large-scale restorationprogramme. The final cost estimateswere way beyond the resources of thelocal administration, which is why theyapplied to LIFE for funding.

The beneficiary’s application wassubmitted in 1994, two years before theend of the first phase of the LIFEregulation (1992-1995). Because therewas no certainty at the time as towhether another phase of LIFE wouldbe approved, the Commission decided

that all projects funded in 1994 had tobe completed within two years so thatits financial commitments did notsignificantly overrun the end of theLIFE programme. As a result allsuccessful applicants were asked if theywere able to complete their proposedprojects within this shortened timeframe.

The Århus Amt had originally asked forfour years to complete the work onAnholt. It had also asked for asubstantially higher budget, but becausecompetition was so tough that year – 6times oversubscribed – and a number ofsignificantly better prepared projectshad been put forward, the Commissionwas reluctant to fund the Anholtapplication fully.

It proposed instead that the projectreceive only 50% funding from LIFErather than 75% as requested and thatthe overall budget be reduced infunction of the shorter time frame. Thiseffectively meant that the total projectbudget had to be downsized by 25%.Nevertheless, Århus Amt accepted theseconditions and the project began inOctober 1994 with a total budget of490.000 €.

LIFE objectives

The specific objective was to restoreheaths over 300-400 haovergrown by pine and tosecure the remainder fromfurther threats of pineinvasion. A secondaryobjective was to trialdifferent restorationtechniques in order toadvance the managementknowledge of this particularhabitat type.

Area invaded by self-seeding pinePhoto: K Sundseth

Page

Life after LIFE

52

The actions

The bulk of the funds were thereforeallocated to outside contractors, hired toremove the pine using very specifictechniques. The original intention wasto clear an area of 400 ha manually andthen remove the wood, either by burningit on the spot or by chipping it and thensending it off to one of the five smallchip-fired plants in town. Work wouldstart in the more fragile eastern part ofthe heaths, which had only low densitiesof trees, and end up in the more robustwestern part where the older, moredense plantations were located.

However, early on in the project, itbecame clear that several of theproposed actions could not be done asforeseen, either because they hadn’tbeen thought through carefully enough,or because the budget cuts, introducedduring the application phase, were moreproblematic than first envisaged. In thecase of the former, the beneficiary onlydiscovered after the project had startedthat the chipped wood could not be usedto fuel the local power plants after all

since the needles from the pines wouldchoke up the furnaces. Also, the localfire brigade objected vociferously to theidea of burning wood on site. With theprevailing strong winds on the islandthere was always the risk that a fire insuch an arid landscape will run out ofcontrol.

It also became evident that the contractwork would be more expensive thanforeseen - as a result of the reduction inthe time frame, and because alternativemethods had to be used to compensatefor the fact that the wood could not beburned on-site.

The beneficiary did what it could to findadditional funds to pay for the extracosts but, in the end, the final cost of theproject still came to 674,000€ comparedto the original cost estimate of 490,000€. It also decided to test out alternativetechniques such as crushing thebranches or chipping the wood andscattering it in the vicinity. These atleast would have minimal impact on theheaths in terms of trampling andvehicular damage.

Another element of the project was tomonitor the effects of the differenttechniques on the recovery of theheaths. Eight plots were chosen in themanagement areas and six in the controlareas. These were regularly checked bybiologists from Copenhagen Universitywith a view to gathering sufficient datato determine both the rate of recovery ofthe heath and the best means ofachieving this.

Finally, a small component of theproject was dedicated to awarenessraising in order to gain local acceptancefor the work being undertaken, both bythe residents and by the tourists. Aleaflet was produced and a smallexhibition centre installed in the localmuseum near the harbour.

Lichen heaths are very fragile and easilydamaged by vehicles Photo K Sundseth

Results

As far as the restoration work isconcerned, despite best efforts from thebeneficiary, the project finally onlyfelled 5130 m³ of wood and removed1750m³ compared to the originalintention of felling 7050m³ andremoving 3250m³. But the reason forthe drop in volume can be largelyattributed to one factor: a mature denseplantation close to the town was left outaltogether. This was much less worryingthan it seemed at first since theunderlying heath had, in any case, littlechance of recovery. For the remainder, avariety of techniques were tried out asburning could finally only take place on43 ha. Branch crushing was doneinstead on 441 ha (30 ha high-densitywood, 411 ha scattered trees) andchipping on 15ha.

So are the results as bad as they seem?Yes and no. Despite the reduction involume of wood removed, the area overwhich the tree clearance took place wasactually greater than foreseen – 499 hainstead of 400 ha. This meant that alltrees over the eastern part of the heathhad been cleared, thereby removing themain threat to the habitat. The fact that amature plantation was left standing isnot so serious since the heathunderneath had littlechance of recoveryanyway. But it does meanthat more effort will beneeded in the long termto contain thespontaneous reseedingfrom this plantation sothat it does not spread onto the heath again.

Thankfully, as the site is close to themain village this is logistically verystraightforward. Removing pineseedlings will in any case have to bedone in the vicinity of the pine shelterssurrounding the holiday cottages on theheath itself as some of the fallen conesfrom felled trees start to grow.

The question is then whether it was wiseto leave so much wood on the ground.What consequences would this have forthe recovery of the heaths? To theislanders the left-over trees werevisually unappealing, raising fears of aslump in the tourism trade. To thescientists it meant that the recovery ofthe heath would be delayed by at leastanother 10 years. This was the mainconclusion of the end-of-projectworkshop involving the project’s ownscientists, other experts and localrepresentatives.

Once this became apparent, theCommission raised the possibility withthe beneficiary of taking certainremedial measures to correct thisproblem, for instance issuing a furthercontract to remove the debris. However,it was felt that more damage would becaused by running vehicles up and downthe heaths to remove the fallen trees

o

Assessing the results four yearson with the project manager andfficials of the Danish Ministry of

EnvironmentPhoto K Sundseth

Life after LIFE

Page

Life after LIFE

54

than leaving the wood on the site todecay slowly. So no further action wastaken and the project was closed.

Either way, both the Commission andthe beneficiary were criticised by thelocal community for the final results –they felt that both were too far removedfrom the island to be able to conduct theproject effectively. It is true that theCommission was not able to the visit theproject whilst it was on-going. Thejourney either required a prohibitivelyexpensive private plane charter or a longjourney by sea. Yet, what alternativeswere there? The Århus Amt had thestatutory responsibility to maintain the

conservation value of the island, and thelocal population was so small that, evenif it had wanted to tender for the work, itwould not have been able to muster therequired manpower to carry it out.

As far as the other actions in the projectare concerned, the monitoring work wascompleted as foreseen but it would besome time before the effects of theproject work would become apparentand recommendations could be madeabout the relative merits of the different

actions. The beneficiary undertook tocontinue this programme for a furtherfive years until 2001.

The public awareness actions on theother hand were relatively minor, butwere sufficient to explain why theconservation work was important.Clearly, the project manager had verylittle experience in this field, which willnot have helped matters. For instance, avideo had been produced but wasessentially only made of snapshots ofthe island before and after the projectand so of little interest to a wideraudience.

As far as networking is concerned, theend-of-project scientific workshop wasin fact the only form of networkingundertaken. It has to be borne in mindthat this is a very remote andinaccessible part of Denmark whichmakes networking that much harder.The beneficiary had for instance afterthe project organised a follow-upscientific workshop to take stock of therate at which the invading pine was

Area where tree felling with branch crushing wasused fours years ago Photo: K Sundseth

Page

Life after LIFE

55

disintegrating and the lichen heathrecovering. Yet so few expressed aninterest in attending that the event had tobe cancelled – according to thebeneficiary people had wanted to comebut could not afford the cost or the timeto get there.

Did the project achieve its objectives?

Despite all, the project did in factachieve its objective, albeit in a round-about way, as it succeeded in removingthe principal threat to this fragilehabitat. The majority of the heath (490ha) had been cleared of invading treesand now it was only a matter of timebefore the heath would recover,provided of course that the beneficiarywould undertake regular maintenancework to prevent the remaining treesaround the settlements from re-seedingthemselves.

The local reaction was also less hostilethan it first seemed. Granted, there wassome resentment towards the fact thatorganisations as far afield as Århus andBrussels were making the decisionabout their environment, but once thefear over the visual impact of the treeremoval programme subsided, thegeneral attitude turned towards one ofmild curiosity.

Yet, despite a relatively happy end,there are still a number of salutarylessons to learn from this project. First,there is a real danger of compromising aproject on the ground of administrativeor financial imperatives. The substantialcut in time and budget riskedcompromising this project, even thoughthe beneficiary was given anopportunity to react to these proposals.In hindsight, it might have been wiser tohave allowed the full period of time forthe project as requested by thebeneficiary (after all, nowadays asignificant proportion of LIFE-Natureprojects still have to ask for a

prolongation). Also, the consequencesof a substantial reduction in a budgetshould be carefully assessed, before afinal agreement is reached.

This then raises the question of thedetail of the application. The fact thatseveral of the original objectives, suchas burning on-site and using local chipfire plants, fell through rapidly after thestart of the project, may be indicative ofthe fact that the application does not askenough questions, or possibly the rightquestions, to test the robustness of theproject. This point has in fact alreadybeen addressed in LIFE II where muchmore detail is required, particularly interms of ‘readiness’ of the actions, thesocio-economic context and the possibleconstraints that may arise.

The other conclusion to draw from thisis that even if a project is very remoteand expensive to get to, it should bemonitored just like any other project. Itmay be that if there had been earliercontact with the beneficiary and localresidents on site, some of themisunderstandings that arose later couldhave been avoided.

That said, the project still managed toachieve what it set out to do.

Life after LIFE

Three years after the end of the project,the beneficiary undertook its firstclearance programme for the self-seeding pines at a total cost of 4300 €.The work was essentially done bylocals. A further programme is foreseenfor the year 2001 and it is clear that thebeneficiary will continue with thisregular maintenance work for ‘as longas it takes’ - in other words every 3-5years for the next 15-20 years, by whichtime the pine seed bank should bedepleted.

Page

Life

56

As to the project areas worked on, thesewere left to decay of their own accord.To most people’s surprise the woodchips did begin to decompose and blendinto the landscape; in fact you wouldalmost have to be on top of a clearanceplot nowadays to recognise it.Nevertheless, from a scientific point ofview the recovery of the heath remains aslow process. That is why thebeneficiary has paid for regularmonitoring work since 1997.

As for the local awareness initiatives,there is still an exhibition in the localmuseum about the heaths but it has notbeen updated since the project. There isalso a local initiative to organise guidedwalks in the summer around the Anholtdesert to explain to visitors thefascination and natural interest of thisunusual habitat. Finally, Århus Countyis in the process of writing about Anholtand its natural environment. Despite itspopularity there is in fact relatively littleinformation available about the island,so this book is sure to fill a gap.

Overall assessment

Conservation effect

Despite all the problems encounteredduring the implementation of theproject, it has to be said the final resultis already now a lot more positive thanexpected. The main threat to the fragileheath was essentially removed, thanksto the LIFE project – demonstrating its

ability to support initial,expensive one-off investmentsthat allow the future managementto be low-key and cost-efficient.

As far as the recovery of theheath is concerned, the jury isstill out on this one. Mostscientists predict that it will takea long time for the heath to returnbut only the results of thescientific monitoring work willconfirm whether or not this is thecase. What is sure is that it isonly a matter of time now beforeit does recover, as no new threats

have appeared since that couldsignificantly damage this unusualhabitat.

Demonstration value

It also has to be said that the changes inthe project objectives from pure burningon-site to a variety of tree removaltechniques may in fact have ended uphaving an important demonstration role.Very little is known about lichen heathsand their ability to recover fromafforestation. What better place thanAnholt to trial out the different methodsand their costings? Once the results are

Aerial view of area cleared of pine fours years later,note forest plantation which was left out of projectPhoto: K Sundseth

Oninvretowith

Conservationbenefit


Public interest

e-off clearance of A significant injection Different techniques Initially hostile, now

after LIFE

ading pine hasmoved main threat the site, recoveryll take some timeough.

of funds from LIFEmade it possible forthe County to tacklethe problem in onego.

used for clearance,their effects arebeing monitored andcould be of interestto others.

benign indifference –possibly a missedopportunity forraising awareness ofthis unique habitat.

Page

Life after LIFE

57

written up in a scientific journal (whichis foreseen) the experiences here couldwell be of use for other similar habitats.

Incentive value

The incentive value on the other hand isnot really relevant in this case as therewas nothing more to do on the site, apartfrom the continued monitoring work andthe occasional removal of self-seedingpines every 3-5 years until the seedslose their viability. Nevertheless, byproviding a significant initial injectionof funds beyond what was available atnational level, LIFE-Nature made itpossible to tackle the problem ofinvading pines in one fell swoop. Thiswill mean that subsequent managementwill be low-key and relativelyinexpensive.

Influence on public attitudes and thelocal economy

The initial hostile reactions from thelocal community to the project, to thebeneficiary and the Commission hadbeen unexpected but did not last long.

Nevertheless, if there is to be a takehome message from this, it is thatspecial attention should be given toremote and isolated projects to bringthem into the LIFE fold, as it is clearlyharder for them to network and shareexperiences than other more centrallylocated projects. Also, remotenessshould not prevent the projects frombeing monitored as regularly as anyother project.

The future

The future for the lichen heaths onAnholt is very straightforward, now thatthe principal threat has been removed. • Continue with the removal of self-

seeding pine until the seed resourceis depleted

• Continue to monitor the results ofthe different techniques used to clearthe trees and ensure that once theeffects become evident, these aremade widely available to othersthrough scientific and othertechnical publications

• It may also be an ideal opportunity,with the high levels of touristscoming to the beaches, for theresidents and authorities responsiblefor Anholt to ‘show off’ this veryspecial type of habitat and raiseawareness for nature conservationgenerally.

For further information, contact:Poul Erik ThystrupÅrhus CountyNature and EnvironmentLysend Alle 1DK-8270 HOJBJERGTel +45 89 44 6990Fax +45 89 44 6982


Two projects, FienerBruch and GroßtrappenBrandenburg, weretreated as one for thepurposes of this report

Beneficiaries1/ Landkreis JerichowerLand with the Sachsen-Anhalt Ministry ofEnvironment2/ BrandenburgMinistry of Environment

Budget:1/ 526.666 €2/ 3.650.000 €

EC co-finance:1/ 75%2/ 33%

Duration1)Sept 94 – Aug 2)Sept 92 – Dec

LocationSachsen-AnhaltBrandenburg,Germany

Habitat /species:Great bustard(Otis tarda), priorityspecies for LIFEfunding

Case Study V:Farming for birdsin Germany

Observation platform near Buckow Photo: A Gazenbeek

The context

The great bustard, Otis tarda, is ajumbo jet among European birds,weighing up to 20 kg. Although itflies well when it has to, like a 747 itcannot just bank and turn on asixpence and so is vulnerable tocrashing into sudden obstacles likeoverhead power lines. The bird livesin small flocks in open plains. Themales gather in groups to givespectacular courtship displays at thesame place year after year. The eggs,usually two, are laid in nests on theground, often in tall vegetation asthis gives more cover againstpredators.

9794

Life after LIFE

Page

Life after LIFE

60

All bustards are very shy, but thefemales are particularly sensitive todisturbance, and will often abandon thenest if they are frightened. Althoughthe adult birds are mainly plant eaters,the chicks rely on invertebrates fornourishment during their first months.

The great bustard hails from thesteppes of Russia and central Asia, butlong ago adapted to the ‘pseudo-steppes’ created wherever peasantscleared forests for subsistence-levelgrain growing rotated with livestockgrazing on fallow land. By 1700 thebird had reached as far as Sweden andsouthern England. Then decline set in,under the combined onslaught of moreefficient agriculture, denser humansettlement and hunting. Many greatbustard populations were extinguished,leaving isolated remnants wherever theright conditions persisted. The totalEuropean population is now estimatedat 25-30,000 of which 95% isconcentrated in Russia, the Ukraineand the Iberian Peninsula. A remnantin the Hungarian basin collapsed from3400 individuals in the 1980s down to1100 today. Barring a tiny group in theRumanian Dobruja which is probablyextinct, the east German bustards arethe only other population left inEurope.

Great bustard habitats in Germany

Eastern Germany, where a relativelyinefficient, low-intensity rotationfarming on large semi-feudal privateestates provided excellent habitatconditions, still had 4,000 greatbustards in the 1940s. After 1945 thecommunist GDR reorganized farmingon an industrial model, with direconsequences for the great bustards.By 1981 only 361 were left, scatteredamong twenty isolated populations.About this time, the first systematicefforts to conserve the species began,largely based on personal efforts bypioneers such as Dr Litzbarski inBrandenburg and Dr Dornbusch inSachsen-Anhalt. The 1990 merger withthe Federal Republic brought thedemise of the GDR industrial farms,but this was a mixed blessing as it alsobrought new threats (privatisation andfragmentation of land holdings, allsorts of investment and developmentschemes) and an end to the jointconservation actions which had beenstarted with the state farms.

In 1990 only three viable populationswere left. They occupied theWesthavelländisches Luch (5610 ha)and the Belziger Landschaftswiesen(4460 ha) in Brandenburg and theFiener Bruch (9000 ha, but only 3000

Leaflet for farmers produced by the Brandenburg project

Page

Life after LIFE

61

ha relevant for great bustards) inSachsen-Anhalti. All the others hadpetered out or were down to a fewlonely survivorsii.

These three sites are broad plains anddepressions (originally fens, butdrained long ago), rising gently tosurrounding low ridges and fossildunes. They are either used as humidgrassland for livestock grazing and hayproduction, or, wherever the land isdrier and sandier, for large-scale cropfarming. An orderly landscape of hugefields interrupted by occasional rowsof trees, where human populationdensity is low. The bustards spendtheir summers in the meadows andcropland of the depressions and theirwinters on the higher-lying ridgesnearby, seeking suitable foragingopportunities among the winter cropsof alfalfa and rapeseed.

This mix of humid pastures and dryfields harbours, besides the greatbustard, a broad range of waders andmeadow-breeding birds, and thiscocktail of steppic and meadow-wetland birds is quite unique. Until1976, great bustards and black grouse(Tetrao tetrix) even shared the samerange here. Therefore, in a way thegreat bustard is a flagship and indicatorfor the health of an ecosystem which isvaluable in its own right. Hence,parallel to all the efforts undertaken forthe great bustard, maintaining thisbroader avifauna and the surviving fenhabitats has always remained a secondconservation target for the sitemanagers.

LIFE objectives

The task for conservation was to haltthe decline of these last three viableeast German populations and create theright conditions for their revival.

Dr Litzbarski, who had built up a greatbustard research and captive breedingstation (‘Trappenschutzstation’) atBuckow in the WesthavelländischerLuch during the 1980s, elaborated arecovery strategy based on thebustards’ habitat requirements.

It had two thrusts:• Getting, or keeping, habitat

conditions right. This meantrestricting fertiliser and pesticideuse to promote higher plant andinvertebrate biodiversity, leavingunexploited strips in and alongfields and hay meadows as refugesand foraging areas and providingwinter feeding possibilities in theform of high-energy crops likerapeseed. Modifications to farmingwhich destroy habitat, likeeliminating fallow land anduncultivated margins around fieldsor ploughing up grassland, ought tobe prevented.

• Reducing human disturbance ingeneral, and accidental destructionof nests and chicks by farmmachinery and labourers. Any eggsand chicks rescued from suchaccidents, when they did occur,were captive-bred at Buckow andeventually re-introduced back intothe wild.

Page

Life after LIFE

62

He estimated that for each self-contained population of great bustards,20 individuals was the absoluteminimum for the population to stand achance of being viable (historically,breeding populations ranged from 40to 120 individuals each!). These wouldrequire 5,000 hectares, at least half ofwhich must be farmed in a bustard-friendly way. To guarantee this, land was to bepurchased at the two Brandenburg sitesand made available to farmers on strictterms as to how it was to be farmed; orelse farmers would be compensated forvoluntarily farming their own landaccording to the recovery strategy.This approach was later copied inFiener Bruch, where bustardconservation started much later. Theseprescriptions are in line with therecommendations in the Action Planfor Globally Threatened Birds. Dr Litzbarski succeeded in winningsupport from the new post-communistgovernment of Brandenburg for acomprehensive great bustard recoveryprogramme. Further support camefrom the Großtrappenfördervereine.V., an NGO. Given the size of theinvestment required (7 million € forthe whole programme in land purchasealone, plus considerable annualcompensation payments to farmers)

co-financing was also sought fromLIFE-Nature, which in 1992 agreed tocontribute 1.2 million € over a two-year period (packaged as the stand-alone project ‘Great bustards inBrandenburg’). In this case LIFE-Nature’s support was ‘a brick in thewall’ - a valued contribution to anambitious programme funded from avariety of sources. The situation in the Fiener Bruch, onlya short distance away in theneighbouring Land Sachsen-Anhalt,was quite different. Very little hadbeen done here in the field until a 1994application was successfully made toLIFE-Nature by the Kreis JerichowerLand, the local authority territoriallyresponsible for the Fiener Bruch. Sohere LIFE acted as an ignition key,financing 75% (395.000 €) of all costsin a 30-month project to get things offthe ground. What did the projects achieve? Brandenburg LIFE-Nature project This project took the line that, toensure meeting the twin targets ofappropriate habitat conditions andreduced disturbance, the most criticalland had to be brought underconservation control by buying it andimposing strict conditions on future

users. Around thiscore, contractswould be madewith land users tofarm in a particularmanner.

