exchange trips - daba exchange trips_2017.pdfrestoration of grasslands”, zamosc, poland. 4 2...

"National Conservation and Management Programme for Natura 2000 sites in Latvia"

LIFE11NAT/LV/371

Nature Conservation Agency of Latvia

http://daba.gov.lv/public/eng/, http://nat-programme.daba.gov.lv/public/eng/

EXPERIENCE

EXCHANGE

TRIPS

31/05/2017 NAT-PROGRAMME REPORT

Report prepared by:

Communications Manager Zanda Zālīte

Project Coordinator Ērika Kļavina

http://daba.gov.lv/public/eng/

http://nat-programme.daba.gov.lv/public/eng/

1

Table of Contents

1 Overview .............................................................................................................................. 5

2 Poland .................................................................................................................................. 8

2.1 Objectives of the trip ........................................................................................................................8

2.2 Time frame .......................................................................................................................................8

2.3 Participants .......................................................................................................................................8

2.4 Information and experience gained .................................................................................................8

2.5 Networking with other LIFE projects ............................................................................................. 10

3 Greenland........................................................................................................................... 12

3.1 Objectives of the trip ..................................................................................................................... 12

3.2 Time frame .................................................................................................................................... 12

3.3 Participants .................................................................................................................................... 12

3.4 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 12

3.5 Information and experience NAT-PROGRAMME Project Manager shared with participants from

other countries .......................................................................................................................................... 14

3.6 Information acquired in the conference ....................................................................................... 15

3.7 Analysis, conclusions and experience gained ................................................................................ 16

4 Austria ................................................................................................................................ 17


4.2 Dates .............................................................................................................................................. 17

4.3 Participants .................................................................................................................................... 17

4.4 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 18

4.5 Information and experience representatives from Latvia shared with participants from other EU

countries .................................................................................................................................................... 18


4.7 Analysis and evaluation ................................................................................................................. 19

5 Finland ............................................................................................................................... 20


5.2 Time frame .................................................................................................................................... 20

5.3 Participants .................................................................................................................................... 20

5.4 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 20


5.6 Analysis and evaluation of the information exchanged during this trip ....................................... 22

6 Estonia ............................................................................................................................... 27


6.2 Time frame .................................................................................................................................... 27

6.3 Participants .................................................................................................................................... 27

6.4 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 27


countries .................................................................................................................................................... 28

6.6 Information and experience gained .............................................................................................. 28



7 Germany ............................................................................................................................ 31


7.2 Time frame .................................................................................................................................... 31

7.3 Participants .................................................................................................................................... 31

7.4 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 31


countries .................................................................................................................................................... 31


8 Denmark ............................................................................................................................ 33


8.2 Time frame .................................................................................................................................... 33

8.3 Participants .................................................................................................................................... 33

8.4 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 33


8.6 Analysis and evaluation of the information exchanged during this trip ....................................... 39

9 Finland ............................................................................................................................... 39


9.2 Time frame .................................................................................................................................... 39

9.3 Participants .................................................................................................................................... 39

9.4 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 40


countries .................................................................................................................................................... 40


9.7 Lessons learned from other LIFE projects ..................................................................................... 46

10 Estonia ............................................................................................................................... 47


10.2 Time frame .................................................................................................................................... 47

10.3 Participants .................................................................................................................................... 47

3

10.4 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 47



11 Estonia ............................................................................................................................... 48


11.2 Time frame .................................................................................................................................... 48

11.3 Participants .................................................................................................................................... 48

11.4 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 48


countries .................................................................................................................................................... 49



12 Belgium .............................................................................................................................. 51


12.2 Time frame .................................................................................................................................... 51

12.3 Participants .................................................................................................................................... 51

12.4 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 51


13 Ireland ................................................................................................................................ 53


13.2 Time frame .................................................................................................................................... 53

13.3 Participants .................................................................................................................................... 53

13.4 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 53


14 Germany ............................................................................................................................ 55


14.2 Time frame .................................................................................................................................... 55

14.3 Participants .................................................................................................................................... 55

14.4 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 55


14.6 Networking with other LIFE and not Life projects ......................................................................... 57

15 Lithuania ............................................................................................................................ 57


15.2 Time frame .................................................................................................................................... 57

15.3 Participants .................................................................................................................................... 57

15.4 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 57


16 Germany ............................................................................................................................ 59


16.2 Time frame .................................................................................................................................... 59

16.3 Participants .................................................................................................................................... 59

16.4 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 59


17 Zandvoort, the Netherlands ................................................................................................ 61


17.2 Dates .............................................................................................................................................. 61

17.3 Participants .................................................................................................................................... 61

17.4 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 61



18 The Czech Republic ............................................................................................................. 63


18.2 Time frame .................................................................................................................................... 63

18.3 Participants .................................................................................................................................... 63


19 Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania..................................................................................................... 65


19.2 Time frame .................................................................................................................................... 65

19.3 Participants .................................................................................................................................... 65


20 Sighisoara, Romania ............................................................................................................ 66


20.2 Time frame .................................................................................................................................... 66

20.3 Participants .................................................................................................................................... 66

20.4 Summary ........................................................................................................................................ 66


countries .................................................................................................................................................... 67




5

1 Overview

No. Destination Time frame Objectives of the trip Number of

participants

from Latvia

1. Poland May 24-31, 2013

(8 days)

Participation in the conference “The

10th European Dry Grassland

Meeting - When theory meets

practice: Conservation and

restoration of grasslands”, Zamosc,

Poland.

4

2 Greenland September 3-5, 2013

(3 days)

To attend an international

Conference „ The Nordic-Baltic

Wetlands Wetlands in a time of

climate change – mitigation, re-

silence and adaptation” organised

by the Ministry of Environment of

Greenland.

1

3 Austria September 11-13,

2013 (3 days)

Participation in the conference “The

5th European River Restoration

Conference”

2

4 Finland September 15-20,

2013 (6 days)

To visit several Natura 2000 sites

(mostly located in the South of

Finland), where various LIFE+

projects that manage and restore

mire, boreal forest and grassland

habitats, are being implemented.

5

5 Estonia September 24-26,

2013 (3 days)

To attend an international seminar

„Restoration of mire habitats in

Boreal Biogeographical Region” in

Vanaõue, organised by the Ministry

of Environment of Estonia.

3

6 Germany September 26-27, Participation in the conference 1

2013 (2 days)

“Concepts for modern management

of xeric grasslands between nature

conservation and agriculture”.

7 Denmark June 8-13, 2014 (6

days)

To visit coastal areas of Denmark

(North part of Sealand and West

coast of Jutland) to get experience

combating the invasive species on

dunes habitats where various LIFE +

projects that manage and restore

those habitats, have been

implemented.

4

8 Finland August 3-8, 2014 (6

days)

Participation in the 9th European

Conference on Ecological

Restoration and Boreal seminar

meeting.

3

9 Estonia August 11-14, 2014 (4

days)

Participation in the conference

“Forest Landscape Mosaic:

Disturbance, Restoration and

Management at Times of Global

Change”.

1

10 Estonia September 10-12,

2014 (4 days)

Participation in the Riverine LIFE

Platform Meeting.

1

11 Belgium September 23-24,

2014 (2 days)

Participation in the conference

“Results-based agri-environment

schemes: payments for biodiversity

achievements in agriculture”.

1

12 Ireland September 28 –

October 2, 2014

(5 days)

Participation in the EUROPARC

Conference 2014, "Understanding

the Value of Nature".

2

13 Germany October 25-28, 2015

(4 days)

Participation in the EUROPARC

conference “Protected areas in a

changing world”.

2

7

14 Lithuania November 26-27,

2015

(2 days)

Participation in the seminar

organized by EUROPARC Nordic-

Baltic section “Communication in

Protected areas”.

2

15 Germany May 17-20, 2016 Participation in the 11th Annual

Meeting of the European Chapter of

the Society of Wetland Scientists.

2

16 The

Netherland

June 15-17 Participation in the conference

“Natura 2000 Seminars—Atlantic

Biogeographical Region LIFE

platform on restoration of sand

dune habitats”.

3

17 The Czeck

Republic

July 31—August 5,

2016

Participation in the seminar

“Workshop on active management

of forest protected areas” .

1

18 Baltic States August 15-19, 2016 Participation in the conference

“Boreal Restoration Tour”. 1

19 Romania September 20-24,

2016

To attend an international conference 13th Eurasian Grassland Conference “Management and Conservation of Semi-natural grasslands: from theory to practice”.

1

2 Poland

2.1 Objectives of the trip

Participation in the conference “The 10th European Dry Grassland Meeting - When theory meets practice:

Conservation and restoration of grasslands”, Zamosc, Poland.

2.2 Time frame

May 24-31, 2013

2.3 Participants

1. Solvita Rūsiņa – NCA, NAT-PROGRAMME, Grassland Habitat Expert

2. Brigita Laime – NCA, NAT-PROGRAMME, Coastal Habitat Expert

3. Agnese Priede – NCA, NAT-PROGRAMME, Mire Habitat Expert

4. Anita Namatēva – NCA, Nature Data and Planning Department

2.4 Information and experience gained

May 24-26 and May 29-31: field trips to restored and yet to be restored dry grasslands and inland

dunes.

In the field trips NAT-PROGRAMME experts gained an understanding about the vegetation of dry

grasslands and its diversity in the middle and North-East of Poland, as well as an insight in the

management of dry sandy grasslands and inland dunes in military zones and river valleys. Experience

was exchanged about the conservation, management and monitoring of sandy grasslands (6120*) and

inland dunes (2330).

Xeric sand calcareous grasslands can survive in the long term without overgrowing only in territories with

extremely dry conditions and where sand is periodically blown over, restarting secondary succession. The

most appropriate form of management is grazing, but only in pastures composed of various types of

grasslands which reduces the risk of overgrazing. For smaller grasslands that are isolated one from

another, mobile grazing is the most appropriate form of management. This approach is used in Poland

(experience of Klub Przyrodnikow ). In Latvia there is no experience with mobile grazing, however, also in

Latvia it would be very useful and even necessary. Therefore, plans were made for future collaboration

about introducing this management method also in Latvia.

May 27-28: presentation session

9

One of the plenary lectures: “Application of technical grassland restoration in Europe: recovery of

grassland biodiversity by seed mixtures at multiple countries and scales (Peter Torok)” provided a diverse

insight into grassland restoration methods, their pros and cons. Information gained from this session will

be used for drafting NAT-PROGRAMME management guidelines for grassland habitats.

Another plenary lecture “LIFE Nature for dry grasslands: examples and best practices” (Simona

Bacchereti), provided an overview about the contribution of LIFE projects to conservation and

management of natural grasslands (6120*, 6210, 6230, and others). S.Bacchereti showcased some of the

best LIFE projects that provide examples of best practices in managing dry grasslands.

Participants from Latvia listened to 19 presentations and examined more than 10 stand exhibitions that

altogether offered a comprehensive view about the effects of grassland management on the plant and

insect diversity, the results and lessons learned from various management methods and the role of

landscape factors in restoring and managing grasslands.

In Latvia, there is very little experience in restoring and managing dry grasslands (but a rather thorough

experience in managing floodplain grasslands). A lot of useful experience has been gained from

implementing LIFE projects, hence when drafting habitat management guidelines and the Natura 2000

programme it is essential to take into account experience gained in other EU countries – it is necessary

to carry out thorough research about relevant LIFE projects, as well as obtain relevant data from scientific

literature.

2.5 Networking with other LIFE projects

May 31st - an experience exchange seminar organised by projects „Conservation and restoration of

xerothermic grasslands in Poland – theory and practice (LIFE08NAT/PL/000513)” and project NAT-

PROGRAMME.

Experts who participated in this seminar discussed management methods applied in the Polish project

and the current experience in managing natural grasslands (particularly dry grasslands) in Latvia.

Experts discussed possible models for sustainable habitat management and exchanged ideas about ways

how the currently implemented management methods could be continued after LIFE projects are

completed.

Representatives of both projects discussed their current experience in managing grasslands and inland

dunes, shared specific examples and lessons learned. Approaches to monitoring were also discussed. In

Poland, vegetation monitoring is carried out using the Braun-Blanke methodology by setting up sample

plots (5 x 5 m). Project staff is planning on monitoring these sample plots also after the project is

completed. It will be possible because the project is implemented by an NGO Klub Przyrodnikow, which

purchases lands that have natural grassland habitats. The organisation owns a farm with 70 sheep herds,

which they use for mobile grazing; they receive agro-environment support for habitat management. The

organisation also receives additional income from publishing books and study aids.

11

One of the most significant actions in the Polish project is restoring grasslands. NAT-PROGRAMME

representatives learned about restoration methods used in the project, including mowing, mobile

grazing, cutting shrubs and removing sod.

