life for birds - 25 years from the birds directive: the...

European Commission

L I F E I I I

LIFE for birds

25 years of the Birds Directive:

the contribution of LIFE-Nature projects

European CommissionEnvironment Directorate-General

LIFE Focus is the journal of LIFE III programme (2000-2004).

LIFE (“L’Instrument Financier pour l’Environnement” / The financing instrument for the Environment) is a programmelaunched by the European Commission and coordinated by the Environment Directorate-General (LIFE Unit – BU-9 02/1).

The content of LIFE Focus does not necessarily reflect the opinions of the institutions of the European Union.

Author: Alberto Zocchi. Editorial Department: Mecomat/Comunità Ambiente. Managing Editor: Bruno Julien, EuropeanCommission, Environment DG, LIFE Unit – BU-9 02/1, 200 rue de la Loi, B-1049 Brussels. The following people contributed to this issue: : Michele della Rocca, Micheal O’Briain, Manuela Osmi, Olivier Patrimo-nio, Angelo Salsi, Riccardo Scalera, Oliviero Spinelli, Ignacio Torres. Acknowledgements: Yolaine Bouteiller, Margarita DePaz, Kristina Eriksson, Mats Eriksson, Marco Fritz, Anton Gazenbeek, John Houston, Marita Karling, Federico Nogara, Con-cha Olmeda, Martina Perris, Stefano Picchi, Geert Raeymaekers, Kerstin Sundseth, Marc Thauront, Alberto Venchi, LeaWongsoredjo, Daniela Zaghi. Graphic design: Paola Trucco. This issue of LIFE Focus is published in English.

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

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities, 2004

ISBN 92-894-7452-1ISSN 1725-5619

© European Communities, 2004Reproduction is authorised provided the source is acknowledged

Printed in BrusselsPrinted on recycled paper

European CommissionLIFE Focus / LIFE for Birds. 25 years of the Birds Directive: the contribution of LIFE Nature projects

Luxembourg: Office for Official Publications of the European Communities

2004 – 48 pp. – 21 x 28 cmISBN 92-894-7452-1ISSN 1725-5619

Europe Direct is a service to help you find answersto your questions about the European Union

New freephone number: 00 800 6 7 8 9 10 11

LIFE Focus I LIFE for Birds 25 years of the Birds Directive: the contribution of LIFE-Nature projects I p. 1

LIFE working for threatened bird species / 17

•Some statistics on species-oriented projects• Saving birds of prey• Rare geese to be saved• Restricted endemic species in Macaronesia• Conclusions

LIFE workingon habitats for birds / 25

• Some statistics on habitat-oriented projects• Wetlands• Forests• Agricultural habitats

LIFE initiatives to manage the SPAs / 32

• Important Bird Areas and Special Protection Areas• How was money spent in SPAsmanagement?• Planning management of SPAs• Sustainable use and involvement of locals: the case of the Comana wetland,Romania• Farming and bird conservation:the case of the Termoncarragh Lake, Ireland• Managing multiple uses of bird sites: the case of Finland’s estuaries and lakes• Conclusions

Executive summary

The Birds Directive and LIFE-Nature / 4

• Introduction• General objective of the Birds Directive• What is LIFE-Nature?• Key objectives of the Birds Directive relevant to LIFE-Nature

What is happening to birds in the EU? / 7

• Threatened bird species• LIFE-Nature as part of the EUbird conservation strategy

A short history of EU financing for bird conservation / 12

• The ACE programme• ACNAT and LIFE I• LIFE II• LIFE III• How LIFE money has been spent for birds

Communicating and networking / 37

• Communicating with the publicand stakeholders• Networking experience• Conclusions

Birds after LIFE / 41• Funding the conservation of birds and their habitats after LIFE• The use of agri-environmental schemes for long-term conservation• Long-term management of steppe habitat through EU funding• Conclusions

General conclusions / 43• LIFE Nature indicators of success in bird conservation

Appendix / 46• List of cited bird species scientific names

Since its inception in 1992 LIFE-Naturehas played a key role in the EU’s strat-egy for bird conservation by supportingmany conservation actions for Europe’smost threatened bird species. The aimof this report is to give an overview ofthe results achieved by LIFE-Nature forendangered bird species in the Euro-pean Union and how it has contributedto achieving the objectives of the BirdsDirective. Selected success stories willbe used to introduce the scientific, eco-logical, socio-economic issues addres-sed and give some insights into thediversity of solutions that have beenidentified by LIFE project managers.

The Birds Directive, which was thefirst major EU law to address the issueof nature conservation at the conti-nental scale, is still, 25 years after itsadoption, the main legal reference forthe protection of Europe’s avifauna.While providing protection for all wildbirds, the Directive requires MemberStates to take special conservationmeasures for the most threatenedspecies and for migratory birds, alsothrough the establishment of an EUwide network of Special ProtectionAreas (SPAs) where birds and theirhabitats have to be maintained in agood conservation status.

To help achieve the objectives of theBirds Directive, EU Funds dedicatedto projects for the conservation ofbirds and their habitats have beenmade available since 1984. Initiallythis was through the ACE and ACNATprogrammes, which were succeededin 1992 by the LIFE programme, al-most half of which is dedicated tonature projects. This is at present theonly dedicated financial source forbird conservation at the EU level. Upto 2003 LIFE-Nature has invested 367million Euros in projects targetingthreatened bird species. These arepilot and demonstration projects,aimed primarily at establishing thenecessary conditions for the protec-tion of Europe’s most endangered birdspecies.

Executive summary

Pho

to ©

Jor

ma

Luht

a


From the outset of LIFE-Nature theEuropean Commission developed aspecific strategy to ensure that the li-mited financial resources were dedi-cated to actions aimed at conservingthe most threatened species. Thisinvolved establishing a restricted listof the most endangered bird speciesconsidered as priority for LIFE-Naturefunding. This list includes all globallythreatened bird species in the EU.Action plans, that identify ecologicalneeds, threats, conservation statusand actions to be implemented for thedifferent priority bird species at EUand Member State levels, have beenprepared.

LIFE-Nature projects have made asignificant contribution to the estab-lishment of the SPA network, a cor-nerstone of bird protection in the EU.In order to be eligible for LIFE fundingfor site conservation actions all areasalready qualifying as SPAs have to begiven such legal status. According tothe latest available assessment, forprojects financed between 1985 and2001, LIFE-Nature has supported con-servation actions in more than 13 per-cent of SPAs, whose network nowincludes more than 3.600 sites.

About 300 LIFE-Nature projects havetargeted bird conservation actions,representing an impressive richnessof practical experience in a wide rangeof fields: scientific research, habitatrestoration, land acquisition, manage-ment and reintroduction of bird spe-

cies, testing of new techniques, mon-itoring and awareness-raising. This isthe result of the dedicated commit-ment of thousands of people frompublic administrations at all levels,NGOs and private organizations.LIFE-Nature places strong emphasison the sharing of this experience,including making use of informationtechnologies such as the Internet. Ithas therefore significantly contributedto knowledge and capacity buildingfor dealing with major challenges fac-ing bird conservation in the EU.

One of the main benefits of LIFE-Nature has been its capacity to enga-ge interested social groups, stakehol-ders and local communities, especiallyin the forging of partnerships betweenthem. Many traditional farming, hunt-ing, fishing and forestry activities aresympathetic to bird conservation.

LIFE-Nature conservation projectshave built on these traditional experi-ences with a view to providing thefoundations for the future conserva-tion of endangered bird species andtheir habitats.

Where this EU strategy has been ap-plied it has already proven to be highlyefficient for many of Europe’s mostvulnerable bird species. Actions underLIFE-Nature, for species such as theSpanish Imperial Eagle, the Great Bu-stard, waterbird communities, endemicspecies from the Canaries and Azo-res, to name only a few, have signifi-

Pho

to ©

Con

serv

atoi

re R

hone

-Alp

es

cantly improved their status. Many ofthese success stories are describedin this report.

Last but not least, LIFE-Nature hasproven to be a strategically usefulinstrument to support capacity build-ing in many EU countries. It has con-tributed significantly to the develop-ment of experience and expertise inthe evolving nature conservation sec-tor. However, much remains to bedone. The conservation status of ma-ny bird species is still far from secureand the commitment to their conser-vation must continue. LIFE-Nature hasshown that, even with relatively lim-ited funds, valuable results for birdconservation can be achieved. It isnecessary to now build upon this ex-perience.

Introduction

Shakespeare’s Romeo, in a famousscene, says to Juliet that the songthey hear is that of a lark, “the heraldof the morn”, not a nightingale asJuliet pretends, and so it is time forhim to go: “I must be gone and live,or stay and die” (Romeo and Juliet,Act III, Scene V).

Both the skylark and the nightingaleare now much rarer than in Shake-speare’s times. Agricultural intensifi-cation in the 20th century has led to awidespread decline of the skylark allover Europe and has reduced the dis-tribution range of the nightingale. Theyare both now included in the list ofbird species of European conserva-tion concern and are examples of ageneral trend affecting nearly 50 per-cent of the wild birds regularly occur-ring in Europe.

Recognizing that “a large number ofspecies of wild birds naturally occur-ring in the European territory aredeclining in number, very rapidly insome cases”, Member States of thethen European Economic Community,

on April 2, 1979, adopted unanimouslythe Birds Directive1, the first major EUlaw to protect nature for us and futuregenerations.

By adopting the Birds Directive Mem-ber States committed themselves toprotect all wild birds and their habi-tats, in particular by conserving sitesof special ornithological interest (aswell as by adopting legally bindingprotection measures). The importanceof this approach has received furtheremphasis with the adoption of theHabitats Directive in 19922.

The Habitats Directive creates a com-prehensive framework for the conser-vation of other threatened species ofEU interest as well as for habitats. Themeasures implemented to achievethis goal include the establishment ofa European network of protected are-as called “Natura 2000”. However, the

provisions of the Birds Directive havebeen complemented, not replaced, bythose of the Habitats Directive.

Launched in 1992, LIFE-Nature, thesection of the LIFE programme dedi-cated to supporting the implementa-tion of the Birds and Habitats Direc-tives, is the only EU fund primarilydedicated to nature conservation andto the creation of the Natura 2000 pro-tected areas network. Together withACE and ACNAT, two earlier financialtools also focused on nature conser-vation, LIFE-Nature has, up to 2003,spent more than 558 million Euros onnature conservation projects. Of thistotal, 367 million Euros have beenspent to help maintain and restoreendangered bird populations and theirhabitats throughout the EU.

In the following pages the contribu-tion of LIFE-Nature to the implemen-tation of the Birds Directive is discus-sed, as are the most significant resultsand lessons learnt from demonstra-tion projects in the field of endangeredspecies conservation, the manage-ment of their habitats and the identi-fication and management of SPAs.

General objective of the Birds Directive

The aim of the Birds Directive is toprovide a legal tool for the protection,management and control of naturallyoccurring wild birds and their nests,eggs and habitats within the EuropeanUnion. It was designed to ensure thatall wild birds receive basic protectionfrom trapping and killing. The Directiveestablishes rules for their exploitation,hunting and trade. For 194 bird spe-cies and subspecies, listed in AnnexI, the Directive requires Member Sta-tes to also identify and implementspecial habitat conservation mea-sures.

The Birds Directive and LIFE-Nature

1 Council Directive 79/409/EEC on the conservation of wild birds.2 Council Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on theconservation of natural habitatsand of wild fauna and flora.

LIFE-Nature has been the main Community financial instrument to conserve sites,

habitats and species and contributed much to achieve the objectives of the Birds Directive

Pho

to ©

Com

unità

Am

bie

nte

The skylark is much less common than in the Shakespeare times and is nowconsidered as a vulnerable species


In terms of in situ conservation, theBirds Directive requires that MemberStates identify and designate the mostsuitable sites for species of wild birdslisted in Annex I and for migratoryspecies as Special Protection Areas(SPAs). A total of 3.639 SPAs havebeen designated, up to June 2004,corresponding to almost 243.000square km, equivalent to the territoryof the United Kingdom. The percent-age of the Member States terrestrialsurface included in the SPAs networkvaries between 1,9 percent in Franceto 15,4 percent in Spain. To this oneshould add marine areas of coastalsites. The total marine surface in theEU is more than 37.500 square km,with the largest part in Denmark (morethan 9.700 sq km) and Germany(almost 9.200).

SPAs form part of Natura 2000, thenetwork of protected areas estab-lished by the Habitats Directive tomaintain the overall viability and in-tegrity of biodiversity across the Euro-pean Union. Natura 2000 includes twotypes of sites: SPAs, which are dedi-cated to bird conservation, and Spe-cial Areas of Conservation (SACs),dedicated to habitats and species ofplants and animals other than birds,according to the Habitats Directive.

SPAs are generally subject to thesame protection regime as SACs,defined under the Habitats Directive.In particular, this requires the assess-ment of the implications of plans orprojects not directly connected withthe conservation management of thesites. For developments which willhave an adverse effect on the site theymay only be permissible if there areno other solutions and are to be con-sidered of overriding public interest.In such cases compensatory mea-sures must be identified to offset theloss of ecological values.

What is LIFE-Nature?

The LIFE Programme was launched in1992 by the then European Community(Council Regulation EEC n. 1973/92) asone of the spearheads of Communityenvironmental policy. It is structuredinto three thematic components, withvery different characteristics, namely:> LIFE-Nature, which accounts for

around 47% of the LIFE programmebudget and has the objective ofsupporting the implementation ofCouncil Directives 79/409/EEC and92/43/EEC, especially the estab-lishment of Natura 2000.

> LIFE Environment, which accountsfor around 47% of the LIFE pro-gramme budget but has more gen-eral environmental objectives;

> LIFE Third Countries, with the spe-cific objective of providing capacitybuilding in third Countries. It ac-counts for around 6% of the LIFEprogramme budget.

LIFE-Nature has been the main Com-munity financial instrument focusingon the conservation of sites of theNatura 2000 network and on the con-servation of habitats and species ofwild fauna and flora. Even though it isa relatively small fund in Europeanterms it has contributed in a signifi-cant way to establish and manage thenetwork of protected areas of the EU. LIFE-Nature has enabled the realiza-tion of crucial conservation initiatives:the preparation of inventories of sites

to be included in Natura 2000 (Ireland,Italy, Greece, Spain and Portugal), thepreparation of management plans forsites, which has been included in over60 per cent of the LIFE-Nature pro-jects, and actions directed at conser-vation and restoration of endangeredspecies and habitats. It has also con-tributed to the identification of guide-lines to support implementation of theHabitats Directive provisions and theexchange of experiences to raise theefficiency and cost-effectiveness ofconservation actions.