Dr Litzbarski (far left)and representatives ofthe EnvironmentMinistry ofBrandenburg and theFederal Government,outside the BuckowTrappenschutzstationPhoto: A Gazenbeek

Page

Life after LIFE

63

Applying this strategy, it had bought2087 hectares of land by the end of1994, 23% (477 ha) using LIFE funds. Farmers agreeing to work this landaccording to the prescriptions of thegreat bustard programme, or signingfive-year contracts to do the same ontheir own land, were paidcompensations for loss of income andadditional work load. By the end of1994, 4540 ha in both sites togetherwas under this strict, bustard-orientedland management. LIFE-Nature co-financed the compensations for thefirst two years as an incentive, afterwhich they were fully borne by theBrandenburg Environment Ministry’s‘Vertragsnaturschutz’ agri-environment scheme (which receivedno EU support at the time!). In addition, the BrandenburgAgriculture Ministry’s KULAPiii agri-environment scheme covered over4000 hectares in the two sites.Sometimes fields under KULAPcontracts lay scattered between theVertragsnaturschutz fields, forming a‘buffer around the buffer’, butsometimes the same farmer hadVertragsnaturschutz and KULAPcontracts simultaneously for the samefield. In this kind of situation KULAP,which is not primarily conservation-oriented, subsidises basic reduction of

inputs and intensity, whileVertragsnaturschutz, which is designedto serve conservation purposes,compensates additional restrictions oractions in favour of the great bustards.Altogether, about half the total area ofthe two sites had been brought or keptunder the kind of land use desired bythe bustard recovery strategy. 7 new farms, ventures like organicvegetable growing, sheep farming orlow-density beef cattle grazing whichwere considered to be naturally morein line with bustard prescriptions, wereestablished on the land bought by therecovery programme. In all, 43different farms are to a greater orsmaller degree covered by the twoproject sites. To manage and monitor all this, a solidsite management framework had beenbuilt up, centred on the research stationat Buckow and a new one at Baitz forthe Belziger Landschaftswiesen, with 8staff (one of these a new post co-financed by LIFE). There were visitoraccess and information facilities atBuckow (also co-funded in part byLIFE) which were visited by 2-3000people a year, including school parties.Altogether, the LIFE-Nature projectmet all its targets and wasimplemented smoothly and within thetime frame originally proposed.

Landscape inFiener Bruch

Photo: AGazenbeek

Page

Life after LIFE

64

Fiener Bruch The Fiener Bruch project’s tactics werequite different. First, via fieldwork,using equipment paid by LIFE, itidentified the most important summerhabitats for the great bustards. Theseturned out to lie within a 1700 ha zonewhich was designated ‘great bustardrefuge’ (Trappenschutzzone, which inSachsen-Anhalt has a legal statusgiving the species, not the habitat assuch, comprehensive protection) andclosed to non-authorised traffic everyyear from March to October.Embedded inside this refuge, theproject identified 650 ha of centralhabitat which included the sites forcourtship display and the nesting areas.For this heartland, a management planwas made which acted as basis for thefurther measures. The project restricted land purchase toonly a small area of 97 ha (thetraditional mating areas and first portof call for the bustards when theyreturn to the lowlands after winter)inside the 650 ha central zone, toensure that there would always be aminimum bustard ‘sanctuary’. This 97ha is leased to an agriculturalcooperative until 2013, which has tomow the grassland there according toconservation prescriptions. For therest, it counted on legal protection ofthe whole area as strict nature reserveto ensure that land use would conformto great bustard requirementsiv. This strategy backfired badly. Legalprotection raised the farmers’ hacklesand led to a massive row which stillhad not been digested by the time ofthis Flashback mission. At the end ofthe day, only 143 ha (including nearlyall the land bought via LIFE) wasprotected under regional law as‘Naturschutzgebiet’ (strict reserve,covering, besides the species, thehabitats as well) in Nov. 97.

The Fiener Bruch project had moresuccess with voluntary restrictions onland use in exchange forcompensation: 700 ha was under suchcontracts within the 1700 ha bustardrefuge by the end of LIFE, plus analmost equal amount in the remainderof the 3000 ha project area. These agri-environment contracts are alladministered and paid by the Sachsen-Anhalt Agriculture Ministry’s KULAPprogramme, which is cofinanced byRegulation 2078/92. There is noequivalent to the BrandenburgEnvironment Ministry’s Vertrags-naturschutz programme.

Brochure for general public explaining the project

As flanking measures, electric powerlines and tree rows which crampedgreat bustard flyways and views wereremoved. Like Brandenburg, sitemonitoring and day-to-daymanagement was established thanks to2 jobs created by LIFE and 3 by aGerman employment scheme. All in all, this project did meet theobjectives set out in its LIFE-Naturecontract, but had a rather turbulentlifetime because of the battle over legalprotection, slow progress in achievingeven its modest land purchase target(which necessitated a shortprolongation) and various internaladministrative difficulties.

today, thanks to good renewal ratesamong management contracts comingto the end of their 5-year term. Site monitoring, daily management andscientific observation is ensured, fromtwo stations at Buckow and Baitz.There are 10 local staff (more thanduring LIFE!) under theLandesumweltamt Brandenburg, thepublic body responsible to theEnvironment Ministry for on-sitemanagement. Six of these, plus two inthe local NGO Großtrappen-förderverein e.V., deal exclusivelywith great bustard work. Conclusion:the recovery programme to whichLIFE contributed, had by 1995 alreadyachieved its overall goals.
In Fiener Bruch By contrast, Fiener Bruch had tostruggle to hold on to the resultsobtained via the initial investmentprovided by LIFE, mainly because of achronic lack of follow-up finance. Thestaff for site management andmonitoring had shrunk from 5 to 1 by Logo specially designed for the LIFE-Nature project
Life after LIFE

Life after LIFE Since their ending dates in Dec. 94(Brandenburg) and Aug. 97 (FienerBruch), the two LIFE projects havefollowed quite different paths: In Brandenburg Here land purchase continued, to reacha total of 2231 ha today. There areplans to acquire another 350 ha, mainlyto round off areas whererehumidification is taking place underthe parallel meadowbird-waderprogramme. The amount of land underthe Environment Ministry’s strict“Vertragsnaturschutz” bustard-orientedagri-environment scheme is at 4440 ha

1999 and even this last post (sitemanager), one of the two created viaLIFE-Nature, looked uncertain duringthe Flashback mission. Since thentemporary solutions were foundallowing the site manager to be kepton, but funds will run out again inApril 2001. The Landkreis is trying tofind new possibilities, but so farwithout success. The amount of land underextensification inside the 1700 harefuge zone dropped from 700 to 612ha by 1998 because contracts were notrenewed by farmers. After that it felleven more dramatically, to only 200 hain the 1700 ha Trappenschutzzone inthe year 2000, which reflects thestrained relationship with the farmers.In some cases, land where contracts

Page

Life after LIFE

66

were not renewed was subsequentlyploughed up or treated with herbicidesto get it back to par, thereby wasting 5years’ investment in compensationpayments. This is permitted under theagri-environment schemes and theregional land use provisions, so littlecan be done about it legally speaking(however, the designation as SPA inOct. 2000 potentially creates a newsituation!). This does vindicate the strategy ofbuying land. After purchase, land canalways be made available to farmersagain, but then the conservation agent,as owner, is able to impose whateverconditions are deemed necessary andmoreover, any ecological improvementobtained as a result of agri-environment contracts or other actions,is permanent. By contrast, agri-environment or other managementcontracts with a private owner have thedisadvantage that the owner canalways decide not to renew thecontract and revert to past practices,thereby negating the funds and effortinvested in the contracts. The FienerBruch project, which bought less than6% of the 1700 ha great bustard corezone, relied on legal protection withbinding prescriptions for land use(which failed). Brandenburg owns 20%of the total land area of its two sites,and, although it still needs farmers towork this land, it calls the shots there. Yet no new land has been bought, forlack of funds, although theconservation managers would, in anideal world, like to acquire the entire650 ha core zone so that itsmanagement can be assured via lease-back under appropriate conditions.Given the collapse of farmerparticipation in voluntaryextensification, this is quiteunderstandable as strategy.

New challenges

Expectations at the beginning of theprojects were that once the threats ofhabitat loss and disturbance had beenneutralized, the great bustardpopulation should become self-supporting, perhaps even expand. This did not happen, even thoughhabitat loss and disturbance weretackled quite successfully. In bothproject areas, populations are notdeclining any further, but they are verylow, and stable rather than increasing.

There are two principal factorsinvolved here:• Mortality among the adult birds

because of the combined effects ofageing birds and kills by predators,especially foxes, whosepopulations exploded as a result ofsuccessful rabies vaccination.

• The low rate of successfulreproduction. Only one in every tenfemales raises a chick to maturityeach year, because of a shortage ofmales and high losses of chicks andeggs (50-80% of the annual ‘crop’)to corvidae and foxes. This cancelsout the positive effect gained byeffectively ending the loss of eggsand chicks to farming activities.

Low recruitment rates and predationare, as principal remaining threats, theprice of success in dealing with theother threats.

The response has been threefold:collect eggs for captive breeding, fenceenclosures in which breeding groupsand juveniles are protected againstpredators, increase annual fox culls(now at 350-450 in Brandenburg and200 in Fiener Bruch).

Sincein tWesthare coJune againsbind nest. onwarnaturaeggs Buckofencedreleasany gmaturraised

In 19chicksand 3placednot mthere had twtheir cross socialthe bgroupintegrpopulwhichpositi

This tBelzigfencedreleasThe laa simwith land Comp

Look, but don’t disturb:Field trip to bustard

heartland during FienerBruch mission

Photo: A Gazenbeek

Life after LIFE

1990, all eggs foundhe wild in theavelländisches Luchllected until around1st and substitutedt a wooden egg tothe females to theEggs laid from thends are left to hatchlly. The collectedare incubated at the station inw; the chicks are raised in a enclosure and eventually

ed in the wild. This means that iniven year the chicks reaching

ity are a mix of captive-bred and in the wild.

95 this fenced enclosure for was expanded to cover 12 ha, males with clipped wings were there. Because the males couldove out, the females joined themand stayed during breeding. Thiso benefits: it protected them and

chicks from foxes (which can’tthe fence), and it meant that

interaction was restored becauseirds kept together as a stable (research had shown thatation of juveniles into theation is a delicate process in male birds play a crucialve role).

actic is now being copied. In theer Landschaftswiesen 10 ha was recently and is being used to

e juvenile bustards to the wild.test news is that in Fiener Bruch

ilar enclosed area, to be stocked2-3 males, is being built on the

purchased via LIFE-Nature.letion is foreseen for May 2001.

Although sceptics might call this zoo-keeping rather than natureconservation, the critically endangeredstatus of east German bustards justifiessuch temporary emergency action tobuild up a healthier population base.

Overall assessment Conservation benefit By the end of the Brandenburg LIFE-Nature project in 1995, farmers werecollaborating faithfully with the sitemanagers to prevent accidents to birds.Consequently, the percentage of nestsand chicks lost to farming activitieshas fallen from 80% to below 10% in1999, which is a great success. In thetwo sites, Westhavelländisches Luchand Belziger Landschaftswiesen, thegreat bustard population stood at 70individuals, and falling, in 1990. Itcontinued to shrink steadily to bottomout at only 40 in 1996, but then, as theeffects of the conservation measuresbegan to trickle through, numbersbegan to creep up again to 47 in 1999.Between 1 and 5 chicks survive toautumn each year. In Fiener Bruch the population, 30 in1980, had shrivelled to 6 in 1993, then,as the LIFE-Nature project’s measuresbegan to take effect, it bounced back to

Page

Life after LIFE

68

around 7–9 birds, with occasionalpeaks (13 for a short time in March1998 and again in Sept. 2000) whenbirds fly in temporarily fromBrandenburg. The number of nestingfemales climbed from 4 in ‘93 to 7 in‘97, but then went down to 4-5 in ‘99and 2000. Similarly, 1-2 chicks wereraised and survived to autumn eachseason between 1995 and 1997, butthen, in 1998 and 1999, there were nochicks at all - possibly a consequenceof the less favourable conditions in thefield engendered by the farmers’‘recurring management strike’ (pg 72).Fortunately, in 2000 a chick was againraised successfully. The work to secure and restore habitatsfor great bustards, together with otherparallel, habitat projects, broughtconservation-benefits to other birds aswell:• 17 bird species which had not been

observed for 20 years have returnedto the Westhavelländisches Luch:Porzana porzana, Crex crex (nowup to 5 calling males), Gallinagogallinago (15-20 breeding pairs),Emberiza calandra (60-70 breeding

pairs) etc.• In the Fiener Bruch, Numenius

arquata, down to 18 pairs in 1993,has recovered to a constant 25breeding pairs, with one of thehighest breeding rates of anypopulation in Germany. Falcotinnunculus made a come-back from10 pairs in 1993 to 30-35 today.

• The three sites are important stagingareas for migrating birds – in total45,000 Vanellus vanellus, up to2,500 Pluvialis apricaria, up to23,000 of Anser albifrons and Anserfabilis together, from 1,500 to 6,500Grus grus and significant numbersof Gallinago gallinago (200),Tringa glareola (150) andPhilomachus pugnax (120).

• Birds breeding at the 3 sites areCiconia ciconia (12-15 pairs) andLanius collurio (90-120 pairs).

These figures alone would vindicatethe conservation work done in thesethree sites, even without the greatbustard. From a legal standpoint, the areas arealso now ‘better off’. The entiresurface area of the two Brandenburg

Landscape inFiener BruchPhoto: AGazenbeek

Page

Life after LIFE

69

sites, except the villages inside themsuch as Buckow, Damme etc, wasdesignated SPA in 1997 (although theStandard Data Forms did not reach theCommission until Jan. 1999). For Fiener Bruch the Commissionfinally received an SPA designation forthe entire LIFE-Nature project area inOctober 2000 (3677 ha i.e. twice thesize of the Trappenschutzzone). Incentive effect In terms of incentive effect of LIFE-Nature funding, there is a sharpcontrast between the two projects. It has to be said that the Brandenburgproject was part of much a granderscheme for the great bustard. As such,it had significant financial backing,continued after the end of the project,from the Brandenburg EnvironmentMinistry (which paid for personnel andoperating costs, land purchase and alarge slice of the agri-environmentcompensations) and from variousNGOs which funded scientificmonitoring work and more landpurchase. In the case of Fiener Bruch, althoughLIFE did provide the initial impetus, ithas not managed to ‘prime the pump’by attracting additional funds to buildon this foundation and so consolidatethe results of the project. So far, apartfrom the agri-environment paymentsand a Federal German employmentscheme funding the site manager,follow-up work in Fiener Bruch hasbeen exclusively financed by the localauthority (the Landkreis JerichowerLand), whose pockets are not too deep.

Neither the Land Sachsen-Anhalt’sEnvironment Ministry norconservation NGOs appear to have

invested any funds in the project’scontinuation. The Ministry has abudget for great bustard work, but itcan only be used to pay externalcontractors to do habitat managementwork, scientific surveys etc, whereaswhat Fiener Bruch needs is funds topay for its own personnel and landpurchase costs.

Relations with local farmers Both projects needed farmers to workthe land they have bought, and bothcounted on voluntary agreements withprivate owners and users in the rest ofthe land occupied by the great bustardsto follow management prescriptions inreturn for compensation. Yet one ofthe surprises of the Flashback missionwas the underlying discontentment offarmers with the land managementagreementsv. From what we heard, it seems that,generally speaking, the farmers felt themanagement contracts are tooinflexible. They are usually definedaccording to entire cadastral sectionsof land (whereas the bustards may onlybe nesting in a corner). Farmers musttherefore mow the whole section andthey must mow after, say, June 15 (and

Positive spin-offsInteresting is the economic impact from the7 million € used to buy over 2,000 hectaresof land in Brandenburg. For land owners inthe villages in and around the project area,this capital injection was welcome. TheGDR era had left a legacy of poorlymaintained, rundown houses. Many localhome owners might not qualify for a bankloan to renovate these houses becausethey had lost their jobs in the changeoverto a market economy. So, income fromland sales was widely used to renovatehouses. The effect is still noticeable today– in a village like Buckow the houses withnew roofs and fresh paint often point topeople who have sold land to the bustardconservation project!

Page

Life after LIFE

70

not before). This hinders the farmers:weather conditions change from yearto year, so sometimes grass is ready formowing earlier in the season,sometimes later. It hinders the bustardstoo, according to the farmers, as grasswhich grows too tall and dense simplyis not in their interest either.

In the case of Fiener Bruch, themowing regime applied to the landbrought under legal protection made nosense at all, the farmers bluntly said.The dates were not appropriate for thegreat bustards and certainly not for thefarmers. Consequently, farmers moreor less went on strike in 1998, refusingto take up the options offered to themfor using this land. (This complaintmight be justified - mowing dates doseem geared to meadow birdrequirements! Apparently this was dueto poor consultation between thedifferent public bodies responsiblewhen the conditions for the protectionorder were drawn up in late 1997)vi.

Regarding the BrandenburgEnvironment Ministry’s Vertrags-naturschutz programme (100%domestically funded by theEnvironment Ministry, with no

2078/92 co-finance), the fact that theprescriptions changed annually alsoupset many farmers. In theory thisallows some adaptation to changingcircumstances, but, farmers claim,these prescriptions become ever moredetailed and restrictive (which theconservation side sees as positivefeedback from experience gained!). The KULAP agri-environmentcontracts for both Länder (cofinancedby 2078/92), on the other hand, do notrestrict farming activities as severely asVertragsnaturschutz, but theirdrawback is that they are said to bemonitored by agriculture officials in anextremely rigid and inflexible manner.If a farmer breaks one of themanagement conditions, the premiapaid over the entire five-year term,even for years when he obeyed theprescriptions, can be clawed back.

Also, because fertilizers have not, orbarely, been applied for so many yearsof agri-environment contract, thevegetation is more diverse but muchless suitable for feeding to livestock.This, farmers say, means constantlyfalling yields, which the compensationlevels (fixed for five years in advance)no longer offset. Dairy farmers, in

External threats to the sites

Various threats feared by the projects in the early 1990s (investment in new forms of intensivefarming, holiday parks) did not materialise. Disturbance from nearby glider and balloon airfields andlow-flying military jets have been solved via agreements on codes of behaviour, or are at least beingdiscussed constructively. At this point in time, plans to build windmill parks in the higher-lying winterforaging areas between the three bustard areas seem the only serious external threat. The flywaysalong which the great bustards fly to and fro between sites are fixed and windmills could block theseflyways, or scare the birds away from landing in their foraging areas. The environmental authorities inSachsen-Anhalt have already formally rejected these windmill parks.

The outcome to one threat is an example of an innovative solution to the kind of conflict betweeninfrastructure development and conservation requirements Article 6 of the Habitats Directive refersto. The upgrading of the Berlin-Hannover railway, which crosses the Westhavelländisches Luchbustard area, was a major controversy during the LIFE-Nature project. Fears were that greatbustards might crash into the trains and overhead power lines. For a long time, a tunnel was thefavored option, but this would have cost 350 million €. In the end, a solution promoted by DrLitzbarski and his team – earth dykes on either side of the rail – was chosen. Construction ended inOct. 1998. The dykes stretch on either side of the railway for 5.3 km and are 7.5 metres tall. They aremade of styrofoam covered in soil, because otherwise their weight would depress the peat soil,causing them to sink. Yet their soil cover, now overgrown with grass and shrubs, makes them lookvery natural. The great bustards treat the dykes as a natural hillock and fly over them, so that they donot collide with the trains and the power pylons. A win-win solution? Definitely for the accountants, astotal cost was only 13 million €.

particular, are hit hard. Therefore,farmers either want to be able to applylimited quantities of fertilizer again, toprevent further degeneration andmaintain a basic yield, or to ploughand re-seed certain sections. If this isnot possible, then higher premia oughtto be granted to buy supplementaryfodder elsewhere.

All in all, there is a fundamentalanxiety amongst farmers aboutconstant change and lack of long-termsecurity (what happens when thecurrent programmes end?); both makeeconomic planning difficult. The farmers said they would prefer towork in a ‘target-oriented’ system inwhich the target (ensuring a favourablegreat bustard population) is sacrosanct,but the way to achieve it is given viaframeworks which can be implementedflexibly (e.g. in function of the weatherand agricultural strategies, greatbustard behaviour, other conservationaspects etc.). Mowing dates would then

fluctu

from section to section, but incompliance with the scientific opinionof the conservation manager. The idea certainly sounds attractive,and may well work with mowing orgrazing, but appears less suited totargets like restoring vegetation byreducing fertilizer input – such effortsmust be kept up for several years toachieve the target and so would requirelonger-term, fixed agreements. Also,this flexible, ad hoc approach implies aconsiderable investment in qualifiedpersonnel to monitor the site andnegotiate with farmers! Finally, the sites harbour, besides greatbustards, other birds and habitats. Theconservation agents have parallelstrategies and targets for these (e.g.maintaining high groundwater levelsfor meadow birds) yet this may not befully understood by the farmers, whothen campaign against prescriptionsthey consider excessive, looking atthem only in terms of great bustard

Conservation benefit Incentive value Demopotential

Public interest

Bra223444orieagrgreresProprestilltac

FieLimmestaAlsSP

ndenburg project1 ha purchased and a total0 ha under bustardnted agri-environmenteements – population ofat bustard stabilised as ault after a long decline.tection as SPA but threat ofdation and ageing amongst small population to bekled as matter of urgency.

LIFE-Nature waspart of a largerprogramme forBrandenburg’sgreat bustard (avaluedcontribution).

Gaveexamplefor thelaterFienerBruchLIFE-Natureproject.

Capital injectionsthrough land purchasebenefited locals. Overhalf of zone broughtunder agri-environment althoughsome frictions still tobe solved withfarmers.

ner Bruchited success withasures but population hasbilised after a long decline.