Another important task carried out by the project is developing a conservation plan for semi-natural dry

grasslands (6210). The project has published a book about determining habitats, ecology, habitat

management and monitoring:

Baranska, K., Jermaczek, A. 2009. Poradnik utrzymania i ochrony siedliska przyrodniczego 6210 –

murawy kserotermiczne. Wydawnictwo Klubu Przyrodnikow, Swiebodzin, 201p.

Project representatives who are working on drafting habitat management guidelines in Poland consider

this book as the backbone and even as an extended version of the management guidelines prepared by

the project. The work on drafting habitat management and conservation plan is in process, it is planned

to organise a working group, but overall the guidelines are intended to be rather short and to the point;

the intended target audience is decision makers, municipalities.

3 Greenland


To attend an international Conference „ The Nordic-Baltic Wetlands: Wetlands in a time of climate change

– mitigation, re- silence and adaptation” in Ilulissat Greenland, organised by the Ministry of Environment

of Greenland

3.2 Time frame

September 3-5, 2013 (3 days)

3.3 Participants

Juris Jātnieks – NCA, NAT-PROGRAMME Project Manager

3.4 Summary

The Nordic-Baltic Wetlands Conference was arranged as a part of the Greenland Chairmanship (2012-

2014) of the Nordic-Baltic Wetlands Initiative (NorBalWet). The conference had twenty Ramsar National

Focal Points, national experts from Nordic and Baltic area. The NorBalWet initiative was established in

Trondheim, Norway in 2005 based on resolution VIII.30 of the Conference of the Parties to the Convention

on Wetlands in Spain, 2002 (COP8); “Regional initiatives for further implementation of the Convention”.

Prior to this the need to strengthen co-operation in Northern Europe had been highlighted in The Nordic

Council of Ministers Report (2004), “Nordic Wetland Conservation”. The NorBalWet initiative is an

operational measure in the region covered by member countries to provide effective support for

improved implementation of the more effective conservation and wise use of wetland habitats and

enhanced international wetlands co-operation in the Nordic-Baltic region of Europe. Participant

countries in NorBalWet are Denmark, Greenland, Estonia, Finland, Iceland, Latvia, Lithuania, Norway and

Sweden. Greenland is chairing the Nordic Baltic Wetland Initiative 2012- 2014 and Denmark is the vice-

chair. The conference was co-hosted by the Ministry of Housing, Nature and Environment, Government

of Greenland and The Danish Nature Agency. The programme of the Conference included presentations

from representatives of participant countries including Latvia, as well as a field visit to the mire

habitats, to see various sites where mire habitats are appearing due climate change and get an overview

of experts from various fields – ecologists, hydrologists, biologists, and others.

Purpose, goal and objectives of the conference

To maintain or improve the ecological character of wetlands, including their ecosystem services, to

enhance the resilience of wetlands as far as possible in the face of climate-driven ecological changes. To

promote the restoration of degraded wetlands, and to promote the ability of wetlands to contribute to

13

nature-based climate change adaptation, particularly the role of wetlands in regulating water, including

reducing risks from water-related disasters. To sequester and store carbon as important responses for

climate change mitigation through the maintenance and enhancement of their ecological functions, and

to reduce or halt the release of stored carbon that can result from the degradation and loss of wetlands.

The programme of the Conference covered various topics, including both scientific and practical aspects

of mire management.

The objectives of the workshop were to:

•Share experiences on management opportunities with respect to wetlands conservation and climate

change and regulation across the NordicBaltic countries;

•Share experiences on the ecosystem services provided by NordicBaltic wetlands in the context of climate

change;

•Share experiences and identify common climate change challenges with a focus on adaptation and

mitigation, as well as the link between Temperate and Arctic wetlands;

•Outline potential next steps for exchange of knowledge and praxis to manage protected wetlands within

Nordic-Baltic region.

3.5 Information and experience NAT-PROGRAMME Project Manager shared

with participants from other countries

The NAT-PROGRAMME representative Juris Jātnieks delivered a 25 min long presentation providing an

overview and the current accomplishments of the LIFE+ Project NAT-PROGRAMME, as well as presented

the most important wetland sites of Latvia protected under RAMSAR Convention and Natura 2000

network of EU. The main message of the presentation was the benefits of a method for restoration of

hydrologic characteristics of mire habitats. The method has successfully proved to restore nearly natural

hydrologic conditions in protected mire habitats of Latvia, particularly within Teici mire complex, Kemeri

National Park, Lubana wetland and mire complex, etc. Thanks to the method, more than 230 dams have

been built during the last 17 years (!!!) of wetland restoration in Latvia. The presentation was followed by

numerous questions and raised interest among the working group devoted to the management of mires

and peatlands.

The presentation by Juris Jātnieks is available here:

Juris Jātnieks. Wetland Management in Latvia. ( 6.54 MB)

J.Jātnieks participated in discussions in other sessions with representatives of Nordic-Baltic countries

during and after the presentations, as well as during the most relevant thematic sessions:

•The role of peatlands in climate regulation by Mette Risager, Risager Consult.

http://nat-programme.daba.gov.lv/upload/File/RAMSARLVJJatnieksGreenland2013Final.pdf

15

An overview of the importance of peatbogs in regulation of climate change. Although peat constitute a

small land area at a global scale they contribute significantly to store and reduce impact of emissions

through their carbon storage functioning. Moreover, the presentation gave definitions of the various

wetland types including peatland, bogs, fens etc. A summary of threats to peatlands was given including

examples of drained and excavated areas and the status at the global level.

•Designation of peatbog swamps as Ramsar sites based on climate regulation criteria by Lars Dinesen,

Denmark.

The first case to test the criterion on climate regulation for Ramsar designation of a peatland has been

handled by the Ramsar Secretariat and was presented including a status and opportunities for contracting

parties to the convention. The talk focused on the challenges and opportunities to use criteria I for

designating Ramsar sites under more general criteria of designation of representative, rare or unique

wetlands of international importance. Moreover, a description of CO2 calculations related to the pilot site

was given, and a perspective action related to the Nordic-Baltic region.

•Nordic-Baltic Peatbog Ramsar Initiative by Agu Leivits, Estonia, Jari Ilmonen, Natural Heritage Services-

Finland, Lars Dinesen, Denmark.

A Nordic-Baltic peat project has been launched which will involve all countries in the region apart from the

Russian Federation. The project will be implemented over the next year and contribute to assessing the

importance of Nordic-Baltic peat for climate regulation and suggesting sites for restoration and for

potentially future Ramsar designation based on a criterion for climate regulation.

During these discussions, the representative from Latvia also shared his experience in mire restoration

and in the planning of the ways how mires can be used. As a result of the participation in this event, new

professional contacts have been established and information resources revealed.

3.6 Information acquired in the conference

All presentations can be accessed online at http://www.norbalwet.org

http://www.norbalwet.org/

3.7 Analysis, conclusions and experience gained

The geographical similarities between Nordic – Baltic countries allow for adopting methods used in the

other country, or, on the contrary, learning from the negative experiences in the other country and

choosing better management methods.

The conference showed the progress NorBalWet has made as a well-coordinated and highly inspiring

regional initiative. At the meeting elements of a long-term vision for the Nordic-Baltic wetland initiative

were discussed and the following priorities for the future were highlighted:

•Wetland ecosystem services, including how climate change will affect wetlands ecology, abundance of

the species that use them, and how this will affect the society. All countries were positive towards the

new RIS formats and the inclusion of an assessment of ecosystem services. However, countries agreed

that they would all benefit from sharing experiences on how to use the latest developed tools within that

field including, if applicable, the Toolkit for Ecosystem Services Assessment (TESSA). Denmark, assisted by

Finland, volunteered to coordinate an exercise where each country (if possible) in the region volunteered

to undertake a more comprehensive ecosystem services assessment at one or two wetland sites,

preferably Natura 2000. Such a coordinating exercise could furthermore be a platform for a Nordic-Baltic

side event at COP12 in Uruguay, but most importantly as part of the preparations of adapting to the 2012

RIS format. It was discussed to have a Nordic-Baltic workshop to share lessons learned and experiences in

defining and ranking ecosystem services in 2014. These issues will be discussed and developed further at

an upcoming telephone meeting in the NorBalWet Coordination Group.

17

•The importance of peatbogs/peatlands in regulation of climate change. It was agreed that reviewing

the importance of Nordic and Baltic peatlands, and peatland restoration for the mitigation of climate

change effects is a high priority. An outline of the content of the peat project funded by the Nordic Council

of Ministers was developed. Ramsar criterion 1vi on the hydrological importance of peat in terms of

regional climate change regulation when designation new Ramsar sites or updating Ramsar Information

Sheets was regarded as very relevant. The peat expert was asked to elaborate on the criterion 1vi

including definitions which could feed into the work.

Several of the seminar participants had previously visited mire restoration sites in Latvia together with

NAT-PROGRAMME experts, hence it was now possible to compare and contrast the approach to the

restoration management in Nordic and Baltic countries.

Knowledge and information about projects and practice measures implemented in Nordic and Baltic

countries will definitely improve ability of the NAT-PROGRAMME Project Manager and other staff to find

relevant information online or by directly contacting professionals on relevant habitats with whom

contacts were established.

It was concluded that in Latvia the fact that one of mires’ functions is that they accumulate carbon, is not

sufficiently emphasized. This aspect is used as an argument for the necessity to restore mires, particularly

for restoring peat bogs. It would be useful to adopt this approach also in Latvia, and this argument will

also be included in the mire habitats management guidelines developed by the project NAT-

PROGRAMME.

4 Austria


Participation in the conference “The 5th European River Restoration Conference”

4.2 Dates


4.3 Participants


Andris Urtāns – NCA, NAT-PROGRAMME Freshwater Habitats Expert

4.4 Summary

The conference gathered more than 300 participants from the USA, Japan and Europe, including

representatives of NAT-PROGRAMME - Juris Jātnieks and Andris Urtāns. Scientists and river experts from

35 countries shared their experiences about river management. The European Commissioner for the

Environment Janez Potočnik delivered a speech about the significance of freshwaters in the future Europe.

Also, the Executive Director at the European Environment Agency Hans Bruyninckx talked about the

current state of European waters and the ways it could be improved.

4.5 Information and experience representatives from Latvia shared with

participants from other EU countries

19

NAT-PROGRAMME freshwaters expert Andris Urtāns delivered a presentation with the topic “Initiative

Place a Stone in a Stream as a Method for Local Stakeholder Motivation and Involvement in River

Restoration and Maintenance in Latvia”. The presentation included a suggestion to organize river

management and maintenance as a regular societal activity instead in an ad hoc approach in a number of

separate projects as it is currently done. At the end of the conference the representative of National Trust

Helen Dangerfield stressed this point as an example of best practices.

The presentation is available here:

Presentation by A.Urtāns: "Initiative Place a Stone in a Stream as a Method for Local Stakeholder

Motivation and Involvement in River Restorartion and Maintenance in Latvia". ( 2.85 MB)


During the conference NAT-PROGRAMME representatives met with representatives of several other LIFE

projects and established useful contacts for future collaboration. For instance, A.Urtāns and J.Jātnieks

met with the manager of the Life+ project RESTORE Antonia Scar and learnt about the

website www.restorerivers.eu which has been developed in this project. The aim of this website is to

exchange information and experience among those who are implementing projects about river

restoration in Europe. A.Scar invited NAT-PROGRAMME to contribute to this website by uploading

information about freshwater restoration projects in Latvia. A representative of London Borough of

Lewisham Paul Chapman also expressed an invitation to collaborate in projects about the motivation

and involvement of society in the management of rivers and their riparian areas.

4.7 Analysis and evaluation

The conference provided a useful insight into the most significant issues and activities in the current

river management in Europe, as well as offered an opportunity to discuss various river management

methods and the possibility of implementing these methods in Latvia. After returning from the

conference, A.Urtāns reflected on the experience and suggested that, in order to ensure sustainable and

environmentally friendly river management in Latvia, it is essential to ensure that the aims of NAT-

PROGRAMME are explained to a wider range of society - including advisory boards, city councils and

NGOs.

http://nat-programme.daba.gov.lv/upload/File/Andris%20Urtans_Errc%20presentation.pdf

http://nat-programme.daba.gov.lv/upload/File/Andris%20Urtans_Errc%20presentation.pdf

http://www.restorerivers.eu/

http://www.restorerivers.eu/

http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/Pages/default.aspx

http://www.lewisham.gov.uk/Pages/default.aspx

5 Finland


To visit several Natura 2000 sites (mostly located in the South of Finland), where various LIFE + projects

that manage and restore mire, boreal forest and grassland habitats, are being implemented.