An updated report on what LIFE-Nature has done for the establishmentand management of the Natura 2000network during the last ten years hasrecently been published by the Euro-pean Commission3 and is available onthe Commission’s web site4.

Key objectives of the Birds Directive relevant to LIFE-Nature

LIFE-Nature has been established asa tool to support the implementationof the Habitats and Birds Directives.

3 European Commission (2003)LIFE for Natura 2000: 10 yearsimplementing the regulation. 4 http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/infoproducts/lifepournatura2000_en.pdf

The map of Special Protection Areas in the Latium region, Italy.

Min

iste

ro d

ell’A

mbi

ente

e d

ella

Tut

ela

del T

errit

orio

, D

irezi

one

per

la C

onse

rvaz

ione

del

la N

atur

a

Its objectives are therefore explicitlyreferring to the main strategic conser-vation issues identified by these laws.In particular, several LIFE actions arerelated to achieving objectives of theBirds Directive, namely:> conservation of species in danger of

extintion, listed in Annex I;

5 Handbook for theimplementation of ECenvironmental legislationhttp://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/enlarg/handbook/handbook.htm

According to the European Commis-sion5, there are 19 key implementa-tion tasks related to the Birds Direc-tive on which Member States shouldundertake initiatives. At least 12 ofthem are tasks that LIFE projects havecontributed to put in practice. Amongthem are the identification and desig-nation of SPAs; the implementation ofthe EIA directive and provisions of theHabitats Directive to evaluate possibleeffects of plans and projects affectingSPAs; taking measures to maintain orre-establish bird populations at appro-priate levels; managing and avoidingthe deterioration of the habitats forbirds; monitoring habitats and birdpopulations; encouraging specificresearch and carrying out appropriateconsultation processes both for theelaboration of management plans andthe evaluation of possible damagesthat can come from plans and pro-jects.

Therefore, apart from some regulatoryaspects of the implementation of theBirds Directive, such as the definitionof hunting periods or bird species thatcan be hunted, LIFE-Nature has pla-yed a major role in fulfilling the objec-tives of the Directive in the MemberStates. Projects are most of the timeto be considered as pilot ones, how-ever they had a pivotal role in spread-ing awareness of bird conservationissues and of the EU laws protectingthem and in identifying and dissemi-nating good management practices ofhabitats and species that now repre-sent a reference point and in the fieldresearch on endangered species andtheir habitats. In short, LIFE-Naturehas demonstrated its effectiveness asa key financial and technical tool toassist Member States in fulfilling theirbird protection obligations.

Above. A LIFE river project in the UKBelow. The Whooper Swan is one of the 181 bird species included in Annex I of the Birds Directive, for whichspecial conservation measures are to be taken

Pho

to ©

Jor

ma

Luht

aP

hoto

©

Ken

ny N

elso

n

> conservation of habitats for birds;> identification and designation of

SPAs;> management of SPAs so as to avoid

deterioration of habitats and main-tenance or restoration of endange-red bird populations, including theelaboration and implementation ofmanagement plans;

> monitoring and research, includingmonitoring the trends of birds pop-ulations;

> consultation with the public onplans and projects and for the elab-oration and adoption of manage-ment plans.


What is happening to birds in the EU?The population size of the majority of European bird species is declining.

The European Union adopted a clear strategy for the conservation of threatened bird species,

taking into account the best available scientific information. The endangered species have been

identified and, for those in need of urgent attention, action plans have been prepared.

LIFE-Nature has then promoted and favoured the implementation of projects consistent

with the EU strategy

A large body of scientific informationon the status and trends of differentspecies supports the widely held per-ception that the extent of habitatmodifications and the impact of hu-man activities on bird populations inthe last century has been dramatic.

Threatened bird species

Birds are very good environmentalindicators and are the best known ani-mal group, studied by professionals,amateurs and bird-watchers for a suf-ficiently long time to provide gooddata on their present and past distri-bution and population trends. Theeffort of thousands of people whodevote their time to birds has made itpossible to realize works which are thecurrent reference on this matter. Someexamples include the Atlas of Euro-pean Breeding Birds1, the list of Impor-tant Bird Areas in Europe2 and the firstassessment of the conservation sta-tus of all European birds3, which has

provided the basis for the identifica-tion of endangered species based ona standardised methodology.

The list of endangered birds inEurope, including Russia and Turkey,was compiled by BirdLife Internationalin 1994. It will be revised and updatedat the end of 2004, however the 1994data are useful to illustrate the con-text in which the Commission hasdeveloped its conservation strategyover the last years. BirdLife hasrevealed that, out of 514 regularlyoccurring bird species, 278 qualifiedas being Species of European Con-servation Concern (SPEC). Twentyfour of these SPECs were consideredto be of Global Conservation Con-cern: birds whose survival can beguaranteed only by strong conserva-tion action. Such species included

Zino’s and Fea’s Petrels, the Ferrugi-nous Duck, the Corncracke, the Audo-uin’s Gull, the Spanish Imperial Eagleor the Lesser Kestrel.

The picture is however uneven acrossthe continent. All EU countries (includ-ing new Member States) host a num-ber of SPECs with an UnfavourableConservation Status but some holdmore of them than others. Spain is thecountry with the highest number ofthreatened bird species (106), fol-lowed by France (98), Greece (95),Italy (82) and Portugal (77). Countrieswith the lowest number of SPECs areBelgium (45) and Ireland (34) but thisis also related to their geographical

1 Hagemeijer, W.J.M. and Blair,M.J., eds. (1987) The EBCC Atlasof European Breeding Birds, TheirDistribution and Abundance.Academic Press2 Heath, M.F. and Evans M.I., eds.(2001) Important Bird Areas inEurope: Priority Sites for Conser-vation. Cambridge, U.K.: BirdLifeInternational (BirdLife ConservationSeries no.3)3 Tucker, G.M. and Heath, M.F.(1994) Birds in Europe: their con-servation status. Cambridge, U.K.:BirdLife International (BirdLifeConservation Series no.3)

Due to habitat loss through agriculturalintensification the Aquatic Warbler is nowa globally threatened species

Pho

to ©

Fer

nand

o Ju

bet

e

position, surface and overall smallernumber of bird species.

The large number of threatened birdspecies indicates widespread habitatdeterioration. Birds can help in identi-fying which habitat types are in greaterdanger and can help drive broader con-servation strategies.

The analysis of the habitat use by theSPECs, carried out by BirdLife Inter-national, shows that more than 60percent of them are linked to lowlandfarmland (116 species). This reflectsboth the prevalence of this habitat inthe European Union (about 70 percent) and the rapid pace of change infarming practices. Among the identi-fied threats, agricultural intensificationis by far the most important one,affecting more than 42 percent ofthreatened species, followed by hunt-ing and persecution, affecting morethan 30 percent of them. Intensifica-tion of agricultural practices is a multi-faceted process including a range ofactivities: crop specialization andimprovement, use of pesticides, elim-ination of marginal habitats such ashedges and woodlots, cultivation ofgrasslands, loss of crop diversity,

drainage, etc. The overall result is ageneral loss of biodiversity and of theecological quality of the most wide-spread habitat in Europe.

Lowland farmland includes particularhabitats on which some species arehighly dependent. Examples includelow-intensity hay meadows, a crucialhabitat for Corncrake, traditional hand-cut sedge meadows for the AquaticWarbler, diverse mixed farmland land-scapes for the Partridge, Red-backedShrike and Ortolan Bunting or, again,dry grasslands and extensive dry ce-real cultivations in southern, centraland eastern Europe, habitat for thePallid Harrier, Great Bustard and Pin-tailed Sandgrouse.

Above. The Lesser Kestrel, a colonial falconet linked to steppic habitatsRight. The Great Grey Owl, a typical taigaforest speciesLeft. A male White-headed Duck, localized, in the EU, in South-WesternSpain

Pho

to ©

Gér

ard

Shm

itt

Pho

to ©

Jor

ma

Luht

a

Pho

to ©

ATE

CM

A


Many of the species for which conservation action plans have been prepared have shown signs of recovery in recent years, the best evidence of theirusefulness in promoting and guiding the protection process.

Wetlands too hold a large number ofSPECs, reflecting the biological diver-sity and importance of these habitats.In particular, wetland drainage andland-reclamation is the third most im-portant threat, affecting 28% of theEuropean SPECs. Some of the mostthreatened birds in Europe are wetlandspecies, protected by the Birds Direc-tive, such as the Dalmatian Pelican,Lesser White-fronted Goose, Red-breasted Goose, Marbled Teal, Ferrugi-nous Duck, White-headed Duck, Slen-der billed Curlew and Aquatic Warbler.

The third habitat with the greater num-ber of threatened species is forest.The total area of forest has beenincreasing in Europe since the twen-ties, due to afforestation of open land.However, the degradation of the eco-logical quality of forest habitats is wi-despread. Intensification of forestrymanagement, spread of plantationsincluding exotic, and non nativespecies, overgrazing, disturbance andhabitat fragmentation are only a few ofthe factors affecting the natural val-ues of forests in Europe. Old-growthforests now only survive in a few sig-nificant tracts, mostly in northern andeastern Europe, and should be strictlyprotected. In old-growth forests treesare taller and with larger crowns, pro-viding nest sites for raptors and otherlarge birds; there is more dead woodof a large diameter, with foraging andnesting sites for woodpeckers andother species; the forest structure ismulti-layered; gaps from fallen treesare more numerous, creating habitatand food opportunities for grounddwelling birds. These are just some ofthe features of a mature forest, whichare now rarely seen in Europe. A num-ber of SPECs are bound to these fea-tures, such as the Cinereous Vulture,Lesser Spotted Eagle, Greater Spot-ted Eagle and several other raptorspecies, Grey headed Woodpecker,Three-toed Woodpecker and Semi-collared Flycatcher, just to name a few.

LIFE-Nature as part of the EU bird conservation strategy

The European Commission has adop-ted a clear strategy, taking into con-sideration the European laws and thepossibility of funding such strategy,

especially through LIFE. In a nutshell,the EU strategy for the conservation ofwild birds, that LIFE-Nature has hel-ped to implement in a crucial way, isbased on the following main points.

1. Identify endangered species. Themost endangered species havebeen included in the Annex I of theBirds Directive. The provisions ofthe Directive have to be applied tothese species, both in terms ofgeneral protection and in situ con-servation through the establish-ment of the SPAs network. The sci-entific research carried out in theyears following the adoption of theDirective has supported the valid-ity of the list of species included inAnnex I. In particular the analysismade by BirdLife International,ranking all European bird speciesinto SPEC (Species of EuropeanConcern) categories confirmedthat all the globally threatened spe-cies are included in the list.

2. Prioritized listing of endangeredspecies. Taking into considerationthe threat level of each singlespecies included in the Annex I ofthe Birds Directive and the limita-tions of the LIFE-Nature fund, a listof priority species for funding un-der the LIFE programme has beendefined. The list, a sub-set of thespecies included in Annex I of theBirds Directive, was initially draftedby the European Commission,finalized in 1996 and 1997 andapproved by the Ornis Committee,an official body established underthe Birds Directive and composedof representatives of the compe-tent authorities in each MemberState. In addition to its regulatoryrole, the Ornis Committee is animportant forum for consultationwith Member States on issues re-lated to the implementation of theBirds Directive. The list (provided inthe application file for LIFE-Natureprojects), includes 49 species andsubspecies whose conservationstatus is of special concern, bothfor their very limited area of distri-bution or for the observed rapiddecline of the populations. LIFEprojects aimed at the protection ofthese species received up to 75

percent of co-financing of the totalbudget by the European Commis-sion, instead of the usual maximumof 50 percent.

3. Elaborate species action plans. To help in guiding the planning ofconservation actions, the Euro-pean Commission has financiallysupported the preparation, byBirdlife International, of interna-tional action plans for all the prior-ity bird species. As there wasalready an international action planfor the Greenland White-frontedGoose and a national plan for theScottish Crossbill, a UK endemic,EU plans were not prepared forthese species. The only other pri-ority bird species not yet the sub-ject of an action plan is the Azoressubspecies of the Wood Pigeon.These plans provide updated infor-mation on the distribution, popula-tion trends, life history, relativeimpact of threats, and identify theactions needed to ensure the pro-tection and/or recovery of the tar-geted species. Aspects consid-ered in action plans include policyand legislation, conservation man-

agement, monitoring, research andpublic awareness. All action plansare available on the Web site of theEuropean Commission4. The Euro-pean Commission has invited allMember States to translate theseframework plans into national ac-tion plans for the species undertheir responsibility.

4) Launch LIFE projects on mostendangered species.Having identified priorities for ac-tion and promoted the identifica-tion of comprehensive strategiesfor their conservation, the Europe-

restricted number of sites and to favourthe maintenance of those landscapefeatures that allow the ecological link-age among protected sites. Examples,among birds, include the Lammergeierreintroduction in the Alps or the conser-vation of wetlands for migratory spe-cies along the Adige and Brenta rivers,important flyways crossing the Alps.

The Commission’s strategy has hel-ped in optimizing the use of the lim-ited human and financial resourcesavailable, contributing to the conser-vation of the most endangered spe-cies and their habitats at the EU level.As a result, almost all of the priorityspecies have been addressed by LIFEprojects, as shown in the followingtable, reporting the present distribu-tion and the number of LIFE-Natureproject carried out on each of them.

an Commission has favoured thefinancing of LIFE projects that wereconsistent with the identified pri-orities and actions to be imple-mented accordingly.