Despite initialinjection of fundsthrough LIFE-

Lessonscan belearned

Still strong oppositionfrom farmers to theconservation

Life after LIFE

ate from year to year and even management.

o area now protected asA.

Nature, the projectruns risk of notbeing sustained inthe long run due toinsufficient follow-up efforts.

from itssetbacks.

prescriptions, whichneeds to be settled.

Page

Life after LIFE

72

The future

Farmers in both project areas gave a lotof detailed criticism of the agri-environment contracts they wereconfronted with. These wereinteresting, and should be discussedfurther by both parties acting in goodfaith. After all, extensive andconservation-friendly farmingpractices will remain the fundamental

lynchpin for the long-term survival ofthe great bustard in this region ofEurope.

Curiously there has been no organisedattempt to market farm produce byexploiting the situation created by thebustard management prescriptions.Why not try to market produce fromthese fields as ‘green’ and ‘nature-friendly’ with the great bustard aslogo?

However, farmers do not need as muchgrassland as they used to – the trend inFiener Bruch is to intensify milkproduction by keeping animals in thestables permanently and bringingfodder to them. This means obtaininghigher yields of hay, silage and maize,which in turn could be one of thereasons why agri-environmentcontracts are being resiliated and landsploughed up or fertilized. In arable farming too, trends in CAPmarket support mechanisms can haveconsequences for the great bustards.For instance, any changes in themarket regime’s subsidies and quotawhich leads to a decline in rapeseedcultivation could have serious negativeeffects, as rapeseed fields are the mainwinter foraging areas for the greatbustards. At the moment this crop isstill being grown, but no longer in thetraditional foraging areas, whichcreates a new challenge.

We think farmers should not blame alltheir woes on the conservationprogrammes, however. The threeLIFE-Nature project areas have poorand fragile peaty soils, which aresimply not suitable for super-intensivefarming of whatever kind.

Desiccation as a result of past andpresent drainage schemes could wellbe as much to blame for falling yieldsas agri-environment programmes. Yet,

Looking beyond one’s own patch –networking and dissemination The Action Plan for Globally ThreatenedBirds’ chapter on great bustards specificallymentions international cooperation as ameasure of high importance, and theCommission encourages LIFE-Natureprojects to network with each other anddisseminate results. The Brandenburg programme, from thestart, had a very international outlook andliaised extensively with colleagues in greatbustard conservation across Europe,including beneficiaries of LIFE-Natureprojects in Spain and Portugal. As a finaltouch to the LIFE project, it organised aninternational workshop in May 1995. Thisactive role continued after LIFE-Nature. Infact, the informal great bustard networkwhich arose during the early 90s appears tohave moved into a second phase of jointresearch work: Brandenburg is nowcollaborating with the Spaniards on winterforaging research, with the Hungarians andSlovakians on artificial insemination andwith the Hungarians on predator control. Itis also giving technical assistance to abustard project in Saratov (Russia). The Fiener Bruch project, as new kid on theblock, began by fostering close contacts andcollaboration on the site manager/siteworker level with the Brandenburgprogramme. After LIFE-Nature, the FienerBruch project coordinator developedcontacts with colleagues in Austria, Spainand Hungary, published contributions inspecialist journals and effectively joined theinternational network. So, both projects gettop marks for international networking!

Page

Life after LIFE

73

rather surprisingly, nobody, neither theagricultural authorities nor the natureconservation bodies, appear to beaddressing this very fundamentalproblem, even though in Brandenburgthe peaty soil is reported to be dryingout, losing contact with the fallinggroundwater levels and mineralising.This is bad news for biodiversity, butjust as much for agriculture itself in thelong runvii. Finally, the two projects show howvital sufficient follow-up finance is tobe able to build on the results of aLIFE-Nature project. Brandenburg hasthe financial muscle of the Land’senvironment ministry behind it; FienerBruch is, to all intents and purposes,dependent on the limited financialresources of a local authority and isthus struggling to hold on to whatLIFE achieved. At the end of the day,the two projects are neighbours;scientific observation has shown theydeal with one and the same population.Joint action would seem logical, andseems to be starting up at last.

Talks between the competentministries in the two Länder were, byearly 2001, beginning to bear fruit inthe form of outlines for a joint projectto tackle the main problems still facinggreat bustards. This is encouragingnews, which hopefully will firm upover the coming months.

I In winter the birds occupy a range twice as big as theyfan out from these core areas to look for foragingopportunities.iiThe status of a small group (3-4 individuals observed) inthe Uckermark is not entirely clear: are they indigenousbirds or wanderers from the three main surviving eastGerman populations mentioned above?iii KULAP (Kulturlandschaftsprogramm) is the genericname for a comprehensive agri-environment programmein Germany. Such programmes, administered by theGerman Länder, cover a range of specific contracts: latemowing, low stocking densities, reduced fertiliser input, noploughing of pasture, preservation of humid meadows orstreamside strips, etc.. The original KULAP programmeswere initiatives of the Länder, funded from their ownbudget, but from 1992 onwards they were co-financed byRegulation 2078/92/EEC.

iv This would essentially have forced farmers to followstrict conservation-oriented farming prescriptions ratherthan encourage them to do so through voluntaryagreements.v Because farmers are such crucial players, we met withrepresentatives during the Flashback mission: MessrsFeye, Behrendt and Rawolle in Fiener Bruch, MmeSchönborn and Messrs Richter and Barthels inBrandenburg.vi Our latest information is that the protection order for the143 ha in question is currently being revised and themowing regime is being adjusted, so this problem shouldtherefore be solved.vii We have just been informed that a project to improve thehydrology of the Havelländisches Luch is now under way.The grassland covering 2/3 of Fiener Bruch is less affectedby hydrological fluctuations.

For further information

Brandenburg projectDr Matthias HilleLandesumweltamt BrandenburgPostfach 60 10 61, D-14410 PotsdamTel: +49 331 277125; Fax: +49 331 277 6183Email: [email protected]

Fiener Bruch projectSieglinde BischoffLandkreis Jerichower Land, AußenstelleGenthin, Amt für Umwelt und NaturschutzBrandenburgerstraße 100, D-39307 GenthinTel: +49 3933 905517 Fax: +49 3933 905518



Beneficiary:Provincia Autonomadi Trento, ServizioParchi e ForesteDemaniali

Budget:800.600 €

EC co-finance:50%

DurationJuly 95 – June 98

LocationTrento, Italy

Habitat /species:SPA wetlands,Residual alluvialforests (priority habitattype), Annex IIamphibians

Case Study VI:Restoring wetlandsalong the Trento flyway

View of La Rocchetta in the Noce alley Photo: A Gazenbeek

The context

For 3000 years the Adige valley hasbeen a highway through the Alpsfrom Germany and Austria to Italy.Today the millions of travellersalong the roads and railwaysbetween Bozen/Bolzano and Trentospeed through wall-to-wall orchardsand vineyards between the sheermountain ranges on either side of thevalley. A string of towns andindustrial estates lines the heavilycanalised Adige river. Power linesmarch across the flat lands and overthe high peaks. So what’s LIFE-Nature doing here, in a landscapecompletely transformed by the handof man?

Life after LIFE

Page

Life after LIFE

76

Originally the Adige and its tributarieswere braided rivers, dividingthemselves into many channelswinding between extensive gravelbanks, lined by riparian forests. Theyregularly overflowed into thefloodplain forests and wetlandsoccupying the valley. Centuries ofhuman impact has transformed thisnatural ecosystem - the rivers areenclosed between embankments, thewetlands and floodplain forestsreduced to tiny scraps.

Do such scattered fractions have anyvalue? Well, apart from being a refugefor local wildlife and testimony ofwhat used to be there, the Adige’sremnants of nature are significant forbirds migrating along the valley fromcentral Europe to the Mediterraneanand vice versa. They have been usingthis trans-Alpine route a lot longer thanhumans. Rather like the motels alongthe motorway from the Brenner Passdown to Verona, these patches ofwetland are resting and foraging spotsfor birds. This gives them a Europeanvalue.

In the 1980s drainage and conversionto farmland of these last wetlandfragments in the Trento Provinceaccelerated, perhaps as a grass-rootsreaction to political discussions aboutItaly’s obligation under the RamsarConvention to protect wetlands. TheRamsar law, the Legge Biotopi, finallyarrived in 1986, just in time to save thelast remnant of Taio and haltencroachment on the Palu diBorghetto, two small wetlands whichwould later become LIFE subsites. Asa result, all 41 wetlands left in thevalley of the Adige and its tributariesin the Province of Trento weredesignated nature reserve.

End of story? Not quite. For althoughthey were protected against immediatedrainage at last, these wetland reservesare usually quite small, hemmed in byintensively used land and oftenstrongly degraded as a result of pasthuman activities.

The LIFE objectives

The NIBBIO LIFE-Nature project, runby the nature conservation service ofthe Trento Autonomous Province, setout to repair, improve and expand a setof seven degraded or remnant biotopes,as a pilot project in nature restoration.

The project consisted of two quitedistinct parts:

• A part dealing with watercourses(subsites La Rupe, Focidell’Avisio): restoring riverhabitats and their associatedriparian forests.

• A part dealing with wetlands(Canneti di San Cristoforo, Taio,Inghiaie, Palu di Borghetto, Palu diRoncegno): Restoring those whichhad become too choked with reeds.Buying neighbouring land to createmore wetland or buffers againstsurrounding intensive agriculture.

The actions

The watercourse subsites

La Rupe (near Mezzocorona) Herethe Noce river, a tributary of theAdige, changed its course about 100years ago, leaving its former bed as adry channel (the Nocino) parallel to thecurrent river, with a narrow tongue ofland covered in vineyards and orchardsbetween them.

Page

Life after LIFE

77

The LIFE-Nature project reconnectedthe dry channel to the river by diggingsix broad basins down to groundwaterlevel, and diverting water from theNoce into them through a buriedconcrete conduit. These basins were todevelop into a chain of pools andwetlands, 2 km long, rather than aswift-flowing stream. To speed up theprocess, extensive planting of willows,alders and reeds was done after theexcavation works. A tributary of theNoce, the Roggia di Fai, was bringingorganic pollution into the river. So,three deep basins were excavated witha threshold where it enters the Noce, toallow nutrients to settle and be filteredout by planted reeds.

Foci dell’Avisio : Althoughembanked, the Avisio, flowing into theAdige north of Trento city, is still abraided river with numerous channelsand extensive gravel banks. However,its riparian forests were being trimmed(for flood safety reasons) sothoroughly that they, to all intents andpurposes, did not exist anymore.Meanwhile the reedbeds in thefloodplain between the embankments

had been turned into pastures. HereLIFE-Nature’s targets were to create anetwork of pools and plant newreedbeds around them, to restorewillow and alder woods, and to planthedges in the pastures as refuges andcorridors for various species.

However, only part of this menu wasactually carried out. The mostsignificant achievement was anagreement with the water authoritiesunder which only trees with trunksthicker than 10 cm, considered a safetyhazard, have to be cut, but other treesand bushes will be allowed to growfreely.

The network of pools and hedges wasnot realised. The project excavated twosmall ponds, planted with reeds and abuffering hedge of trees. However,supplying the ponds with water, andkeeping them filled, turned out to be atechnical headache on account of thesubsoil structure. So this kind ofbiotope work was not continued.

Basins excavated in the former river bed ofThe Noce at La Rupe Photo: A Gazenbeek

Page

Life after LIFE

78

The wetland sites

Formerly a meander of theAdige, by the early 1990sTaio, beside the motorwayand railway line nearNomi, had shrivelled to atiny patch of reeds partlyfilled in by an incongruouspile of dumped bricks andother debris, surroundedby vineyards and orchards.

The Palu di Borghetto consists of acompact reedbed with some openwater in a shallow basin – vineyardsslope up on every side. Before LIFE-Nature it was criss-crossed by drainagechannels and drying out.

Canneti di S.Cristoforo: consisted ofa patch of reeds and trees, interspersedwith maize fields, squeezed in betweena waterfront settlement and the mainroad skirting Lake Caldonazzo.

Inghiaie (near Levico Terme) is acomplicated mix of orchards, fields,patches of wood and wetlandoccupying a cone of alluvial debrisextending into the Val Sugana, thebroad valley of the Brenta river, fromthe mountains. The Palude diRoncegno in the same valley is asimilar mix of woods, fields, meadowsand reedbeds.

All these wetland subsites are small,ranging from 4 ha (Taio) to 30 ha(Inghiaie).

The measures carried out were broadlysimilar for all of them: • opening up channels and pools in

the reedbeds; • purchasing adjacent orchards and

vineyards to convert to wetlands(e.g. at Taio, by excavating them togroundwater level to create open

water with tortuous inlets andislets);

• planting screens of poplars, willowsand alders around the edges ofwetlands to act as buffers and ashabitats for Ardeidae;

• replacing concrete-lined drainagetrenches by newly-excavatedmeandering brooks. .

With few exceptions, the plannedmeasures were carried out successfullyat all the wetland subsites.

Surveys & other preparatory measures

Surveys were carried out in all subsitesto monitor the birds, amphibians andfish species present before and afterbiotope works. A special survey ofaquatic vegetation and invertebrateswas made to test the efficacy of therestoration in the La Rupe subsite.

To ensure that the plant species used inthe habitat restoration work were ofindigenous stock, the project alsoconverted a former forestry nursery,situated conveniently close to achannel of the Adige River, to raiseaquatic, hygrophilous and riparianspecies. Plant matter dredged or cutduring the biotope work, which would

Restoration work undertaken in the Taio subsitePhoto: A Gazenbeek

Page

Life after LIFE

79

normally be thrown away, was broughthere for propagation. Relations with the wider community

Public relations work, to tell peoplewhy these nature engineering workswere being done and to promote thesites’ European significance, was animportant part of the project. A videowas made about the work co-financedby LIFE-Nature and a high-qualityforty-page brochure was publishedillustrating the LIFE-Nature subsitesand the other wetlands. A descriptionof the LIFE-Nature project wasincluded in the nature educationcurriculum of local schools, who wereinvited to visit the project subsites. Anexhibit “Biotopes for Europe”,presenting the potential Natura 2000sites in Trento Province, was organisedin Nov. 1997. To go with it, a publicmeeting on agriculture andconservation was jointly organised bythe nature conservation and agriculturedepartments.

So all in all the NIBBIO project ransmoothly, met its targets and kept to itsoriginal deadline. Probably nocoincidence that this project was basedon a well-prepared application withvery detailed descriptions of themeasures - down to the number of m³of soil to be excavated. Although anadditional clause in February 1997made a few financial modifications,these were actually marks of success:as some of the land required for thebiotope works was bought withadditional provincial funds, more LIFEfunds were available for biotope work.

Land purchase itself also proved not tobe as difficult as in other LIFE-Natureprojects. As explained by MarcoFrenes, a farmer we met during ourmission, many farmers have a jobelsewhere and work the family plotafter hours. This may help explain whythere was no large-scale resistance to

land purchase for conservationpurposes. Also, commendable is that the projectreports included excellent colourpictures of the situation at each subsitebefore and after works. This is a verygraphic and user-friendly way toillustrate project achievements whichwas often rather lacking in the otherFlashback projects!

Life after LIFE So what happened after the end of theLIFE project?

The watercourse subsites

At La Rupe the basins had becomepools of clear water with abundantamphibians. Vegetation growth aroundthem has been so rapid that in 1999willows were already trimmed, reedswill have be cut to keep enough openwater, while invading Robinia treeswill be removed later.

With the La Rupe section finished, theex-beneficiary has been expandingriver restoration up- and downstream.In 2001 grassland along the Nocedownstream (south) of the LIFE sitewill be converted to meanders, openwater etc. This project will be financedvia the sale of gravel excavated duringthese works.

Upstream, inspired by the work done atLa Rupe, a new LIFE-Natureapplication was made for the LaRocchetta (Campodenno) section ofthe Noce river, several km north of theLIFE site. This 400,000€ project,dubbed ‘NECTON’, was approved bythe Commission in summer 1997. It isexcavating chains of pools andartificial meanders over a length of 3.5km along the Noce, to recreate theoriginal braided river structure and

Page

Life after LIFE

80

provide new habitat for Truttamarmorata and other fish, and foraquatic birds. As in La Rupe, basinsare dug to allow eutrophic water froma tributary, the Rio Denno, to settle anddeposit the nutrients. The works werelargely finished in June 2000.

Between La Rocchetta and La Rupe, adam across the Noce is a major barrierto migration of fish. There are plans tobuild a fish bypass into the bedrockbeside the dam, but the cost (250,000€) is still an obstacle. Meanwhile, theTrento Province has doubled the LaRocchetta regionally protected area(biotopo) to coincide with the pSCIand is considering expanding it evenfurther upstream. Agri-environmentagreements, with EU cofinance, havebeen made for 8.5 ha of meadow alongthe Noce under which farmers willmow hay to favour grassland birds.

Thus the first LIFE-Nature project hasled to follow-up projects which arequite systematically restoring the Noceriver. Impeccable!

An extra bonus is a new Italian lawobliging electricity companies toguarantee a minimum flow in riverswhere they operate hydro-electricpower plants. The Noce river in 1999became one of the first where the newlaw was applied, and the EUinvolvement via LIFE-Nature providedan additional means of pressure. Thehydro company, Edison spa, hasagreed to provide a constant minimumflow in the river, which will greatlyimprove the effects of the conservationwork done here.

A similar situation has emerged forFoci dell’Avisio. The most significantachievement under the LIFE projectwas the agreement with the waterauthorities under which only trees withtrunks thicker than 10 cm have to be

cut. This accord, still in force today, isallowing the riparian forests to make acomeback.

The Avisio also looks like a goodcandidate for a systematic riverrestoration strategy along the lines ofthe Noce. Indeed, in the winter of 99some works were done on a tributaryentering it from the north.

The wetland sites

Here too, work was continued after theLIFE-Nature project with own funds.In particular the Taio subsite is slowlybut surely being expanded outwardfrom its original tiny nucleus - moreland has been purchased and convertedto wetland; plans are to continue theexpansion in 2001. Its size will soon betriple that of the fragment at thebeginning of the LIFE project. Diggingof pools and planting of trees hascontinued at several sites, with wildfruit trees being planted at Borghettoas a food source for birds on theirautumn migration.

Only the Canneti di S. Cristoforoseem to be lagging, mainly becauseowners of maizefields inside the siterefuse to sell them for reconversion towetland.

Humid meadows on the Avisio andNoce floodplains and inside theInghiaie subsite, which were beingabandoned, are now being mowedagain, thanks to Regulation 2078/92support.

Besides continuing the work inside theLIFE-Nature subsites, the ex-beneficiary has also launched similarwork at five new sites.

Moreover, the NIBBIO LIFE-Natureproject has been copied in Trento’s

Page

Life after LIFE

81

neighbour to the north (the

Bozen/Bolzano AutonomousProvince), where a three-year projectto restore part of the Lago di Caldarowetland was drawn up and successfullysubmitted for LIFE-Nature support in1998. The Caldaro wetland is alsolocated along the Adige flyway andthis project will, if successful, enhancethe benefits for migrating birdsobtained by the NIBBIO project and itssuccessors.

Surveys

Scientific monitoring and surveys havecertainly continued well. Furthersurveys, to monitor evolution of thenew habitats, colonisation byamphibians and trends in fishpopulations, were carried out at theLIFE project subsites after 1998. Aconsultancy is charged with much ofthis monitoring and altogether (ex-LIFE sites and the follow-up andparallel projects in Trento) 6 people

are involved, adding up to 2 full-timeequivalents. Job creation!Management plans

La Rocchetta was chosen as a pilotproject for drawing up Trento’s firstpSCI management plan, which wascompleted at the end of 2000. For theother sites, management plans are stillto be drawn up.

Relations with the wider community

The video and brochure produced bythe LIFE-Nature project continued tobe distributed to interested schools andmunicipalities around the LIFEsubsites. Response from teachers hasbeen very positive and many schoolexcursions have been organised to thesites.

Since LIFE-Nature, the ex-beneficiaryhas invested a great deal in visitoraccess to its subsites. For instance, atthe La Rocchetta site a project is underway to convert the railway station ofCrescino to a visitor centre from whicha track (already finished) leads toboardwalks into the alder-willowswamp forest and the river’s edge.Along this nature trail a series of open-air exhibits explaining certain aspectsof ecology - but in a very original,almost unorthodox, way - will belocated.

In fact, Trento seems to have apenchant for experiments incommunication: In March 1999 aguidebook was produced for theInghiaie site with some unusualtouches, e.g. a step-by-step description(« now, to your right, you see….. »), alogbook to record observations such asthe weather on the day of the visit, anopinion poll one can fill in and returnand even a form one can use to reportvandals!

La Rocchetta – in the middle are the new channelsexcavated by the Necton Project Photo : A Gazenbeek

Page

Life after LIFE

82

A 1 ha botanical garden will be laidout as an added visitor attraction onland donated by the Levicomunicipality beside Inghiaie.Observation platforms have been builtat the Foci dell’Avisio and LaRocchetta. At the end of the accesstrack to Taio there is now a smallgravel parking lot plus two largeinformation panels. Plans to also buildan observation tower here are stillbeing vigorously debated, as not allwithin the conservation departmentwant to promote visitor access to thisparticular wetland, given that it issmall and first and foremost, meant tobe a bird refuge. Although these sites are unlikely tobecome tourist attractions, they arefrequented by local inhabitants. Sincethe biotope work carried out by LIFE-Nature, La Rupe, for instance, hasbecome popular for weekend walks.This is one reason why some technicalexperts and conservationists in theTrento community do not want toencourage access to all the wetlandareas. Yet the Province’s plannedpromotion of cycling tourism maybring people to the quieter subsitessuch as Borghetto if routes are notcarefully chosen. Plans to lay a cycletrack through the Canneti di SanCristoforo have already been headedoff, instead the track will be re-routedaround the site.