5.2 Time frame


5.3 Participants

1. Sandra Ikauniece - NCA, NAT-PROGRAMME Forest Habitat Expert

2. Agnese Priede - NCA, NAT-PROGRAMME Mire Habitat Expert

3. Solvita Rūsiņa - NCA, NAT-PROGRAMME Grassland Habitat Expert

4. Ērika Kļaviņa - NCA, NAT-PROGRAMME Project Coordinator

5. Evija Lakotko - NCA, Nature Data and Planning Department

5.4 Summary

The Nature Conservation Agency of Latvia (NCA) has signed a cooperation contract with the Finnish

organisation Metsähalitus Natural Heritage (a state enterprise that administers more than 12 million

hectares of state-owned land and water areas) that enables both organizations to organize various events

to improve experience exchange between Latvia and Finland. As a result of the existing ties between the

two organizations, project NAT-PROGRAMME was able to arrange an experience exchange trip to the

South of Finland. The trip was organized in collaboration with another NCA Life+ project currently being

implemented by the NCA – “FOR-REST” (Forest habitat restoration in Gauja National Park, LIFE10

NAT/LV/000159 FOR-REST).

http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/en/Sivut/Home.aspx

21

Participants visited the following Natura 2000 sites in Finland:

Date Natura 2000 Site Activities Carried Out

September 16-17 Nuuksio National Park Restored mires, controlled burning areas of

different ages, traditional rural habitats (semi-

natural meadows) of Kattila and Purola

September 18th Liesjärvi National Park Restored mires (wooded bogs and active raised

bogs), and Korteniemi heritage farm

Torronsuo National

Park

Management of eskers (openings and

prescribed burnings), restored mires

September 19th Komio Nature

Reserve

Follow up of restored mires

Mires of Hyvinkää

region

Mires of Hausjärvi region

September 20th Stensböle, Porvoo Mires restored in different years; large, newly

restored mires

Vikki Nature Reserve,

Helsinki

Management of traditional rural habitats and

herb-rich forests and damned ditches


During this trip NAT-PROGRAMME representatives networked with representatives of the following LIFE

projects:

Species-rich LIFE - Improving the Conservation status of species-rich habitats (LIFE10

NAT/FIN/000048): Nuuksio national park, Porvoonjoen suisto – Stensböle

Restoration of Active Raised Bogs, aapamires and bog woodland in Natura 2000 sites (LIFE96

NAT/FIN/003025): Torronsuo National Park

Boreal forests - Restoration of boreal forests and forest-covered mires (LIFE03 NAT/FIN/000034):

Maakylä-Räyskälä (Komio)

5.6 Analysis and evaluation of the information exchanged during this trip

Metsähalitus Natural Heritage has its own policy regarding specially protected areas in Finland. The

Development Manager Mr. Mikko Tiira emphasized that in Finland the territories included in the Natura

2000 network are most attractive for purchasing, since it is very difficult for private land owners to

manage private territories in accordance with the regulations set out by the EU Habitats and Bird

directives. Metsahilitus raise income also from other activities, such as selling hunting and fishing licenses

and forestry. With the financing from Life projects ~2000 ha of various forest and mire habitats are

restored each year.

5.6.1 Mire habitats

The experience exchange trip to several Natura 2000 sites and habitat management areas in South

Finland provided an excellent insight into different peatland management approaches concerning

blocking and filling in the drainage ditches, removal of the woody vegetation and other peatland

restoration methods. The approaches used in Finland are used in several European countries including

Latvia, however, the Finnish experience in wetland restoration is among the longest in Europe, also being

well-documented. The discussions in management sites with conservation managers provided an

opportunity to find out the reasons for success and failures, e.g., differences and outcomes from ditch

blocking and ditch filling. During the trip a hydrological, hydrochemical and vegetation monitoring site

was visited giving an insight into the monitoring approaches used in Finnish peatland restoration sites

and the first results on the site and longer experience elsewhere. The Finnish experience shows that

restoration of mires can bring also economic benefits in terms of selling the removed wood and investing

back in habitat management.

http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/en/Sivut/Home.aspx

23

The discussions and field visits helped to understand the differences in the terms used for peatlands and

mires, i.e., in Finland the peatlands covered with forest are defined as „mires”, while the Central European

approach used also in Latvia is different (mires are understood as open peatlands). Thus, the discussions

with Finnish conservation managers helped to understand the terms widely used in scientific papers

and other publications concerning wetland habitat management.

Exhibitions “The Call of the Crane” and the mobile mire exhibition organised by the Boreal Peatland LIFE

project in the Häme Visitor Centre presented an excellent approach to informal education about

wetlands.

Overall, the restored sites of different age, e.g., Torronusuo National Park, Nuuksio National Park and

Komio provided an understanding of potential outcomes using similar restoration approaches in similar

peatland sites, especially in wooded mires.

An overview of the current Finnish experience in managing peatlands and wooden mires is soon to be

published in English, which will be a useful resource for NAT-PROGRAMME experts in their work on

drafting habitat management guidelines. Also, NAT-PROGRAMME mire habitat expert Agnese Priede

concluded that insights gained from the discussions with the Finnish nature experts will provide a useful

contribution to the recommendations included in the mire habitat management guidelines.

5.6.2 Grassland habitats

Experts from Latvia visited the following territories with natural grasslands:

1. In the Nuuksio National Park they observed the following habitats - Fennoscandian lowland

species-rich dry to mesic grasslands (Habitat 6270*), Fennoscandian wooded pastures (habitat

9070) and restored grasslands in agricultural lands, which is not yet a habitat of EU significance.

2. Experts also visited a heritage farm “Korteniemi” in the Liesjärvi National Park, which contains

habitats 6270* and 9070, as well as Hydrophilous tall herb fringe communities of plains and of the

montane to alpine levels (habitat 6430).

3. In the Nature Reserve “Komio” experts had the opportunity to see pastures established after

forest burns, where the target species are species typical for dry, open territories, such as

Breckland thyme (Thymus serpyllum), Catsfoot (Antennaria dioica) and others.

4. In the last day, trip participants visited grasslands in Stensböle where within LIFE project “Species

Rich LIFE” habitat 6279* and butterfly species Parnassius Mnemosyne are managed.

Many habitats of EU significance are interpreted differently in Latvia and Finland. For example, very dry

sandy grasslands in Finland are included in the habitat 6270*, but wet grasslands in the habitat 6430 -

lake floodplains. In Finland, similarly as in Latvia, indicator species for determining natural grasslands are

used. Similar approach in both countries is used for separating natural grasslands from cultivated

grasslands. In Latvia, these criteria have a more specific and concrete formulation and are published in

the Manual of European Union Habitats, but in Finland they are not published - hence in Finland there is a

bigger influence of the subjective opinion of nature experts in habitat mapping.

Experts from Latvia were fascinated by the use of heritage farms as a tool for educating the general

society. They visited the Kortrnirmi heritage farm in the Liesjärvi National Park. This heritage farm is open

from spring to autumn and the visitors can participate in all work activities carried out in the farm. There

are two people working in the farm, who do all the necessary work by using traditional methods.

5.6.2.1 Conservation of natural grasslands in Finland – strengths

1. In 1990s a large scale, detailed inventory of partially natural grasslands was carried out in

Finland. For each polygon (mapping unit) a field inventory form on 6 pages was filled out, which

contains information about the composition of species, landscape, threats, etc.

2. Active volunteering movement. Several groups of volunteers have taken up responsibility to

manage grasslands, which they do annually.

3. Support from the Rural Development Programme for managing and restoring natural

grasslands. The maximum amount of support available is 450 EUR/ha. Applying for the support is

25

possible only if the farm has a habitat management plan, as well as a detailed explanation of the

amount of financial support required.

4. In those Natura 2000 sites where natural grasslands are being restored, monitoring of

vegetation and butterflies is carried out every five years. Restored sites, control plots

(abandoned grasslands) and reference sites – natural grasslands with good conservation status,

are all included in these monitoring activities.

5.6.2.2 Conservation of natural grasslands in Finland – problems

1. Only about 20% of all grassland habitats of EU significance are located in Natura 2000

territories. The rest are located mainly in private lands, which creates difficulties for managing

these grasslands.

2. The total area of natural grasslands in Finland has considerably decreased, currently there are

approximately 40 000 ha of known natural grasslands out of which 30 000 are being naturally

managed. However, the quality of management activities is not always sufficient to maintain the

habitat.

3. Habitat mapping is outdated and new inventory is needed. However, applications for funding the

mapping of habitats of EU significance so far have been unsuccessful.

Colleagues from Finland were very interested in finding out how natural grasslands are managed in Latvia.

In comparison with Finland, the situation regarding updating and digitalising data about habitat

inventory for grasslands in Latvia is better. In Finland, the inventory carried out in 1990 is only partially

digitalised – only the cartographic material is digitalised, the rest of the information is available only in

print.

The participants exchanged experience also about the support available for natural grasslands from the

Rural Development Programmes in both countries. In Finland, significant changes in the support system

are planned in the upcoming EU planning period – in order to decrease administrative work and costs, a

single funding rate will be introduced instead of differentiated support options. Representatives from

Latvia explained that in Latvia such approach has proven to have a rather negative effect, because

providing the same rate of funding for management activities of different difficulty levels is likely to lead

to a situation when owners of grasslands that are relatively easy to manage apply for funding, whilst

owners of grasslands that require more sophisticated and difficult management apply less, since the

support available doesn’t cover the costs of these management methods.

The situation in Latvia is better also regarding evaluation of the success of the activities implemented

within the Rural Development Programme. In Finland, for the period 2007-2012 the effects of the Rural

Development Programme regarding the management of natural grasslands are evaluated only visually and

not qualitatively. In Latvia, evaluation is carried out by the Latvian State Institute of Agrarian Economics

that contracts grassland experts to provide a high quality evaluation.

In comparison to Finland, the proportion of managed grasslands in Latvia is smaller. If in Finland 30 000

ha out of 40 000 ha of natural grasslands are being managed, then in Latvia out of the total area of 67 000

ha of natural grasslands only about a half is being managed. Also, in Latvia within the framework of the

Rural Development Programme, support is available also for such widely used, yet inappropriate methods

for managing natural grasslands as late mowing and shredding – activities that in Finland would not

receive financial support.

5.6.3 Forest habitats

Helen Lunden – Metsahalitus expert is organising activities aiming to conserve and restore biological

diversity in forest habitats in Natura 2000 territories. Helen explained how controlled burning is used in

Finland and also demonstrated forest stands of different age, structure and composition in which

controlled burning has been carried out 20 years ago and then again in 2013.

In the Toronso National Park participants visited a forest stand where the amount of dead wood was

increased by blowing up trees. In the visitors’ trail this approach to taking care of forests is explained with

pictures – some species can only survive in the dead wood, which in traditional forestry is taken away

from the forest, hence, in order to improve biological diversity, such methods as controlled burn are

used.

In Finland, when organising habitat management, the focus is mainly on specific species not on the

habitat as a whole. There is a strong wood grouse population in Finland - wood grouse has sufficient living

conditions, hence in Finland management of boreal forests allows for the development of natural

processes, succession takes place and birch trees enter forest clearances.

Territories that are managed with controlled burn are always confined with zones of scarified soil; some

of the trees are cut down and left there for situations if burning materials are needed for increasing the

temperature of the fire in the forest. The controlled burning usually takes place in June – H. Lunden

revealed that if moss can catch fire with no more than 3 matches, it is the perfect time for controlled

burning. Volunteers are often involved in controlling and overseeing the fire. Controlled burning of

27

forest is included in nature conservation plans as a management method.

6 Estonia


To attend an international seminar “Restoration of Mire Habitats in Boreal Biogeographical Region” in

Vanaõue, organised by the Ministry of Environment of Estonia.

6.2 Time frame


6.3 Participants

1. Juris Jātnieks – NCA, NAT-PROGRAMME Project Manager

2. Agnese Priede - NCA, NAT-PROGRAMME Mire Habitats Expert

3. Anita Namatēva – NCA, Nature Data and Planning Department

6.4 Summary

The programme of the seminar included presentations from representatives of Latvia, Finland, Germany

and Lithuania, as well as several field visits. The aim of these excursions in nature was to visit various sites

where mire habitats are being restored and get to know conservation and restoration methods used in

Estonia, as well as evaluate the results of these management methods through a discussion of experts

from various fields – ecologists, hydrologists, biologists, forest experts and others. During the experience

exchange trip the following sites were visited: Kuresoo mire in the Soomaa National Park and Avaste

,Paraspõllu and Viru mires.



NAT-PROGRAMME representatives actively participated in discussions with representatives from the

other countries during the presentations, as well as during the field visits. The programme of the seminar

covered various diverse topics, including both scientific and practical aspects of mire management.

Hence, the seminar provided the opportunity to enhance knowledge about already known management

methods and evaluate their effectiveness in nature, as well as discuss other potential solutions.

During these discussions, representatives from Latvia shared their experience in restoring mires and

planning how mires could be used. As a result of the participation in this event, new professional contacts

have been established.