According to these strategic lines,LIFE-Nature has been conceived toprovide the best possible results interms of the conservation of habitatsand species of EU concern. As can beexpected from a practical and opera-tional tool such as LIFE, its contributionhas been concentrated on the conser-vation of species and their habitatswithin identified sites (Special Protec-tion Areas and proposed Sites of Com-munity Importance, pSCIs). However,there have also been projects to pro-tect species outside sites, both forwide-ranging species that cannot beefficiently managed solely within a

4 http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/nature/directive/birdspriority.htm

List of priority bird species of Directive 79/409/EEC considered as “priority for funding under LIFE” and addressed directly or indirectly by LIFE-Nature projects

English name Latin name Countries LIFE (where the species is breeding) projects

1 Fea’s Petrel Pterodroma feae Portugal (Madeira) 42 Zino’s Petrel Pterodroma madeira Portugal (Madeira) 23 Balearic Shearwater Puffinus puffinus mauretanicus Spain (Balearic Islands) 14 Mediterranean Shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis

desmarestii France, Greece, Italy, Spain 55 Pygmy Cormorant Phalacrocorax pygmaeus Greece, Hungary, Italy Slovakia 76 Dalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispus Greece 77 Bittern Botaurus stellaris Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, 56

Denmark, Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Portugal, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom

8 Lesser Anser erythropus Finland, Sweden 9White-fronted Goose

9 Greenland Anser albifrons flavirostris Ireland, United Kingdom 3White-fronted Goose

10 Red-breasted Goose Branta ruficollis Austria, Germany, Greece, Netherlands, 2Slovakia,

11 Marbled Teal Marmaronetta angustirostris Spain 312 Ferruginous Duck Aythya nyroca Austria, Czech Republic, Germany, Greece, 16

Hungary, Italy, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain

13 Steller’s Eider Polysticta stelleri Denmark, Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, 0Poland, Sweden

14 White-headed Duck Oxyura leucocephala Spain 6

15 Lammergeier Gypaetus barbatus France, Greece, Italy, Spain 1416 Cinereous vulture Aegypius monachus France, Greece, Spain 10

Source: BirdLife International /EuropeanBird Census Council (2000) European birdpopulations: estimates and trends. Cam-bridge, UK: BirdLife International (BirdLifeConservation Series No. 10). European Commission LIFE database:http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/project/index.htm, with modifications.


17 Corso-Sardinian Accipiter gentilis arrigonii France (Corsica), Italy (Sardinia) 2Goshawk

18 Macaronesian Accipiter nisus granti Portugal (Madeira), Spain (Canary Islands) 0Sparrowhawk

19 Lesser Spotted Eagle Aquila pomarina Czech Republic, Estonia, Germany, Greece, 8 Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland, Slovakia, Slovenia

20 Greater Spotted Eagle Aquila clanga Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland 421 Imperial Eagle Aquila heliaca Cyprus, Greece, Hungary, Slovakia 422 Spanish Imperial Eagle Aquila adalberti Spain 2023 Bonelli’s Eagle Hieraaetus fasciatus Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Spain 1224 Lesser Kestrel Falco naumanni France, Greece, Italy, Portugal, Slovenia, 12

Spain, United Kingdom (Gibraltar)25 Eleonora’s Falcon Falco eleonorae Cyprus, Greece, Italy, Spain 526 Lanner Falco biarmicus Greece, Italy 127 Gyrfalcon Falco rusticolus Finland, Sweden 028 Sicilian Rock Partridge Alectoris graeca whitakeri Italy (Sicily) 029 Italian Partridge Perdix perdix italica Italy 130 Corncrake Crex crex Austria, Belgium, Czech Republic, Denmark, 41

Estonia, Finland, France, Germany, Hungary, Italy, Latvia, Lithuania, Netherlands, Poland, Ireland, Slovakia, Slovenia, Spain, Sweden, United Kingdom

31 Purple Gallinule Porphyrio porphyrio France, Italy, Portugal, Spain 232 Crested Coot Fulica cristata Spain 233 Little Bustard Tetrax tetrax France, Italy, Portugal, Spain 734 Houbara Bustard Chlamydotis undulata Spain (Canary Islands) 335 Great Bustard Otis tarda Austria, Germany, Hungary, Portugal,

Slovakia, Spain 936 Cream-coloured Courser Cursorius cursor Spain (Canary Islands) 137 Slender-billed Curlew Numenius tenuirostris Passage migrant : Austria, Cyprus, France,

Greece, Italy, Malta, Poland 638 Audouin’s Gull Larus audouinii Cyprus, France, Greece, Italy, Spain 939 Roseate Tern Sterna dougallii France, Portugal (Azores, Madeira), Ireland, 3

Spain, United Kingdom 40 Madeira Laurel Pigeon Columba trocaz Portugal (Madeira) 541 Dark-tailed Laurel Pigeon Columba bollii Spain (Canary Islands) 442 White-tailed Laurel Pigeon Columba junioniae Spain (Canary Islands) 443 Azores Wood Pigeon Columba palumbus azorica Portugal (Azores) 044 Tenerife Great Spotted Dendrocopus major canariensis Spain (Canary Islands, Tenerife) 1

Woodpecker45 Gran Canaria Great Dendrocopus major thanneri Spain (Canary Islands, Gran Canaria) 0

Spotted Woodpecker46 Aquatic Warbler Acrocephalus paludicola Germany, Hungary, Latvia, Lithuania, Poland 347 Blue Chaffinch Fringilla teydea Spain (Canary Islands) 448 Scottish Crossbill Loxia scotica United Kingdom 049 Azores Bullfinch Pyrrhula murina Portugal (Azores) 4

The ACE programme

The ACE programme (Actions by theCommunity relating to the Environ-ment, Council Regulation 1872/84)was the main EU financial tool dedi-cated to funding nature conservationprojects in the EU before LIFE.

ACE was a programme specially con-ceived to support the implementationof the Birds Directive, providing afinancial contribution to maintainthreatened biotopes that host endan-gered species of particular impor-tance for the European Union. Toachieve these objectives, several sec-tors of actions were included: the pro-motion of actions for the conservationand restoration of sites, the identifi-cation of threatened priority sites andthe establishment of a European net-work of Special Protection Areas. Pro-jects were co-financed by the Euro-pean Community at a 50 percent rate

Special Protection Areas, with a totalsurface of 3.400 square km, were des-ignated during the lifespan of the pro-gramme and 22 more were added soonafter.

More than 500 sites benefited fromthe projects, covering a total surfacegreater than 17.000 square km, equiv-alent to more than half of the territoryof Belgium.

A short history of EU financing for bird conservationEU financial support to assist the implementation of the Birds Directive pre-dates LIFE.

Two major funding programmes, ACE and ACNAT, were, between 1984 and 1991, dedicated

to the conservation of nature. LIFE was launched in 1992 and co-financed about 300 projects

that specifically addressed threatened birds and their habitats

Left. Dalmatian PelicanFrom: Naumann, Naturgeschichte der Vögelmitteleuropas: Band XI,Table 2 – Gera, 1903

Below. Cover of the EuropeanCommission report on the ACE-Biotopes

projects. ACE was launched in 1984 to promote the conservation of

biodiversity in the EU

or exceptionally, under specific con-ditions, at up to 75 percent.

Between 1984 and 1991, ACE spenthalf of its budget (the total of which wasmore than 30 million ECU, the Euro-pean Currency Unit, predecessor to theEuro, with the same value) on 92 pro-jects dedicated to the protection ofbiotopes. Nearly two thirds of the fundswere allocated to 60 projects aimed atmaintaining, restoring or improving wet-land sites. Specific actions were under-taken for the management and restora-tion of a number of other habitats,including the peat bogs of Duich Mosson the island of Islay in Scotland andthe dehesas of the Serra de Hornachosin Extremadura, Spain, which host birdcommunities of international impor-tance. Many of these sites are nowclassified as Special Protection Areas(and also designated under the RamsarConvention on Wetlands of Interna-tional Importance). Thirty-eight new


The ACE programme also carried outconservation actions on 73 percent ofthe 144 bird species listed in theAnnex I of the Birds Directive at thattime (the list was thereafter modifiedand, since May 2004, includes 194species and subspecies).

Several projects focused on the con-servation of specific bird species orgroups. Cinereous vulture and GriffonVulture, White Stork, Greenland White-fronted Goose, Common Crane, Dal-matian Pelican, Bonelli’s Eagle, Caper-caille and Roseate Tern are examplesof species which were the focus ofdedicated projects. The range of acti-ons carried out varied according tothe species: the realization of feedingpoints for vultures, the elaboration andimplementation of a recovery plan forthe Roseate Tern at the EuropeanUnion scale, cultivation of arable landto provide food and compensation fordamage to farmers to favour Craneswintering populations, captive breed-ing and reintroduction of birds of prey,etc.

From 1989 to 1993 the French Leaguefor the Protection of Birds (LPO) car-ried out a project to protect theBonelli’s Eagle habitat in the southernpart of the country. Financed by the

EC ACE-Biotopes programme, theproject resulted in the designation offive Special Protection Areas coveringmore than 30.000 ha and of one na-tural reserve. The actions to improvefeeding opportunities for this rare anddeclining Mediterranean bird of preyled to an increase in the number ofjuveniles and in the re-occupation ofan abandoned nesting site.

A review of the conservation of biodi-versity in the European Union pro-moted by the ACE Biotopes pro-gramme has been published by theEuropean Commission in 1994, in-cluding an in-depth analysis of thefunctioning of this financial instrumentand data sheets for all the 92 financedprojects, country by country1.

ACNAT and LIFE I

The ACE programme ended in 1991,when the EU was planning to expandits competence in the field of natureconservation through the HabitatDirective. In December 1991, it wasdecided to adopt a separate financialinstrument for nature, ACNAT (Actionsby the Community for Nature, Coun-cil Regulation 3907/91). Through thisprogramme, actions for bird speciesand sites considered of importanceunder the Birds Directive continued tobe supported but, in addition, fundswere also made available for the con-servation of other endangered speciesand habitats.

With the adoption of the HabitatsDirective, in May 1992, ACNAT wasalmost immediately replaced, by LIFE(Council Regulation 1973/92), a finan-cial instrument aimed at helping thedevelopment and implementation ofthe Union’s Environment Policy asoutlined in its Fifth EnvironmentalAction Programme. The first phase of

1 European Commission.Promoting Biodoiversity in the European Union. The ACE-Biotopes Programme 1984-1991.Luxembourg: Office for OfficialPublications of the EuropeanCommunities. 1994, 152 pp.

LIFE lasted from 1992 to 1995, with abudget of 400 million ECUs.

One of the environmental fields ad-dressed by LIFE I was the protectionof habitats and species. Actions un-dertaken in this area were intendedspecifically to help finance projectswhich worked towards, and providedan incentive for the implementation ofthe Habitats and Birds Directive. In to-tal ACNAT and LIFE I, contributed 149million ECUs to 176 nature conserva-tion projects out of the 893 proposalsreceived.

A number of projects continued to bededicated specifically to endangeredbird species. A few examples of thebird conservation projects that bene-fited from the ACNAT/LIFE I fundingare listed below.

> For Slender-billed Curlew: a glob-ally threatened species, probably

The Whimbrel and (in the middle) the Slender-billed Curlew.

The latter is the rarest and the mostpoorly known bird in Europe.

From: Naumann, Naturgeschichte derVögel mitteleuropas: Band IX, Table 13 -

Gera, 1903

Pho

to ©

Fer

nand

o Ju

bet

e

Trapping nets in Helgoland, Germany.Scientific research is often included inconservation projects so as to provideuseful information to tailor the actions andto monitor project results

the rarest and most poorly knownbird species in Europe. This was thesubject of a wide range of activitiescarried out during 1992–1994 acrossmuch of the European species’ ran-ge, under the ACNAT project “Prepa-ration of a rescue plan for the Slen-der-billed Curlew”.

> For Cinereous Vulture: this verylarge, tree-nesting raptor threatenedby the use of poisoned baits andthe loss of old-growth Mediterra-nean forests, extinct in much of itsformer range in Europe, has benefi-ted, in the Sierra de Gata (Extrema-dura, Spain), from habitat restora-tion and food restocking.

> For Cinereous Vulture: In the DadiáForest, Greece, in 1992, ACNAT

funded WWF Greece to carry out aproject for the management andwardening of the Reserve, as wellas the development of ecotourismwith the preparation of an operatio-nal management plan. The popu-lation of the Cinereous Vulture in-creased from nine pairs in 1988 to20 pairs in 1994.

> For Fea’s Petrel: another globallythreatened marine species with aknown population in Europe of only150-200 pairs in the Deserta Islands,south-east of Madeira. The manage-ment of the Nature Reserve of theDesertas Islands received financialsupport from the EU during the pe-riod 1986–1996 through the ACE,ACNAT and LIFE programmes.

> For Dalmatian Pelican: a globallythreatened species, which has de-clined dramatically since the nine-teenth century due to drainage ofwetlands. The larger European pop-ulation is situated in Greece, whereabout 500 pairs breed. Actionsaimed at creating a new breedinghabitat at Lake Kerkini were fundedby ACNAT.

> For Corncrake: declining steadilydue to agricultural intensificationand mechanization which destroy itshabitat: hay meadows subject to lowintensity farming. Voluntary schemesproviding payments to farmers forCorncrake management were intro-duced in 1993 in France, when 6million francs (about 900.000 Euros)were invested in management ofabout 6.000 ha, where 10–20% ofthe national Corncrake populationlives. The schemes were fundedthrough several programmes. AC-NAT/LIFE funded the measure infour areas: Marais de Carentan,Basses Vallées Angevines, Val deSaone and Vallées du Nord-Est de laFrance (Meuse, Oise, Aisne, Chiers).

LIFE II

1996 marked the start of phase II ofLIFE. This phase covered a period offour years from 1996 to 1999 with atotal indicative budget of 450 millionECUs, almost half destined for nature.The overall objective remained the

same: to promote the implementationof Community policy and legislation inthe field of the environment. As in LIFEI, nature conservation actions finan-ced under this instrument have con-tributed to the implementation of theBirds and Habitats Directives. In par-ticular, the actions proposed wereaimed at maintaining and restoring thehabitats and species listed in bothDirectives to a favourable conserva-tion status.

LIFE II started after the deadline in theHabitats Directive for proposing sitesunder Natura 2000 had passed. Ittherefore supported measures aimeddirectly at maintaining and restoringthe sites which had been proposed asSACs under the Habitats Directive orwhich had been legally designated asSPAs by the Member States under theBirds Directive. It also assisted actionslikely to have a significant impact onthe conservation of the species listedin either the Birds or Habitats Direc-tives.

During its four years of implementa-tion LIFE II Nature financed 309 pro-jects out of the 849 presented. Thetotal financing committed for thoseprojects was some 200 millions Euros.In 1999 LIFE opened its doors for thefirst time to accession countries.Romania was the first country to par-ticipate: fourteen LIFE-Nature projectswere submitted by various Romanianinstitutions and NGO’s. Seven ofthese were finally selected.