Overall assessment


The beneficiary’s approach of ‘slowlybut steadily’ restoring the remainingfragments of wetland in the regionseems to be paying off. The riverrestoration work has begun to expandthe Annex I habitat types ‘Alpine rivers

and their ligneous vegetation with Salixelaeagnos’ and ‘residual alluvial forestswith Alnion glutinoso-incanae’. The avifauna is beginning to show signsof benefiting too. Birdlife in theNIBBIO sites is diverse, particularlyducks, herons, Rallidae, birdsassociated with streams (C. cinclus,Motacilla cinerea) and reed-dwellingbirds (Acrocephalidae), with 50-oddspecies in the seven sites, although thenumber of Annex I species is ratherlimited (8, including migrants).

Among these Annex I birds, theproject’s mascot (Milvus migrans, theblack kite, called ‘nibbio’ in Italian) hasresponded well, returning to 2 subsites,Palù di Borghetto and La Rupe. Also inLa Rupe, the kingfisher, Alcedo atthis,drawn by the increase in prey(amphibians, fish) brought about bythe LIFE works, has come back. InFoci dell’Avisio, a significant red-backed shrike, Lanius collurio,population (45-60 individuals) isbenefiting from the conservation work.

At La Rocchetta and in the Focidell’Avisio, in the meadows now beingmowed as a result of the project,corncrakes, Crex crex, have been heardagain - probably individuals passingthrough and using them as restingplace. The ornithological surveys bythe successor project (NECTON)discovered large, hitherto unknownCrex crex populations (20-25 callingmales) in the meadows of Saronno andMalosco, in northern Trento. A newSPA is being designated for thesepopulations and suitable managementactions are being discussed with thelocal farmers and municipalities.

All the sites had already beendesignated pSCI by the nationalauthorities back in 1995, but theincrease in Annex I bird species notedby follow-up monitoring to NIBBIO led

Page

Life after LIFE

83

to two sites (Taio and Borghetto) alsobeing designated SPA by theAutonomous Province in late 2000. The effects are being felt on otherspecies too. Amphibians have been thesuccess story here. At Roncegno thenumber of species climbed from one to3 as a result of the work done and atInghiaie from 2 to 4. The Annex IIspecies Bombina variegata hascolonised the Rupe pools wheremonitoring in 99 discovered hundredsof individuals. In total, the seven Nibbiosites have 12 amphibian species;besides B. variegata, there are threeAnnex IV species (Triturus carnifex,Bufo viridis and Rana dalmatina).

Monitoring in La Rupe revealed thatinitially there was an enormousdiversification of fish because of thenew habitats and niches created by thehydrological engineering works, but asorganic matter settled in the ponds,smothering bare gravel habitats, therange of species lessened again.

The fundamental question still to beanswered is how sustainable this is, inview of the fact that the wetlands arestill hemmed in by intensively usedagricultural land, often with very sharpboundaries. What is being done toprotect these wetlands against driftingagrichemical spray, run-off of nutrientsand biocides or the effects ofdesiccation? We discussed the interface betweenagriculture and conservation in Trentowith Dr Stella Caden of the Province’sservice for agricultural infrastructureand consolidation of rural landholdings. She conceded that the take-up rate for agri-environment schemesamong farmers around the wetlandreserves is low (1%). Still, there isprogress as ten years ago farmers didnot want any nature areas in the middle

of their fields, but now at least accepttheir presence.

Moreover, agriculture as a whole,throughout the province, has evolvedmarkedly and positively over the pastdecade, Dr Caden said. Integratedcropping has expanded significantlyand is now the dominant form (90% offarming); organic farming accounts for2-3%; the rest is classic intensiveagriculture. Nor is agriculturaltechnology standing still. For instance,although, there still are plenty oforchards where water is sprayedliberally over the trees fromstandpipes, precise and economic drop-by-drop irrigation, which was unheardof a decade ago, is now increasinglyaccepted and used. More economicaluse of water is good for localhydrology and by implication, for allthe wetland habitats in the valleywhich are at risk of desiccation fromexcessive water use. The rivers arealready too dry, partly because ofirrigation use. The impact of a switchfrom standpipes to drop-by-drop

Alnion glutinosa swamp forest near Crescinowith one of the new boardwalks built by Necton

Photo: A Gazenbeek

Page

Life after LIFE

84

irrigation could well be bigger andmore beneficial than successful agri-environment schemes in the bufferzones around wetlands, yet would notbe noticed if tunnel vision makes onelook only at peripheries of naturearease, she concluded..

The incentive value

Typologically, this is very much aboutsafeguarding and restoring the lastfragments of nature in a veryintensively populated and exploiteddistrict. In other words, a project to donature restoration work, or even createnew nature. The watercourse part ofthe project, which involves a lot ofexcavating and engineering, is ascaled-down version of bigger LIFE-Nature river restoration projects inAustria and Germany. Is it breakingnew ground in Italy ?

Before LIFE-Nature, small-scalehabitat improvement work had beendone at several wetlands in Trento. SoLIFE-Nature was not starting fromzero, but building on earlier work.However, the scale of what wasachieved compared to what wentbefore, represents a quantum leapforward. LIFE-Nature here, as in BaixoMondego, Anholt and The Lorrainesaltmarshes, represents a massive boostto investment in biotope conservation. The momentum started by LIFE-Nature has not been lost, on thecontrary. Not only have activitiescontinued at the original sites but alsoa series of spin-off projects havestarted or are in the pipeline. Theseinclude a second LIFE-Nature project(NECTON), recently completedsuccessfully, which restored sitesadjoining the NIBBIO project area,and now a third (NEMOS), currentlybeing considered by the Commissionfor co-financing, which will tackle yetmore wetland sites in Trento.

At the moment, Trento Province has anannual budget of 1 million € for all itsnature work, including its nationalparks in the mountains, which showshow significant this rather modestLIFE-Nature project was as aninvestment aid. Besides that, in TrentoLIFE-Nature appears to have had a lesstangible, but perhaps more important,political incentive effect. The Nibbioproject appears to have been veryimportant to the beneficiary, the forestand parks service of the TrentoProvince, because it came in a period(1993-94) when conservation was indifficult straits. The politicalauthorities were considering adownsizing of provincial natureprotection policies (e.g. via a proposalto decentralise them back to themunicipalities) and funding. Theapproval of the NIBBIO projectapplication made a big difference, lessbecause of the money involved, thanbecause of the EU recognition andsupport which it implied.

This was confirmed by a NIBBIOproject monitoring mission by DGENV D2 in July 1998, where thephysical presence of a Commissionofficial made other departments in theprovincial government take notice andso had a powerful effect in favour ofconservation.

Seeking markets for green produce.

According to Dr Caden the idea of creatingniche markets for quality or ecologicalproduce has been examined. There is alabel ‘Valle Trentina, Naturalmente’ for fruit.To accede, farmers must comply withcertain criteria which are roughly equivalentto the norms for integrated agriculture.Initially this label gave added value,allowing premium prices to be charged, butas other regions in Italy have now copied it,the competitive advantage is lost andpremium prices are no longer possible.New ideas to regain the edge are beinginvestigated.

Page

Life after LIFE

85

The LIFE-Naturefunds themselveswere alsoparticularlyimportant for landpurchase, vitalprecondition to beable to start naturerestoration work. Itseems that, before1993, land purchaseby the parks service, the autonomousprovince’s conservation agent, waspossible, but difficult, and when it didoccur, it focused on buyingunproductive land like reedbeds insidereserves, acting almost as acompensation to landowners forstopping them from converting suchland into something more productive.

Buying productive land wasunthinkable at the time. A vineyard,needed to expand the wetland, mightcost ten times as much per hectare asreedbeds – any suggestion to theprovincial treasury to fork out wouldlead to comments like “Is this moneywell spent? This costs too much !”.However, the treasury minded less ifEU funds were used instead, and so,thanks to LIFE-Nature, could bepersuaded to try buying expensivefarmland for nature restoration.

Once the success of the first such caseshad been demonstrated by LIFE-Nature, the province became lessreticent about buying productive land.Already during the LIFE project,additional funds were made availablefor such purchases, liberating LIFEfunds earmarked for this towards extrabiotope restoration work. A classicpump-priming effect by LIFE!

This, then, has been the true value ofthe project – it has shored up andgiven impetus to conservation in theTrento Autonomous Province - a‘political’ conservation benefit.

Networking

By contrast the networking potential ofthe project appears to have been under-exploited. Together the LIFE-Naturesubsites and the other Trento wetlandsform a series of stepping stones alongthe trans-Alpine flyway for migratingbirds. This, more than the speciesoccurring there, is their Europeanvalue. Yet the project, although it hasbeen copied in the Trento-Bozenregion, does not appear to have built upany significant contacts further afield,somewhat surprising for managers ofstaging points along a flyway formigrating birds.

Joint monitoring of birds withcolleagues in Austria and Germanywould be an obvious step. The TrentoProvince parks service does attendmeetings of the ARGE Alp, a platformof authorities from northern Italy, westAustria, Bavaria and Baden-Württemberg. Perhaps this platformcould be used in the coming years tobuild up joint conservation actions?

Borghetta, a sitehemmed in by vineyards

Photo A Gazenbeek

Page

Life after LIFE

86

Overriding economic concerns

Inevitably in a district with such busythrough-traffic, the wetlands have beenfaced with new infrastructureinitiatives. No less than three sites areaffected by a new road from the Nonvalley along the Noce down to Trento.First, this road skirts La Rocchetta andforms the western boundary of muchof this site. There will be compensationfor the land lost to this road, in theform of financing for new pools (somehave already been built). The new roadwill then head past La Rupe.

The original plan would have laid theroad straight through La Rupe ; thiswas headed off by the forest and parksservice. Instead the road will now runalong the top of the dyke which formsthe eastern border of the site, betweenthe renaturalised Nocino and adjacentfarmland.

Finally, the road has to cross the Focidell’Avisio site, and again, instead of anew route through the site, acompromise has been found in whichthe road will run beside the existingBrenner-Trento motorway.

The road issue cropped up during thelifetime of the two LIFE-Natureprojects (NIBBIO and NECTON), sothat the Commission, in monitoring theprogress of the projects, participated inthe discussion about impacts on thesites and possible solutions. Thisillustrates another facet of LIFE-Nature. The Commission, because it isco-financing a project there, can helpensure that infrastructure plans whichcould affect the integrity orconservation status of a LIFE-Naturesite, are thoroughly assessed as toalternatives, mitigation and

compensation.

Relations with the localcommunity

From the strongemphasis placed onraising local awarenessfor these tiny wetlands, itis clear that thebeneficiary wanted towin local support for itsconservation work. Thisseems to be working.

Some years ago about half the farmersand others affected by measures werehostile, and the other half indifferent.Now the overwhelming majority isindifferent, with minorities eitherfanatically for or against. It is alsoeasier now to start conservationprojects than before, we were toldi. .

This shift in attitudes has been a resultof the work done (via the LIFE projectand its aftermath), which showed thatthe conservation projects were not asbad as feared and that there were goodresults. Even elderly farmers, althoughthey remain opposed, do, when thenew pools have been dug in the midstof farmland, say, ‘ah yes, I remember,it was like this when I was a child’.

New road with La Rocchetta to the leftPhoto: A Gazenbeek

The Future

This more positive attitude seems havebeen taken on board amongst othergovernment departments too. Forinstance, the Trento RuralDevelopment Plan for 2000-2006under the new Regulation1257/99/EEC includes specific andoperational references to Natura 2000,including a full list of sites, andproposes actions to help implement theHabitats and Birds Directives bymeans of agri-environment measures(e.g. late mowing, circular mowing andother measures to favour meadowbirds).

One specific action aims at riparianforests, which were one of theprincipal targets of the NIBBIO andNECTON river restoration subprojects.Altogether, the Rural DevelopmentPlan clearly shows that the experiencegained through the LIFE-Natureprojects has been taken intoconsideration, which is an example ofintegration of conservation into other(EU) policies.

Now comes the test of putting thisconcept of integrated land use planninginto practice. Because, at the end of theday, a strategic approach is necessary.For instance, both La Rupe and LaRocchetta have large gravel crushingplants hard against their perimeters,which makes for rather bizarrecontrasts with the adjoining nature

areas and restoration works. Anothergravel works spoils the view from anobservation platform at the Focidell’Avisio site. Will these crushingplants eventually be closed down andre-integrated into the sites ?

Taio, although very successful in termsof restoration work, remains hemmedin by vineyards and orchards. Thewater in the pools is groundwater, andalthough its chemical composition isnot being monitored ( !) there must bea problem with agrichemicals broughtin by wind or via the groundwater. Canthese problems be resolved through thenew Rural Development Plan? ….

i During our mission, we attended a public meeting inCompodenna where the La Rocchetta works werepresented. Over 70 people attended; although there weresome critical remarks, most people were pleased andinterested, in particular the local anglers.

wetlandsremaining inTrento havebeen restoredand work isunderway torestore furthersites

the Trento Province of theimportance of these sites inEU context.Local conservation budgetsafeguarded as a result andactions on site continue.Results also integrated into thenew Rural Development Plan.

model forsubsequentprojects, someof which wereco-financedthrough LIFE-Nature.

and water agencies,conflicts with roadbuilding plans solved,but still more work todo regarding overallland use actions suchas farming and gravelextraction.

For further information, contact:Mr Piero FlaminiProvincia Autonoma di TrentoServizio Parchi e Foreste DemanialiUfficio BiotopiVia G.B. Trener 338100 Trentotel: +39 0461 495833fax: +39 0461 495918email : [email protected]

Conservationbenefit


Public interest

6 of the 41 LIFE-Nature funding convinced Provided a Agreements with hydro

Life after LIFE


Beneficiary:Istituto Conservaçãoda Natureza (ICN)

Budget:1.000.000 €

EC co-finance:50%

DurationJan 1993 – Dec 1996

LocationNear Coimbra,Northern Portugal

Habitat /species:SPA wetlands

Water lilies used to control growth of Myriophyllum Photo: ICN

Case Study VII:Reeds and Rice inBaixo Mondego

The context

Near the famous old university townof Coimbra, the Mondego riverleaves the ranges of inland Portugal

Life after LIFE

and flows through a broad river plainto the Atlantic at Figueira da Foz.This lower section of the river (the'baixo Mondego') has been canalizedand its floodplain converted to ricefields or other farmland. Of theoriginal wetlands, almost nothing isleft. However, a few patches remainin the side valleys where tributariesflow into the Mondego from the lowhills to the north and the south.

Page

Life after LIFE

90

The LIFE-Nature project covered thethree main wetland patches (Paul daArzila, Paul do Taipal and Paul daMadriz). All three are reedbeds (a mixof Scirpus lacustris, Typha latifolia,Typha angustifolia, Phragmitesaustralis and Carex riparia), withpatches of open water and thickets ofwillow and alder. They are fringed,hemmed in even, by farmland(ricefields) and/or wooded slopes(pines, eucalyptus). The sceptic maywell ask, what is the value of theseisolated fragments of rather run-of-the-mill reedbed against a backdrop ofhundreds of km² of planted forests,farmland and straggling townships?

In fact, they are still importantwintering stops for birds and restingareas during the spring and autumnmigrations (in the summer of 199830,000 migrating swallows werecounted here). The sites are nationallysignificant as breeding ground forreed-loving birds such as warblers andlittle bittern (Ixobrychus minutus).

Storks, spoonbills, egrets all foragehere. Taipal alone has six nesting pairsof purple heron (Ardea purpurea). Theswamps also host a series of reptilesand amphibians and even otters occur.

Threats and trends

The three wetlands themselves werethreatened by a mix of internal andexternal factors:• Proliferation of Phragmites reeds

and loss of open water.Traditionally, reed cutting wascarried out as a local economicactivity, which kept the wetlandsopen, but this is now beingabandoned. The result is thatPhragmites australis is getting theupper hand, at the expense ofTypha, which is important as habitatfor Annex I birds. By the 1990s80% of the Arzila wetland, forinstance, was covered inPhragmites.

A lesson for LIFE: get your measurements right

Endless confusion was caused, during this Flashback exercise, by the exact size andboundaries of the project subsites. According to the 1992 project contract, Paul do Taipalcovered 350 ha, Paul da Arzila 300 and Paul da Madriz 50 ha. Together 700 ha as project area.However, interim and final reports of the project gave other values, while the official 1999Portuguese figures gave 1,000 ha for the three together. Even taking the original 700 ha total,the proportion affected by land purchase and biotope management work during the LIFE-Natureproject (for values, see below) seemed quite paltry in comparison. Our initial impression of theproject's achievements was correspondingly sceptical.

During the on-site mission it turned out that although the Paul da Arzila nature reserve and SPAcover 535 and 686 ha respectively, only 165 ha is ‘core zone’, that is to say, the land effectivelytargeted for conservation work by LIFE, and only 120-135 ha is true wetland. The rest of theSPA/nature reserve is actually a buffer zone, encompassing the forested slopes of the valley inwhich the wetland lies, a road crossing it, ricefields at either end and the Arzila reserveheadquarters with its adjoining amenities for visitors. The same breakdown applies to Madrizand Taipal, where no more than 40 ha and 80 ha respectively are true wetland.

Conclusion: Only between 240 and 285 ha were truly relevant for the LIFE-Nature project in allthree subsites together - only a third of the value given in the project file! This certainly gives avery different, and more positive, perspective on the value of the work done! It is vital thatproject areas as defined in contracts and reports, correspond to what is really relevant, and notto some fanciful figure which has little or no meaning on the ground. Inflation of project areasize can actually make project achievements seem less valuable and worthwhile than they are,as happened here.

Page

Life after LIFE

91

• Invasive exotic species, in particularthe aquatic weed Myriophyllumaquaticum, which forms carpetschoking areas of open water, andthe crayfish Procambarus clarkii,which appeared in the valley in1987.

• Water pollution from industrial andresidential sources, which is broughtdown from the hills by the tributarystreams crossing the three LIFE-Nature wetlands. Arzila is the mostaffected - its catchment area islarger, more densely settled andwith factories (ceramics, meatprocessing). Some of the water is sopolluted that it is not evenrecommended for agricultural use.A ditch ringing Arzila drains awaythe polluted water, so that the waterin the reeds is reasonably pure, butin winter floods can cause the ditchto overflow and pollute the corewetland. The ensuing eutrophicationhelps explain the proliferation ofPhragmites, which thrives onnutrients. The two other wetlandshave smaller and less denselysettled catchment areas, but they tooare affected by eutrophication.

• The canalisation of the riverMondego has caused a general fallin groundwater levels.

The avifauna inhabiting the wetlandswere further threatened by changes totheir foraging habitats. The traditionalrice fields in the Mondego floodplainhad an uneven microtopography, sothat they were speckled with patches ofopen water and were infested withweeds, which provided good foragingareas. However, more and more fieldsare being levelled (often with co-finance from the EAGGF GuidanceFund, whose panels can be found allover the valley), so that there is anequally thin layer of water over theentire surface, which allows a densegrowth of rice but no weeds or openwater - birds lose foragingopportunities.

Pollution from pesticides is said to beonly a problem at certain times of theyear. Although agriculture is beingmodernised, the levels of fertilisers andpesticides being used in the Mondegoplain are still well below those of rice-growing areas in the Ebro delta or theCamargue. Consequently, amphibiansare still relatively abundant, providinga good food resource for storks andother birds.

Rice fields area key habitatfor foraging

birds when notlevelled

Photo ICN

Page

Life after LIFE

92

LIFE objectives

The project’s approach was twofold:

1. Secure and improve the threewetlands, as refuges for birds andother wildlife. The main tool wasland purchase; first, to halt furtherconversion of wetland to ricefield(at the time, not all sites wereadequately protected), second, as aprecondition for work to improvethe habitats. These interventionssought to reduce the area coveredin Phragmites, eliminate theinvasive weed Myriophyllum andopen up new areas of water.

2. Try to address the broader contextin which these wetlands werelocated, which means:• improve foraging opportunities

for birds in the farmland andlimit negative effects from it onthe core wetlands (translated intoa programme to promote organicfarming),

• promote ecological awarenessamong the local population(translated into construction of avisitor centre, production ofinformation material anddevelopment of nature educationinitiatives).

Finally, work begun prior to LIFE-Nature, such as wardening andscientific surveys and research, wouldbe integrated into the project andcontinued.

Who was behind the project?

The original application was made bythe Serviço Nacional de Parques,Reservas e Conservaçao da Natureza(SNPRCN), i.e. the national parks,reserves and nature conservationservice. In May 1993, after approval ofLIFE co-finance but before the project

itself began, SNPRCN was overhauled,modernized and renamed IstitutoConservaçao da Natureza (ICN, i.e.Institute for Nature Conservation),which thus became the beneficiary ofthe project and responsible for follow-up.

ICN has a central office which takescare of overall administration, financesand legal matters and includes twodirectorates for protected areas andconservation policy in general, pluslocal offices across the country whichmanage the protected areas of nationalinterest. Each of these local offices isassigned an annual operating budget bythe central office, in function ofvarious criteria.

The local office covering the Mondegodistrict was responsible forimplementing this LIFE project and ineffect took funds out of its annualenvelope as co-finance for the EUsupport. Funds for follow-up work tothe LIFE project equally have to comeout of the envelope assigned to it bythe central ICN office

How did the project function?

As was often the case in the early yearsof LIFE-Nature, the project contracthad vague terms of reference andalmost no quantified outputs. Theinterim and final reports submitted bythe project were not always verydetailed or precise either. This made itdifficult to come to grips with thisproject when analysing the files. Muchremained obscure or evencontradictory, and was not cleared upuntil the site visit. Which proves apoint: if a project document orevaluation is badly written, it canreally confuse a third person whowants to consult the file years later.