Presentations from the seminar are publically available on the website of the Ministry of Environment of

Estonia:

http://www.envir.ee/1106661

In addition, other resources about mires, their habitats, species and management that are valuable for the

work in the project NAT-PROGRAMME were obtained:

Paal J., Leibak E. (2011) Estonian mires: inventory of habitats. Tartu;

http://www.envir.ee/1106661

29

Vellak K., Ingerpuu N., Karofeld E. (2013) Eesti turbasamblad. Tartu;

Aapala K., Similä M., Penttinen J. (eds.) (2013) Ojitettujen soiden ennallistamisopas. Metsähallitus,

Vantaa, 2013

(available on http://www.tyk.ee/natural-science/00000011284).


The event was organised by the Ministry of Environment of Estonia as part of a regional (EU boreal

biogeographical region) initiative. Agnese Priede and Juris Jātnieks had attended other events organised

within this initiative in January, 2012 (In Helsinki, Finland), after which following seminars were organised

by other countries in the EU boreal region, in this case – Estonia. Hence, participation in this seminar was

to a large extent a logical continuation of already established international connections.

The aim of this event was to network and exchange experiences with experts from various fields

representing different organisations who work with restoring mires. Participants exchanged experiences

and discussed emerging ideas about how the existing practices in mire restoration could be improved,

as well as already brainstormed ideas for new projects and potential future collaboration. This event

provided the opportunity to network with other mire experts and representatives of other fields who are

involved in activities that aim to restore mires and are financed by the EU programmes or other funding

resources.


The geographical similarities between Latvia and Estonia allow directly adopting methods used in the

other country, or, on the contrary, learning from negative experiences in the other country and choosing

http://www.tyk.ee/natural-science/00000011284

better management methods. In this case, the seminar provided a valuable opportunity to find out

about Estonia’s experience and discuss the best methods, as well as lessons learned in restoring mire

habitats. Several of the seminar participants had previously visited mire restoration sites in Latvia

together with NAT-PROGRAMME experts, hence it was now possible to compare and contrast the

approach to managing and restoring mires used in both countries.

The seminar covered various topics and at the same time focused on specific problems and situations that

are very similar to problems in mire conservation encountered in Latvia. Therefore, mutual professional

discussions were possible. NAT-PROGRAMME representatives admitted that these discussions were

probably the most valuable part of this experience exchange trip. Knowledge and information about

projects implemented in Estonia and restoration of mire habitats in general will definitely improve NAT-

PROGRAMME experts’ ability to find relevant information online or by directly contacting mire habitats

professionals with whom contacts were established in this seminar.

It was concluded that in Latvia the fact that one of mires’ functions is that they accumulate carbon, is

not sufficiently emphasized. This aspect is emphasized more and more in Estonia and used as an

argument for the necessity to restore mires, particularly for restoring peat bogs. It would be useful to

adopt this approach also in Latvia, and this argument will also be included in the mire habitat

management guidelines developed by the project NAT-PROGRAMME.

31

7 Germany


Participation in the conference “Concepts for modern management of xeric grasslands between nature

conservation and agriculture”.

7.2 Time frame


7.3 Participants

Solvita Rūsiņa – NCA, NAT-PROGRAMME grasslands expert

7.4 Summary

Programme of the Conference is available here: Conference Programme. The aim of the Conference was

international experience exchange about the management and conservation of dry grasslands, with an

emphasis on the good practice examples.



Project NAT-PROGRAMME in this conference was represented by the project’s grassland expert Solvita Rūsiņa

who delivered a presentation about conservation and management of dry grasslands in Latvia. The presentation

generated further interest about the experience of managing grasslands in Latvia.


The 16 presentations delivered in the Conference clearly showed that in all of the countries represented in the

Conference problems in the management of grasslands are rather similar. Grazing appeared to be one of the

most common management methods for dry grasslands (mainly for EU habitats 6120* and 6210). This

management method is most effective when the herd consists of sheep and goats.

Various methods of grazing were presented in the Conference. In Poland, management carried out by NGOs

mostly consists of mobile grazing, when the herd is moved from one area of grasslands to another. When using

this method, the grassland is grazed only for a number of days a year – this is one of the shortcomings of this

method - grazing only takes place for a brief period of time and a significant part of grasslands remains ungrazed.

Also several grasslands are only grazed late in the day when the grass is already hard and the animals eat less of

it. In Germany, in such cases controlled burning is applied once in every 5 years.

http://www.edgg.org/pdf/program%20dry%20grassland.pdf

However, several participants noted that it is essential to use also mowing, especially, if the aim is to

maintain the diversity of insects. For example, Christoph Saure from Germany emphasized the diversity

of bees and wasps in natural grasslands. For example, in 20ha large dry grassland C. Saure has detected

more than 180 species of bees and wasps. Bees and wasps require very specific management methods,

because some species can only fly 100 metres from their nests for food. This means that such species

cannot survive in extensively grazed pastures where there are few blooming plants, far from each other.

For example, bee species Dufourea halictula only feeds on the pollen of Blue Daisies (Jasione montana).

Honey bee is a significant competitor for the wild bee species, because its hive has a constant

temperature, therefore the honey bee can leave it early in the morning. Wild bees usually fly out later in

the day, because they have to wait until air temperature increases. Whilst the wild bees are still in their

hives, honey bees are the first to get to feed on flowers and often little is left for the wild bees.

The use of natural grasslands in the agricultural production without special support is rather limited.

Most positive examples can be seen in Poland. In Poland, NGOs successfully work with conservation of

natural grasslands. Their main activities include purchasing and then managing lands, which is organised

mainly by contracting workers who look after herds, take care of them in the wintertime and carry out

other necessary tasks. This is a self-sustaining system with the income raised from selling domestic

animals and sheep wool and applying for funding from the EU and private resources. Such examples were

showcased in presentations delivered by Andrej Jermaczek (Owczay grasslands museum) and Andrzej

Czylok (University of Silesia).

D. Galvanek from Slovakia presented the situation in Slovakia regarding conservation of dry grasslands.

He emphasized the success of agro-environment scheme of actions regarding maintenance of natural

grasslands, which is one of the most popular actions in the Rural Development Programme in Slovakia.

The Conference took place in a walking distance from Odera floodplain grasslands, where the

participants went to observe bison pastures. The bison pastures are established in former fields and

already within few years’ time visible improvement in the structure of grasslands is detected. However,

the species are still those typical to fallow land.

33

8 Denmark


To visit coastal areas of Denmark (North part of Sealand and West coast of Jutland) to get experience

combating the invasive species on dunes habitats and in several Natura 2000 sites get acquainted

with the measures to protect dune habitats and humid slacks between, where various LIFE + projects

that manage and restore those habitats, are being implemented.

8.2 Time frame

June 8-13, 2014 (6 days)

8.3 Participants

1. Brigita Laime - NCA, NAT-PROGRAMME Dune Habitat Expert

2. Dace Sāmīte - NCA, Director of Regional Administration of Kurzeme

3. Edgars Bertrams - NCA, Environmental Inspector of Regional Administration of Kurzeme

4. Ērika Kļaviņa - NCA, NAT-PROGRAMME Project Coordinator

8.4 Summary

Visiting Denmark coast areas was obtained invaluable experience, which confirms the urgent need to

incorporate Japaness rose (Rosa rugosa) in the list of invasive species of Latvia. The fight with rose should

be a priority, while the prevalence of volumes have not reached the areas seen on the seashore of

Denmark. When rose bushes proliferate there is a loss of large recreational and leisure resources and then

enormous resources have required to halt its spread, or use of herbicides in the natural environment such

as the coast habitats. There are different measures to protect grey dunes and wetlands and Danish

colleagues suggested the more appropriate ones.

Some of the visited Natura 2000 sites in Denmark:

SPA DK00FX005 RENbjerg Mile og Hulsig Hede

SIC DK00FX005 RENbjerg Mile og Hulsig Hede

SIC DK00FX112 Skagens Gren og Skagerrak

Dunes invaded with Rosa rugosa growth on the coast of Sealand

Visiting North coast of Sealand together with Søren Agerlund Rasmussen to see practical

examples combating Japanese rose (1km of 7 km dunes were cleared of Rosa rugosa)

35

Visiting Parabelklit in Hysbay and landscape restoration area where inavded pine trees

were cut opening grey dune habitats. Together with Uffe Stranby.

Visiting Thy NP with Henrik Schjødt Kristensen. Introduction to different methods of dune management: use of herbicides, grazing, cutting and prescribed burning.

Prescribed burning area with eliminated pine overgrowth.

Visiting grey dunes and dry grassland management areas together with Bjarke Huus Jensen

near to Skagen- looking for rare butterfly species.

Participants visited the following protected habitats sites in Denmark:

Date Place and subject Activities Carried Out

June 9 Gilleleje - Sealand

Introduction to the

effects and costs of

digging up Rosa

Meeting with representative of regional structure of Nature

Conservation Agency of Denmark Søren Agerlund Rasmussen

and acquintance with the structure and work tasks of

institution. Acquaintance with the experiments methods

combating with Japanees rose – digging up and graising by

sheeps. Both are expensive and non-effective.

37

rugosa

June 10th Husby - Jutland

Landscape restoration

(parabelklit);

conversion of

plantations to coastal

dune habitats

ThepPractices of dune restoration represented by Uffe Stranby:

1) shifting (parabolic) dune management activities in the last

century: afforestation by alien species and clear cuting and

burning to restore landscape in nowadays. 2) Planning of

management methods and restrictions of habitat burning

(prescribed burning as well) in time period from 01.04.- 30.08.

due to Danish legislation. Hence, no restriction of gardening

invasive species as Japaneese rose near to seahore villages and

summerhouses (invadive species originate from such gardens)

are foreseen.

June 11th Thy National Park -

Jutland

Rosa rugosa:

introduction to

different methods of

combating the

invasive species

(herbicides, grazing,

cutting, etc.)

Meeting with Henrik Schjødt Kristensen in the Thy Nacional

Park. Get acquatained with: 1) the results of implemented Life

projects; 2) the future plans to restore coastal lagoon lake and

meadows; 3) the different methods (clearcut, burning) to clear

up dunes out of allient wooded species; 3) magement methods

to restore wet slacks vegetation, particularly heathland habitat

(between dunes); 4) different management methods

combating the Japanees rose (R.rugosa) as cutting, burning,

grazing and spraying off by herbicides;

5)acquaintance with the results of Life project, where measures

are taken to restore the vegetation of fen (was burned) but is

need to restore a shallow lake (with Lobelia grow) due to

organic pollution and dissapearance of Lobelia caused by the

migratory gees that feeding at the lake. On the other hand, use

of mashinery to suck out sluge could effect protected fen

habitat situated near to lake.

June 12th Skagen - Jutland

Grey dune

management,

management of

grassland protecting

rare butterfly species

Meeting with Bjarke Huus Jensen and discussion about dune

management where protection of specific species depend on

the understanding of ecosystem approach in the managemet of

habitat. For example, sand lisard and rare beets living

environment depend on the open sand exposed to the Sun but

the surviving of rare shrike depend on the presence of those

large beetls. The example ogf grassland management was seen

where icelandic horses (6 horses on 2 ha) graze a pasture. Due

to fact that horses are able to take out all organic from grass

their droppings does not fertilize vegetation and plants like

orchids and Succica pratensis flowering a lot. Hence, managed

pasture create the neccesarry living environment to very rare

butterfly species.


During this trip NAT-PROGRAMME representatives networked with representatives of the following

LIFE projects:

LIFE REDCOHA, LIFE12 NAT/DK/001073 Restoration of Danish Coastal Habitats

The 400 km west coastline of Denmark is home to a threatened area of coastal dune habitats. This pristine, nutrient-poor land, mainly consisting of sand covered by coastal dune habitats. The costal dune habitats are a mosaic with the most abundant habitat types being well-preserved fixed dunes vegetation and humid dune slacks. The project areas are threatened, however, by a lack of natural dynamic processes and the invasion of coniferous species, the target of an earlier LIFE project (LIFE02 NAT/DK/008584). Other threats include the fragmentation of habitats and loss of breeding and foraging areas for key animals. Some results of the project:

Remote sensing on a total of 11 140 ha, resulting in GIS maps with the location and distribution of Japanese rose (Rosa rugosa).

The project intends to remove the Japanese rose from a minimum of 10.9 ha and a maximum of 109 ha;

Removal of invasive species on 129.7 ha of decalcified dunes and 91.1 ha of wooded dunes;

Cutting of a 105.56 ha plantation, resulting in the development of the fixed dunes and humid dune slacks habitats over a 10-year period.