LIFE III

LIFE III, which runs from 2000 to 2004,has allocated funds amounting to 640million Euros to continue the promo-tion of pilot projects for the conserva-tion of habitats and species and themanagement of the Natura 2000 net-work. Moreover, in 2002, the Com-mission has launched two accompa-nying measures, called “Starters” and“Co-op” to promote international ini-tiatives and favour the co-operationbetween different projects. In 2002, 12Starters projects have received 30.000Euros each to prepare internationalLIFE Natura project proposals to besubmitted in 2003. One was aimed atthe conservation of the Lesser White-

The Corncrake is declining due toagricultural intensification. ACNAT hasfunded since 1993 actions to involvefarmers in its conservation.From: Naumann, Naturgeschichte derVögel mitteleuropas: Band VII, Table 15 - Gera,

public body2%

private industrycompany

7%

local authority8%

national authority16%

national authority29%

NGO38%

Graph 1. Beneficiaries of LIFE-Nature funding for birds


fronted Goose on its migratory fly-ways and another at the preparationof an action plan for the Bonelli’sEagle in Portugal. Moreover, four Co-op projects have been approved toencourage LIFE-Nature projects toexchange experiences on specificissues. Management of grouse andtourism and management of wetlandsin Finland were two such projects tar-geting bird species. In 2003 only theCo-op measure was launched and sixprojects were financed for a totalexpense of about 634.600 Euros.These included a project aimed atpreparing a handbook for actions topromote Bittern conservation in Euro-pe and an evaluation of Bustard man-agement best practices.

How LIFE money has been spentfor birds

All LIFE Natura projects can poten-tially have a direct or indirect effect onbird species and their habitats. How-ever, only data on NA2 and on NA3projects (see box), which are clearlyaimed at bird conservation will beconsidered here. Therefore the figuresreported below on the number of pro-jects and the relative financial data areconservative.

Out of 777 LIFE-Nature projects fi-nanced up to 2003, both in the EUcountries and in the candidate ones,at least 295 had a direct relevance tobird species and their habitats. Thisfigure includes also the ACE andACNAT projects. 41 percent of theLIFE-Nature projects had birds astheir objective, confirming this groupof animals as a leading one in termsof interest, significance and value as“umbrella species”, through whichimportant biological communities andentire assemblages of habitats can bemanaged.

The total expenditure for bird projectshas exceeded 367 million Euros, co-financed by the European Union at acost of almost 200 million Euros, rep-resenting 54 per cent of the total.

Since its initiation in 1992, annualLIFE-Nature expenditure for birdsincreased from about 10 million Eurosup to 40 million Euros, with a maxi-

LIFE projects fall into three categories:

> NA1 – aimed at the conservation ofone (or more) natural site(s) propo-sed by Member States as Sites ofCommunity Importance (pSCI) underthe Habitats Directive;

> NA2 – aimed at the conservation ofone (or more) natural site(s) desig-nated by Member States as SpecialProtection Area (SPA) under theBirds Directive;

> NA3 – one (or more) species offauna or flora of the Habitats Direc-tive – annexes II or IV and/or of theBirds Directive – annex I.

mum of 48 million Euros in 2001(Graph 2).

Spain, which has the highest numberof endangered bird species, is at thetop of the list of the beneficiary coun-tries of ACE, ACNAT and LIFE-Naturefor projects dedicated to birds. Themoney spent, as can be seen by thegraph 3, is not always proportional tothe number of financed projects.

The average cost per project (Graph 4)has been higher in Finland and France,while the less expensive projects, onaverage, have been carried out inSlovenia.

Public administrations, at national,regional and local levels, are the mostnumerous LIFE-Nature benefciaries(Graph 1). This indicates that LIFE hasacted as an incentive to publicinvestment in the establishment of theNatura 2000 network. Among publicauthorities, the regional ones, whichare often directly responsible for thesites, have taken the lead with 29 per-cent of the projects, followed bynational authorities (generally min-istries of the environment and/or agri-culture) with 16 percent of the pro-jects. Local authorities (provincial ormunicipal administrations) have alsoplayed a significant role, with 8 per-cent. An important share of the bud-get has been used by NGOs, oftenmanagers of protected areas. NGOsare often involved in LIFE-Nature pro-jects also as partners, to guaranteepublic administrations technical andoperational support.

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

2003

2002

2001

1999

1998

1997

1996

1995

1994

1993

1992

1991

1990

1989

1988

1987

1986

1985

1984

total budgetEu contribution

n. projects

0

20

40

60

80

ES DE FR UK IT GR PT DK BE F I SE INT NL LV IE LU AT HU SI RO EE SK

55 31 42 16 31 22 18 10 11 11 4 5 8 5 8 2 3 3 3 4 2 1

67 51 42 33 29 26 18 16 14 14 13 10 6,8 6 5,7 4,5 4,1 2,2 2,1 0,9 0,7 0,5

42 26 20 17 14 17 12 6,3 6,2 7,1 6,7 3,4 4,4 4,4 3,6 1,4 2,1 1,6 1,3 0,6 0,4 0,4

total budget

Eu contribution

0,0

0,5

1,0

1,5

2,0

2,5

3,0

3,5

4,0

F I IE SE FR ES PT LU DK BE NL IT GR DE UK INT AT LV HU SK EE RO SI

3,37 2,24 2,09 2,08 1,65 1,56 1,37 1,28 1,26 1,19 1,17 1,00 0,99 0,95 0,84 0,73 0.71 0,70 0,49 0,49 0,34 0,23

Graph 4. Average cost of LIFE-Nature projects per country (million Euros)

Graph 2. ACE, ACNAT and LIFE-Nature expenditure over years (million Euros)

Graph 3. Total amount of ACE, ACNAT, LIFE-Nature expenditure per country (million Euros)


LIFE working for threatened bird speciesA number of LIFE-Nature projects has directly targeted threatened bird species

and addressed the specific conservation problems that led to their decline.

Birds of prey and aquatic birds have been a favoured objective of LIFE projects but LIFE

has funded projects on most threatened species throughout Europe.

It provided a major contribution to the identification of the most efficient management

methods and to their protection.

Some statistics on species-oriented projects

The top-ten species-oriented projects,as for number of projects, dealt withrare species of birds of prey. France,Spain and Greece have been espe-cially committed to the conservationof their populations of endangeredraptors. Bonelli’s Eagle, CinereousVulture, Egyptian Vulture, SpanishImperial Eagle, Lesser Kestrel alto-gether account for at least 23 specificprojects, with a total budget of at least31 million Euros. The Imperial Eagle isthe main focus of two projects beingcarried out in Slovakia and Hungary.Reintroduction projects for raptors areanother important sector, includingthe well known reintroduction of theLammergeier in the Alps. Eight pro-jects, with a total cost of almost 9 mil-lion Euros, have focused on the con-servation (not only the reintroduction)of this species. The Golden Eagle isbeing reintroduced successfully intoIreland since 2001. The total expendi-ture on raptors is more than 53 millionEuros.

Among “freshwater” birds (taken as avery broad category), the Bittern hasbeen the favourite, with at least 8 spe-cific projects costing 14,5 million Euros.Other targeted species have beenAquatic Warbler, Common Crane, Dal-matian Pelican, Slender-billed Curlew,Purple Gallinule, Marbled Teal, White-headed Duck, Greenland White-fron-ted and Lesser White-fronted Goose,White and Black Storks. For these atotal of at least 40 million Euros hasbeen spent.

Marine birds are another importantgroup that has benefited from LIFE-Nature projects. Cory’s and BalearicShearwater, Zino’s Petrel and Au-douin’s gulls are just a few examplesof endangered, localized or endemicspecies considered. About 23 millionsEuros have been dedicated to theconservation of their nesting sites andto address the main limiting factorsfor their survival.

A special group of projects has beenimplemented to protect a number ofendemic species of the MacaronesianIslands (Canary and Azores), namelythe Azores Bullfinch, the Blue Chaf-finch, Dark-tailed Laurel Pigeon andWhite-tailed Laurel Pigeon. Conser-vation of these species has meantactions for the sustainable manage-ment of the laurel forests of thoseislands, with an important impact also

Above. The Egyptian Vulture, the smallestof European vultures and the only

migratory one.Below. In the Iberian peninsula,

the dehesas, a fascinating mixed forestand grassland habitat, host a number

of threatened birds of EU importance.

Pho

to ©

WW

F G

abrie

l Sie

rra

Pho

to ©

Com

unità

Am

bie

nte

in terms of awareness raising. Thebudget spent for these species isabout 6 million Euros.

Continuing among species-orientedprojects, forest birds have concernedmainly woodpeckers (especially theWhite-backed Woodpecker) and theCapercaillie, both of which are goodindicators of habitat quality. In sevenprojects 13,5 million Euros have beenspent. For steppe birds, like Little,Great and Hubara Bustards, 9 pro-jects have been carried out, mostly inSpain, where more than 10 millionsEuro were spent. Finally, for the Corn-crake, dependent on traditionallymanaged meadows, 5 projects havespent 4,5 millions Euros.

LIFE projects involve a diversity ofactions. Some of these are illustratedbelow. The case studies are obviouslynot exhaustive, but refer to speciesthat need a specific approach ratherthan a more general management oftheir habitat. Other cases referring tospecies in relationship to their habitatwill be reported in the following chap-ters.

Saving birds of prey

Raptors are, among the species con-sidered as a priority for funding LIFE-Nature projects, the most repre-sented, 13 species out of 49, due totheir special ecological role. Eaglesand falcons are good indicators ofwhat is happening in the ecosystems.Being at the top of the food chain andoften requiring very large areas forsurvival their conservation status is anindicator of habitat modification andunsustainable land management. The-refore, birds of prey are good exam-ples of “flagship” species: their con-servation implies the protection oflarge areas of suitable habitat.

This explains why several case stud-ies illustrated below refer to birds ofprey. LIFE-Nature projects aiming atother species are illustrated in thechapters that follow.

The Spanish Imperial Eagle, a majes-tic bird living only in the westernMediterranean and breeding almostexclusively in Spain with about 190pairs, is one of the rarest birds of preyin the world. The main populations ofthis bird occur in Sierra de San Pedro(Extremadura), Sierra de Guadarrama(Madrid) and Montes de Toledo(Castilla la Mancha). It was brought tothe verge of extinction in the 1960s,with only 30 pairs left. This dramaticdecline was due to the loss of its habi-tat, the Mediterranean oak woodland,for agriculture and the developmentof irrigation schemes as well as theuse of poison to control predators inthe hunting reserves. Juvenile imper-ial eagles are especially threatened byelectrocution from deadly contact withpower lines.

In 1986 an intensive conservation pro-gramme was initiated by the Ministryof the Environment (Directorate-Gene-ral for Nature Conservation) and theregional governments of Castilla-León,Castilla-La Mancha, Madrid, Extrema-dura and Andalucía. The EuropeanUnion supported this programme.Three LIFE-Nature projects were fun-ded in 1993, 1994 and 1995 in orderto monitor the few remaining breedingpairs, to provide supplementary foodresources to enhance breeding pro-

Below. The Purple Gallinule, a tropical and subtropical species present in smallnumbers in a few EU countries, Portugal,Spain and Italy

Pho

to ©

ATE

CM

A

meadows birds3%

endemics4%

forest birds8%

steppe birds6%

marine birds12%

raptors33%

water birds34%

5LIFE-Nature expenditure for species-oriented projects


ductivity and to modify power lines incritical areas to minimize further elec-trocution cases. The conservationefforts, including those carried out byLIFE, have resulted in a populationincrease to more than 148 pairs by1994. However, since then the in-crease has been slower, due to boththe continued poisoning in huntingreserves and to the spread of a viralhaemorrhagic disease in the rabbitpopulation, the main prey species ofthe eagle. There are now 193 breedingpairs, including two in Portugal.

The conservation efforts surroundingthe Spanish Imperial Eagle are a goodexample of the practical difficultiesencountered in nature conservation.At the same time, they highlight someof the most common threats affectingbirds in the EU. Habitat loss, mostcommonly due to agricultural intensi-fication, is the most common causeof decline of the bird species nowconsidered as endangered. However,the list of threats includes many otherfactors, often not as obvious as habi-tat loss. Some of these are huntingand poaching, disturbance by tourists,disturbance by bird watchers andclimbers, collisions with power lines,acid deposition, oil pollution and evenhuman influences outside Europe,affecting migratory species. Even cli-mate change may now be a factoralready affecting bird populations.

Aong the birds of prey to which a par-ticular effort has been devoted, vul-tures have a special position. Cinere-ous vulture, Griffon Vulture, EgyptianVulture and Lammergeier are speciesthat can be found in a complete andhealthy European raptor community.The Cinereous Vulture is an impres-sive scavenger bird with a wingspanof three meters. Its powerful bill allowsit to open dead animal carrion, pavingthe way for a vulture feast: Griffon Vul-tures eat the offal and flesh, EgyptianVultures focus on small pieces scat-tered by the larger species, and,finally, the bone-eating Lammergeierfinishes the job. Cinereous Vulture andLammergeier are priority bird speciesunder the LIFE-Nature programme.

Some of the factors affecting vulturesare the loss of nesting habitats (old

Above. A LIFE information panel on a fence made in the framework

of the management of the rabbit, the mainprey species of the Bonelli’s Eagle

in the Ardeche, France.Below. Cinereous Vulture nest in Mallorca.

Pho

to ©

SIG

AR

N

Pho

to ©

Jua

n Jo

se S

ánch

ez

Mediterranean woodland for the Cine-reous vulture, undisturbed cliffs for theothers), poisoning of carcasses, lossof the traditional breeding of sheep,cattle and horses, illegal shooting forthe commercialization of stuffed speci-mens, and electrocution. LIFE has wor-ked to halt a widespread process thathas already led to the local extinctionof vultures in most of Europe.

Currently, the main stronghold of vul-tures in Europe is Spain, which is whymost of the LIFE projects aimed atvulture conservation have been car-ried out there. Examples include thework carried out on the Cinereous Vul-ture in the Sierra de Gata (Extremadu-ra), on Mallorca Island, or in SPAs nearMadrid (Encinares de los Rios Alber-che y Cofio, Alto Lozoya and Montedel Pardo). Actions of these projectsinclude monitoring breeding perfor-mance, using advanced radio-track-ing techniques to trace birds’ move-ments during their search for food inorder to better understand their needs,providing supplementary food sour-ces and involving stakeholders (mainlyhunters) in the management of thesites to avoid the use of poison in thehunting reserves. Where these actionswere implemented, the results arealmost immediate. As an example, inthe Lozoya SPA, near Madrid, at thebeginning of the project (1997) therewere 42 pairs of Cinereous Vulture,while that number rose to 53 pairs in2001.