Page

Life after LIFE

93

In the field, implementation wasreasonably smooth, but land purchasenegotiations proved lengthier and moredifficult than expected, so that aprolongation of one year was askedand given by the Commission.

What did the project achieve?

Land purchase In 1990 the Mondego office ofSNPRCN had inherited 8 ha of landoriginally purchased by a public worksentity for a failed project, but thefinancial envelope assigned to it bySNPRCN central administration wasnot big enough to buy land directly.LIFE-Nature made a big differencehere: 64.5 ha were bought, allowingthe Mondego office, now part of ICN,to gain control of ¼ of the totalrelevant area of 240-285 ha.

Habitat workHere too, LIFE-Nature allowedconservation work to get started inearnest. Labourers were employed,who clear-cut a total of 10 haPhragmites (6 ha in Madriz, 2 ha eachin Arzila and Taipal). Still, this has

only begun to make a dent - much ofthe core zone of Arzila is stilldominated by Phragmites. In Taipal afirst patch of open water was made andanother pool was created in Madriz.Removal by hand of Myriophyllumbegan, which proved laborious, butsome patches were cleaned, forinstance in Madriz. As for thecrayfish, ICN experimented withvarious control methods (e.g.systematic capture of the crayfish atthe points where it enters the reserves),but here too a final solution was notachieved.

Scientific and monitoring work Birds continued to be monitored by thewardens during the project, and otheruseful research (not charged to LIFE-Nature) was done by various expertsand entities.

Institution-building When ICN set up its Mondego districtantenna in 1988, 4 wardens were hired,plus technical staff. All were squeezedinto rented premises in Coimbra withan outpost inside a building belongingto the Arzila municipality. The newpurpose-built office and visitor centreat Arzila was one of the most visible

Paul do Taipal – area of open water excavatedafter land was purchased Photo: A Gazenbeek

Page

Life after LIFE

94

achievements duringthe LIFE-Natureproject. LIFE did notfund all of it, but didgive a major impetus.After the centre openedin Aug 1997, workbecame a lot easier andmore efficient.

Relations with thewider community

Promotion of benignfarming:

This part of the LIFE-Natureproject consisted of definition and fieldtesting of methods and techniquesdesigned to make rice and maizefarming less ecologically aggressive.The methods could be quite simple,such as using mulch to keep downweeds, instead of herbicides. The planwas to then promote these methodsamong farmers, who would hopefullyadopt them and so reduce pesticide andfertiliser use.

This work was undertaken withenthusiasm right from the beginning ofthe project. Experiments were indeeddone, in collaboration with anagricultural institute, with varioustechniques of crop growing. Meetingswere organised with farmers, lecturesgiven on ‘agriculture and natureconservation’ in local training courses,and two brochures were producedgiving advice how to use agrichemicalssafely and efficiently and describingalternatives to herbicides andpesticides. Yet no tangible results in terms offarms actually converting werereported. The main thrust of the‘organic farming’ campaign wouldhowever come after the LIFE-Natureproject, which had prepared thecontent.

Visitor centre and public information:

The new visitor centre at Arzila housesa permanent exhibition and stocks arange of publications. Posters,postcards, pins, T-shirts, pencils andpens were made during the LIFE-Nature project, and some of thesegadgets are still available at the visitorcentre today.

Beside the building, a nature trail waslaid out, with an open air exhibit ofancient methods of water regulation.By the end of the project, visitor centreand trail were already popular withschools. 44 nature education sessionswere held in local schools in 1994alone.

Although information panels wereerected around the centre, almost allpanels and publications were fundedfrom sources outside the LIFE-Natureproject. This may explain why Natura2000 and LIFE-Nature are onlymentioned in a summary way, if at all,and EU and Council of Europe areoften muddled.

Arzila information panel at start of trackPhoto: A Gazenbeek

Page

Life after LIFE

95

Life after LIFE

Arzila

The LIFE-Nature project bought 7sections of land totalling 11.8 ha here.Land purchase has continued since: 47sections after the end of the LIFE-Nature project, together 12.1 ha,bringing total land in ICN ownership atArzila to 32.4 ha (about ¼ to 1/5 of thecore wetland). The rest of Arzila issplit between 120 landowners, eachwith very small sections, which makesacquisition complicated and slow. ICNwants to create areas of open water inArzila, but because landowners resistthis, this means owning the land first.Small pools could be dug inside thescattered sections which ICN alreadyowns, but for larger ones it needs tobuild up blocks of several propertiesfirst. To the west and east the wetland risesto forested slopes, so there is a fairlynatural boundary and buffer here, butto the north and south the transition isvery abrupt - reedbed and willowthicket are hard against ricefields.

There are even a few maize and ricefields inside the core wetland, but theseare not considered a problem by ICNas the fields are small and produce forhome consumption only. All in all,there is still a gooddeal of work to do inArzila, but this willdepend onacquisition of theremaining privateland (over half thecore site).Disentanglingfarming and naturearound the edgeswould also bepositive.

Taipal

A block of 52.7 ha, ²/³ of the entirewetland, was acquired by the LIFE-Nature project. After the pool dugduring the LIFE project, several biggerones were made in 1999 on the landpurchased, bringing total open water to2 ha. Ducks quickly began using themas refuges, congregating here andfeeding in the ricefields out in theMondego plains.

The eastern side of Taipal, at the footof a steep slope, is the only part still inprivate ownership (30 ha). It is a haymeadow used to produce stable litter;as this mowing creates extra foragingarea for birds and there is no use ofagrichemicals, there is no reason tointervene, as long as this beneficialland use continues. The western andsouthern sides of the wetland arerimmed by natural boundaries (ditchesand a road).

To sum up, Taipal is a success – as aresult of LIFE-Nature, no furtherinvestment is needed and regularmanagement and monitoring ofdevelopments suffices.

View of Arzila across the core of the wetlandPhoto: A Gazenbeek

Page

Life after LIFE

96

Madriz:

This wetland occupies a shallow basinhemmed in between hills covered ineucalyptus and pine, with a railwayembankment forming a naturalboundary at the downstream end.Nothing was purchased here duringLIFE, but land acquisition got goingafterwards. The few ha acquired in1990 were tripled in the 1997-99period so that today about 40% ofMadriz (i.e. 16 ha) is owned by theICN. The other half of the site isowned by two people who are willingto sell (but the Mondego ICN officehas not yet been assigned a budgetsufficient for such a large one-offinvestment). In the meantime,management work on their land istolerated.

No more pools were opened afterLIFE-Nature, but Myriophyllumeradication has continued vigorously,using the new technique of plantinglilies (see below). To stop water inparts of the wetland overheating insummer and becoming oxygen-deficient, circulation has beenimproved by opening up ditches,benefiting fish and other aquaticorganisms. Although there are plentyof willows around the edges of thewetland, succession is not considered aproblem as few trees manage tosurvive in the central part, whichbecomes a mass of floating vegetationrafts in winter when water levels rise.In fact, some patches of mixed alder-willow swamp forest around the edgeshave a natural value of their own as arelict of what once covered large tractsof the Mondego district.

The overall situation at Madriz isessentially positive. Apart from gettingthe funds to buy out the two ownersleft, the only work left to do isrecurring management of the

vegetation and keeping site hydrologyin order. Furthermore, ICN has alsogained control of quite large tracts ofland on the slopes surrounding thewetlands (future buffer zone).

Management planning

The LIFE-Nature project did not makea management plan, which was to beprepared afterwards using datacollected via the project. A generalconservation plan is now indeed beingmade for Arzila (Taipal and Madrizwill only follow when they come undernational protection). Detailed SPAmanagement plans will be made for allthree, however, we were told.

Continuation of habitat work

Two of the labourers hired duringLIFE-Nature were given permanentjobs afterwards, and are still assistingwith the recurring management(control of vegetation and opening uppatches of water). Since the LIFE-Nature project, there has been abreakthrough with the eradication ofMyriophyllum. After clearance, waterlilies are introduced, which expand andsmother any remaining Myriophyllum.This technique was discovered whenICN workers noticed there was lessMyriophyllum wherever there werelilies growing, so they began scatteringlily roots and seeds over water clearedof Myriophyllum. This is now beingdone systematically in all clearedareas.

Eradication of the crayfishProcambarus has stopped temporarily;instead a thorough study is being doneto see which predators hunt crayfishand which impact it has on its ownprey species, to see if this can bringnew ideas for control measures. A newproject concerns deliberate release ofPorphyrio porphyrio. This is being

Page

Life after LIFE

97

undertaken by anotherLIFE-Nature project,begun in 1998, in whichICN is a partner.Porphyrio porphyriowas released by thisproject in Taipal andMadriz, and the ICNwardens responsible forthe two sitescollaborated in therelease and the follow-up fieldwork - so thereis a perfectcollaboration.

Scientific work andmonitoring

The sites are still being monitored bythe wardens, other ICN technicians andthe University of Coimbra. Waterquality (phosphates, nitrates) ismonitored monthly. All monitoring iscoordinated from the Arzila centre,which is now feeding data into a GIS.

Research projects currently under wayexamine the effect of pesticides onamphibians and how fish populationsfluctuate under influence of drainage,irrigation and pesticides. Theseprojects are explained in detail to thepublic via panels in the Arzila visitorcentre. All in all, this aspect is beingcontinued well.

Direct employment

Four full-time wardens, three based inArzila, 1 in Madriz, were employedbefore, during and after LIFE-Nature,and have now been joined by a fifth(for Taipal). LIFE-Nature itself didcreate new jobs: labourers to managevegetation (2 of whom were kept aspermanent staff; the others are stillbeing hired on a seasonal basis) and ahostess at the visitor centre (stillemployed). So a net gain of 3 jobs,financed from the annual budget

assigned to the Mondego by thenational ICN structure.


The visitor centre built during LIFE-Nature is still in operation, with morethan adequate opening times, apermanent staff presence and a broadchoice of information material.

One quibble: it is not easy to findbecause of poor signposting (one hasto find the village of Arzila first, thenfollow signs ‘Paul’ = “swamp”!).

The nature trail in Arzila is well-marked, but lacks information panelsor a suitable self-guiding leaflet, whichis a pity. However, the policy is tofocus on guided tours, especially forschools, rather than individuals.

Extremely detailed statistics are kepton visitors, which show that Arzilahas, in spite of occasional slippages,climbed in popularity over the years.Starting at 48 guided visits in 1988, itreached 334 in 1993 and 411 in 1999.The number of visitors followed thesame trend: 864 in 1988, 3514 in 1992,

ICN collaborators – two of the wardensPhoto A Gazenbeek

Page

Life after LIFE

98

peaking at 4472 in 1998. Half of allvisitors come here in schoolexcursions, ¼ in other organisedgroups and 1/8 as families on weekendtrips. Individuals and foreign touristsare both very much in the minority.

What the Mondego ICN office wouldlike to do, if it had enough investmentfunds, is to convert the staticexhibitions in the visitor centre tointeractive, moving displays, buildadditional information centres forMadriz and Taipal and do moreinformation and education work.

Promotion of benign farming

The LIFE-Nature project had focusedon experimentation and definition oftechniques, with a beginning ofdissemination. Really disseminatingbenign methods among farmers wassupposed to go on during a secondLIFE-Nature project, but as theapplications never got approved,nothing further was done.

However, this can not be the onlyreason. Investing personnel time inpromoting benign methods only makessense if farmers are likely to bereceptive, and that may be the issue.

Why should farmers change if they aredoing well as it is? Development ofniche markets where they can do evenbetter would be the crucial steptowards success, and here ICN canlearn from LIFE-Nature projects likethe 1996 project ‘Improving habitatmanagement in the Ebro delta SPA’,which did look at the question ofmarketing rice with an eco-label aspart of its wetland strategy.

Surveillance

Thanks to the presence of the wardens,and the education work in localschools, past problems with huntersand anglers (disturbance, shooting ofbirds) have greatly decreased.

Reed cutting as sustainable economicactivity

30 years ago the Arzila wetlandsupported the whole village throughreed cutting and fishing. Reed cuttingis potentially positive, by helping tokeep down Phragmites, but thistraditional local economic activity isbeing abandoned: 10 people still cutreeds in Arzila, 3 in Madriz, nobody inTaipal. The work is a sideline - nobodylives entirely off reed cutting. The

Arzila –showing sharpboundarybetween ricefield and corewetlandPhotoA Gazenbeek

Page

Life after LIFE

99

problem is marketing the product -there is no support, no advertising. The13 people still cutting are old - theyounger generation is not interested.Attempts to make the work easier byusing machines have failed so far.

Agri-environment schemes are notused - the Portuguese operationalprogramme in force up to 2000 did notoffer any possibilities. What the newprogrammes may bring is still moot.

Nevertheless, it is curious that lesseffort appears to have been put intocontacting landowners and reed cuttersabout the future of this activity, than intrying to persuade rice growers tochange their ways, even though theimpact of reed cutting on the habitatscould be very significant indeed.

Overall assessment

Incentive effect

Work in the three wetlands began in1988 and by 1992, there was site staff,in rather cramped accomodation, and 8ha had been acquired. However, workwas hampered because the budgetsassigned to the Mondego office by itsparent body were too small incomparison to ambitions. This was areason to turn to LIFE-Nature!

The LIFE-Nature project allowed 64ha to be bought, a proper office andvisitor centre to be built, labourers tobe hired and biotope managementwork to get started in earnest.Systematic information work(promotion of more benign cropfarming, nature education) waslaunched. Consequently, this projectcomes under the heading ‘LIFE-Natureprovides a huge boost to previoussmall-scale work’.

Subsequently, the LIFE-Natureproject’s investment in the wetlandshas been managed well. Three personshired by LIFE have been kept inemployment, and a fourth person hiredsince. Above all, daily management isrunning well: operating the visitorcentre, organising nature education,monitoring and research, recurringbiotope work and wardening. For thisregular maintenance work, follow-upfunds are available from the ICNnational budget.

Both in land purchase and one-offbiotope work, the foundation laid hasbeen built on. However, land purchaseis still far from complete (Madriz, andin Arzila over ³/4 of the core site is stillin private hands). The local ICNsection had counted on a second LIFE-Nature project to finish off landpurchase in one go and continue theprogramme to promote organicfarming (which is why the Flashbackproject is called ‘primeira fase - phaseone’). Three applications were lodgedbetween 1996 and 1998, but eachfailed, for various reasons. Landpurchase was slowed down but theprogramme to promote benignagriculture was simply stopped,abandoning the previous work underLIFE-Nature. This shows that relianceon a follow-up LIFE project in order tofinish off investment programmes isrisky.


The bird observations before and afterLIFE-Nature show some improve-ments. Ducks colonised the newpatches of open water very quickly.Marsh harriers (Circus aeruginosus)have increased in Madriz and havenow also settled in Taipal, where theydid not breed before LIFE-Nature. Thenumber of purple herons (Ardeapurpurea) in Taipal has also increased,

Page

L

100

as well as the number of coot (Fulicaatra). On the other hand, ringing ofstaging passerines shows a decliningtrend, but as these birds are in declineacross Europe this should beinterpreted with caution.

Altogether, conservation-related resultsare so far rather modest, butunsurprising given the sites’ isolationin a context of conflicting land use.

What is more, Taipal was still not anSPA by 1998 (though Arzila andMadraz were). An infringementprocedure against Portugal had beenlaunched by then for insufficientdesignation of SPAs, and it used Taipalas one of the examples. Finally it wasdesignated an SPA by the Portugueseauthorities in September 1999. Of thethree, only Arzila is now also pSCI.

Further funding

The annual budget the ICN local officefor the Mondego district receives fromICN central office, has to be spreadover 6 different nature reserves plussome species programmes. TheMondego office has full autonomy indeciding what to do with the funds itreceives, but how much it receives isdecided by the central office in Lisbon.

The amount assigned at this point intime is sufficient for running the threeLIFE-Nature sites, but there is achronic shortage of investmentfunding, for land purchase or to buildt

which the blueprints exist since 1991.This does underline how importantLIFE-Nature can be as an investmentfund for organisations who otherwisehave sufficient budgets to coveroperational costs.

However, the Mondego ICN is not astand-alone organisation, butembedded in the national ICNstructure. In theory at least, its annualenvelope could be increased to allow itto buy land and build centres, if thecentral ICN structure considered thatthis was a priority when allocating itsfunds to the different local offices. So,the fact that the Mondego office doesnot receive enough budget to followthe LIFE work through to its logicalconclusion, may simply mean that thiswork is not considered important orurgent enough by the central ICNadministration.

In that case, should the Mondegooffice lodge a successful applicationfor a second LIFE project (which ittried in 96-98, and is trying again in2001), it will have ‘jumped the queue’in relation to other local ICN offices bysecuring outside funding to get what itscentral administration does not give it.

The strategy, during LIFE and since,has been to gain full control of thewetland cores via land purchase inorder to carry out the requiredconservation management andimprovement. However, more attentioncould be given to the options forsustainable resource use. Traditional

he two additional visitor centres for reed cutting kept the Arzila wetlandConservation

benefitIncentive value Demonstration

potentialPublic interest

ife after LIFE

Significant partsof the wetlandsnow underconservationmanagement;effect on birdspositive but asyet limited.

LIFE kick-started actionthrough initial injection offunds. Work continued butthe project did not achievebreakthroughs in extranational funding orintegration into other landuse policies.

Use of lilies tocontrol regrowthof Myriophyllumcould be ofinterestelsewhere.

Public awarenessprogramme has beengood but relations to otherland use practices andintegration ofconservation needs intothese still leaves much tobe desired.

Page

Life after LIFE

101

open, and a revival of this activitymight remove the need for landpurchase and biotope managementwork.

Although an economically viablerevival may not be feasible in practice,it should at least be explored. Why notorganise a round table with thelandowners? Similarly, making ricegrowing near the wetlands ‘greener’would be beneficial, but will only workif it brings advantages to the farmers.Examples such as the 1996 LIFE-Nature project ‘Improving habitatmanagement in the Ebro delta SPA’show that this is possible and anexchange of experience would make alot of sense.

The future

The project’s continuation is anexample of how context matters – thelocal ICN office can handle most of thechallenges inside its sites well enough,but cannot do much aboutfundamentals like hydrology andpollution on its own. Here, it isdependent on other authorities forresults. Other players beyond itscontrol can directly threaten theintegrity of the sites (road building andriver canalisation) or reduce foragingopportunities (through e.g. ricefieldmicrotopography levelling) for thewildlife from the three wetlands.

Hydrology

For instance, a fundamental questionfor the sites must surely be hydrology– what is the situation with waterlevels in the sites and with thewatercourses (streams and ditches)?Who controls the flow? When theMondego was canalised, of the threesites, Arzila suffered most from fallinggroundwater levels. Groundwater has

now more or less stabilised, but in verydry years there are problems keepingthis wetland wet, which ICN attemptsto correct by blocking outflow ditches.One of the LIFE-Nature investmentswas a small dam and sluice across sucha ditch to keep water in during summerdrought. ICN would like to tackleArzila’s hydrology but this would onlybe possible with the cooperation of thevarious competent authorities forwater, which is not yet acquired.

The Mondego west of Arzila is nowbeing canalised, and this will affectMadriz. ICN was able to persuade theengineers to carry out the work in sucha way that if water levels do drop, itwill be possible to pump water fromthe Mondego into Madriz. ICN ismonitoring evolution closely and isoptimistic, as Madriz is hydrologicallynot all that dependent on the Mondego.

In spite of the goodwill being shownby the engineers, the canalisation ofthe Mondego is not a good thing,ecologically speaking. When the entirelower Mondego still flowed free, therewere floods across the whole valley, sothat Arzila, Madriz and Taipal were indirect contact with the river, allowingfish to migrate.

Water pollution

This too is a problem which has notbeen solved yet. Treatment plants forresidential wastewater are being builtor are planned. In a few years,therefore, this issue should be muchimproved. However, there is alsoaquatic pollution from industrialsources, particularly affecting Arzila.This is a harder nut to crack, it seems.Competence is split between differentauthorities. There is someimprovement in local factories, buttheir treatment plants, once built, are

Page

Life after LIFE

102

not always maintained well, leading tospills and overflows. The localceramics factory is making a specialeffort because it wants to get an eco-label, but faces a legacy of its past -tonnes of toxic silt which haveaccumulated on the bottom of severalbrooks and ought to be removed. Allthat the local ICN office can do inthese situations is lobby and keep thepressure up. At the end of the day,combating water pollution is theresponsibility of other authorities thanICN. However, there are EUobligations (e.g. the new WaterFramework Directive), whiledegradation of the core wetlands as aresult of pollution might contraveneArt. 6 Habitats Directive.

New threat - road building

A new road from Figueira da Foz toCoimbra threatened at one stage to cutacross Taipal, but as Cohesion Fundsupport was sought, the Commissionwas able to intervene and change thisroute as condition for financing. Thelatest plan is to build the road hardalong the north boundary of Taipal,with toll gates right at the north tip,intruding into the SPA.

A new east-west road branching fromthe Coimbra-Lisbon motorway atTaveiros to go to Santo Varão,Alfarelos and beyond, is also beingbuilt. Originally, this road would runthrough the north tip of the Arzilabuffer zone, which led to a complaintto the Commission in Dec. 1998.While 5 possible routes for the ArzilaSPA were under discussion betweenthe authorities, the part already beingbuilt advanced right to the edge ofArzila, with bulldozers still movingearth on the day of our site visit!

It now appears that a compromise wasmade by the government in May 2000to finish the road to the border ofArzila, then link it to the existingnarrow road through the Arzila bufferzone and have the traffic shift back to anew road once past Arzila. This willspare Arzila, at least for now, but doeslook like a recipe for congestion andaccidents, which may in turn lead topressure to upgrade the Arzila road.