LIFE REWETDUNE, LIFE13 NAT/DK/001357 - Restoration of wetlands in dune habitats. The 30 km long Skagen Odde in northern Denmark is one of the World’s largest headlands. On a national and European level, the headland contains one of the largest coherent areas of grey dunes and dune heath. The project tackle all threats at local level, in order to significantly improve the conservation status of the wet and dune habitats 2130*, 2140*, and 2190 on the two northernmost Natura 2000 sites in Denmark. The following project results are expected: The restoration of natural hydrological conditions, leading to an improvement in the conservation status on 1137 ha of habitat type 2190. The mapping and subsequent clearing of the invasive plant species, Rosa rugosa and Heracleum mantegazzianum; The controlled mosaic burning and the establishment of grazing. Natura 2000 sites SPA DK00FX005 RENbjerg Mile or Hulsig Hede SIC DK00FX005 RENbjerg Mile or Hulsig Hede SIC DK00FX112 Skagens Gren or Skagerrak LIFE WETHAB, LIFE12 NAT/DK/000803 Restoration of wet habitats in the Jerup Beach Ridge Plain. The Natura 2000 network site, Jerup Hede, RENbjerg og Tolshave Mose, hosts one of the largest dune and mire habitats in Denmark (4 024 ha). It comprises an old heath and bog area. The projects overall objective are to restore the entire Jerup Hede Natura 2000 site to a favorable conservation status. The project will address all identified threats, and will establish sustainable management practices so that the favorable status of the site can be maintained after the close of the LIFE project. The project also aims to demonstrate new methods for clearing of tree and shrub overgrowth inaccessible areas.

39

8.6 Analysis and evaluation of the information exchanged during this trip

The experience exchange trip to several Natura 2000 sites and habitat management areas in Denmark

provided an excellent insight into different dune management approaches concerning burning, grazing

and using of herbicides, removal of the woody vegetation and other habitat restoration methods.

Obtained information and experience will be used to elaborate experimental management measures to

combating invasive species in Latvia on the coastal habitats.

Visits have gave assurance that use of herbicides could be the most effective method to eliminate spread

of invasive species like Rosa rugosa to protect landscape and recreational resources on the coast of Baltic

Sea due to effectiveness of method (not so expensive and really eliminate overgrowth).

There is a crucial point to get in the legislation rule about that prohibits the use of invasive species like

Japanese rose in gardening and stabilising of dunes.

To protect grey dunes by cutting alien species (e.g. Pinus mugo, etc.) should be also economicaly due to

obtaining the fire wood or chips.

On some places the imitation of natural disturbance is necessary to open mineral soil that is crucial for

surviving of specific invertebrate species.

For the calluna species like Erica tetralix, Calluna vulgaris depending on the fire, it is necessary to

implement prescribed burning that is well prepared on the right wether conditions, to reach hight

temperature that burne all organic layer and let to germinate seeds of those plants.

If the design of prescribed burning are wrong the result of management could be the bad.

9 Finland


Participation in the 9th European Conference on Ecological Restoration and Boreal seminar meeting in

Oulu, Finland.

9.2 Time frame

August 3-8, 2014 (6 days)

9.3 Participants

1. Ērika Kļaviņa – NCA, NAT-PROGRAMME Project Coordinator

2. Agnese Priede - NCA, NAT-PROGRAMME Mire Habitats Expert

3. Sandra Ikauniece – NCA, NAT-PROGRAMME Forest Habitats Expert

9.4 Summary

Three respresentatives of NAT-PROGRAMME project participated in the 9th European Conference on

Ecological Restoration and in the Boreal Seminar meeting on forests and grasslands.

Project representatives attended sessions and field trips dedicated to various topics (conference

programme available here: www.ser2014.org), such as, stream restoration (attended by Ē. Kļaviņa),

restoration of cut-over peatlands (attended by A. Priede) and coastal meadows management (attended by

S. Ikauniece).

The representatives of NAT-PROGRAMME project at the conference venue.



The NAT-PROGRAMME project contributed to the conference programme with two posters:

(1) Priede A., Ikauniece S. „Mire restoration experience in Latvia”, providing an insight in the approaches

and methods in mire restoration since the 1990s in Latvia;

(2) Kļaviņa Ē. „EU LIFE Project National Conservation and Management Programme for Natura 2000 Sites

in Latvia - NAT-PROGRAMME”, which presented the project, its aims, the first results and examples from

its implementation. The summaries are published at the conference website www.ser2014.org and are

available in the printed conference abstract book.

http://www.ser2014.org/

http://www.ser2014.org/

41

Project coordinator Ē. Kļaviņa at the NAT-PROGRAMME poster.

Project mire expert A. Priede at her poster.


River restoration in Finland

In Finland, the methodology that is used for evaluating the quality of rivers is relatively simple to teach

and learn. Rivers are divided into sections (1-50 depending on the length) and are evaluated in 5

categories to award a final evaluation in the range of 0 to 5. Those river sections that do not correspond

to natural or only slightly affected conditions are considered as requiring restoration. 44% of the Iljoki

River are considered as in need of restoration.

Metsahalitus experts (leading expert Pirkko-Liisa Luhta) showed locations in which they have succeeded

with restoring the ecological status of small rivers by applying various methods, such as, constructing

wooden underminer and deflector constructions which help to lift and wash ashore sediment during

spring flood. Experts emphasized that various attempts to pump sediments out of rivers have been very

expensive and often an incorrect location for these activities had been chosen which had often allowed

for sediments to return to the river.

Discussions with colleagues from Finland and other seminar participants revealed that it is very important

to determine ecological connections between ecosystems. It is advised to do as much as possible to save

the destroyed rivers instead of commissioning expensive research and implementation projects. For

restoration activities that require manual labour, Metsahalitus in collaboration with the Ministry of

Finance use social programs that target unemployment.

Peatland restoration in Finland

NAT-PROGRAMME mire expert A. Priede attended conference sessions on grassland restoration and

ecosystem services and land use (one day) and peatland restoration (three days). In the mid-conference

excursion several peatland areas were visited. In the peat harvesting area in Jouttenoinen the peat

extraction methods and water purification system were demonstrated. In Hirvineva former peat milling

area the after-use of peat fields were demonstrated (birch coppicing and application of wood ash in

fertilization as well as after-use for purposes of agriculture and biomass extraction). In Hirvineva area, a

rewetted peat extraction area, currently a wetland, was visited. At the end, a wetland created within the

LIFE+ project „Return of Rural Wetlands” in Pikku Nuoluanjärvi was visited. In all excursion sites, the

methods applied in restoration and after-use of cut-over peatlands use were discussed.

Conference excursion at the peat milling area in Jouttenoinen.

43

The representative of Vapo Oy Noora Huotari telling about the after-use of peat milling areas by

afforestation and birch coppicing.

The representative of Vapo Oy Olli Reinikainen telling about the after-use of peat milling fields in

agriculture.

Restored wetland in the former peat extraction area in Hirvineva, established in 1995.

Wetland for birds, created in a former peat harvesting area in Pikku Nuoluanjärvi within LIFE+ project

„Return of Rural Wetlands”.

45

Mikko Alhainen, the representative of LIFE+ project „Return of Rural Wetlands”, demonstrates the system

for regulation of water table in a wetland created for bird diversity in rural landscape.

Forest and mire restoration in Finland

NAT-PROGRAMME forest habitat expert S.Ikauniece attended two field trips – to Letonniemi and to

Liminganlahti Bay.

Letonniemi, which is located in the City of Oulu, represents a small nature reserve in the land uplift coast

that is left under free development. Coastal meadows in Letonniemi are small and at present overgrown

by Common Reed and willows, but the site has representative, near-pristine primary succession forests of

land uplift coast.

Liminganlahti Bay is a Ramsar site and it is the finest bird wetland area in Finland. The exceptionally wide

and flat coastal meadows in Liminganlahti bay are generated by the combination of land uplift, flat

topography and traditional management such as hay-cutting and cattle grazing. Traditional management

of Liminganlahti Bay meadows ceased mostly in 1950´s or 1960´s, which resulted into the overgrowth of

Common Reed (Phragmites australis). During the last 20 years, management by mainly cattle grazing has

been restarted in several meadows to keep the shoreline open.

Metsahalitus presented the structure of the Finnish Board of Ecological Restoration, which is very similar

to the structure of Metshalitus nature conservation departement. The board was established in 2004, it

has 4 working groups – forest, grasslands, mires and meadows. Working groups consist of scientists and

representatives of various organisations and are lead by Metshalitus experts. It was offered to establish a

similar working grup also in the countries represented in the seminar.

More information available here:

http://www.metsa.fi/SIVUSTOT/METSA/EN/NATURALHERITAGE/COOPERATION/FINNISHBOARDONECOLO

GICALRESTORATION/Sivut/default.aspx

9.7 Lessons learned from other LIFE projects

NAT-PROGRAME coordinator Ē.Kļaviņa attended the following sessions:

1. “Building network for ecological restoration”

2. „EU 2020 biodiversity strategy and 15% restoration target”

3. “EU Life means for safeguarding and protecting environment”

Conclusions and suggestions from projects implemented under the EU LIFE programme were very similar.

All participants emphasized that thanks to the EU funding it is possible to implement such activities that

otherwise would not get the needed funding from the State. Hence, it has been possible to restore

habitats, decrease fragmentation and maintain favourable conditions for endangered species. Also, all

LIFE projects include activities that educate, involve and inform the society, e.g., educational seminars,

media information and printed materials. It was emphasized that people understand the aims of LIFE

projects better if they are presented with other, for example, socio-economic gains (including landscape),

not only how the projects benefit conservation of biological diversity.

Challenges for LIFE projects

Several participants emphasized that one of the main shortcomings in the requirements of EU

programmes is the requirement to immediately evaluate the effectiveness of an implemented activity.

Biological systems are not able to react that fast, it would take several years to provide a qualitative and

useful evaluation of the results. It was also suggested that often there is insufficient funding available for

the “After LIFE” monitoring.

Target – restore 15 % of habitats by 2020

Several presentations were dedicated to the target set by the Biological Diversity Strategy - each EU state

to restore 15% of habitats. Opinions on this topic significantly differed – some participants believed that it

is impossible to achieve this target, whilst others provided specific calculations about the overall costs for

achieving this target. For example, Finland has designed a methodology for evaluating the quality of rivers

and has calculated that 15% include 120’124 km of river sections and restoring them would require 64,88

million EUR. It was emphasized that by 2015 each member state must have developed a strategy how to

achieve this target.

http://www.metsa.fi/SIVUSTOT/METSA/EN/NATURALHERITAGE/COOPERATION/FINNISHBOARDONECOLOGICALRESTORATION/Sivut/default.aspx

http://www.metsa.fi/SIVUSTOT/METSA/EN/NATURALHERITAGE/COOPERATION/FINNISHBOARDONECOLOGICALRESTORATION/Sivut/default.aspx

47

10 Estonia


Participation in the conference “Forest Landscape Mosaic: Disturbance, Restoration and Management at

Times of Global Change”

10.2 Time frame

August 11-14, 2014 (4 days)

10.3 Participants

Sandra Ikauniece – NCA, NAT-PROGRAMME Forest Habitats Expert

10.4 Summary

NAT-PROGRAMME forest expert Sandra Ikauniece delivered a presentation on the topic “An analysis of

past EU funding on ecological restoration of forests in Latvia – problems and recommendations”. The

presentation emphasized that the main problems of the past efforts in Latvia have been: an extremely low

proportion of habitat restored, lack of knowledge of restoration methods, reliance on passive

management, and focus on Life projects, which generally cover very small areas, no landscape perspective

to reduce fragmentation and no long-term monitoring. There are no quantitative targets for conservation

priorities in legislation, and as a result, even clear-cutting in Natura 2000 territories has occurred.

Conservation of biological diversity in Latvia will need development of targets for habitats and species,

with specific management options for each (under development), increase capacity of the respective

governing administrations, and increase the involvement of researchers in the planning of conservation

activities.

The abstract is available here:

http://www.forestdisturbances.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/FORDISMAN2014_Book-of-

abstracts.pdf


During the conference, NAT-PROGRAMME representative met with representatives of several other LIFE

projects and established useful contacts for future collaboration, including:

Finland scientist Timo Kuuluvainen and Metsahalitus specialist Kaisa Junninen investigations from

the LIFE project “Light &

Fire” (http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/en/Projects/LifeNatureProjects/LightetFireLIFE/Sivut

/default.aspx)

http://www.forestdisturbances.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/FORDISMAN2014_Book-of-abstracts.pdf

http://www.forestdisturbances.com/wp-content/uploads/2014/08/FORDISMAN2014_Book-of-abstracts.pdf

http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/en/Projects/LifeNatureProjects/LightetFireLIFE/Sivut/default.aspx

http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/en/Projects/LifeNatureProjects/LightetFireLIFE/Sivut/default.aspx

Project „Species-rich” LIFE

(http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/en/Projects/LifeNatureProjects/SpeciesRichLIFE/Sivut/defa

ult.aspx)

Panu Halme (University of Jyväskylä) shared useful experience in investigations about grazed forests

and fungi diversity. Scientists from other countries also shared a lot about cooperation with different

management projects. Participation in projects helps scientists to get data about management results,

design experiments, and evaluation as well as prepare scientifically based recommendations for

management.


The conference provided a useful insight into the most significant issues and activities in Europe in the

current forest habitats restoration works and investigations to evaluate the success of management.