The same degree of success can gen-erally be obtained for other raptor

species by reducing mortality factors(poaching, poisoning and electrocu-tion), by ensuring appropriate foodsources and by safeguarding nestingsites from disturbance and destruc-tion. This has been the case for theBonelli’s Eagle, an endangered prior-ity species of the dry grassland andgarigue habitats of the Mediterranean,breeding mostly in Greece, Italy, Fran-ce, Spain and Portugal. Spain is theEuropean stronghold of this species,with about 700 pairs out of a total ofabout 1.000. This species declined bybetween 20 and 50% in the years1970-1990.

Eight LIFE-Nature projects have beencarried out in the EU with the aim ofensuring a good future for the Bonelli’sEagle in critical areas. One of theseprojects was carried out in Navarra,Spain, between 1997 and 2000, where

the local population had declined by60%, with only three pairs at thebeginning of the project. LIFE-Naturefunded actions to face the most com-mon threats affecting the species(habitat quality, electrocution, shoot-ing, etc.) plus a peculiar, but ever morecommon one: the impact of climberson cliff nesting raptors. Disturbanceby unaware climbers during thebreeding season very often leads tothe loss of the clutch and to the aban-donment of the nest by the pair, pos-sibly for years afterwards. The mainobjectives of the project were achie-ved. The population decrease wasstopped, and currently there are re-cords of individual Bonelli’s eagles allaround the Navarra Region. The col-laboration obtained from differentstakeholders, especially the electricityfirms and climbing associations resul-ted in a decision to prepare a widelydisseminated booklet for climbers anda booklet on power line modificationto support the implementation of sim-ilar measures in other Natura 2000sites. This is a typical case of howLIFE can prompt action well beyondthe geographical scope of a singleproject.

When a species has become locallyextinct, oftentimes the only chance forits return is through reintroductionprogrammes. Reintroduction projectssupported by LIFE have been carriedout for the Lammergeier in the FrenchAlps: currently about 70 birds fly againover these mountains after almost acentury of absence and recently thefirst pairs have started to breed natu-rally. The Cinereous Vulture has beenreintroduced successfully in the Gorgede la Jointe (Massif Central, France)and the first successful breedingattempt was reported in 1996. A LIFEproject was financed in 1997 to sup-port this long-term activity. At the endof the four years the population was of38-50 birds, including 9 juveniles bornduring the project implementation:today tens of thousand of visitorsenjoy watching the Cinereous Vulturefly in French skies once again.

In 2001, a LIFE project was started inIreland, in the Glenveagh NationalPark in Donegal, to reintroduce theGolden Eagle, where it had been

Bonelli’s Eagle is found in Southern Asia,Africa and Middle East. In the EU it lives

in Mediterranean countries, being themain stronghold Spain.

Pho

to ©

ATE

CM

A


wiped out by poison and shooting,and considered extinct since 1912.Due to the very limited chance of nat-ural re-colonization it was decided, incollaboration with the Scottish natureauthorities to take six week-old chicksfrom the nests of the Scottish popu-lation, in order to raise and thenrelease them in the wild. Currently afew dozen birds have already beenreleased and the first courtship behav-iour has been observed at some sites,giving hope for the first breedingattempts in Ireland in the near future.

Obviously, LIFE has supported con-servation projects for birds other thanraptors, even though they seem to beone of the preferred subjects.

Rare geese to be saved

LIFE projects aimed at the conserva-tion of the Lesser White-fronted Go-ose are a good example of the impor-tance of an international approach tothe conservation of a migratory spe-cies. This goose, a priority species forfunding under LIFE, breeds from nor-thern Fennoscandia to eastern Siberiaand has declined rapidly during thesecond half of the 20th century, espe-cially in the breeding grounds of Swe-den, Finland and Norway. This trend ispartially due to local threats, such ashunting at staging and wintering areas(complicated by difficult identificationin the field) and, perhaps, red fox pre-

dation on nests, caused by this carni-vore’s expanded range towards thenorth. However the major impact isbelieved to be that of hunting in thewintering areas. Apart from a majorsite in Azerbaijan, current winteringareas are largely unknown. Formerlythey were located in the steppe areasin Eastern Europe and southwestAsia, which have now been reclaimedfor agriculture. In particular, winteringareas of the EU population are notknown and their identification is cru-cial to allow for a sound conservationstrategy to be put in place. A LIFE pro-ject has been carried out in Finland,and among its objectives this projectaimed at the in situ conservation ofthe known 50 breeding pairs. Twelvebirds were tagged and equipped withsatellite transmitters. Of these, onlythree did their job and followed thebirds to the wintering grounds; theothers either did not work long eno-ugh to reveal wintering areas or thebirds were killed along the way.

Even with the difficulties of this pro-ject, important data about migrationroutes and moulting areas wasrevealed and the importance of North-western Kazakhstan as the mostimportant staging area for the main

Above. The Lesser White-fronted Goose isa globally threatened species, breedingfrom Fennoscandia to Eastern Siberia,

addressed by several LIFE projects.Below. The Red-breasted Goose world

population winters almost enterely inRomania and Bulgaria. LIFE has helped in

managing the critical wintering wetlandsin the Techirghiol lagoons, Romania

Pho

to ©

Nat

iona

l Ad

min

istr

atio

n of

Rom

ania

n W

ater

s

Pho

to ©

WW

F Fi

nlan

d

Lesser White-fronted population hasbeen confirmed. The main western fly-way consists of several separateroutes that direct geese like a funnelbetween Nordic countries and CentralTaimyr in Siberia towards NorthernKazakhstan to the main staging area:from there the routes divide to differ-ent wintering areas. The westernmostnative population migrates via theNordic countries-Kanin peninsula-Estonia-Poland and Germany-Hun-gary-Greece. The main eastern flywayfrom east Taimyr collects the geese toChina, mainly to Lake Dongting.

In the same way, the Red-breastedGoose, has benefited from LIFE in twoprojects in Greece and Romania. TheDrana and the Techirghiol lagoons arewintering areas of these species thatsuffer from hunting, disturbance atroosting sites and feeding groundsand scarce availability of food duringthe coolest months. Important mea-sures are being carried out to addressthese threats, including farming of 30ha with winter wheat and maize, toensure effective and efficient fresh-water circulation from the lakes to thesea and increase penalties to preventdeliberate poisoning of feeding geese.

Restricted endemic species in Macaronesia

The Macaronesian Islands, Canary,Azores and Madeira archipelagoes,host a very rare, primitive habitat, thelaurel forest, which is home to severalendemic birds whose conservation is

a priority under the LIFE programme.These include three species of pi-geons, two of which live in the CanaryIslands and one, the Long-toed Pigeon,that lives in Madeira. Moreover, theMacaronesian region hosts the BlueChaffinch, restricted to the Canarianpinewoods on Tenerife and Gran Ca-naria, and two endemic subspecies ofthe Great Spotted Woodpecker, oneon Tenerife and the other one in GranCanaria. Finally, the Azores host theendemic Azores Bullfinch, a furtherspecies linked to the laurel forest.Considering their conservation status,all these species have been includedin the list of the priorities for conser-vation, as well as the endemic pige-ons treated in the following lines.

The Macaronesian laurel forest is theremnant of the humid thermophileforests, which in the Tertiary periodcovered Southern Europe and NorthAfrica. It hosts an exceptional diversityof endemic plants and animals and isconsidered a priority for conservationunder the Habitats Directive. Thelargest extent of this “laurisylva” canstill be found in Madeira and has beendeclared a World Heritage Site byUNESCO. The endangered White-tai-

Above. Some of the awareness raisingproducts financed by LIFE throughprojects for the conservation of endemicbird species in the Canary Islands.Below. The White-Tailed Laurel Pigeon is one of the endangered bird speciesfound in the Canary Islands, Spain

Pho

to ©

Ped

ro F

elip

e A

cost

a


led Laurel Pigeon and the Dark-tailedLaurel Pigeon live only in the laurel for-est of the Canary Islands. The formernowadays occurs on the islands ofTenerife, La Palma, La Gomera and ElHierro, while the latter only occurs onthe islands of Tenerife, La Palma andLa Gomera. Both species are affectedby a number of negative impacts:poaching, forest uses, rats and otherexotic mammals, water scarcity, andhabitat scarcity. Moreover, reasons forlow breeding success have beeninvestigated.

Two LIFE projects, starting in 1993,took into consideration the conditionof these two species and of the laurelforest in which they live in Tenerife,with the aim of consolidating a largeand viable core population both in theLas Lagunetas Protected Landscapeand in Las Palomas Special NatureReserve. This effort generated an un-precedentedly clear picture of the dis-tribution and ecological needs of thetwo species and of the relative impact

of the pressure factors on them. This,in turn, allowed for the elaboration ofan action plan that became the basisfor future conservation measures.Moreover, several threats were directlytackled by the projects and actionswere successfully undertaken:

1. The use of forest wood for agricul-tural purposes (poles for vinegrapes) was stopped, finding goodalternatives that were accepted bythe farmers.

2. A culling campaign of rats, withinnovative methods, allowed thehalt of their predation on pigeonnests.

3. The analyses identified suitablehabitats for possible reintroduction

Pho

to ©

Ped

ro F

elip

e A

cost

a of the White-tailed Laurel Pigeonon Gran Canaria at some point inthe future.

4. A wide awareness campaign washeld, involving both the generalpublic and specific interest groups,such as hunters.

But work has still to be done: notwith-standing an in-depth research and rateradication programme, the breedingsuccess of the species remains lowfor unknown reasons.

The work on Tenerife is however un-doubtedly an unprecedented step for-ward in conserving the pigeons. Theinformation obtained has proved to beessential for re-orienting many aspectsof environmental planning in the Ca-naries, impacting several topics, suchas defining some Sites of CommunityImportance, drafting plans for pro-tected natural areas, drafting reportson environmental impact assessment,evaluating plans, etc. The LIFE projecthas also played a pivotal role in bring-ing forth complementary research andhad an enormous influence on thesocial groups most directly associatedwith the conservation of these species.

Conclusions

BirdLife International is currently car-rying out a revision of the conserva-tion status of birds in Europe. As theprevious assessment was publishedin 1994 it will be possible to documentthe changes in conservation status ofspecies that have taken place in theintervening decade. Among the firstresults of this revision it is worth men-tioning that out of the 23 globallyendangered bird species for whichaction plans have been elaborated, 12have shown signs of recovery. This isreally an encouraging result which, atleast partially, is due to the imple-mentation of the conservation strat-egy elaborated by the European Com-mission.

Priority bird species, i.e. those whoseconservation is especially favouredunder the LIFE programme, have beenaddressed by the majority of the LIFEprojects: in total 322 of them includedactions beneficial to these species

Two subspecies of the Great SpottedWoodpecker endemic

to the Canary Islands are a priority for funding under LIFE

Pho

to ©

Ser

gio

Soc

orro

(see table, page 10). This means thatthe management of the LIFE pro-gramme by the European Commis-sion has been highly efficient in canal-izing the limited human and financialresources available towards the moreurgent conservation needs.

The list of priority birds includes spe-cies that are linked to extremely di-verse habitats that range from Medi-terranean steppe, northern tundra to

marine islands, and with different geo-graphical distribution. Carrying out aneffective conservation project requiresthe identification of the most suitableactions according to the species, tothe threats to be addressed, to thesites of intervention and to their socio-economic assets. Tailoring the actionsaccording to an in-depth knowledgeof all these issues, even though de-manding, has clearly been success-ful.

A view of the Macaronesian Laurel forest, Canary Islands. This forest is the remnant of the humid thermophile forests which in Tertiary period covered Southern Europe and North Africa

LIFE-Nature has focused, as part ofthe Community strategy to protectEuropean wild birds, on practical ac-tions for the conservation and resto-ration of a wide range of key bird habi-tats. The list of habitats that havebeen managed or restored for theconservation of rare and endangeredbird species is remarkable. It includeswetlands, one of the most endangeredand therefore frequently targeted habi-tats, coastal salt marshes and lago-ons. Forest bird communities that havereceived assistance from LIFE projectsinclude boreal, temperate, Mediter-ranean and riverine/wetland woodedhabitats, both in the lowland plainsand in the mountains. Also Mediter-ranean shrubland and steppe habi-tats, coastal habitats for seabirds, is-land ecosystems and semi-naturalhabitats, such as traditional farmingareas, have all been addressed by anumber of LIFE projects.

Some statistics on habitat-oriented projects

Even though classification of the mainhabitats benefiting from conservationprojects is very difficult, due to over-lapping of different habitats types inany single project, a general analysisreveals some major trends.

Undoubtedly, wetland is the habitattype most addressed by LIFE projectsaimed at bird conservation. This cat-egory includes a wide array of habi-tats, from mires, to wet meadows, andfrom lakes to rivers and lagoons. Con-servative estimates indicate that morethan 120 projects benefited wetlandhabitats, upon which more than 160million Euros has been spent up to2003. The reason for this high repre-sentation of wetlands is clear: they arerich in biodiversity, about one-third ofthe European birds are wetland spe-

cies, and they play a pivotal role forwild birds during breeding, migrationand wintering periods. Moreover, dueto land reclamation and drainage,wetlands are one of the most threat-ened natural habitats.


LIFE working on habitats for birdsAs part of the Commission strategy, LIFE-Nature has focused on the protection of Europe’s

wild birds and on practical actions for the conservation and restoration of a wide range

of key bird habitats, ranging from wetlands, forests, steppe and agricultural areas to marine

and coastal zones and ranging from Mediterranean arid lands to the Arctic tundra

Above. The Lesser Kestrel habitat:mediterranean steppe in Aragon, Spain.Below. Artificial nesting sites for Lesser

Kestrel were financed by LIFE in Aragon, Spain

Pho

to ©

ATE

CM

AP

hoto

© A

TEC

MA

Forests are another habitat to whichLIFE has made a major contribution.More than 21 million Euros has beenspent on the conservation of foresthabitats that range from the northerntaiga in Finland, to natural deciduousforest in Denmark and several foresthabitat types in the Mediterranean.The Monte Arcosu Mediterranean for-est in Sardinia, covering 3000 ha andhosting the endangered Corso-Sar-dinian Goshawk, has been bought byan NGO and is currently being man-aged in order to protect this bird spe-cies. The management of the DadiaForest in Greece, a site hosting 36species of raptors, has been the focusof three projects, starting with ACE in1985.

Conservation of mountain environ-ments has been addressed less fre-quently, but there are important pro-jects including those at Mount Athosin Greece, the Valgrande NationalParks in Italy or the Ardennes bioto-pes in Belgium and Luxembourg. Forthese projects about 4 million Eurohave been spent.