Finding a way forward

Together, these threats will continue toeat away at what is left of the wetlandsunless all the authorities involved cansit down together and hammer out amore integrated approach to land usein the area.

Given this, systematic efforts toapproach other local authorities andinterest groups in order to try to buildup good working relations with themand convince them of the value of theNatura 2000 sites, should be one of theprime tasks for the Mondegoconservation management.

For further information, contact:Manuel Ferreira dos SantosInstituto da Conservação da NaturezaReserva Natural do Paul de Arzila,Mata Nacional do Choupal,3000 Coimbratel +351 239 49 90 20fax +351 239 49 90 20email: [email protected]

Page

Life after LIFE

81

neighbour to the north (the

Bozen/Bolzano AutonomousProvince), where a three-year projectto restore part of the Lago di Caldarowetland was drawn up and successfullysubmitted for LIFE-Nature support in1998. The Caldaro wetland is alsolocated along the Adige flyway andthis project will, if successful, enhancethe benefits for migrating birdsobtained by the NIBBIO project and itssuccessors.

Surveys

Scientific monitoring and surveys havecertainly continued well. Furthersurveys, to monitor evolution of thenew habitats, colonisation byamphibians and trends in fishpopulations, were carried out at theLIFE project subsites after 1998. Aconsultancy is charged with much ofthis monitoring and altogether (ex-LIFE sites and the follow-up andparallel projects in Trento) 6 people

are involved, adding up to 2 full-timeequivalents. Job creation!Management plans

La Rocchetta was chosen as a pilotproject for drawing up Trento’s firstpSCI management plan, which wascompleted at the end of 2000. For theother sites, management plans are stillto be drawn up.


The video and brochure produced bythe LIFE-Nature project continued tobe distributed to interested schools andmunicipalities around the LIFEsubsites. Response from teachers hasbeen very positive and many schoolexcursions have been organised to thesites.

Since LIFE-Nature, the ex-beneficiaryhas invested a great deal in visitoraccess to its subsites. For instance, atthe La Rocchetta site a project is underway to convert the railway station ofCrescino to a visitor centre from whicha track (already finished) leads toboardwalks into the alder-willowswamp forest and the river’s edge.Along this nature trail a series of open-air exhibits explaining certain aspectsof ecology - but in a very original,almost unorthodox, way - will belocated.

In fact, Trento seems to have apenchant for experiments incommunication: In March 1999 aguidebook was produced for theInghiaie site with some unusualtouches, e.g. a step-by-step description(« now, to your right, you see….. »), alogbook to record observations such asthe weather on the day of the visit, anopinion poll one can fill in and returnand even a form one can use to reportvandals!

La Rocchetta – in the middle are the new channelsexcavated by the Necton Project Photo : A Gazenbeek

Wintering ground for capercaillie in the Jura. Taken from ‘DesFôrets pour le grand Tétras’ by the beneficiary and partners


Beneficiary:Parc Naturel Régionaldu Haut-Jura withONF and DIREN deFranche-Comté

Budget:1.176.000 €

EC co-finance:34%

DurationSept 1992 – Oct 1997

LocationJura Mountains

Habitat /species:Capercaillie (TetraoUrogallus), apriority speciesfor fundingunderLIFE-Nature

Case Study VIII:Round tables forcapercaillie

The context

The capercaillie Tetrao urogallus isthe giant of the grouse family; thecolourful males weigh in at 3-5 kg. Itis a sedentary bird, dwelling in its20-160 ha patch of woodland for itsentire 15-20 year lifespan.Capercaillies have a complicatedlifestyle. In winter they seek openforests where they subsist entirely onthe needles of firs and Scots pines,meagre food which digests slowlyand gives just enough energy to keepthe birds ticking over. This makesthem very vulnerable to disturbance:any sudden burst of activity neededto flee can wreck their metabolisms.

Life after LIFE

Page

Life after LIFE

104

In spring, when shoots provide bettersustenance, males congregate at certainforest clearings, used from year toyear, for courtship displays.Disruption is to be avoided if matingand reproduction are to stand a chanceat all. The females lay their eggs inhollows on the ground, which is riskyin itself, but even after successfulhatching (May-June) many chicks arelost if the weather happens to be toocold and wet during their first days.Forests with broad clearings decked invegetation bearing the grains andinsects the chicks need, where there arealso dense patches of young trees forcover, is de rigueur now. As autumnapproaches, adults and survivingchicks (80% do not reach their firstwinter) move to areas where the forestfloor is rich in bilberries andstrawberries, to fatten up for winter.

Outside Scandinavia, Russia and theCarpathians, Tetrao urogallus hasbecome rare. Extinct in central andwestern European lowland forests for acentury or more, it is now restricted tomountains like the Pyrenees, theCantabrian Ranges and the Alps, ormassifs in Scotland and central Europe(Jura, Black Forest, Vosges andThuringia-Bohemia).These populationsare fragmented and often declining.No surprise the capercaillie is onAnnex I of the Birds Directive.

The project area

The French Jura from the Doubs gorgein the north to Bellegarde and theRhone gorge in the south is marked bylong parallel valleys, farmed andsettled, separated by ridges rising to1700 metres, covered in forest andupland meadow. Above 1200 metres,the climate is so cold and windy andsnowfalls are so heavy that trees(mainly Scots pine and spruce) do notgrow well. Many naturally open areas

occur. This is the capercaillie winterresort. It is also interesting for wintersports! When the Massacre plateau wasdeveloped for mass ski-ing in the1980s, its once healthy capercailliepopulation crashed.

At lower levels, forests are naturallymixed (fir, beech). Traditionalexploitation enhanced them as habitatsfor capercaillie. Foresters here used the‘futaie jardinée’ technique(management by uneven-aged stands),a method of ancient origin in whichindividual trees covering a widespectrum of sizes and species are takenout, leaving a forest dotted withclearings, undergrowth and tall oldtrees, just right for the capercaillie.Although after 1850 new ideas aboutforestry prevailed, where all the treesin a particular stand are cut andreplanted together (‘futaie régulière’,management by even-aged stands,which creates more monotonousforests unsuitable for capercaillie), theolder technique was never abandonedin the Jura.

In beech forests, coppicing (‘taillis’)for firewood constantly created micro-clearings where berries could grow,but a switch to other fuels after 1950killed off the practice and allowed thecanopy to close, so that the forest floorbecame devoid of undergrowth.Because of ancient customary rights,much land was simultaneously used fortrees and for grazing. This created alandscape of meadows dotted withtrees and patches of forest, the ‘prés-bois’, excellent for nesting and raisingchicks. In the late 19th century,production forestry began prohibitingthe practice; a century laterabandonment of upland grazing hastaken over as main cause of decline.Either way, trees spread back into themeadows, closing them.

Page

Life after LIFE

105

As habitat loss and disturbance spread,the range occupied by Tetrao urogallusshrank from about half the French Jurain 1964 to a band along the Swissborder, with some isolated groups tothe west, by 1992. Over this period, thesubpopulations of capercaillie declinedby 40-60% in terms of bird numbers.When the LIFE project began in 1992the total population was only 320-370individuals, with another 500 acrossthe border in the Swiss Jura.

LIFE objectives

The LIFE-Nature project thus facedthree challenges to the survival of thecapercaillie:• disturbance at critical places during

critical times (winter, courtship,nesting) whether by forestryworkers or tourists;

• forests which were once verydiverse and full of clearings andpatches of berries and otherundergrowth, becoming moremonotonous, with undergrowthdisappearing or being dominated byyoung beech;

• reversion of upland meadows tounbroken forest.

Turning back the clock to restoreforests’ former structural andbiological diversity was seen as thelynchpin of actions to stabilise and re-launch Tetrao urogallus. So the aimwas not to end forestry, but to adapt itto capercaillie requirements. Foresterswere indispensable partners inmanaging the woods to producecapercaillie as well as timber.

This is reflected in the project itself,which was conceived by the PNR-Ji

and GTJii, but where the ONFiii was apartner. Its main target was to havedirectives for appropriate forestrymanagement in place by project end,but this, and other targets, proved moredifficult to implement than estimated,

so that a 22-month prolongation had tobe granted by the Commission to let itfinish its work.

The actions

Partnership buildingOne of the main objectives of theLIFE-Nature project was to conclude apartnership convention betweenstakeholders. This was done at an earlystage of the project, when a steeringcommittee was set up between PNR-J,GTJ, ONCFSiv, ONF, DIRENv deFranche Comté and the CRPFs forFranche-Comté and Rhone-Alpesvi

Information to the general publicAn excellent layman’s introduction tocapercaillie ecology, ‘Des forêts pourle grand tétras’ was produced by theLIFE-Nature project and published in3,000 copies. Otherwise, the projectdeliberately invested little ininformation to the general public. Evenbefore the project began, rumours werecirculating that EU funds were beingsought to limit forestry work andpublic access, all for the sake of a fewrare birds. Widely publicising theproject would only fan the flames, itwas thought, so a low profile, focusingon the real stakeholders, was adopted.

Here too initial suspicion had to beovercome. Municipalities had to beconvinced that the project was notagainst exploiting forests, but wantedto help them use their forests in amanner that did not harm capercaillie.

MappingTo kick off the forestry work, theLIFE-Nature project mapped 8600 haforest (66 different maps!). Instead ofhiring professionals, the GTJ drew onobservations from the owners andusers of the land. The idea being thatby helping with habitat mapping, theymight see their land from a capercaillieperspective, hopefully making themmore amenable to subsequentproposals on how to manage theirforest for the benefit of the birds.These maps, plus data on sightings,were fed into a GIS to correlate thepresence of capercaillie with types offorest structure and grade the potentialof habitats to host them. This yieldedthe ‘Fiches des Facteurs limitants” -for 34 sites, individual sheetscomparing current capercailliepopulations with potential capacity,assessing limiting factors andproposing actions.

Before LIFE, the GTJ was monitoringtwo sites for Tetrao urogallusintensely, using them as indicators forthe population as a whole. During theproject two more were added. Thismonitoring, already sustained over 23years in the Risoux site, has yieldedvaluable data, fuelling hypotheses onpopulation dynamics in relation torodent cycles and predation.

Guidelines for forestry adapted tocapercaillieThe next step was to translateaccumulated scientific knowledge intopractical prescriptions for forestry.This was a two-way process: the ONFheld many meetings in the field todiscuss the project with its staff, andorganised 18 three-day trainingsessions on capercaillie-friendlymanagement for its forest workers (91attended). Reactions among the ONFfield staff varied, but the ensuingrobust debate did yield many newperspectives, which were fed back intothe guideline development. Experiencealready gained with forestry workbefore and during LIFE was taken onboard too.

This culminated in a working paper atthe end of the LIFE-Nature projectentitled ‘Orientations de gestionsylvicole tenant compte des milieux àtétraonidés’. A sort of manual,consisting of an introduction tocapercaillie ecology followed by 11chapters, each describing a forest type,its potential value for capercaillie andthe principal threats to the birds, thengiving technical principles on how tomanage the forest type. Presented tothe Comité du Pilotage in April 1997,the paper was published in 3,000copies. However, it was not yet

distributed widely asthe ONF and CRPFs

Life after LIFE

first wanted otherstakeholders to alsocommit themselvesto managementguidelines.

Diversity of shape and size -another perspective on the JuraPhoto: Marc Thauront,Ecosphere

Page

Life after LIFE

107

Already clear was that the forestryguidelines were not compulsoryprescriptions (‘directives de gestionobligatoires’) as the project contract(rather naively) assumed, butvoluntary. As illustrated by a commentfrom ONF collaborators that the LIFE-produced manual does not prohibitforestry work in nesting areas, itrecommends not to do it. The CRPFtoo was opposed to compulsory rules.According to it, much more productiveis when conservationists tell forestowners, ‘you have this natural habitatwith great potential, we can help yourealise it, but only if you want to’.

‘Greening’ the forest management plans In the French forestry system,management plans are compulsory for allindividual forests except the smallestprivate ones (below 25ha). The ONFwrites the plans for state forests.Municipalities (which own vast woods inthe Jura) are obliged to delegate theirforest management to the ONF, whichdoes however need to get the approval ofthe municipalities for the plans it draws upand any specific work it does. Therefore,writing the capercaillie guidelines intothese compulsory forestry managementplans would be as good as having themdeclared binding in the first place. By theend of the LIFE-Nature project the ONFhad successfully introduced the guidelinesinto the plans for 486 ha state forest and1265 ha municipal forest.

For private forests matters are morecomplex. They are often fragmentedbetween many owners, none of whomhave 25 ha, so none are obliged to drawup a management plan. These owners arealmost impossible to come to grips with.There were 9 public meetings during theLIFE-Nature project to present the newguidelines to private forest owners - 130turned up, but this was considered notvery efficient, as it represented less than10% of those invited.

This did not prevent the ONF fromalready choosing to apply theguidelines. We were shown documentsfrom 1999 concerning lots of timber upfor harvesting where the contractorswere banned from working betweencertain dates, to protect capercaillienesting or courtship. The CRPFmeanwhile vigorously promoted theguidelines among its membership. Ittold us that through the LIFE-Natureproject, private foresters andconservationists first learned to worktogether and learned from each other.This breakthrough in attitudes wasalready a success for LIFE, CRPF said.

Forest biotope works to reversecapercaillie habitat loss

The LIFE-Nature project also offeredgrants to private and municipal forestowners who agreed to one-off workssuch as preventing open spacesovergrowing, opening up stands ofbeech which are too dense, creatingsmall clearings, etc. If anyone wasinterested, the project would make aplan of the works it considered best forthat particular forest, and if the ownerformally agreed, the works would becarried out and the grant paid.Altogether, LIFE-Nature financedwork to restore capercaillie habitat in63 ha state forest, 1113 ha municipalforest (involving 39 communes) and597 ha private forest (involving 23owners). Stopping beech fromcrowding out other species was themost common intervention.

Grazing as a forest management toolFinally, a sylvi-pastoral experimentbegun in 1993 to see if grazing couldbe used to re-open forests wasabsorbed into the LIFE-Nature project.Preliminary results were promising.

nesting takes place, during the criticalperiods (which fall between April 15and June 30, depending). The sameapplies to wintering sites. In effect,forestry work in capercaillie habitatswill only be possible without anyconstraint between July 1 andDecember 15. The other aspect offorest management, namely tomaintain or improve capercailliehabitat, is also included in the newframework document for stakeholders.

The crucial question of whether thecapercaillie guidelines areeconomically neutral or a financialburden, was supposed to be examinedby the LIFE-Nature project. In spite ofquestions about this from the

The Jura’s high-altitude zones wherecapercaillie live, 27,000 ha in all, also containother Annex I birds such as the owlsGlaucidium passerinum and Aegoliusfunereus and the woodpecker Dryocopusmartius, which would benefit indirectly fromthe LIFE-Nature project. In the project asapproved by the Commission in 1992, thehazel grouse, Bonasa bonasia, thecapercaillie’s smaller cousin, was a secondtarget, as its lifecycle and habitatrequirements are broadly similar. It occursover a much greater area than thecapercaillie - in effect the whole Jura above800 metres altitude. Because it is a veryreclusive bird, even more difficult to observeand monitor than the notoriously shycapercaillie, the project ended up doing verylittle direct work on this species, but bymaintaining and improving forest habitats forcapercaillie, did indirectly help Bonasabonasia.

Life after LIFE

Life after LIFE

Follow-up to actions initiated underthe LIFE- Nature project

PartnershipThe steering committee set up underthe LIFE project continues to meetregularly, still using the name “Comitédu Pilotage LIFE”, and has gained newmembers, such as the cross-countryski-ing sector and hunters’associations.

Guidelines for forestry adapted tocapercaillieBecause other stakeholders have, sinceLIFE, joined the Comité du Pilotageand have agreed to guidelines for theiractivities, by March 2001 the LIFE-Nature forestry guidelines had beenformally adopted by the Comité andare expected to be distributed amongthe forestry sector (public and private)during the spring of 2001.

In this document, the foresters committhemselves to avoid or severely restrictwork in sites where reproduction and

Commission after the final report wassubmitted, the project partners couldonly come up with very roughguesstimates. ONF and CRPF evenhad different opinions about thismatter. The initial state of the forest iscertainly important: applyingcapercaillie guidelines to a well-managed ‘futaie jardinée’ should entaillittle or no extra cost, but to forestswhere the starting point is lessfavorable, they would imply majorchanges and higher costs. Re-trainingstaff is also a cost factor. The questionremains open today, though in Feb.2000 ONF, CRPF and the SociétéForestière de Franche-Comté publisheda study, cofinanced by the EAGGF, onthe costs engendered by application ofthe Habitats Directive to forests in theFranche-Comté in general.

‘Greening’ the forest plansWork initiated under LIFE-Nature hasbeen kept up since. Whenever a plancovering a site important forcapercaillie is up for renewal, the ONFinserts the guidelines, consulting withthe municipality if it is a municipalforest. So far only one municipality has

Page

Life after LIFE

109

refused, while 25 haveagreed to the guidelines.

Data supplied shows thatthe total area of public forestnow under managementaccording to the guidelineshas reached 16,180 ha(almost 75% of which is inthe Département du Jura),which is very good indeed.In most cases, themunicipalities committhemselves to applying the‘futaie jardinée’ techniquewhich yields forests idealfor capercaillie. Otherclauses from the guidelinesmay also be inserted in theplans, depending on thespecifics of the site.Furthermore, 3,306 haalready appropriatelymanaged before LIFE, e.g.as ‘futaie jardinée’, ismaintained, almost bringingthe total to 20,000 ha.

For private forest owners,bilateral contacts in the fieldare now held to be moreeffective. The CRPF sendsdocumentation packs to allowners who have to renew theirplan, advertising the capercaillieguidelines. About 70 private forestplans are renewed each year, but exactfigures on guideline take-up rate aredifficult to obtain.

Forest biotope work to reversecapercaillie habitat loss The demand for grants didn’t stop afterthe LIFE-Nature project, but therewere no more funds to satisfy it!Regulation 1257/99 may, in theory,bring new opportunities for sylvi-environmental subsidies, but theopportunity must be seized by theFrench authorities.

Grazing as a forest management toolSylvi-pastoral projects have multipliedand now cover at least 560 ha,according to ONF data, mainly in theDoubs, and more are planned. This isall the more noteworthy in thatforesters have long been opposed tolivestock in the woods! As the ONFDoubs remarked, a ‘major evolution ofmentalities’ has taken place. This toocan be seen as an incentive effect ofLIFE-Nature.

From booklet ‘La taiga du Haut-Jura’ by the PNR du Haut Jura

Page

Life after LIFE

110

Mapping and monitoringSince LIFE-Nature the context formonitoring and capercaillie researchhas become shakier. At project end,lack of finance meant that the two part-time GTJ employees hired via LIFE-Nature had to be dismissed, leaving theGTJ with volunteers only. Becausethey have increasing difficulties copingwith the work, from 2000 onwards theannual capercaillie counts will be doneonly once every two years. Moreover,the local ONCFS, which gave logisticsupport throughout the 1990s, is underinstruction from its hierarchy to stopdoing this.

The GTJ decided to try, throughsubsidised youth employmentschemes, to hire staff for dailyadministration, freeing its volunteers toconcentrate on fieldwork. Thissucceeded: in Sept. 2000 one personwas hired under a 5-year scheme, totake care of administration and publicrelations and to assist with monitoring.

Another positive development is anOct. 99 agreement between GTJ andONF, in which the ONF’s foresterswill record any sightings or indirectindications of tetraonidae on specialforms. In return, the GTJ will makecollated data available to ONF so thatit can plan its forestry work better. Ayear later the PNR-J contracted theGTJ to monitor winter sports activitiesin the Risoux, Massacre andChampfromier massifs and their effecton capercaillie, while it will alsofinance the July 2001 count.

NetworkingThe GTJ had contacts with capercaillieconservationists elsewhere in France.Especially useful was the experience ofa sister NGO, the Groupe TétrasVosges, whose 1988 ACE-Biotopesproject ‘Securing capercaillie in theVosges’ also tried to modify forestry

and reduce disturbance. The LIFE-Nature project organised a mission tothe Black Forest in Oct. 1997. Judgingby reports, this was an eye-opener -participants were inspired by theGermans’ model of involving allstakeholders and their successfulcollaboration with local winter sportsoperators, whom they met. Back home,the Jura ski operators were contactedby the Comité du Pilotage LIFE inearly 1998, and this did indeed provefruitful.

Reciprocally, conservationists inBaden-Württemberg asked the Frenchto help them prepare their own LIFE-Nature application for a Black Forestcapercaillie project. When this wasapproved for funding in mid-1998, theGTJ was asked to participate in theproject’s advisory committee. There isalready exchange of experience - thusthere are plans for a German firm tovisit the Jura to demonstrate usingcables instead of tractors to haul logs

Espace Nordique Jurassien’s brochure on wildlife and skiing

Page

Life after LIFE

111

out of a forest. So here we have atextbook case of networking provingmutually beneficial.

Contacts were also made with forestryand ornithological associations inSwitzerland, inspiring a Genevaconsultancy to develop projects andseek local funding. As a result, thereare now two pilot projects in the SwissJura to test forestry and tourismmanagement in favour of capercaillie.

Progress in other areas

Forestry is but one of the land useactivities to affect the capercaillie.During the course of the LIFE-Natureproject it became clear that tourismand hunting were equally importantand should be addressed in the samemanner through contacts with theinterest groups.

Winter sportsTalks since LIFE between PNR-J andENJvii, representing the cross-countryski-ing sector, have been verysuccessful. ENJ has joined the Comitédu Pilotage and has prepared aguideline text on how to render cross-country ski-ing compatible withcapercaillie. This will be annexed tothe regional master plan (‘schemadirecteur’) for tourism. Whenever anoperator renews his infrastructure, theguidelines will be taken into accountso that eventually all the cross-countryski-ing areas are covered. Already amajority of cross-country ski-ingenterprises have formally committedthemselves to applying the guidelines.