Close cooperation with LIFE projects teams and scientists is necessary to obtain new knowledge about

management methods, assessment and help in work planning.

11 Estonia


Participation in the Riverine LIFE Platform Meeting in Tartu, Estonia

11.2 Time frame


11.3 Participants

Andris Urtāns – NCA, NAT-PROGRAMME Freshwater habitats expert

11.4 Summary

The conference brought together about 35 conservation practitioners and EU ASTRALE Team officers from

13 countries of the EU and from over 15 completed and ongoing LIFE projects concerning the conservation

of freshwater species. The participants of this meeting come from different sectors (private, public, NGO-

s) and represented management of the LIFE program, as well as expertize of aquatic species groups in

Europe.

The meeting was the first LIFE meeting addressing the subject of riverine species and habitats and

stressed the need to maximise contribution to achieving favorable conservation status for aquatic habitat

and species.

http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/en/Projects/LifeNatureProjects/SpeciesRichLIFE/Sivut/default.aspx

http://www.metsa.fi/sivustot/metsa/en/Projects/LifeNatureProjects/SpeciesRichLIFE/Sivut/default.aspx

49

Active discussions bring a number of suggestions for more successful Life projects in future including

issues of Policy as well as Project level. A field trip to Lake Vortsjarv was organized to participate in lake

fish monitoring event followed with active discussions on different lake management methods.

Fish monitoring in Lake Vortsjarv



NAT-PROGRAMME freshwaters expert Andris Urtāns delivered a presentation on the topic “Local level

Actor motivation for long term healthy riverine habitat management. Experience in Latvia” in which he

explained the benefits of tuning river restoration projects to local actor interests (e.g. fishermen’s

associations, NGOs, local municipalities, and landowners). This helps to get the message across that such

projects often add value to a local natural resource, for example, with general improvements in water

quality. Getting local people and organizations involved and motivated can be the key to sustaining long-

term riverine habitat management initiated by a LIFE project. This enhances the cost-effectiveness of LIFE

project actions, a subject taken up in a later presentation by João Silva (Astrale LIFE Nature expert):

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/features/2014/rivers1.htm.


During the conference, NAT-PROGRAMME representative had discussions with the majority of 15 Riverine

Life projects, represented in the Platform meeting. The most valuable and practical information was

gained during meeting with the HAPPYFISH (LIFE07 NAT/EE/000120) and the follow-up project Life

HAPPYRIVER” (LIFE12 NAT/EE/000871) expert Meelis Tambets, dealing with restoration of oxbow lakes in

the Emajõgi River and the Alam-Pedja Natura 2000 site in Estonia and explaining many specific restoration

“tricks” to improve conditions for several Habitats Directive Annex II fish species. Valuable meeting with

Ole Ottosen, the Project Manager of LIFE10 NAT/DK/000099 SMOOTH, gave the insight of 25-year

restoration praxis experience from Denmark. A lot of practical tips on what constitutes a good fish

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/features/2014/rivers1.htm

spawning ground and the best type of riverbed substrate for the type of river, as well dealing with the

longevity of different methods were gained.

Discussions with representatives from Life Project Ivan Olsson UC4LIFE (LIFE10 NAT/SE/000046 ) gave

knowledge how to bind Life activities with Ecosystem services in such way adding a new dimension for

the river restoration and management. Information on the first success of farmed Unio crassus mussels

transplanted from the laboratory to the streams was discussed. The cost-benefit study suggests that

improvements in ecosystem services (restoration, improvements in water quality and increased

biodiversity, including increased fish production) will balance the costs for restoration after only years.

Riverine Platform meeting Participants visiting the LIFE+ project “Saving a life in meanders and oxbow

lakes on Alam-Pedja NATURA 2000 area” focused on restoring valuable wetlands and organizing the

protection of fish species and reintroduction of Aspius aspius.


During the concluding Panel discussion, a number of recommendations arose, including the better

linkage between the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and LIFE projects, a greater emphasis on

climate change, enhanced capacity building to help set up new projects, simplified administration for

project managers. It was agreed that river restoration should be foremost science-based with more

reliance on natural processes and that greater project transparency should be given to publically-

available information about costly fish passes.

Meeting gave a significant amount of both practical - information for inclusion in the Management

Guidelines as well general insight how different countries manages to keep and promote Project results

after Project expiration through the involvement of local authorities, NGOs, and local inhabitants. The

51

above-mentioned aspects should be taken into account developing Management Programme foreseen

in the Project of NAT-PROGRAMME.

12 Belgium


Participation in the conference “Results-based agri-environment schemes: payments for biodiversity

achievements in agriculture” in Brussels, Belgium

12.2 Time frame


12.3 Participants

Solvita Rūsiņa – NCA, NAT-PROGRAMME Project Expert

12.4 Summary

The aim of the conference was to share understanding and knowledge of results-based payment schemes

across the EU Member States and EFTA countries. Participants were invited to discuss the value of results-

based payment schemes for the delivery of biodiversity and wider environmental and agronomic benefits

and to contribute towards the identification of key issues for successful scheme design and

implementation.

Three examples of running results-based agri-environmental schemes were presented in the conference:

Results-based payments for species-rich grasslands in Germany (R.Oppermann), The evolution of results-

based payments in the Netherlands (P.Terwan), and Results-based payments for flowering meadows in

France (Ch. De Sainte Marie).

Results-based agri-environment payment schemes are schemes where farmers and land managers receive

payments for delivering a specific environmental result or outcome. These results-based approaches offer

farmers the flexibility to use their knowledge and experience to manage the land in a way that benefits

both biodiversity alongside their normal farming operations.

Main gains of these schemes would be (based on presentations of experts of running schemes):

1. Eazier to organise and cheaper control of results (because of more targeted outputs and

indicators of results);

2. Farmers are more motivated and wishing to learn about biodiversity;

3. Raise of responsibility and valuing of biodiversity in their grasslands;

4. Schemes are more acceptable for farmers as they are not obligated to carry many prescribed

actions like mowing date etc.


There are no results-based agri-environmental schemes in Latvia.

Results-based agri-environment schemes would be more suitable than action-oriented schemes for the

aim (one of the several main aims) which is drawn up in the Rural Development Programme of Latvia for

2014-2020 (Lauku attīstības programma 2014-2020, project:

https://www.zm.gov.lv/public/files/CMS_Static_Page_Doc/00/00/00/39/25/

LAP_2014_20_08052014.pdf), namely: restore, maintain and improve ecosystems depending on

agriculture and forestry. Maintenance of ecosystems dependent on agriculture is addressed with the

measure Maintaining biodiversity in grasslands. Restoration and improvement of these ecosystems are

not covered with any agri-environmental measure.

For the next Rural Development Programme, it would be desirable to develop a new agri-environment

measure particularly for Natura 2000 sites in Latvia with the aim to increase biodiversity in permanent

grasslands which are potential EU grassland habitats or which are important for birds, e.g. feeding

grounds for Aquila pomarina.

Possibilities to introduce result-based agri-environment schemes for grasslands in Latvia:

Well known grassland biodiversity indicator plant species which could be used for implementation

of scheme and for control purposes;

Until 2020 it is planned to map all EU grassland habitats with a detailed inventory.

Limitations to introduce result-based agri-environment schemes for grasslands in Latvia:

Lack of understanding of importance to improve biodiversity in agricultural landscape both among

farmers and among authorities;

Lack of knowledge in grassland biodiversity among Rural service advisors;

Lak of desire to improve agri-environmental schemes and to reallocate financial support from less

targeted but popular agri-environmental schemes (like Less-favoured area payment) to more

targeted but more complicated schemes.

Fear of insufficient knowledge of external factors influencing biodiversity, e.g., the farmer has

acted according to guidelines, but flowers still have dissappeared (because of climatic conditions

or other factors independent from the farmer).

https://www.zm.gov.lv/public/files/CMS_Static_Page_Doc/00/00/00/39/25/

53

13 Ireland


Participation in the EUROPARC Conference 2014, "Understanding the Value of Nature", Killarney

13.2 Time frame

September 28 - October 2, 2014 (5 days)

13.3 Participants


Ērika Kļaviņa - NCA, NAT-PROGRAMME Project Co-ordinator

13.4 Summary

EUROPARC Federation currently represents 365 members. These include protected areas, governmental departments, NGO's and businesses in 36 countries and facilitate international co-operation in all aspects of protected area management. EUROPARC network and conference facilitate an involvement of new partners, endeavors to exchange expertise, experience, and best practices as well as provide with information on the most important aspects of protected areas management in Europe.

An exciting program "Understanding the Value of Nature" was investigated through good keynote speeches with protected area relevance, in-depth workshop looking at the practical application and stimulating field trips across the beautiful south of Ireland to see some practical examples.

Plenary session Keynote speakers: Patrick Ten Brink, Senior Fellow and Head of Brussels Office, Institute for European Environmental Policy, - Nature and its role in the transition to a Green Economy Liisa Kajala, Senior Adviser, Metsähallitus, Natural Heritage Services - The Economic Value of a National Park Futerra Communications (speaker TBC) – Communicating the Value of Nature Tuija Seipell, Consultant, Entrepreneur, Writer - Understanding the Value of National Parks


Working closely together with so many partners, the Federation, and members are leading and interconnecting in several workshops, plenary sessions. EUROPARC Conference, 2014 focused on many topics like the economics value of protected areas; valuable funding for PA; value of good connectivity in nature; the value of integrated management of PA, wilderness value of PA; the value of integrated management and communicating the values of nature. The representatives of NAT-PROGRAMME project participated in the 2 workshop sessions connected to communication the value of nature and wilderness. Ē. Kļaviņa attended workshop „The Wilderness Value in Protected Areas”. Due to a new definition of wilderness accepted in Europe, is a need to understand what is the response of Europe's protected areas

http://www.europarc.org/download/1715.pdf




to concepts of wilderness, and wildness? What practical measures are happening in the field to manage wilderness? Bill Murphy, Coillte (IE) took a look at some of the models they have employed to assess wild landscapes and also discussed the difference between wild and natural landscapes. Laponia World Heritage Site, Swedish EPA (SE) examined a living wilderness combining traditional land use and expanding visitation. There were a discussion on the value of wilderness thinking about how to balance the commercial "selling" of wilderness as an experience or if it should remain as a strict no- intervention protection area. The European Parliament Resolution on Wilderness in Europe of 2009 emphasized wilderness' significance to our heritage and highlighted its economic, cultural and environmental benefits for society. It called for the Natura 2000 network to offer greater protection of Europe's remaining wild areas and asked the European Commission to provide a definition of „wilderness” that encompasses its ecosystem services and conservation value. The definition is: “A wilderness is an area governed by natural processes. It is composed of native habitats and species, and large enough for the effective ecological functioning of natural processes. It is unmodified or only slightly modified and without intrusive or extractive human activity, settlements, infrastructure or visual disturbance”. A clear, policy-relevant definition of what „wilderness” entails can help ensure that protection objectives are met. Defining „wilderness” was not as simple as may first appear. The difficulty arises because it is a „relative” concept, which can vary from person to person and is hard to define precisely and scientifically. As habitats cross national and continental boundaries, there is also a need to coordinate policy beyond Europe itself. Project Manager Juris Jātnieks attended Workshop “Communicating the Value of Nature”. Communicating the value of nature in protected areas and Natura 2000 sites have never been more important. Who are we speaking to and what do we need to say? And importantly who is really listening? Can we identify some exciting and innovative practices from across the network and look to create a system to recognize good communications? ProPark (RO) presented the current findings from the project Efficient Managers for Efficient Natura 2000 Network showcasing new communications training material and case studies from across Europe. The workshop looked at some of the case studies gathered, what makes them work and gather ideas for a new way of recognizing good communications. Considering the current state of play in this field, participants came to several ideas, conclusions, and suggestions. When talking about communicating the value of nature, this workshop tried to identify a few key topic fields starting with the target audience and the message we are currently and what shall we be sending out there. TARGET AUDIENCE (WHO is talking and WHO is listening). MESSAGE (WHAT are we saying). IDENTIFYING COMMUNICATION STRATEGIES (HOW): Ways of communicating. What techniques, media types, and programs should we use to communicate to our audience to achieve our goals? Field trips were held in two protected areas: the Burren National Park and Mount Brandon.

55

Photo: Ranger tells how important are communication and assigned agreement on the restricted grazing (only in wintertime) with local farmers to protect EU important grassland in the Burren National Park, Ireland. Concluding: Conference has given valuable information and contacts for future work to develop Programme and to understand the value of Protected Areas and importance of communication with stakeholders, society to be able to implement the national conservation and management program for the next planning period. Our experiences concerning the prescribed burning activities in 2014 show that misunderstanding in the society and even within scientific society could cause the prohibition of a well-prepared habitat restoration management.