Spain and Portugal have dedicatedtheir efforts to the conservation ofsteppe habitats, important for a com-munity of endangered bird species,including the Lesser Kestrel and theGreat and Little Bustards. In Spainseveral projects have been carried outin the Extremadura and Caceres regi-ons, while the adjoining Castro Verde

area in Portugal has been the subjectof several projects. Finally, in Hun-gary, several projects are being car-ried out on the pannonic steppe, apeculiar habitat type almost exclusiveto that country. At least 10 millionEuros have been spent on these habi-tat-oriented projects.

Projects focusing on bird communi-ties linked to coastal habitats, includ-ing dune systems, have been carriedout especially in northern Europe.More than 7 million Euros have beenspent on these habitats.

Islands and marine bird communitiesare also favoured for bird conserva-tion projects. At least 15 million Euroshave been shared among 17 projects,in this case mostly in the Mediter-ranean region: Spain, France and Italyare the countries with the largest num-ber of projects. However, the UK, Ire-land, France and Netherlands havealso carried out a number of projectsfor the conservation of these ecosys-tems for birds.

An examination of the contribution ofLIFE to the conservation of threebroad classes of bird habitats is givenbelow and illustrated by case studies.

Wetlands

Wetlands, including rivers, lakes ormarshes, are an astonishing reservoirof biodiversity. In Europe, accordingto BirdLife International, inland wet-lands are the main habitat for morethan 102 endangered bird species(one fifth of the European bird spe-cies), more than half of them with

Wetlands are among the most commonlyaddressed habitats by LIFE projects. In the picture, juveniles Whooper Swansin a Finland wetland

Pho

to ©

Jor

ma

Luht

a

mountains2%

coasts4%

islands8%

steppe6%

forests12%

wetlands34%

LIFE-Nature expenditure on habitat-oriented projects

small or strongly declining populationsin Europe. Among the eight main habi-tat types present in Europe, as identi-fied by BirdLife International in itsseminal work on Habitats for birds inEurope1, inland wetland is probablythe one that in recent decades hasseen the most rapid contractionacross the whole of the continent. Thedestruction of this habitat started withthe onset of the agricultural revolution10.000 years ago, but the rate ofdestruction has greatly acceleratedduring the second part of the 20th

century with the drainage of hugeexpanses of wetlands, especially inMediterranean Europe. Other threatsthat require action to counteract theirnegative effects are the destruction ofriparian habitats, development oftourism and recreation infrastructure,pollution, over-abstraction of water,only to mention a few.

Avoiding a further loss of wetlandhabitats requires action from a rangeof legislative, social, economic andecological sectors, which in turnrequires a comprehensive strategy atthe international, national and locallevels. The elaboration of these strate-gies is linked to the identification ofthe best work methodologies, therealisation of repeatable experiencesand the demonstration that viablealternatives to the destruction of wet-lands do exist. The case studies thatfollow illustrate the strategic role of theEU funding for the conservation ofwetlands.

The sustainable use of wetland habi-tats can also favour economic rev-enue opportunities. This is one of thereasons behind the large amount ofmoney spent on this habitat type byLIFE-Nature and its preceding finan-cial instruments, ACE and ACNAT.Between 1984 and 1991, ACE funded

59 wetland habitat oriented projects.ACNAT financed, in 1992-1996, theinitial phase of the Med-Wet (Mediter-ranean Wetlands) initiative, which isprobably the best known internationalwetland project it financially sup-ported. This initiative represented thefirst co-ordinated action for the con-servation of wetlands in the Mediter-ranean basin and was launched in theGrado symposium in 1991. At thattime MedWet consisted of projectsaimed at developing methods andtools for the sustainable use of wet-lands. A Mediterranean WetlandsCommittee was later established, inwhich the basin’s states were repre-sented, and MedWet has become animportant regional collaboration andnetworking mechanism. In 1999 thisinitiative came officially under the

Ramsar convention on Wetlands. Afterhaving been financed by ACNAT in thefirst years of activity, LIFE financed thesecond phase of implementation insites requiring urgent action in Moroc-co, Tunisia and Algeria and was a cat-alyst for the continuation and enlarge-ment of Med-Wet, which was thensupported by other mechanisms. Cur-rently, the MedWet initiative has spentmore than 23 million Euros on projectsof conservation and management.Through these projects it has beenpossible to identify wise land usepractices that have been widely dis-seminated and represent an invaula-ble resource for wetland conservationprojects, including those funded byLIFE.

Similar catalytic contributions havebeen provided by LIFE in several ca-ses. A significant one is that of theFriesland Buitendijks salt marshes andmud flats in the Netherlands.


1 Tucker, G.M. and Evans, M.I.(1997) Habitats for birds in Europe:a conservation strategy for the wider environment.Cambridge, U.K.: BirdlifeInternational (BirdLife ConservationSeries no. 6).

Above. The Ebro Delta, SpainBelow. Organic rice fields in the Ebro delta

Pho

to ©

ATE

CM

AP

hoto

© A

TEC

MA

For centuries the salt marshes andmud flats along the North Sea coastfrom Denmark to Calais were slowlyenclosed by dykes, drained and con-verted to land. This is how the Dutchcreated much of their country. In frontof the sea dykes, mud flats and even-tually salt marshes would form, whichwere then enclosed and drained andthe process would start again in frontof the new dyke. In the mid eighties,the remaining 3.000 ha of salt marshand mud flats were to be drained.

About 10% of Europe’s salt marshesoccur in the Netherlands, with Fries-land Buitendijks contributing to a largepart of this, with remnants of very rarepriority habitat types according to theHabitats Directive and harbouring 40-

50.000 foraging, nesting and restingbirds per day, and even more duringmigration periods. The populationdensity and population size of birdspecies listed in Annex I of the BirdsDirective and of migratory speciesmakes it of exceptional importance.

A LIFE project was therefore financedby the European Commission in 1993,which came to a successful end in2001 when the beneficiary was able tobuy a significant part of the “Bild-pollen area” and to complete the salt-marsh restoration project in “Noorder-leegh”.

LIFE financing of this project hasprompted co-financing by the Pro-vince of Friesland and the Ministry ofthe Environment. Without the firsttranche of the EU co-finance, thiswould never have happened. Further-more, as a consequence of the pres-tige of LIFE-Nature and the EU a num-ber of difficulties at the local level wereovercome, including the adoption, inMay 1997, of the site managementplan, officially laying down the reflood-ing targets. In the absence of LIFEfunding the land in question wouldhave remained as private property,and it would be impossible to convertany farmland to salt marsh. The pro-ject has also had a further effect: aparallel campaign by WWF (1994) rai-sed 270.000 Euros in donations inaddition to the LIFE-Nature funds toimplement management actions.

In some cases wetlands have a rele-vant economic value, especially asagricultural areas. Linking nature con-servation and relevant socio-econo-mic activities is a challenge that isever more often being addressed, asit was in the case of the Ebro Delta, inSpain.

The Ebro Delta is one of the main wet-lands in the Mediterranean area, des-ignated as a Special Protection Area,Natural Park and Ramsar Site. It isabout 33.000 hectares and representsa critical area on bird migration routeswith over 180.000 waterfowls winter-ing there and around 40.000 pairsnesting, many of them species inclu-ded in Annex I of the Birds Directive.Most of the area has been given over

Above. Habitat restoration work at theRhone River, France

Centre. A Crane in the taiga, FinlandBelow. A White-backed Woodpecker.

This species is linked to old forests rich in decaying trees

Pho

to ©

Con

serv

atoi

re R

hône

-Alp

es d

es E

spac

es N

atur

els

Pho

to ©

Jor

ma

Luht

aP

hoto

© H

arri

Mie

ttin

en

to rice farming although large naturalareas do still remain, such as coastallagoons, marshes, springs, dunes andriverine woodland, many of which rep-resent habitats of Community interest.

In 1996 LIFE funded a project with theobjective of improving the manage-ment of the delta rice-fields, marshesand lagoons system. Best habitatmanagement models for nature con-servation were identified and pro-moted, comparing the effects of set-ting aside rice fields with traditional,agri-environmental and organic ricegrowing. These environment-friendlytechniques, despite having slightlyhigher production costs and loweroutputs, are economically viable, pro-vided they receive subsidies or thatproducts are sold at a higher price, asin the case of organic rice. Thanks tothe wide awareness-raising cam-paign, these practices started to beconsidered as real alternatives and acompany was set up to continue ap-plying organic farming methods in thearea after the LIFE project ended.About 80% of the farmers were apply-ing at least one of the five measuresincluded in the agri-environmentalscheme that was approved in 1998 forthis area.

In general, the promotion of organicand/or agri-environmental farmingimproved the feeding habitat of birdspecies. Seventy species were recor-ded in the rice-fields during the moni-toring. Among them, 36 regularly usedthe ecological plots. Breeding of rarespecies was confirmed: among oth-ers, seven nests of Purple Gallinuleand 19 of the Black-winged Stilt werefound. Finally, the SPA was enlargedand 61 hectares were purchased(against 16 charged to the project) andincluded in the SPA.

Forests

Forests are one of the main habitat ty-pes in the EU. LIFE-Nature has funded237 projects for the conservation offorests and their natural resources,with a total cost of almost 316 millionEuro2 with the objective of identifyingand spreading sustainable and “natu-ralistic” management. These projects,always have a positive impact on the

protection of birds, even when notdirectly targeted. A number of LIFE-Nature projects have been explicitlydedicated to the conservation of thre-atened forest bird species.

In Sweden, the western taiga, char-acterized by firs and pines (Piceaabies and Pinus sylvestris), is the mainvegetation type in large parts of thecountry. Today, only 1-2% of virgintaiga is left, the large majority of it hav-ing been exploited for commercialpurposes. Western taiga has beenidentified as a priority habitat for con-servation under the Habitats Directive. In 1995 a LIFE project was startedwith the main aim of preserving the 10most important areas of the westernTaiga that still host populations of theWhite-backed Woodpecker in south-western Sweden. The protection ofthis bird is dependent on active man-agement to provide old, dead ordecaying deciduous wood, that arerequired by this species To achieve

the objective the project foresaw thepurchase of about 625 ha of land, tobe declared as nature reserves. Man-agement agreements were made withprivate landowners to maintain or re-store the conservation value of the siteand financial incentives were providedwithin a further 475 ha to encourageforesters to use more expensive butnature-friendly commercial exploita-tion techniques. The latter action wasparticularly important to avoid furtherfragmentation and isolation of theremaining pristine sites.

The key elements needed by thewoodpecker will now be provided atthe ten sites. The majority of land willstill be managed primarily for com-mercial forestry and timber produc-tion, but sites of high nature conser-vation value will be protected in thelong-term as nature reserves. Agree-ments with landowners allow for theadjustment of the land use to the ben-efit of the White-backed Woodpecker.For the moment, the target species isonly reported in seven of the ten sites,and it is still too early for a definitiveevaluation of the project success.However all the sites have beenincluded in the SPAs European net-work and the perspectives of successare good.

This LIFE project prompted, as a sideeffect, voluntary agreements for “envi-ronmentally managed forests”. With-out any economic compensation, andwithout any legal status, the agree-


2 European Commission. Natura2000 and forests ‘Challenges andopportunities’ – Interpretationguide. Luxembourg: Office forOfficial Publications of theEuropean Communities, 2003

Pho

to ©

Birg

it B

ecke

rs

The habitat of the Corncrake in Germany

Landscape restoration can assumea less traditional shape when cop-ing with infrastructure developmentand its damage to the environment.Power lines are a typical case ofstructures that can have a negativeimpact on birds due to the physicalcollision with the cables or throughthe so-called electrocution, thedeadly contact with two cables andthe passage of high voltage elec-tricity through the bird body. In orderto mitigate the impact of the powerlines LIFE has financed several pro-

dents has made possible to identifythe most hazardous power.

The LIFE project focused on a totalof approximately 91 km of electricpower lines. The action, to be takenin 23 areas identified on the basis ofscientific analyses, consists of bury-ing or modifying power lines in ways(such as using Elicord protectedcables) which eliminate or substan-tially reduce their potentially nega-tive impact on bird populations. Dis-used pylons will be adapted for useas perches and nesting sites.

This is the first large-scale projectto tackle the problem of power linesaffecting bird species in Italy. Itsimportance is also underlined by thecommitment of the national elec-tricity company, Enel, as partner ofthe Po Delta Park in carrying out theproject, that it will extend the actionto Special Protection Areas through-out the national territory.

Another very interesting action tomitigate the impact of human infra-structures was carried out in ElHondo SPA, in Spain. Here an irri-gation channel (Azarbe del Conve-nio) was a deadly trap for manyMarbled Duck chicks, that fell downin the channel without being able toget out any more. In 1998, sixramps, 5 meters wide were built inthe most dangerous parts of thechannel and the channel walls werere-modelled reducing their steep-ness. These measures allowed thechicks to get out on their own. Mon-itoring carried out one year latershowed that the corrective mea-sures were effective and no moreindividuals of that very rare specieswere found dead.

Mitigation of infrastructures impact

jects. One of them started in 2000 in Italy, in the Po river delta area.

The Po Delta Regional Park, coverspart of one of the major European riverestuaries and the most important wet-land in Italy. The area is of great sig-nificance for the presence of 27 spe-cies of nesting birds on Annex I to theBirds Directive. A further 23 specieslisted in the Annex winter in the area ormigrate through it. The park area iscrossed by 340 km of high and me-dium voltage electricity power lines,120 km of which are in areas particu-larly sensitive in terms of birds. Datacollected have shown that power lineshave a severe impact on bird populati-ons, causing a high death rate throughelectrocution or collision. A compara-tive analysis of the distribution of thepower lines and data on the numberand territorial distribution of fatal acci-

ments do have some “political status”,making it more difficult for a landow-ner who has signed this kind of agree-ment to escape his “moral responsi-bility” afterwards. The total land areafor these agreements was about 3.400ha in the ten sites; therefore thispotential additional benefit must notbe overlooked.

Agricultural habitats

Agricultural land and grasslands arethe most widespread habitat in Eu-rope, covering about 50 per cent ofthe land surface. This broad categoryincludes several habitat types with arelevance for bird conservation, fromarable grassland, pastoral land and

steppic habitats to mountain grass-land. A rich bird fauna is linked tothese open environments, includingmore than 100 endangered species.The loss of the ecological quality ofagricultural land and grassland is themain reason of the reported decline ofmany common species, such as thelark or the swallow and the near ex-

The steep slopes of this artificial channelin El Hondo SPA, Spain, were a deadlytrap for Marbled Teal chicks. Ramps werebuild successfully to stop unnatural mor-tality of this very rare species.