Anticipating this, ENJ has added aLIFE logo to its standard brochure forwinter sports enthusiasts, and anexplanation how ski-ing routes arechosen to avoid disturbing wildlife,urging people to stay on these routes.

An excellent idea, worth promotingamong winter sports operatorselsewhere!

Conservation and business logiccoincide here. “3000 km of cross-country ski-ing routes” used to be theJura’s proud slogan, but ENJ believesthis no longer has commercial value.Customers are more easily attracted byadvertising the technical challenge ofthe skifields or the beauty of thelandscape. Also, it costs 2,000 €/yearto maintain the routes, so downsizingto the best routes or to closed loopsaround the skifield portal, saves onoperating costs.

Climate change could spoil thisbudding relationship. If milder weathermeans less snow, more ski-ing routesmay be moved up to the summitswhere the capercaillie spend theirwinters. ENJ has made this caveatclear, but in its guidelines it also says itwill, in such eventualities, consult withthe Comité du Pilotage in order toavoid sensitive areas. The winter of2000/2001 already gave a foretaste.Snowfall was light and winter sporterscrowded into the highest massifs likeRisoux, Massacre and Haute Chaine tofind decent layers. This invasion ofprime capercaillie wintering areas ledto the monitoring contract given byPNR-J to the GTJ to assess theconsequences.

The ENJ will help bring snowshoeenthusiasts, who appeared on the sceneas a new source of disturbancetowards the end of the LIFE-Natureproject, under control. Mutual interestagain: besides wandering acrosscapercaillie habitat, they use the routeslaid out for cross-country ski-ing byENJ enterprises, hindering skiers, butdo not pay the fees. The solutionenvisaged is to demarcate snowshoeroutes away from the cross-country

Page

Life after LIFE

112

ski-ing routes, but limiting theirnumber and avoiding sensitive areas. Aprotocol to this effect is being offeredto the operators of ski-ing areas. So far18 have signed up to this protocol and2 more are expected to follow soon,covering 2/3 of all ski-ing areas. Localbusinesses selling or renting snowshoeequipment are being approached tomake them aware of the problem andenlist their aid. Guided snowshoe toursare being promoted.

What about winter sporters who do notstick to the tracks offered? Thisbecame acute during the 2000/2001winter, when signposts prohibitingentry to parts of the Risoux andMassacre capercaillie habitats weresimply ignored too often, withsnowshoe enthusiasts being the worstculprits. The legal protection undernational law which these massifs enjoyrestricts movement, but there is notenough surveillance, enforcement andprosecution of offenders. The ONF’sforest wardens, the ONCFSgamekeepers and the regular police allhave the necessary powers. The PNR-Jis now trying to start a debate with thelocal authorities (‘prefecture’) and thetourism sector about this problem.

Downhill ski-ing Although there are noplans to build new resorts, existingstations may be beefed up (morechairlifts, faster throughput). However,this automatically entails statutoryconsultation. Meanwhile, the Comitédu Pilotage will try to collaborate withoperators to channel ski-ers andsnowboarders, e.g. by erecting nettingalong the routes. First contacts havebeen made and the resort operatorsappear willing, but do expect theComité to pay for the installation ofsuch devices.

Dog sledding is a new and anarchicpastime; there is no professionalassociation the Comité du Pilotagecould speak to. Apart from bilateralcontacts, it can try to persuademunicipalities who sense a lucrativenew fad, to designate sledding routesaway from sensitive areas. This hasalready worked with one (La Pesse).

Summer tourismMost summer tourism is concentratedin the period July 15-Aug. 15, after thecapercaillie breeding season, but maybecome a problem if more people takeholidays before and after the peakseason.

The LIFE-Nature project started totackle disturbance caused byunauthorised use of forestry tracks,erecting 19 barriers. ‘Objectif 2008’,the PNR-J’s ten-year action plan,refers to a master plan for forestrytracks which aims to prevent thembecoming linked into routes straightthrough forest massifs, and to examinealternatives to tracks for taking outtimber from sensitive areas, like cablesand horses. Owners and operators, wewere told, are often alreadyspontaneously making tracksunattractive to outsiders.

New leisure activities like mountainbiking or trailblazing (on foot or onski) do pose a problem and firstcontacts have been laid with localclubs and the national associationFédération Française de Coursed’Orientation. Hiking and biking trailshave successfully been moved awayfrom sensitive capercaillie areas inmassifs like Massacre, Risoux andRisol. Under Objectif 2008, themunicipalities in the park committhemselves to consulting the PNR-Jbefore changing trails or making newones.

Page

Life after LIFE

113

HuntingWild pig brought the hunters’associations into the Comité duPilotage. Proliferation of pig is aproblem as they are said to devourcapercaillie eggs and chicks, but it alsomeans hunters’ federations/ONCFSwill have to pay out morecompensation to farmers for damagesto crops. So, at first sight, hunters andconservationists have common cause.

The LIFE-Nature project financed astudy on this issue, produced in Oct.1997 by Patrick Longchamp, an expertfrom the hunters’ association. Itconcluded that pig have spread,perhaps because of milder winters,restrictions on hunting (ban on huntingin snow) or the refuges created by the‘reserves de chasse’ (protected areaswhere hunting is prohibited) whichcover 10% of the Jura.

A 1998 paper from the hunters basedon this study and proposing action onpigs, was the starting point for a debateduring which several amendmentsfrom other stakeholders to their firstproposals were accepted by thehunters. The end result was a set ofguidelines. Thus the FDCsviii will askmembers not to release farmedgamebirds in capercaillie habitat andnot to start artificial feeding of pigthere. When hunting roe deer,recommendations to avoid disturbanceby dogs or in capercaillie winteringareas are to be followed. The option ofregularly dislodging pig from the‘reserves de chasse’ will be examinedand GTJ and FDCs will decide jointlyabout pig hunting in snowtime.

The hunters say they do not want toeradicate pigs completely, as they arefine game, but, as stated in theguidelines, they do agree to keep themunder control. Since June 1998 cullingtargets are determined with the Comité

du Pilotage and kills are analysed tomonitor population trends. Theseindicate that wild pig populations havestabilised, thanks to the increasedhunting pressure. Whereas annual killsrocketed from 400 before 1991 to 800-1000 between 92 and 96, they returnedto the 700-800 bracket in 1998 and 99,but then moved back up to 860 in2000. This year’s season will showwhether this heralds a new populationexplosion.

Although there is still scepticismtowards capercaillie conservation atthe grass-roots level, we were told,there are also encouraging initiatives.A group of hunters is offering to takecharge of keeping some clearings madeby the Dec. 99 storm permanentlyopen, while 45 woodcock hunters havebeen passing on their sightings ofBonasa bonasia for 6 years now as acontribution to monitoring. Finally, theONCFS has purchased 55 ha of forestat Foncine to develop into appropriatehazel grouse habitat.

Overall assessment

Relations with other stakeholders

One of the most interesting discoveriesof the Flashback mission was thatsince the project ended, a great deal ofeffort has been invested in building upworking relationships withrepresentatives of the hunting andwinter sports sectors. This has beensuccessful, and two new sets ofguidelines for capercaillie conservationhave been negotiated.

Together with the guidelines to limitdisturbance by forestry formulated bythe LIFE-Nature project, they form apackage which was formally adoptedby the stakeholders represented in the

Page

L

114

“Comité du Pilotage LIFE” platform inearly 2001 as a series of guidelines tolimit disturbance to capercaillie,whether by hunting, winter sports orforestry.

A four-page illustrated foldersummarising the guidelines, for publicdistribution, was printed in March2001. PNR-J and ONF will present thefull text of the guidelines, togetherwith the ‘Documents d’Objectif’(Natura 2000 management plans) tothe mayors in the Département Jurathis spring and summer. Similarpresentations to the mayors in theDépartements Doubs and Ain areforeseen for 2002 and 2003.

This is a happy ending, but for fouryears ONF and CRPF resisted formaladoption of the LIFE-producedforestry guidelines until similarguidelines had been elaborated fortourism and hunting. They reasonedthat otherwise forestry would appear tobe the only threat to capercaillieconservation, which it was not. Itwould also be incoherent for forestersto have to refrain from working atcertain times so as not to disturb thecapercaillie, if recreationists andhunters were under no such constraint.In short, all whose activities impingeon the capercaillie should shouldertheir part of the responsibility and theburden, not just some.

In hindsight, the LIFE project’s focuson forestry stakeholders was a barrier.Lesson: projects which aim at only oneof several stakeholders, run the risk offuelling resentment in the targetedstakeholder - why me and not theothers? Why should I be the only oneto make sacrifices?

Incentive value

Continuation of the actions initiatedunder the project has been excellent.Although the project did not achieveits original aim of having forestryguidelines officially adopted by theend of 1997, it did not let things justdrift on after LIFE-Nature, butcontinued to work towards the goal ofgaining stakeholder consensus onintegrating capercaillie managementinto land use, and has now reached it.

However, it took nine years after theLIFE-Nature project began to getthere. The LIFE (and post-LIFE) workon capercaillie conservation was doneby employees and volunteers of PNR-Jand GTJ besides their many othertasks, and this is a weakness. LIFE-Nature was barely asked to invest inpersonnel (only a few % of the budgetwent to project coordination); a full-time ‘animateur’ dedicated tocapercaillie work exclusively mighthave speeded things up.

2nwmpnPda

Conservationbenefit


Public interest

0,000 ha forest Major incentive to create Stimulated Cooperation with main

ife after LIFE

ow managedith capercaillie inind althoughart of sites stillot designated.opulation stilleclining, perhapss part of a cycle.

good cooperation betweenconservationists and otherland users. Now a series ofguidelines to limit damage tocapercaillies have beenadopted with hunting,forestry and winter sportsgroups.

efforts for thespecies inadjoiningcountries e.g.Black Forest inGermany andJura inSwitzerland.

stakeholders isundoubtedly theproject’s greatestachievement.Significant progressmade through dialogueand voluntaryagreements but littleinteraction so far withthe public at large.

Page

Life after LIFE

115

The PNR-J however had consideredthis a risky option, for if funds everdried up, the ‘animateur’ and all hisaccumulated work would be lost.Instead, it integrated the task into itscore staff, whose funding is moreassured. They would do capercaillie-related work besides their other tasks.During the LIFE project, 3-5 personswere involved in this way; today 2employees each spend about 5-10% oftheir time over the whole year.

Having said this, the fact remains thatLIFE-Nature was successfully used toexpand small-scale preliminary workenormously and launch processeswhich have continued under their ownsteam since, even gatheringmomentum as new stakeholders aredrawn in. A true incentive effect!

Conservation effect

Ironically, Tetrao urogallus continuesto decline since the LIFE-Natureproject ended in 1997 - density in aprime site like Risoux fell from 3birds/100 hectare to 1. Numbers onlyincreased at 3 sites (with Crêt Chalam,the best, going from 1 to 10individuals). About 300 birds were leftin the French Jura in 1999.

So, like the great bustard projects ineast Germany, this project faces theparadoxical situation that it did a greatdeal of work to improve thecapercaillie habitat, which has beencontinued vigorously since LIFE, butthe populations are not responding.Why this is so, is not really clear. If itis a normal cycle, as has been observedin Russia and Scandinavia, or anepidemic, populations may bounceback. There was an earlier decline inthe Jura from 1976 to 1981, followedby an upswing until the mid-1990s.

Investigation is urgently needed.Predation is one aspect (foxes!),another might be the wet summers of1999 and 2000 which may haveincreased chick mortality.

Natura 2000 designation

The legal protection of the sitesworked on through the LIFE-Natureproject is also of concern. Althoughabout half of the 27,000 ha core zonefor tetraonidae in the Jura enjoys someform of protection under national law,none of the LIFE-Nature project areawas in the Natura 2000 network whenthe project ended.

There was a window of politicalopportunity to designate SPA in 1991but it was missed. The next try, in themid-1990s, met resistance from theforestry stakeholders, suspicious of theconsequences of SPA status, and amoratorium on designation wasimposed by the political authorities.

Only two (the Massacre and Risouxmassifs, together 3250 ha) of theimportant capercaillie habitats in theFranche-Comté part of the Jura havebeen included in the Natura 2000network, both as pSCI transmitted tothe Commission in Sept. 1998, butwith abundant references tocapercaillie conservation in thestandard data forms. So here there isstill work to do! Rhône-Alpes has donebetter. A pSCI covering 12,480 ha wastransmitted to the Commission in May1999, again with references tocapercaillie in the data forms. ThispSCI covers the high ridge (Reserve dela Haute Chaine) from Gex practicallyto Bellegarde, including all thecapercaillie habitats along it. Sites tothe west however, such as in theChampfromier area, are not included.

Page

Life after LIFE

116

Still, the DIREN has already chargedONF and PNR-J with preparing theNatura 2000 management plan(‘Document d’Objectif’) for theMassacre and Risoux pSCIs, to beready by March 2002; the HauteChaine pSCI will follow. The resultsand experience of the LIFE project andits follow-up are proving very usefulfor this exercise.

The future

The adoption of the ‘stakeholderpackage’ of guidelines is an endingpoint, but there is still plenty to do. Wehave mentioned the need for researchinto why the capercaillie are notresponding well (the GTJ is seekingfunds to study the effect of theguidelines on capercaillie ecology).Evaluation of the work already done isalso important for another reason. TheCRPF told us that forest owners wantto know if their efforts to apply theguidelines have had any impact. This isa very important point – adequatefeedback must be given to stakeholderswho voluntarily participate inconservation work!

Keeping tabs on how much forest isbeing managed appropriately or hasbeen improved by one-offinterventions would seem an obvioustask, yet no-one could give us anoverview. The ONF later suppliedgood data on its work, but this is notthe whole picture. The new GTJemployee will, it seems, start a database for forest management.

Finally, the upland meadows. So far,they have not been drawn into thecapercaillie programme. Theirpreservation is linked to trends inagriculture, which at the moment arenot very favorable. Another new taskfor the future?

i The Parc Naturel Régional du Haut-Jura (PNR-J) wascreated in 1986 by 46 municipalities which bandedtogether around a charter to safeguard the natural andcultural heritage and promote rational land use andsustainable economic development. This regional naturepark covered 75,000 ha with 44,000 inhabitants. Afterrenewal of the charter in 1996-98, participation rose to90,000 ha and 96 municipalities spreading over 3departements (Doubs, Jura, Ain) and two Regions(Franche Comté, Rhone Alpes).iiGroupe Tétras Jura (GTJ) is an NGO set up in 1975 tomonitor tetraonidae. Its experts, MM Leclercq, Montadertand others, laid the scientific basis for the project.Membership is open to all those interested in capercaillieconservation and monitoring.iii Office Nationale des Forêts (ONF) - the French nationalpublic body which manages publicly-owned forests (stateor municipal).iv Office Nationale de la Chasse et de la faune Sauvage(ONFCS) – the French national public body in charge ofhunting policy, game management and wildlife issues.v The Direction Régionale de l’Environnement (DIREN)are the regional antennae of the Ministry of theEnvironment and Land Use Planning, responsible for siteprotection, Natura 2000 and cofinancing and monitoringselected local conservation projects.vi Centre Régional de la Propriété Forestière (CRPF) – Theassociation grouping private forest owners at the regionallevel.vii Espace Nordique Jurassien (ENJ) – this associationgroups all the cross-country ski-ing operators in the FrenchJura: 38 enterprises exploiting over 140 individual sites.Membership is compulsory in order to have a permit tooperate commercially. viii Fédération Départementales des Chasseurs (FDC) –associations grouping hunters at the local or regional level.

For further information contact:M Christian BruneelChargé de MissionParc Naturel Régional du Haut-JuraMaison du Haut-JuraF-39310 LajouxTel +33 3 84 34 12 30 Fax +33 3 84 41 24 01Email [email protected] Alexandra BesnierGroupe Tétras Jura5 rue de la MillèreF-39370 Les BouchouxTel/ fax + 33 3 84 42 78 67Email : [email protected]



Beneficiary:The Royal Society forthe Protection of BirdsRSPB

Budget:1.200.000 €

EC co-finance:50%

DurationJan 1993 – June 1996

LocationDorset, southernEngland

Habitat /species:Lowland Atlantic wetheaths

Case Study IX:Restoring Dorset’sLowland Heaths

The context

Brought to fame by Thomas Hardy’snovels, the Dorset heaths in the southof England used to be an importanteconomic resource for localcommunities. Cattle and ponies were

Customised tractor designed to scrape off the topsoil followingtree removal – Photo: RSPB activity report

Life after LIFE

grazed on the heather, turf and gorsewere harvested to fuel bakers’ ovens.Yet, because the soil was of lowfertility and the environment harsh,such activities remained relativelylow-key for centuries. For the localwildlife this proved to be ideal as itgenerated optimum conditions for aparticularly rich diversity of plantsand animals.

Page

Life after LIFE

118

Rare birds such as the Dartford warbler,Sylvia undata, nightjar, Caprilinguseuropaeus, and woodlark, Lullulaarborea (all on Annex I of the BirdsDirective) have their stronghold inDorset. As do species like the sandlizard Lacerta agilis and the southerndamselfly Coenagrion mercuriale .

Lowland Atlantic wet heaths oncecovered an important expanse of theEnglish countryside but over the last200 years as much as 86% hasdisappeared. What is left is neverthelessstill significant on an EU scale (20% ofthe EU resource) as the extent of declinein other member states has been evenmore dramatic. Around 10% of theUK’s Atlantic wet heaths can be foundin southern England, in Dorset, but in ahighly fragmented state. Whereas oncethere would probably have been only 9large distinct areas of heath in DorsetCounty, by the early 1990s there wereestimated to be as many as 141 smallfragments of which only 14 were over100 ha.

The threats

Eking out an existence on such poorsoils proved to be hard work, so muchso that farming and harvesting waslargely abandoned by the end of theSecond World War. In its place came awave of large-scale afforestationprogrammes and agriculturalimprovement schemes. In two decadesalone, around 5600 ha of heathland wasplanted over or ploughed up.

Its location close to a number of majorconurbations, such as Southampton andBournemouth, also contributed to itsdownfall as more and more areas werelost to development, especially throughhousing, transport infra-structures,mineral exploration and land-fills. Therate of such urbanisation reached a crisispoint in the 1980s, stimulating the

NGOs, including the RSPB, and publicbodies to set up a Dorset HeathlandForum to lobby against further lossesand to raise its profile both locally andnationally. This proved to besuccessful: by the end of the decade theloss of heaths to development had beenbrought down to zero.

However, it was also at this time that aneven more insidious threat wasdiscovered, that of neglect and the lackof management. Heaths were formed,and maintained, by extensive land usepractices; once these were abandonedlarge areas became invaded by scrub. Ina survey carried out in 1996 it wasestimated that the average rate of lossdue to scrub encroachment was around1.5% a year (between 1978 and 1987).

Page

Life after LIFE

119

Such levelsareparticularlydevastatingfor thesmaller sites, which are not able torecover below a certain size. The samesurvey estimated that of the 7,060 ha ofheaths designated as Sites of SpecialScientific Interest (and subsequently aspSCI) as much as a third of it was inunfavourable condition due to scrubinvasion.

Reversing this trend was furthercomplicated by complex land ownershipdistribution. Major sections are ownedeither by the Ministry of Defence andtherefore ‘out of bounds’ or by theForestry Enterprise and therefore largelydedicated to forestry. A significantproportion is also in private ownership,having been bought during the 1980sboom period. By contrast, only a verysmall proportion – approximately 10% -was in conservation-friendly ownershipat the start of the 1990s.

The beneficiary

The beneficiary of the LIFE project, theRSPB, has had a long history ofinvolvement in heathland managementin Dorset. In the late 1960s, it acquired alarge area of heathland on the Isle ofPurbeck in southeast Dorset, which, atthe time, held six of the last tenremaining pairs of Dartford warbler inthe UK. In the 1980s, it participatedactively in the campaign to stop furtherlosses through development and, in theearly 90s, began to experiment withdifferent management techniques toassess whether a large-scale heathland

restoration programme could beundertaken, and to inform futurefunding mechanisms.

Armed with these preliminary positiveresults, RSPB applied to LIFE-Naturefor funding. Why LIFE? Firstly,because RSPB wanted to stress theEuropean importance of the habitatresource. Secondly, because there wereno national sources of funding at thetime for conservation projects onheathlands, other than CountrysideStewardship grants. The latter wereintroduced in 1991 but the levels offunding and the overall amountavailable was too low to incite large-scale restoration work.

LIFE objectives

Thus, the overall objective of the LIFEproject was to increase the area of goodheathland in Dorset by 10% (approx 560ha) in ten years and to encourage thelong-term funding for heathlandmanagement at a national level.

The specific objectives were to:

Halt and reverse trends for heathlandloss, fragmentation and isolation ofremaining areas, in particular thosecaused by encroachment of pine,birch, rhododendron and bracken

Bring into conservation ownershipand/or management strategicallyimportant areas to ensure their long-term protection

Put in place a long-term monitoringprogramme to assess the state of thehabitat

Develop a cost-benefit analysis ofthe different management techniquesand produce best practice guidanceon the methods to be used

Finally, make such informationwidely available to other heathlandmanagers

Decline oflowland

heaths inDorset from

1750 to 1996– from RSPB

leaflet

Page

Life after LIFE

120

The actions

The project started in January 1993 witha total budget of 1.200.000 € of which50% was to be paid by LIFE-Nature.Originally, the intention had been tospend half of this money on buyingheathland, but early on it became clearthat this was going to be considerablymore difficult than foreseen as ownerswere reluctant to part with their land. Somost of the money had to be shifted tohabitat restoration instead. This alsomeant that the project had to beprolonged by one and a half years toJune 1996 to allow time to complete theadditional management work.