14 Germany


Participation in the conference “Protected areas in a changing world”, Regensburg, Germany

14.2 Time frame

October 25-28, 2015

14.3 Participants

Juris Jātnieks – NCA, NAT-PROGRAMME, Project Manager

Ērika Kļaviņa – NCA, NAT-PROGRAMME, Project Coordinator

14.4 Summary

EUROPARC network and conference facilitate the involvement of new partners, endeavors to exchange expertise, experience, and best practices as well as provide with information on the most important aspects of protected areas management in Europe.

More than 180 people, from 30 countries participated at EUROPARC Conference 2015, organized in Regensburg on the 26th-27th October. Under the theme “Protected Areas in a Changing World”, participants had the chance to discuss, learn and share experiences about the challenges and opportunities that Protected Areas face nowadays, in this ever-changing context. Keynote speakers explored the environmental, political, economic, social and organizational factors which influence Protected Areas. – Ignace Schops, EUROPARC President, talked about Climate Change, the role of Protected Areas in addressing the Global Goals for Sustainable Development, and left a clear message “Think Globally, act locally and change personally”; – Jonathan Hughes, CEO of Scottish Wildlife Trust, highlighted the Value of Protected Areas, an important subject that will be soon discussed at the World Forum on Natural Capital; – Alberto Arroyo Schnell, Senior Policy Advisor of WWF Europe, introduced the Environmental Policy Framework in Europe and discussed the future of Natura 2000, claiming that it is time “to move from conservation victims to conservation fighters”; – Dr. Laura Meagher presented the importance of changing from within, and highlighted the role of cooperation “Change is uncomfortable, but collaboration can enhance resilience”; – Youth enrolled in the YOUTH+ Programme also made their voices heard claiming “It’s now or never, we want opportunities to help!”.. After the inspirational speeches from keynotes, participants had the chance to learn by doing, with practical workshops organized by PROPARK Foundation for Protected Areas, EUROPARC Central, and Eastern Europe section, EUROPARC France Section and Youth.


Presentations delivered at conference are available on the EUROPARC webpage: http://www.europarc.org/library/workshop-presentations/2015-conference-documents/?utm_source=ep&utm_medium=body&utm_campaign=linktrack&utm_content=wysiwyg Participants shared experiences on habitats management and restoration. We shared knowledge on the management of grassland habitats and the governance of Natura 2000 sites within working groups. Ē.Kļaviņa participated in the discussions devoted to the qualifying criteria for professionals working in the protected areas (PA). Discussions have been led by the representative from ProPark Fund. There were stressed out that only in a few countries like Austria, the Netherlands, the Czech Republic and Poland students can get a professional education, which is intended for work in various positions in the protected areas. Profession “protected area manager” included into the Classifier of Professions only in some countries but employees of PA have mostly other basic education. The necessary knowledge and skills are acquired in the refresher training. J.Jātnieks attended a working group devoted to the negotiating cross-sectoral synergies between agriculture and nature protection. Discussions were led by the Europarc France section. There was the best praxis of grasslands management and protection demonstrated. Competition “Beautiful meadow” has been organized by the Ministry of Environment between farmers to reach the outstanding quality of the grassland habitats in France. Awarded farmer beside a prize has to make the description of applied management measures together with grasslands expert. Thus, MoE has compiled methods on habitat management of grasslands to keep them in favorable conservation status. Another good example: burning of heather was prohibited 20 years ago in France. Habitat was diminishing fast due to that reason… currently, the controlled burning is advised and used as an efficient measure of habitat management in favor of plants and invertebrates.

http://www.globalgoals.org/?utm_source=ep&utm_medium=body&utm_campaign=linktrack&utm_content=wysiwyg&

http://scottishwildlifetrust.org.uk/?utm_source=ep&utm_medium=body&utm_campaign=linktrack&utm_content=wysiwyg&

http://naturalcapitalforum.com/?utm_source=ep&utm_medium=body&utm_campaign=linktrack&utm_content=wysiwyg&

http://www.europarc.org/nature/young-people/youth/?utm_source=ep&utm_medium=body&utm_campaign=linktrack&utm_content=wysiwyg&

http://propark.ro/en/?utm_source=ep&utm_medium=body&utm_campaign=linktrack&utm_content=wysiwyg&

https://www.facebook.com/europarccee/?utm_source=ep&utm_medium=body&utm_campaign=linktrack&utm_content=wysiwyg&fref=ts



http://www.europarc-fr.org/index.php/en/french-section?utm_source=ep&utm_medium=body&utm_campaign=linktrack&utm_content=wysiwyg&

http://www.europarc.org/library/workshop-presentations/2015-conference-documents/?utm_source=ep&utm_medium=body&utm_campaign=linktrack&utm_content=wysiwyg

http://www.europarc.org/library/workshop-presentations/2015-conference-documents/?utm_source=ep&utm_medium=body&utm_campaign=linktrack&utm_content=wysiwyg

57

14.6 Networking with other LIFE and not Life projects

The guidelines on habitats restoration from the Czech Republic, as well as a practical example of dune restoration from The Netherland obtained (these examples are incorporated in the guidelines on the restoration of dune and grassland habitats in Latvia). Delegates discussed experiences on public involvement and understanding of that, particularly unpopular restoration measures of dunes such as cutting of trees, introducing aurochs, removing of vegetation and soil, and other methods. Gained experiences will be applied to disseminate as best praxis in the NAT-PROGRAMME seminars. Some Life projects demonstrate innovative layout for Layman report – we learn this for our report!

15 Lithuania


Participation in the EUROPARC Nordic-Baltic seminar” ,Vilnius

15.2 Time frame

November 26-27, 2015

15.3 Participants


Ērika Kļaviņa - NCA, NAT-PROGRAMME Project Co-ordinator

15.4 Summary

Seminar organized by EUROPARC Nordic-Baltic section was devoted to “Communication in Protected areas”. Presentations were given by: Päivi Rosqvist (Communications Manager Metsähallitus Parks & Wildlife Finland) presentation „ Keys for successful biodiversity communications in Parks & Wildlife Finland“;

Anna Berhan (County Administration board of Norrbotten, Sweden) presentation "The implementation of the new brand for the Swedish National Parks in Abisko National Park";

Laura Istrate („ProPark“-Romania) presentation “Efficient Communication with Stakeholders in Protected Areas” (the communication manual, toolkit, training events and the guidelines we developed for working efficiently with some of the key stakeholders);

Žymantas Morkvėnas and Rita Norvaišaitė (Baltic Environmental Forum Lithuania) presentation „Communication as a main tool for nature conservation“.

We have been also acquainted with the management of natural and cultural heritage in Lithuania. Baltic Environmental Forum represented the experiences on farmers’ involvement to keep grasslands management promoting survival of rare birds even without additional payment. The lessons obtained on public relations, particularly with farmers and land managers have been incorporated into NAT-PROGRAMME key actions C3 and C7. NAT-PROGRAMME project representatives introduced an audience of the Nordic-Baltic region with the project outcome- developing of guidelines for management of habitats representing overall Boreal region and those guidelines will be translated into English.

Presentations are available on: http://www.europarc.org/library/ Materials obtained: EUROPARC federation guidelines “Efficient management for an efficient Natura 2000 networking”.

http://www.europarc.org/library/


Main experience was from outstanding presentation of Peivi Roskista, the PR manager of Metsahallitus, Finland:

Speak about values and heritage, don’t tell that species diminishing, habitats depleting, etc.

Speak in terms of money with investors, politicians, and entrepreneurs: 1 EUR invested in Nature conservation in Finland bring 10 EUR for the local economy.

Intelligent and smart communication examples were provided by representatives from BEF Lithuania.

Begin with farmer – he is a member of ecosystem and his needs are equally important as a needs of ecosystem and protected species;

The favorable status of farmer is a crucial precondition to achieving favorable conservation status for many species in the farmland;

To reach success in Nature conservation we have to see beyond the ecological restoration and nurturing biodiversity. We have to become entrepreneurs to understand that.

Usually, we underestimate social and ethic motivation to join conservation initiatives and overestimate pragmatic motives, that are short term; Combination of both is the best;

General communication is useless.

Fruitful discussions among the delegates were visiting the Neris Regional Park, particularly Oak forest

habitat where restoration work was done – cutting of second stand of spruces (see picture) – same

measure implemented also within NAT-PROGRAMME project. Regrowth with oak is going very slowly

where space is open. Some planting of trees were introduced. Experts presented also the management

measures applied to keep the biological diversity of beetle species inherent to oaks as well as the

protection of bat colonies in this area.

59

Example of Oak forest management (cut of the second stand of spruce) in the Neris Regional Park

16 Germany


The main interest in this conference for the NAT-PROGRAMME project were knowledge transfer –

strategies on how wetland science can be effectively implemented in practice, conservation conflicts –

approaches to harmonize wetland functions and economic interests, and wetland restoration and

management to integrate into the Guidelines for habitat management and restoration (C1-C6).

16.2 Time frame

May 17-20, 2015 (4 days)

16.3 Participants

Juris Jātnieks – NAT-PROGRAMME Project Manager

Agnese Priede – NAT-PROGRAMME Mire Habitat Expert

16.4 Summary

The conference provided a significant knowledge, experiences, and insight into the recent studies on

wetlands, which can be directly applied within NAT-PROGRAMME project, especially the methods used in

the German LIFE+ project site (restoration of alkaline fens on various conditions). The experience gained in

the conference will be applied in improving the mire habitat restoration guidelines developed within the

NAT-PROGRAMME project and in the project seminars when disseminating the knowledge on different

restoration and management experiences.


The first day of the conference was dedicated to lectures covering various topics, from wetland

restoration and restoration conflict management to knowledge transfer from one site to another to

improve the results. Experiences among different countries were shared, including a section dedicated to

LIFE projects in Europe, especially in Natura 2000 areas. Particular attention was paid to enhancing

wetlands for carbon sequestration. The invited lecturers gave a broad insight into such topics as the

climate change impacts on wetlands, including various scenarios (bogs, coastal wetlands).

The second day we visited two wetland restoration sites in Brandenburg federal state. The first site was

the rewetted part of the Pfefferfluss polder, a mosaic of open shallow water, reed beds and sedge stands,

newly created wetlands, which, though being highly eutrophic due to the previous intensive land use,

nowadays is a paradise of waterfowl and perhaps also a peat-forming wetland in the future. The second

area was Töpchiner Seen with several alkaline fen sites, recently restored within the LIFE+ project

„Preservation and restoration of base-rich to alkaline fens (brown moss fens) in Brandenburg“. The

excursion was guided by local project managers and nature conservation practitioners, sharing their

practical experiences.

In the third day, we attended the lectures, which presented a broad variety of topics, from management

and biogeochemistry of wetlands to buffer strips and pollution control and biogeochemistry of

constructed wetlands.

The representatives of NAT-PROGRAMME Agnese Priede and Juris Jātnieks at Töpchiner Seen with several

alkaline fen sites, recently restored within the LIFE+ project „Preservation and restoration of base-rich to

alkaline fens (brown moss fens) in Brandenburg“.

61

17 Zandvoort, the Netherlands


Participation in the conference “Natura 2000 Seminars-Atlantic Biogeographical Region LIFE

platform on restoration of sand dune habitats” to exchange experiences gained by the EU Life

projects’ colleagues implementing the activities to renovate coastal and inland dunes, and the

presentation of NAT-PROGRAMME project, implementing activities regarding the management of EU

habitats including coastal habitats.

17.2 Dates

June 15-17, 2016.

17.3 Participants


Brigita Laime – NCA, NAT-PROGRAMME expert

Ērika Kļaviņa – NCA, NAT-PROGRAMME coordinator

17.4 Summary

A LIFE Platform Meeting on the restoration of coastal and inland dune habitats was held in the Dutch seaside town of Zandvoort from 15th to 17th June 2016. Over 80 people, representing 25 projects from 14 Member States attended the three day event. Other participants represented the research sector, national nature conservation agencies, project developers and NGOs.

The meeting confirmed the value of the EU LIFE programme in helping to step up habitat restoration work, in supporting links between science and management and developing and disseminating best practice. The meeting also confirmed the interest in knowledge exchange, networking and joint projects and the added value that a European Dune Network could provide. The NATPROGRAMME project manager Juris Jātnieks have gave presentation on the topic concerning

elaboration of the management guidelines for coastal habitats, as well as about reached synergy effect.

The presentation is available on:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/platform/documents/life_platform_dunes/day3/life_dunes_15_conservation_management_jatnieks_en.pdf

The programme can be found here: http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/platform/documents/life_platform_dunes/life_platform_dunes_programme_150616_final_en.pdf


During the conference NAT-PROGRAMME representatives met with the representatives of several other

LIFE projects and discussed a range of tasks, especially regarding the combat with an invasive species

(Rosa rugosa) due to the implemented experimental management of dunes in Latvia with applying

herbicide to eliminate invasive species.