Pho

to ©

ATE

CM

A

Pho

to ©

ATE

CM

A

tinction of more localised ones. Someof these rare species have been usedas a flagship to promote conservation,restoration and sustainable manage-ment of open habitats.

The Corncrake was once a commonand characteristic part of the coun-tryside. Its numbers have fallen dra-matically in western Europe as a resultof agricultural intensification and nowstand at only a few thousands. A LIFE-Nature project launched in 1993involved all the 26 remaining coresites in France, Ireland and the UK. Atthese sites the recommendations ofthe Corncrake action plan were imple-mented in an effort to reverse thedecline of this species. The actionsincluded advising and persuadingfarmers to use more Corncrake frien-dly approaches, devising new mana-gement techniques for their conser-vation and monitoring their effects. Asa result of these actions, many of theareas would become eligible for agri-environmental schemes.

The results of this international pro-ject were significant. In the core rangeof the United Kingdom, numbers ofsinging male corncrakes increased by30%, from 449 in 1993 to 584 in 1996,and the total British population wasestimated at about 615 singing males(the project target was to reach 600 by1998). Annual monitoring suggeststhat range extensions have occurred,especially in Orkney, in parallel withthe increase in population size.

In Ireland, the decreasing trend wasstopped and the population had retur-ned to pre-1993 levels with 186 singingmales in 1996, although there havesince been continuing problems in oneof the core areas along the floodplansof the river Shannon. In France, actionsto halt the rate of Corncrake declinehave been successful in 5 of the re-maining core areas for this species.

Project managers established clearsolutions to the threats to corncrakes,based on agricultural land manage-ment, particularly the timing andmethods of cutting silage and haycrops and establishing a scientificbasis for Corncrake conservation ac-tions in north-west Europe.

Steppe habitats projects have beennumerous in Spain and Portugal, toprotect and restore the typical birdcommunities, including the Great Bus-tard, the Little Bustard and the Hou-bara, just to name a few. Informationon these projects and their results, aswell as on all LIFE-Nature projects, isavailable on the web site of the Com-mission3.

An unusual steppe habitat type, whichis a major contributor to the biodiver-sity of the EU, thanks to the accessionof Hungary, is the Pannonic steppeand marshes, considered a priority forconservation under the Habitats Di-rective. LIFE financed in 2002 therestoration of this habitat type and itsexceptional bird community within theHortobagy National Park.

The Hortobagy National Park, in eas-tern Hungary, is a hotspot for bird-watchers from all over Europe. Herethe Pannonic salt steppes and mar-shes are well represented. They arewide, open expanses formed overtens of thousands of years by thecombination of a continental climate,flat topography and the regular springflooding coming from the Tisza river.In this habitat, grazing of local breedsof cattle and sheep contribute in avoi-ding vegetation encroachment.

During the communist period, a vastnetwork of dykes and irrigation chan-nels was laid out over several thou-sands of hectares, in order to createendless rice fields and grassland irri-gation systems. The experiment even-tually failed, but its earth-works arestill spoiling the landscape and dis-rupting the natural surface hydrology.Consequently, the steppes and mar-shes mosaic is now largely altered andthe populations of steppe birds aremuch lower than they could be.

The main objective of the actionsfinanced by LIFE is restoring a totalarea of 6.650 hectares within theNational Park through the removal of


360 km of artificial dykes and irrigationchannels, recovering the original land-scape. The necessary bulldozer works,which are to be done by a local com-pany, entail moving more than 400.000m3 of soil. The restoration work inclu-des the removal of shrubbery from400-500 ha of degraded steppe, therestoration of the natural soil topog-raphy on more than 1000 ha and thecreation of a shallow 200 ha wetland.

The landscape restoration work isaccompanied by management acti-ons, the first of which being the re-establishment of a traditional farmingand breeding system. This involvesthe purchase of traditional cattle bre-eds (such as Hungarian grey andflecked cattle, mangalica pigs, rackasheep and goats) and the building ofshelters. Land is to be leased to cul-tivate the winter fodder so that ani-mals can be kept on site year-roundand maintain high grazing pressure,vital to obtain the optimal vegetationstructure for the bird community.

3 http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/project/index.htm

The landscape of the Pannonic steppe,the pustza, in Hungary in a painting of 1853: The Puszta (Oil on canvas, Hungarian National Gallery, Budapest)

Important Bird Areas and SpecialProtection Areas

Member States are obliged to classifyas Special Protection Areas (SPAs) allthe sites which, applying ornithologi-cal criteria, appear to be the mostsuitable for the conservation of birdspecies listed in Annex I of the BirdsDirective. This was the key conclusionof the Court of Justice in its landmarkjudgement, delivered on May 18, 19981

Different scientific references havebeen established which identify birdsites of high conservation value forAnnex I and migratory bird species.

The Birds Directive provided the impe-tus for the preparation of the first listof Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in theEuropean Union in 1981, which wasfinancially supported by the EuropeanCommission. The identification of theIBAs is based on clear ornithologicalcriteria, which are also necessary forthe selection and delimitation of SPAs.The most comprehensive lists of IBAshave been prepared by BirdLife Inter-national (and its forerunner ICBP,International Council for Bird Preser-vation) in 1989 and 20002.

LIFE initiatives to manage the SPAsThe protection of birds in their natural habitas is one of the strategic approaches

of the Birds Directive, for which the SPAs network is crucial.

Even though the main objective of SPAs establishment is the conservation

of bird species, economic activities are not off-limits.

On the contrary, SPAs are areas where nature conservation and socio-economic issues

can often be combined. LIFE-Nature projects have demonstrated that conserving

birds and their habitats may also be the best way to improve our life quality

1 Case C-3/96, Commissionversus Netherlands, supported by Germany.

Above. The IBAs inventory made by BirdLife International is now a monumental two volumes set

Below. Purchased and signposted landsat Villafafila SPA, Spain

2 The latest edition of the IBAsinventory is a two volume work:Heath, M.F. and Evans, M.I.,eds. (2000) Important Bird Areasin Europe: Priority sites forconservation. 2 vols.Cambridge, UK: BirdLifeInternational (BirdLifeConservation Series No. 8).

Pho

to ©

Igna

cio

Torr

es A

TEC

MA

These publications have been used bythe Commission in evaluating the com-pleteness of the SPA designation byMember States in the absence of sim-ilar national inventories. The EU Courtof Justice, while accepting that theyare not legally binding references, hasrecognized the high value of the IBAs.

The progress in the designation ofSPAs by Member States is closely fol-lowed by the Commission that pro-vides regular updates. The “barome-ter” of Natura 2000 sites is publishedin the Natura 2000 newsletter and inthe Commission website. By theseassessments it appears that, 25 yearsafter the adoption of the Birds Direc-tive, most Member States have still tocomplete their SPA networks.

Initially, LIFE I projects required thatsites be designated SPAs before theend of the projects, however, sinceLIFE II, designation has been a priorrequirement of LIFE funding. The legalcommitment of Member States toensure long term protection to thesites is carefully evaluated by theCommission in the selection phase ofthe projects.

How was money spent in SPAs management?

Even though the range of actions thathas been financed within SPAs is verydiverse, a general assessment of howLIFE money has been spent is possi-ble by considering the share of thebudget dedicated to each section ofthe project. The graph gives an over-view of the results.

Land purchase has taken up one thirdof the whole budget. Even though theacquisition of land cannot evidently beconsidered the solution to the prob-lems of the whole SPAs network in theEU, it has been widely practiced as itguarantees the direct control on thesites of intervention and ensures theirlong term conservation management.It has to be underlined that LIFE ben-eficiaries are requested by the Com-mission to guarantee that the pur-chased plots of land will be destinedto long term nature conservation anduses not compatible to this objectivewill not be allowed. As a general rule,land purchase appears to be a costeffective solution when compared tolease or long term agreements.

The direct field conservation manage-ment has taken up another 38 percentof the budget, with non-recurringmanagement (actions to be carriedout once) requiring almost three timesthe budget of the recurring one(actions to be repeated on a regularbase). This is because LIFE moneyhas been spent to create conditionsthat ensure a less demanding day-by-day management. As noted previou-sly, LIFE is intended to finance pilotprojects to be followed up by a longterm management strategy supportedby other financial tools.

A good share of the budget, 7 per-cent, has been dedicated to publicawareness and dissemination ofresults, activities that are crucial forthe involvement and participation ofthe local population and stakeholders. Finally, the management of the pro-ject itself, has taken up 22 percent ofthe whole budget, spent on adminis-trative duties, project implementationplanning and payment of manual andexpert personnel, the latter represent-ing the largest expense. Carrying outconservation projects require struc-tures and personnel in a measure thatis not easily appreciated by the gen-eral public and is an important sourceof nature conservation employmentand development of professional skills.

Monitoring is included in the overallproject operation section. Monitoringis defined as the collection of data onbird populations and habitats made ina standardized, scientifically rigorousand repeatable manner at regular peri-ods of time. This is of course an es-sential part of any project because itpermits the verification of the effectsactions had on bird populations andhabitats. The future collection of com-parable data, with the same method-ologies, will enable to verify trendsover time.

Planning management of SPAs

Sites designated for bird conservationare often subject to multiple uses,which are to be complemented andmanaged within the framework of acomprehensive strategy. Managementplans are the most frequently usedtools to address this objective. The


preparatory actions, elaboration of management plans and/or of action plans6%public awareness

and dissemination of results7%

recurring management

10%

overall project operation

and monitoring16%

non-recurring management29%

purchase/lease of land and/or rights33%

7LIFE Nature projects carried out in SPAs Share of budget dedicated to each project section

collection of scientific information onhabitats and species to be protectedis obviously the basis to identify thebest nature management practices.However, proper consideration of thehuman activities affecting the site ispivotal to elaborate a long term, effec-tive, conservation strategy.

Management planning is a measurethat has been included very often inLIFE-Nature projects: more than onethird of them included the elaborationof similar planning documents. Inorder to facilitate the work of prepa-ration of the management plans sev-eral guidelines have been elaboratedat the European level, which now rep-resent a general reference. Two ofthese guiding documents are theEurosite toolkit3 and the recommen-dations emerged from the workshopheld in Galway, Ireland, in 1996 on themanagement of the Natura 2000sites4.

Designated SPAs are often importantareas for bird conservation, whichhost several traditional, or non-tradi-tional human activities: e.g. agricul-ture, hunting, fishing, wood collection,water abstraction, etc. Even thoughthe current importance of bird sites isoften linked to traditional land use, themanagement options needed to en-sure the long term presence of viablepopulations of the species may causesome conflict with the local interestgroups if not carried out in a sensitiveand transparent way.

Both the Habitats and Birds Directivesdo not impose any specific constraint

3 http://www.eurositenature.org/article.php3?id_article=774 http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/news/natura/nat3_en.htm

on the activities that can be put intoplace in the SPAs. The only require-ment is that the species have to bemaintained in a favourable conserva-tion status. How to reach this objec-tive is a matter of good knowledge ofthe local ecological conditions andneeds of the local population, com-bined with ability of the managers toactively involve the stakeholders in thepresent and future management of thesites. Diplomacy, inventiveness and asolid scientific base are the mainingredients for an efficient manage-ment of the Natura 2000 sites, includ-ing the SPAs.

Sustainable use and involvementof locals: the case of the Comanawetland, Romania

LIFE-Nature provides several cases ofthe successful identification of man-agement options that put togethernature conservation and continued orrevived land use by the local stake-holders.

The Comana Wetland System islocated in the south part of Bucharestand includes the largest natural lake(about 800 ha) on the Romanian pla-ne. This wetland area is a designatedRamsar site, and is partly protectedunder national law. This area was adelta ecosystem of 1.900 ha that suf-fered dramatic changes due to artifi-cial draining measures taken in pastyears. A disastrous effect was thedecrease of the underground waterlevel by 8–10 m.

A LIFE project was launched in 2002to restore the water table and man-age activities carried out by the localcommunities, land farming, livestockbreeding, reed cutting, fishing and hun-ting, guaranteeing their sustain abilityand economic value while ensuring theconservation of wild birds populations.

A few examples help in understandinghow local activities have to be con-sidered in detail to achieve the desiredresults. On the northeast side ofComana Lake there is a 50 ha fishfarm that, thanks to the presence ofconstant water with fish and vegeta-tion, attracts most of the birds fromthe surroundings, with an impact on

Above. The Ebro delta, SpainBelow. Creating a pool in Tichwell saline

lagoons, UK

Pho

to ©

RS

PB

the economic revenue of the farm.Improving the habitat conditions forfish and birds populations in the lakewill decrease the birds’ pressure onthe fish farm area.

The Comana wetland is an importanttourist destination, being only 60 kmfar from Bucharest. The tourists’ ac-cess in the area is not restricted andtheir impact on birds is a major one.Thus, besides habitat restoration, theLIFE project is focusing on tourismand regulation of intensive hunting, inorder to guarantee sustainable con-servation of the area.

Cattle grazing is a further activity inthe area, mainly on the drained partsof the lake, which become meadowswith low economic value. The activityis disturbing the birds, especially inthe nesting period. By restoring thearea, the impact of this activity will bereduced.

Finally, forest is the only source thatprovides wood for heating in thehouses. Wood collection affects the600 ha of forest around the ComanaLake, with a direct impact on birds’ ha-bitat. The project tries to implementsuitable management of the forest,making its exploitation compatible withthe conservation of its natural values.

The Comana Lake LIFE project is anexample of how nature conservationand restoration can combine with theestablishment of long-term sustain-able use of the nature resources in alargely traditional land use economy.


Right. During courtship the Ruff malesshows a striking neck plumage,

with several combinations of black, white, cream and brown.

From: Naumann, Naturgeschichte der Vögel mitteleuropas:

Band VIII, Table 23 - Gera, 1902 Below. Cranes in a Finland wetland

Pho

to ©

Jor

ma

Luht

a

Farming and bird conservation:the case of the TermoncarraghLake, Ireland

In several cases LIFE-Nature has beensuccessful in linking nature conserva-tion and farming needs, identifyingbest management practices andestablishing the base for a long termsustainable management.