One of the first tasks of the project wasto prioritise the remaining 141 heathlandfragments according to threat,importance and opportunity. Threat wasdetermined by the level of invasion(with priority being given to those siteswith a longer history of scrub invasion),fragmentation and size (sites less than20 ha were unlikely to be self-supporting). Importance was establishedby its designation status and its linkpotential (i.e. the feasibility of the sitesbeing linked to each other so as to forma greater single unit). Finally, theopportunity for restoring an area alsohad to be taken into consideration – forinstance, was the land owner likely to becooperative or hostile?

21 sites were selected and targetedfor restoration under the LIFEproject. Having written a detailedmanagement plan for each, workcould begin on removing theinvasive scrub using a dedicatedteam of 8 field staff, 4 of whomwere permanent, and severalseasonal workers. A variety ofdifferent types of scrub wastackled and various techniquestried out over the period of theproject.

Results

By the middle of 1996, some 560 ha ofdegraded heath had been brought backinto favourable condition, both throughthe LIFE project and through parallelactions inspired by the former. What ismore, the number of fragments had beenreduced from 141 to 130 and the area inconservation-friendly ownershipincreased by 165 ha through thepurchase of a further four strategic sites.

The results of the experimentalrestoration work were written up as acase study. The hundred page documentgives advice on a whole range of issuesfrom site selection, managementprioritisation to specific restorationmethods and their related costs.Different sites tackled through theproject were also described asillustrative examples of what can beachieved.

The document was widely promoted andits recommendations used to run a seriesof heathland training workshops forother managers and policy advisors. Anationwide heathland project officersnetwork was also instigated tocoordinate knowledge on management

issues across the UK.

Tree removal at a Dorset subsites – labour intensive workFrom RSPB activity report

LpthoAh

D

Tremdinreainin

Tniscamdpthhinmdc

TTufo

re-oriented early on. This isan important lesson for thefuture; if land purchase is tobe accepted as a legitimateexpense under LIFE theremust be some assurances atthe outset that the owners arewilling to sell and that theprice is right. This was notthe case in the present

E

Operation Man daysper ha

Costper ha €

Pine clearance – over 20years old 50-100% cover

17.26 2400

Pine clearance – under 20years old up to 50% cover

10.6 1450

Birch clearance – up to 35years old and 50% cover

18 2800

Rhododendron clearance 80 10.000Gorse management 62 7900Bracken clearance 0.625-2.86 165-750

Life after LIFE

astly, a long-term monitoringrogramme was put in place to recorde effects of the management methods

n a variety of parameters, includingnnex I birds and Annex II taxa andeathland vegetation communities.

id the project achieve its objectives?

he answer to this question has to be asounding yes. The final result wasuch greater than hoped for - not only

id it manage, through direct anddirect means, to reach its objective ofstoring 10% of the heaths three years

head of schedule, but it also succeeded reversing the trend of heathland loss Dorset for the first time this century.

his success could be attributed to aumber of factors. On the one side there the fact that the project had set itselflear targets of what it wanted tochieve and put in place a soundanagement structure, including a

edicated staff who remained with theroject throughout. On the other hand,e natural dynamics of lowland dry

eaths were reasonably well understood advance, hence appropriateanagement prescriptions could be

rawn up with some degree ofonfidence.

his is not to say it was all a success.he fact that the beneficiary had beennable to purchase the land it hadreseen caused the project to be heavily

project.

The other main achievement of theproject was that it developed a series ofcost–effective restoration techniquesand demonstrated their practicalapplication. This gave otherorganisations the tools and theencouragement they needed to carry outtheir own restoration works. It alsohelped to formulate appropriate fundingschemes to support the long termmanagement of the heaths.

English Nature for instance, thestatutory conservation agency inEngland, used the project guidelines todevelop prescriptions for its newly

xtract from the case study re costings of various techniques used

Page

Life after LIFE

122

introduced Wildlife EnhancementScheme for heathlands. Launched in1994, this provides a two-tier system ofannual management payments for there-introduction of light grazing(stocking levels are generally 100 timeslower than on best farmland). It alsofunds 100% of the costs of any capitalworks that are needed to introducegrazing, e.g. stock fencing or watering.Just two years after the start of thescheme 1300 ha of the heathland wasbeing grazed with a further 700 ha underconsideration. This is compared to just150 ha before 1994.

Was a follow-up required?

As the above illustrates, the project wasdesigned to demonstrate the type ofconservation actions needed to restorethe heathlands and to stimulate a long-term strategy for their recovery. It didnot to try to complete this recoveryprogramme in one single initiative,considering the vast areas involved andthe large number of interests at stake. Soalthough the LIFE project achieved itsspecific target of clearing scrub over10% of the lowland heaths in Dorset,additional restoration work was clearlyrequired to remove scrub over theremaining 90% of the pSCI in order tobring back it up to a favourableconservation state. Also, more nationalfunds were neededfor their subsequentlong-term manage-ment. The WildlifeEnhancementScheme and theCountrysideStewardship wentsome way down thatpath but did not havethe resources totackle the full extentof the problem atthat stage.

Life after LIFE What then has happened since the endof the project in 1996?

Restoration work Looking first at the 21 sites targetedunder the LIFE project, scrub clearancehas continued on all of them and is nowcomplete on 16. For the remaining five,there are programmes in place tocomplete this in the near future.Progress has also been significant inother sites within the Dorset heathcomplex (an extra 300 ha).

The whole process has also now justbeen given a significant boost throughthe adoption in October 2000 of a newnational initiative entitled ‘Tomorrow’sHeathland Heritage’ to restore a further1000ha of Dorset’s heaths, at a total costof 3 million €. For the first time, asignificant proportion of this will be onMinistry of Defence land. At thebeginning of the LIFE I project this areawas practically out of bounds (only twosites worked on), yet this body ownsalmost 1500ha of open heaths to thewest and its conservation is vital to theoverall recovery plan. Again the criteriafor this national initiative were heavilyinfluenced by the LIFE project.

Tree felling at GrangePhoto: RSPB project

Page

Life after LIFE

123

A second LIFE project was alsolaunched in 1996, but this time the focuswas specifically on priority habitat typessuch as the southern Atlantic wet heathswith Erica ciliaris and Erica tetralixand dry coastal heaths with Ericavagans and Ulex maritimus. The projectalso covered a much wider area,involving not only the Dorset heaths butalso those in Cornwall and Brittany.Thanks to this project a further 136 haof heath was restored or, more correctly,‘recreated’ in Dorset, as it no longerfocused on scrub clearance but on thewholesale removal of a forestplantation.

Long-term habitatmanagement

The situation regarding the long-termgrazing of the Dorset heaths is alsoencouraging. At the moment 2900 haare in some form of grazingmanagement – this is more than doublethe area being grazed at the end of thefirst LIFE project. Interestingly the twonational schemes created to supportlong-term grazing activities also sawsubstantial increases in their overallbudgets during this period. One of these,the Countryside Stewardship scheme, isin fact supported by the EU agri-environment regulation.

Extent of land in conservation-friendlyownership

Approximately 650 ha was bought orleased by conservation bodies since theend of the project (of which only 20 hawas paid by the second LIFE project).Two of the biggest privately ownedheathland sites have since changedhands too. Canford Heath, for instance,is now mostly owned by the localauthority who intend to manage it fornature. Plans to swap other forms ofland for heathland, however, failed toget off the ground, especially whentargeting forested heaths. Part of thiscan be put down to the extremely highcost of land in Dorset, the lack of sitesavailable for sale and the currentreluctance of the Forestry Commissionto give up commercially valuable landwithout a suitable alternative.

Nevertheless, the amount of land inconservation-friendly ownership hasessentially tripled since the start of theLIFE flashback project (toapproximately 1600 ha).

Monitoring

The monitoring plots have beenmaintained throughout and provideregular updates on the effects of themanagement actions. The population

increases of the threeAnnex I birds sincethe end of the firstproject in 1996 showsome remarkablerecoveries: Dartfordwarbler has increasedby 72%, nightjar by55% and woodlark by107%. There havebeen some mildwinters lately whichwill have contributed

Examining the effects ofscrub removal on site – fromRSPB activity report

to the recovery of the species but theimprovement in nesting habitats for thebirds will undoubtedly have had apositive influence on the populations aswell.

Training and awareness-raising

The training seminars for heathlandmanagers have continued on an annualbasis since the end of the project. Onaverage 20 people are trained each yearthrough these courses. The project staffcontinues to have as many as two tothree requests a week from peoplewanting practical advice on themanagement techniques to be used.

With the approval of the second LIFEproject much emphasis was also put onpromoting heathland conservationinternationally. In addition to the regularexchange visits between the French andBritish field staff involved in thisproject, an international conference wasorganised in October 1998 on heathlandmanagement. Around 200 people fromacross Europe attended.

In terms of local awareness raising, thefirst LIFE project did not put greatemphasis on this aspect, other than toorganise a nationwide campaign forraising funds for work on Dorset. Lateron, it was decided to organise an annualheathland fayre to highlight theimportance of this habitat amongst the

local communities. Since its inception in1996 it has attracted on average 1000-2000 people a year, depending on theweather.

Staffing

In terms of staffing, RSPB now employs8 full–time posts and four half-timeposts, and one of the project partners,the Herpetological Conservation Trust,has also since increased its team from 3to 5. Meanwhile the multiplier effect insupply industries is also noticeable. Theannual revenue earned from forestryclearance and fencing work is estimatedat 150,000€/year which keeps theequivalent of 4 people employed full-time.

Overall assessment

Conservation effect

With a small amount of seed money anda well thought out strategy, this LIFEproject has clearly succeeded ininitiating a major recovery programmefor this fragmented habitat.

Today, the restoration of Dorset’sheaths is assured over 75% of the area(compared to 10% achieved through thefirst LIFE project). This has meant thatmore emphasis can be placed onreconnecting existing sites through

Close up of Erica ciliaris Photo: Nigel Symes, RSPB Male Southern damselfly Photo: Andrew Hay

Life after LIFE

Page

Life after LIFE

125

habitat recreation (already afurther 150 ha of newlycreated heaths have beenadded to the pSCI thanks tothe second LIFE project).What is more, over 2900 haof the Dorset heath is alsonow being managed for itslong-term conservationthrough a variety ofcompatible funding regimes(compared to just 150 ha atthe start of LIFE). Thus, interms of conservation effect,the project has clearlyplayed a major role inreturning the lowland heathswithin the Dorset heathlandpSCI to a more favourableconservation state andstimulating the sometimesspectacular recovery ofsome of its endangeredspecies such as the Dartfordwarbler or nightjar.

Incentive effect

In terms of incentive effect,the beneficiary and the LIFEproject have also had astrong influence on generating furtherfunds – both national and EU - forheathland restoration and managementin Dorset and elsewhere. At the outsetthere was only the CountrysideStewardship scheme available, whichprovided too little money to kick-startany major incentives for heathlandrestoration.

Since the start of the LIFE project twofurther initiatives have been introduced:the Wildlife Enhancement Scheme,which is funded by the statutoryconservation agency, English Nature,and the Tomorrow’s Heathland Heritagescheme, which is one of three UKbiodiversity action plans funded throughthe National Lottery.

Both schemes have extensively used thebest practice guidelines, producedthrough the project, to determine theoverall level of funding and the type ofmanagement. Now, together with anenhanced Countryside Stewardshipscheme (supported by the EU agri-environment regulation), the totalamount of national funds available forheathland management in Dorset isaround 1 million € a year.

This is ten times more than the annualfunds from LIFE (115,000 € per annum)and even more than the whole of theseven year input from LIFE (800,000 €).

Page

Life

126

De

Thtooof orgressubproprioufiravprabetheresLI

It recmaThonneuncomasitEuwhpava

Wintit attco

7rabmcfa

Conservationbenefit

Incentive value Demonstration potential Public interest

5% of the heath The LIFE-Nature The development of Higher awareness

after LIFE

monstration value

ere have been other positive spin-offs, thanks to the demonstration value

the project. The number ofanisations now involved in heathlandtoration in Dorset has increasedstantially since the start of the LIFEject. Organisations, both public andvate, have been stimulated to carryt their own actions on the heaths,stly because the methodology is nowailable to them through the bestctice guidelines and secondly,

cause they have been able to see formselves the positive results oftoration work undertaken on theFE project sites.

is estimated that over 150 peopleeived training in heathlandnagement from RSPB since 1993.e consequences of this can be felt notly in a UK context, where thetwork of heathland managers set upder the project continues toordinate activities for heathlandnagement across a whole suite of

es in the UK, but also in otherropean countries, such as France,ere the benefit of working in

rtnership has resulted in someluable exchanges of experience.

hat about the local reaction anderest of stakeholders in Dorset? Well,is probably fair to say that the

ention being focused on thenservation of the heaths remains a bit

of a mystery to many. But at least thelevel of awareness is higher than beforeand there is recognition of the fact thatthe sites are not only of local but also ofEuropean interest.

For the farmers and tourist businessesthe benefits from an economicperspective may become a little moretangible in the long run. It is alreadysurprising to see that so many farmersdecided to join the heathlandmanagement schemes. Perhaps this is anindication of a general shift away fromthe more intensive practices of farmingthat have dominated the scene for solong.

The future

In conclusion, the situation looks ratherbright for the Dorset heaths. Most of thescrub has been or is in the process ofbeing removed, and more and more sitesare coming under some form of long-term grazing regime. Thus efforts in thefuture are likely to focus more onreconnecting the existing heathlandfragments and integrating theirconservation into other policy sectors.

But whilst the situation for rural heathsin Dorset looks good, there is still amajor public relations battle to be wonfor the urban heaths. Many of theseareas are now also in conservation-friendly hands but the owners are

estored andlmost half iseing activelyanaged through

onservation-riendly farminggreements.

project had a strongincentive ingenerating furtherfunds for heathlandrestoration andmanagement inDorset andelsewhere.

innovative techniques waswritten up in a case studythat was widely circulated toother users. The results ofthe project also incited othersto follow suit when they sawthe possible results thatcould be obtained.

at local level butmostly withfarmers and localauthorities –general public notso interested.

Page

Life after LIFE

127

powerless to save them without localsupport. This is because the sites are toosmall or too close to towns to be grazed,and are suffering badly from the effectsof vandalism (deliberate fires) andillegal dumping. Until this attitudechanges their long-term survival willremain in question.

For further information, contact:John WaldonSouth West Regional OfficeRSPBKeble HouseSouthernhay Gardens,Exeter, Devon EX1 1NT, UKTel +44 1392 432691Fax +44 1392 453750Email: [email protected]

Lesley SaffordInternational DivisionRSPBThe Lodge, SandyBedfordishire, SG19 2DL, UKTel : +44 1767 680551Fax: +441767 683211Email: [email protected]

Nightjar on log,Photo unknown


Life after LIFE

Conclusions

Common denominators

As the case studies illustrate, much depends on the type of habitats and species, andthreats, the projects are dealing with as well as the overall context in which theyoperate. Despite this, they do have several features in common.

Initial motivation

Before the start of the LIFE-Nature projects, the beneficiaries, whether public or non-governmental, had identified the threats facing a particular species or habitat type intheir area but they could do little to tackle this because, in all cases except one (whereLIFE helped to speed up an existing project rather than initiate it), there was a lack ofresources and especially finances to pay for the work. The actions often involved aheavy initial investment, which was beyond the resources of the organisationsconcerned. This is why they applied to LIFE for funds. Thanks to LIFE, all projectsmade a quantum leap forward in a relatively short space of time.

Equally interesting is that there were no examples of initiatives being created simplyto tap into LIFE-Nature. The projects already existed in a variety of shapes and formsbut needed an initial injection of funds to get started. The added value of LIFE-Nature, which catalyses new initiatives, is therefore very apparent here.

Continuation

This may help to explain why, in all cases, the actions initiated under LIFE-Naturewere continued and built upon. Several projects went from strength to strength, usingLIFE as a launching pad to attain new goals and further-reaching results. For instance,the Dorset Heaths project stimulated the conservation of a significantly greater area ofheath than was tackled under LIFE and helped to secure long-term funding for theirmanagement through national funds. The project in the Jura promoted the use of thecapercaillie guidelines over a much wider area of forests and succeeded in developingsimilar guidelines for winter tourism and hunting. In Trento, additional wetlands havebeen restored thanks to the initiative launched under LIFE and their protection is nowbeing taken into consideration in the region’s rural development plan.

In others (e.g. the Lorraine salt marshes, the sea turtles in Crete) the actions initiatedunder LIFE are continuing and the results are being consolidated. Only one project(Fiener Bruch) has just maintained its LIFE-funded investments but achieved littlemore since.

Page

Life after LIFE

132

Elements of success

A number of elements stand out which might help to explain the lasting success ofcertain actions and projects:

Project design:

• Projects which set themselves clear and realistic targets based on a carefulconsideration of what needs to be done, what is feasible and who needs to beinvolved are able to carry out their project more efficiently and effectively. Timeand resources are not dissipated on addressing problems which should have beenforeseen beforehand or on re-orienting actions which had been ill thought-out.

• Clear objectives also help projects to see beyond LIFE, and plan ahead for whatneeds to be done afterwards to secure the results of the project in the long term.

Capacity building

• Projects which are able to focus enough time and resources on tackling specificconservation problems not only help to break new ground in terms of conservationscience but also build up an expertise in the practical application of thesetechniques. This expertise can be used by the beneficiary, after the end of theproject, to continue or expand its conservation work. Or it can be passed on toothers in the form of best practice guidelines or case study examples.

• Projects that help to build up the beneficiary’s infrastructure – a dedicated office,sufficient staff, investments in equipment – put the beneficiary in good stead forfurther work later on. This is provided that funding is continued. In the case ofNGOs this may mean diversifying sources of income, in the case of public bodiesit may mean ensuring that there is sufficient political will from the hierarchy, afterthe end of the project, to ensure that the project is sufficiently resourced.

Relations with local community and interest groups

• Projects which put a strong emphasis on dialogue and cooperation with interestgroups are likely to have much more sustainable results, even if the progress madein the first couple of years may appear to be slow. This is especially true for thosehabitats and species that are dependent on private land owners or are highlyinfluenced by outside factors.

• Successful beneficiaries use the LIFE project as a focal point. They use the LIFE‘label’ to draw attention to the fact that there is something of European importancein the area. They also use it as a means of ‘demystifying’ the Natura 2000 processand dispelling fears of unfounded restrictions on certain activities. Finally, theyuse it as a way to find agreements with the principal stakeholders on how tomanage the areas – either through codes of conduct or agri-environment contracts– avoiding, if possible, to impose these management requirements unilaterally.

Page

Life after LIFE

133

• Particularly appreciated are those projects which make a special point ofinforming the stakeholders of the results of their actions in terms of species orhabitat recovery – not just over the period of the project but also in the longer run.People are more likely to stick with an agreement if they can see the benefitsthemselves.

• This has also been achieved through demonstration plots: for instance, abeneficiary purchases a parcel of land and applies appropriate managementprescriptions for the habitat or species in question. This provides a very visual toolof what can be achieved and what is involved.

Long-term funding

• Having sufficient resources after the end of LIFE is vital. Successful beneficiarieshave, already at the start of the project, built in actions to secure long termfunding. For instance, finding other means of funding the management over a longperiod, ensuring there is a political will to continue with the actions afterwardswithin its own ranks, and persuading others to take up the bulk of the activitiesthrough codes of conduct or other forms of agreements.

• A third of the projects tapped into agri-environment measures for the long-termmaintenance of the sites once the initial restoration work had been undertaken.LIFE not only helped to influence the types of management prescriptionsintroduced through agri-environment but also helped to promote its use amongstthe land users concerned.

• Where additional actions are required after the end of the project it is essential thatthe resources available are enough to keep the momentum built up under LIFEgoing. Without this ‘critical mass’ it could take significantly longer to achieve anyresults and may even mean that opportunities are lost.

Networking

• Networking with other LIFE projects has helped to share experiences and to lookat problems on a broader, more strategic, level for a particular species or habitat.The sharing of experiences need not only concern conservation methods but alsodifferent types of approaches to information dissemination or negotiations withlocal interest groups etc… It can also provide moral support! Projects often haveto operate in difficult environments and may feel rather isolated when confrontedwith a lot of local resistance or indifference. Other LIFE projects may not onlyhelp to provide advice and support but also help to keep the motivation going.

A final comment

We found this exercise to be a very useful and revealing one in many respects,particularly as so much has happened since the end of LIFE funding. It would beuseful for the Commission to repeat the exercise in due course for LIFE II, or perhapsthe beneficiaries might be tempted to do so themselves, having found food for thoughtamongst the nine examples presented in this study.

Page

Life after LIFE

136

European Commission

Life after LIFE

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

2002 — 131 pp. — 21x 29,7 cm

ISBN 92-894-0948-7

This document is produced by Environment Directorate-General of the European Commission; author service:Unit. ENV.D.1 “the LIFE Unit”, 200 rue de la Loi, B-1049 Brussels, with the assistance of Ecosystems LTD.

Neither the European Commission, nor any person acting on its behalf, is responsible for the use which maybe made of this document.

More information on nature conservation actions of the European Commission’s Environment Directorate-General can be found on its website: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/home.htm

Cataloguing data can be found at the end of this publication.

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2002

ISBN 92-894-0948-7

© European Communities, 2002Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged.

Front cover photos: top left: Sirente-Velino, A Gazenbeek; top right: Sea turtle nesting beach, Crete, K SundsethBottom: Dartford warbler, Dorset. Photo: David Kjaer

http://europa/

KH-36-01-621-EN

-C

ISBN 92-894-0948-7

9 >789289 409483