The platform meeting stressed out the critical status of dune habitats in Europe, and shows that more needs to be done to make progress to protect biodiversity. . Threats to coastal and inland dunes in northwest Europe include loss and fragmentation of habitats, reduction in area of open sand, succession to scrub and woodland and impact of invasive alien species. Problems are exacerbated in many areas due to Nitrogen deposition. For coastal dunes net coastal erosion along many coasts and potential impacts of climate change add to concerns. A common theme running through the platform presentations, from both coastal and inland examples, was the objective of restoring areas of bare sand and dune forming processes. The platform meeting gave an opportunity for projects to present aspects of their work of wider relevance to policy or practice. Project presentations addressed several themes:

Control of invasive alien plant species: e.g.Rosa rugose in Denmark, Prunus serotina in The Netherlands;

Restoration of natural dynamics and bare sand in inland dunes: e.g. examples in Belgium, Poland and The Netherlands;

Cross border projects: e.g. coastal projects in Belgium and France and inland projects between The Netherlands and Belgium;

Large scale dune rejuvenation: e.g. coastal projects in The Netherlands;

Habitat restoration and management: e.g. projects in Sweden, Finland, Belgium and The Netherlands;

Public attitudes to dune restoration actions such as removal of trees and reactivation of sand drift: e.g.projects in Sweden, The Netherlands and Belgium;

Communication with the public on the need to control invasive species: e.g. Many projects in northern and western Europe are addressing the problems of Rosa rugosa and, with the help of Maike Isermann of the University of Bremen, knowledge on the ecology of the species and the success of management techniques is being pooled. There is a need to produce guidelines for the control of the species with information on costs from the experience of LIFE projects. Communication is essential, especially as many of the measures proposed in dune restoration projects are not always welcome or understood. LIFE projects can provide the resources for public information actions and this opportunity should be used to help explain the importance of dune habitats. Angelo Salsi stressed the need for projects to do more to communicate their ideas. Through networking dune restoration projects can support each other and have a common purpose. For example, in drawing up a LIFE project proposal, it may be helpful to have letters from other projects supporting networking activity. Demonstration projects concerning revitalizing of dune habitats were seen at nature. Field Trips Three field trips were organised to share the experience of dune management in the Kennemerland-Zuid Natura 2000 site. The site is managed by several organisations including the platform hosts PWN, Waternet and Natuurmonumenten, and the excursions showcased both large scale dune reactivation and mosaic management approaches. Excursion to the Amsterdam Dunes project, visited the large restoration project created by the infilling of the Van Limburg Stirum canal, the results of the removal of the invasive Prunus serotine and mosaic management of grey dunes including sod-cutting, mowing, grazing and encouragement of blowouts.

63

The Northwest Natuurkern is one of the most ambitious dune restoration projects ever completed in the Netherlands. Its aim is to restore natural dynamics across an area which had lost all its bare sand and shifting dunes. In the late 1980s small scale experiments were carried out to remobilize blowouts and this work was followed by the remobilization of a large dune but in these works the dunes revegetated and stabilized in a relatively short timescale. A much larger project was required and one which had direct links to the transfer of sand from the beach inland. In 2005 first discussions were held on the idea for five wind trenches 100m wide and 12 m deep cut into the outer dune ridge and for the reactivation of sand blow on five large dune features further inland. The aim was to allow free moving dunes to maintain bare sand and to create new slack features. The idea was possible with a link to the Dutch national sea defense policy which ensured an excess of sand being transported into the beach zone. The project created 18 ha of shifting dunes and 15 ha of wet slacks and a large area of fixed dunes will benefit from the ‘rain’ of calcareous sand which will slow down the process of acidification. The project was implemented over two winters in 2011-2012 and 2012-2013. Noordwest Natuurkern: remobilization of dunes on a large scale. The project will be well monitored to study the effect of the trenches on the amount of wind, salt and sand on the innermost dunes and the effect of the dynamics on plants and animals. The initial trenches have become wider but not much deeper which is good from a coastal safety perspective. The reactivated parabolic dunes are moving but at a slower rate than the sand blow through the trenches. The white dune tops and mobile dunes have returned a feature of the landscape.

18 The Czech Republic


Attending the experience exchange seminar “ Workshop on active management of forest protected areas”

in Mikulov, Czech Republic and give the presentation on the gained experimental practices for the

management of the forest habitat within Life NAT-PROGRAMME project.

18.2 Time frame

July 31-August 5, 2016 (6 days)

18.3 Participants

Sandra Ikauniece – NAT-PROGRAMME Forest Habitats Expert


There is an increasing awareness that simply setting aside forests for free development risks missing out

on the conservation of associated biodiversity. Due to a past land use and the fragmented landscapes,

natural disturbances, and the process cannot fully operate within single small set-asides. To support

natural values the measures to actively manage forests for biodiversity conservation are being developed.

This meeting collected researchers and practitioners working in this field for exchanging the knowledge

and experience through Europe.

The workshop consisted of the discussion parts (23 presentations) and the field trips. NAT-PROGRAMME

expert Sandra Ikauniecie together with a professor of Latvia University Guntis Brūmelis who worked with

a monitoring of forest management sites presented the Guidelines for the management of forest habitats

and acquainted with results on an experimental forest habitats management.

For field trips, Pannonia in the Czech and the Slovak Republic, as well as Austria, was visited. Some of the

localities were in Natura 2000, some of them were outside of the protected areas. There were some

broad-leaf forests with active management procedures, pollard stands, and coppice standarts.

Abstract, presentations and field guide are available on site:

http://www.forumochranyprirody.cz/workshop-active-management-forest-protected-areas

Presentation of Guntis Brūmelis about monitoring results on the experimental forest management in the

NAT-PROGRAMME project

Expert Sandra Ikauniece in pollarding woodland

http://www.forumochranyprirody.cz/workshop-active-management-forest-protected-areas

65

19 Estonia, Latvia, Lithuania


The conference“Boreal Restoration Tour” was organized by the forest and wetland group coordinators

of the Boreal Natura 2000 Process. This event was a part of the New Biogeographical Process (NBP) which

aims at assisting the Member States to manage Natura 2000 as a coherent ecological network, whilst

exchanging experience and the best practice.

19.2 Time frame

August 15-19 2016 (5 days)

19.3 Participants

Sandra Ikauniece – NAT-PROGRAMME Forest Habitats Expert

Agnese Priede - NAT-PROGRAMME Mire Habitat Expert (in Latvia, only)


The main focus of the tour will be on sharing expertise and knowledge on the restoration of forests and

wetlands in the Boreal area by field visits in several countries and contacts with the local managers. A

publication aiming at more broadly sharing insights will be produced following the event.

Estonia: participants visited Soomaa national park, Kurreso bog restoration site. Several years ago dams

were build up to hold the water level in bog woodland and improved habitats quality (EU habitat 7110*

and 7120). Also clearcut in ~ 5 ha was done. Now Sphagnum mosses and Eriophorum vaginatum

dominated in the restored territory. In future problems with birch regeneration can appeare. Next was

Öördi experimental area habitat, where restoration for Tetrao urogallus is going – selective cutting in ~ 60

years old drained pine forest. After cutting filling of diches are also planned. In Laulaste forest restoration

site (Laulaste NR) we can see results of works for future Western taiga (9010*) shaping – openings were

done several years ago to improve stand structure in middle age pine stands.

Latvia: tour participants visited Gauja national park, Gulbju sala peatland restoration place (was done in

2014 (LIFE project site), LIFE FOR-REST). There ditches were filled up and wooded dams were built on old

diches. The biggest filled up diches looks rather good and carry out the goal as well start overgrowing

with sphagnum, however after heavy rain some surface water flows are observed, several crossing dams

are necessary to build up. Small wooded dams don’t look so good and can’t fully carry out the water

keeping. Another place in Gauja NP was Sveķupe, where restoration of boreal coniferous forest (EU

habitat 9010*) was done - improving the habitat structure with gaps and dead wood creating. In nature

reserve “Melnā ezera purvs” several peat dams for peatland restoration were evaluated, discussing the

spontaneous recovery of mire vegetation in extracted peat fields. In Ķemeri national park restored

cutaway and cutover peatland were visited.

Lithuania: tour participants visited Kamanos Strict Nature Reserve. After visiting information center

several places with restored bog woodlands and wet forests were visited. The different approach in dams

building was used – plastic sheet pilings keep the water very good. In other countries, such kind of

restoration was not applied and make a lot of discussions. Good restoration examples as well less

successful places were visited and gave a good insight and experience.

Presentations and photos are available on site:

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/platform/index_en.htm

Photos from restoration tour are available on site:

http://nat-programme.daba.gov.lv/public/lat/fotogalerijas/

20 Sighisoara, Romania


To attend an international conference 13th Eurasian Grassland Conference “Management and

Conservation of Semi-natural grasslands: from theory to practice”.

20.2 Time frame


20.3 Participants

Solvita Rūsiņa – NCA, NAT-PROGRAMME Grassland Habitats Expert

20.4 Summary

The programme of the conference included presentations and posters from representatives of about 20

European countries, as well as several field visits. The aim of these excursions in nature was to visit

various sites where grassland habitats are being managed and get to know conservation methods used in

Romania, as well as evaluate the results of these management methods through a discussion of experts

from various fields – ecologists, hydrologists, biologists, and others.

A half-day workshop “Reflecting Ecology in Policy” was organized by three experts in agri-environmental

policy. Jabier Ruiz worked as a consultant for IUCN, ILC, and WISP in projects focused on pastoralism, land

tenure, and nature conservation. Caitriona Maher works with the EFNCP on their result-based pilot

scheme in 2015. Clunie Keenleyside ran her own policy consultancy and held senior advisory posts in the

government countryside agencies in England and Wales, where she led the development of agri-

environment schemes focused on biodiversity conservation. She has more than 20 years’ practical

experience of the design, implementation, and monitoring of CAP policies for environmental land

management across the EU, and has acted as an expert adviser on projects in Estonia, Poland, Lithuania,

the Czech Republic, Romania, Croatia, Serbia and Turkey.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/platform/index_en.htm

http://nat-programme.daba.gov.lv/public/lat/fotogalerijas/

67

The objective was to jointly analyse several biodiversity-related measures in the Common Agricultural

Policy to assess whether they correspond to available scientific knowledge, and debate how policies can

be simple (i.e. applicable to real farming conditions) but ecologically meaningful. Results-based agri-

environment schemes were presented as one of the most recent developments in targeted conservation

measures.



NAT-PROGRAMME representative actively participated in discussions with representatives from the other

countries during the presentations, as well as during the field visits. The presentation on NAT-

PROGRAMME project was prepared and presented by Solvita Rūsiņa. Many participants were interested

very much in the grassland management guidelines book prepared by the project. It appeared that the

English version of the book will be useful for experts of other EU countries.

The programme of the conference covered various diverse topics, including both scientific and practical

aspects of grassland management. Hence, the seminar provided the opportunity to enhance knowledge

about already known management and conservation methods and evaluate their effectiveness in nature,

as well as discuss other potential solutions.

During discussions and participating in the workshop “Reflecting Ecology in Policy”, a representative from

Latvia shared her experience in restoring and conserving grasslands in Latvia. As a result of the

participation in this event, new professional contacts have been established.


Abstract book and presentations from the conference are publically available on the website of the

Eurasian Dry Grassland Group https://egc2016.namupro.de/


The aim of this event was to network and exchange experiences with experts from various fields

representing different organisations who work with grassland conservation. Participants exchanged

experiences and discussed emerging ideas about how the existing practices in grassland conservation

could be improved, as well as already brainstormed ideas for new projects and potential future

collaboration. This event provided the opportunity to network with other grassland experts and

representatives of other fields who are involved in activities that aim to restore mires and are financed by

the EU programmes or other funding resources.

https://egc2016.namupro.de/


The conference covered various topics and at the same time focused on specific problems and situations

that are very similar to problems in grassland conservation encountered in Latvia, for example, the

necessity of ecological education of local managers and farmers, cooperation among scientists and

practitioners. Therefore, mutual professional discussions were possible. Knowledge and information

about projects implemented in other European countries and conservation of grassland habitats, in

general, will definitely improve NAT-PROGRAMME experts’ ability to find relevant information online or

by directly contacting grassland habitats professionals with whom contacts were established in this

conference.

Romania has still maintained the local economies supported by traditional grassland management with

grazing and shepherding. Thus, experience in maintaining and facilitating these economies was greatly

valuable.

The 14th Eurasian Grassland Conference is going to be organized in Latvia by the University of Latvia and

Latvian Botanical Society in July 2017. It was concluded that the conference could be an opportunity to

share experiences of the EU Boreal region grassland conservation issues including very successful

integration of the NAT-PROGRAMME project results in grassland conservation policy of Latvia.

Presentation of grassland expert Solvita Rūsiņa (Author of photo Anna Kuzemko).

exchange trips - daba exchange trips_2017.pdfrestoration of grasslands”, zamosc, poland. 4 2...

Documents