Located in the Mullet peninsula inwestern Ireland, Termoncarragh Lakeis situated in extensive machair grass-land (“machair” is a Gaelic word thatdescribes an extensive low-lying fer-tile plain). The coastal freshwater lakeand surrounding areas are of impor-tance for breeding waders and forwintering wildfowl, including the Ber-nacle Goose and the Greenland Whi-te-fronted Goose. The Corncrake alsouses the area occasionally, and thereis a high potential for the restorationof suitable habitat for this priorityspecies. The nearby Annagh Marsh isa small coastal machair and wetgrassland site, just south of Termon-carragh Lake and within the SPA. It isan important breeding site for severalwater species and, until recently, itwas the only regular Irish breeding sitefor the Red-necked Phalarope.

The prevalent economy in this area islow intensity agriculture within smallproperties. It is essentially based onsubsidies with low returns on the saleof farming products. An estimated75% of farmers are in the nationalscheme for EU agri-environment sub-sidies, called REPS. Paradoxically thisscheme seems to be hindering ratherthan encouraging the conservation ofthe local birdlife. This may be due toa number of factors: a lack of aware-ness of species needs, negative atti-tudes from farmers to site designa-tion, inadequate linkages betweenfarming and conservation and a lackof indication of good practices to bespread and repeated.

To address these challenges LIFE hasfunded the purchase and develop-ment of a demonstration plot of land

outside the SPA. At this site best man-agement practices for Corncrake arebeing implemented. Moreover, man-agement agreements have beensigned on 100 ha within the SPA tospread more environment-friendly far-ming practices and to demonstratepotential measures with a view to theirinclusion in future REPs schemes. Theproject is rapidly getting a nationalreputation for its work and the expe-rience gathered through the project isbeing considered in the mid termreview of REPs. The project site hasbeen visited by over 200 farmers aspart of an awareness raising exerciseon conservation friendly farming prac-tices.

Managing multiple uses of bird sites: the case of Finland’sestuaries and lakes

In southwestern Finland, the processof bringing together the interests ofseveral social groups, together withnature conservation and habitat re-storation has been realized in the areaoccupied by two river estuaries, Mie-toistenlahti and Oukkulanlahti, andthree shallow lakes of Koskeljärvi,Otajärvi and Omenajärvi. As grazingdeclined significantly over the past 20years, the meadows that once sur-rounded these waters are now over-grown. This has led to a decline inpopulations of bird species such asthe Ruff. The gradual overgrowing ofthe shallow lakes has also posedproblems.

Anglers, boaters, hikers and bird-watchers frequent these areas butthere have been no restrictions ontheir use and no infrastructure toguide visitors’ movements. LIFE gavethe opportunity for reconciling theneeds of nature conservation, fishing,hunting and tourism. Since the pro-ject areas are used for a variety of pur-poses, it was considered vital that allparties concerned were committed toparticipating in project planning andmanagement. The main objectives ofthe project include the elaboration ofnew management plans for each tar-

get area and the revision of existingplans, in an effort to resolve conflict-ing pressures. In particular, ensuringthat growing ecotourism in the areawill develop in a sustainable way wasa special aim.

This project has provided some inter-esting hints on the process of theelaboration of a management plan. Ithas become clear, for example, thateven though the project managers aredoing their best to speed up the work,they generally cannot accelerate theparticipatory planning process: stake-holders’ need time to understand,trust and be involved. When this tim-ing is respected, positive results willcome.

According to the projects’ managers,the project’s sites have been used asmodels in preparing managementplan guidelines for Natura 2000 sitesin Finland. Additionally many othersimilar projects have been asking theiradvice on the management planningof wetlands.

Conclusions

LIFE-Nature has proved to be a keytool for demonstration and pilot pro-jects for SPA management. RequiringSPA designation as a condition forproject financing has promoted theexpansion of the network. LIFE hasalso provided many examples of re-conciliation of potential conflicts am-ong different interest groups and hasdemonstrated that birds and natureconservation are compatible withsocio-economic development and thelong term sustainable use of naturalresources. LIFE-Nature projects havealso contributed in the identificationof best management practices, whichcan now be adopted at sites through-out Europe.

Finally, projects aimed at birds haveincreased EU citizens’ awareness ofthe importance of Natura 2000 and,in particular of the SPAs role in birdconservation.


Communicating with the publicand stakeholders

Environment ministers from all Mem-ber States, included the then 13 EUcandidate countries, signed the ElTeide Declaration in 2002, committingthemselves to tackle the problem ofbiodiversity loss in their respectivecountries. The El Teide Declaration, ajoint initiative of the European Com-mission and the Spanish Presidency,recognizes that the success of Natura2000 will require the support and par-ticipation of the European citizens inthe conservation and management ofNatura 2000 sites. The Declarationrecognizes also that many of the va-luable EU habitats are the result of tra-ditional land use and their conservationis dependent on traditional practicesand skills. To obtain citizen’s supportand involvement, Member States havecommitted themselves, among otherthings, to promote awareness andunderstanding on Natura 2000, to pro-mote the development of partnershipsinvolving a broad range of stakehold-ers in the conservation and manage-ment of Natura 2000 sites and to sup-port the sharing of experience and ofgood practices in managing the net-work.

These issues are constantly addressedby LIFE-Nature projects, which includea specific provision for actions de-dicated to public awareness and dis-semination of results. About 7 percentof the budget of LIFE-Nature has beenspent in this field. The most commonmeasures of awareness raising areplacing information signs at the sitesof intervention and distributing leaflets,

Communicating and networkingThe success of a LIFE-Nature project depends in a crucial way on the involvement

of the local population. Letting people know why a nature conservation project is carried out,

with which objectives, by whom and, most of all, what consequences it will have on them,

are pivotal issues to consider when a project is launched.

Therefore, LIFE-Nature strongly supports communication and public awareness raising.

Exchanging the experience gathered in one project with other similar projects (not necessarily

funded by LIFE) is also an essential part of the programme

Above. Exhibition at Villafafila visitor centre on Lesser Kestrel

and Great Bustard, SpainBelow. Information panel

on an experimental plot to assess theevolution of non grazed

Lesser Kestrel habitat in the Crau Plain, France.

Pho

to ©

Igna

cio

Torr

es A

TEC

MA

Pho

to ©

LP

O-F

IR

brochures, booklets and videos on theproject objectives and realization.Almost all the LIFE-Nature projectshave prepared similar materials. It isalso common to conduct more com-plex campaigns, with meetings of thelocal population, school lessons,preparation of books and regular re-ports, films, videos, organizing interna-tional seminars and meetings.

These actions are aimed at informingthe general public on the conserva-tion problems being targeted in theaffected sites, raising awareness ofthe stakeholders and favouring theirparticipation in nature conservationactions. Moreover, through these ac-tivities, the public is made aware ofthe efforts and the commitment of theEuropean Union in nature conserva-tion and sustainable development.

Networking experience

Available LIFE funds are limited, ifcompared with other EU financialtools. Therefore the maximum efforthas been made to optimize the use ofthe funds, avoiding useless duplica-tion, and helping people facing simi-lar problems to find the best opera-tive solutions without wasting time,human resources and money.

Sharing experiences among man-agers of LIFE projects and allowingpeople to know what has alreadybeen done in their field of work arecrucial tasks that are actively pro-moted by the EU Commission. Withthe ever spreading use of the Internet,for example, one of the mandatorytasks of LIFE beneficiaries is to set upa Web site to distribute easily acces-sible information on the project sites,the main project objectives, tech-niques adopted, results, awarenessmaterials, and available expertise.

Apart from this kind of “passive” shar-ing of experiences, many LIFE pro-jects have carried out an “active”

exchange, establishing a networkingsystem among similar projects oramong experts in the same field. Tothis aim a special, limited sub-fund ofLIFE, called LIFE Co-op, supportsactions to establish an operative linkamong similar projects.

Among the “Co-op” financed projectsthere is one aiming at producing ahandbook for actions to promote Bit-tern conservation in Europe, anotherplanning to evaluate Bustard conser-vation best practices in WesternEurope, one dedicated to the problemof the conflict between the grouse andtourism in Natura 2000 areas andanother aiming at identifying and pro-pose best management practices inFinnish wetlands. All these projectstake into consideration the experiencegained in several LIFE projects acrossEurope, identifying good results, bestpractices, solutions to common prob-lems and producing documents thatbecome a reference in the specificfield addressed.

LIFE-Nature projects often include anetworking action, generally aimed atimproving the actions’ performancethrough exchange with other projectsof documents and reports, the orga-nization of workshops, meetings andconferences or through an exchangevisits between project sites and coun-tries. Most of the results of this activ-ity are then phisically distributed tothose who need it or through the Inter-net.

The following case studies illustratehow this work of dissemination hasbeen carried out.

The Capercaillie is the largest speciesof grouse in the world, with its maindistribution range in the woodlands ofnorthern Europe and Russia. It is anold-growth forest dweller, whose con-servation is closely linked to properforestry management and low distur-bance of the courtship arenas, (calledleks). Illegal hunting can be a furtherproblem. An EU-funded CaledonianPartnership European LIFE project,started in 2002, has helped Caper-caillie conservation through predatorcontrol and habitat management andmonitoring. Identification and spread

Pho

to ©

Nic

olás

Tru

jillo

Awareness raising is a critical part of most LIFE projects. Here a presentationis made to a school class along an educational path in the Canary Islands,Spain


of best practices has been supportedby intense networking between ex-perts and project managers in Swe-den and Latvia. The networking hasincluded visits to Sweden and Norwayin order to obtain direct knowledge ofthe experience being gained in similarsituations.

International cooperation is the formof networking that has been stronglysupported by LIFE, and applied in se-veral cases. Management of ecosys-tems at the transboundary level is acase in which efficient networking canlead to fruitful results, as in the caseof the Austrian floodplains.

The floodplains along the March andThaya rivers, which form the boundarybetween the Slovakia and the CzechRepublic, are among the most remar-kable wetlands in Austria. Here, a LIFEproject has been carried out to imple-ment a river regeneration plan. Con-sidering the relevance of the trans-boundary dimension of such a project,a first trilateral conference was held inVienna in 1999, with representativesfrom the transboundary river commis-

Left. The Bearded Vulture is the subjectof a large scale reintroduction project in the Alps made thanks to an efficientnetworking effort Below. The Capercaillie conservation has been the subject of an internationalintiative funded by LIFE, in NorthernEurope

Pho

to ©

J-F

Seg

uin,

PN

R C

orse

Pho

to ©

Jor

ma

Luht

a

sion (GGK), river management admin-istrations, nature conservation admin-istrations and NGOs. In 2000, an inter-national conference on the subject“Nature conservation in a boundaryarea – chances for dynamising theDanube-March-Thaya area” was orga-nized by the beneficiary at Deutsch-Wagram. The conference was atten-ded by participants from Austria, theSlovak and Czech Republics as wellas from Hungary, and conference pro-ceedings were published.

Trilateral communication with the ben-eficiary’s partner NGOs from theCzech and Slovak Republic has con-tinued since May 2000. The trilateralMarch-Thaya-Platform of the benefi-ciary and its Czech and Slovak homo-logues were adopted by the Ministriesof Environment of the three concernedcountries. On the third platform in2001, the Ministries signed a Memo-randum of Understanding about col-laborating on the protection of theMarch-Thaya floodplains. In 2003, the5th platform was held, aimed at theelaboration and implementation of atrilateral management plan for March-Thaya-Auen. International networkingcould not have been more successfuland were appreciated internationally:a grant of the Wetland ConservationAward 2002 was accorded during theRamsar meeting in Valencia.

International cooperation is very use-ful when similar projects are beingcarried out on rare and now localizedspecies as in the case of the Lam-mergeier.

A LIFE project aimed at implementinga recovery plan for the Lammergeier innortheastern Spain has promoted amajor exchange of the experiences ofpeople working in almost all the dis-tribution areas of the species in Eu-rope. Periodical meetings with otherLIFE project beneficiaries have beenheld in Crete, Nice, Corsica, Greeceand Aragón and the resulting docu-ments have been made available. Theyrepresent an important step forward inthe sharing of knowledge of the speciesconservation status and in the experi-ence gained in the conservation pro-grammes all over Europe.

A similar approach has been adoptedfor the Bittern, a reedbeds mimicheron that has often been the subjectof LIFE projects across the EU. In theUK, one of these projects was aimedat developing a strategic network ofSPA reedbeds for this species. A goodlevel of coordination between the cen-tral operations and the sites addres-sed was guaranteed. A high qualityweb site was created in 2003, provid-ing links to other similar projects inEurope. Several meetings have beenheld to allow site managers to sharetheir experience and encourage betternetworking within the UK. Finally, theproject manager has established con-tacts with organizations and projectswith similar remits, including the Na-tional Trust, the Norfolk NaturalistsTrust, the Lincolnshire Wildlife Trust,the French Ligue pour la Protectiondes Oiseaux, the Brandenburg StateAgency for Large Conservation Areas,the Hampshire County Council and

the Finnish Department for Conserva-tion. These networking links were effi-ciently developed and the contactsled to the submission of a LIFE Co-opapplication in 2003.

Conclusions

In its history, LIFE-Nature has under-gone an important evolutionaryprocess, with a progressive recogni-tion of the critical importance of com-munication, participation of the localinterest groups and sharing of theaccumulated experience betweenproject managers. This process hasbeen influenced by the growing useof the Internet, which allows immedi-ate exchange of information andexperience. Moreover, the creation ofweb sites, which is now mandatory foreach project, provides a great deal ofuseful data for citizens, interestedpeople and new project managers.

This availability of this informationallows to build on previous experi-ence, especially on selected issues,and increase efficiency in projectmanagement. Often this has led to aformal link between projects, as it hasbeen the case of the action for theconservation of the Lammergeier.

Recognizing this potential, the Com-mission has increasingly focused itseffort in promoting networking. TheCo-op measure has been created withthis aim.

There is an increasing focus in LIFE-Nature project selection and monitor-ing on the issue of the long term com-mittment and sustainability of theconservation actions taken. However,as yet there is not sufficient data for asystematic overview available.

DG Environment has commissioned astudy to verify what happened in ninedifferent cases after the end of pro-jects1. In all cases, LIFE was shown tohave been the starting point for fur-ther actions aimed at reinforcing theachieved results. Continuation of pro-ject actions is favoured where therehad been a good project design, ca-pacity building and a good relation-ship with the local community. How-ever the critical issue is, of course, theavailability of financial resources thatcan be sought from different sources.Three of the above projects, for exam-ple, were able to continue their actionwith funds linked to agri-environmen-tal schemes.

Funding the conservation of birdsand their habitats after LIFE

Funds made available by CouncilRegulation 2078/92, established in1992, have been used to pay farmersfor farming practices that protect andmanage habitats and species linkedto agricultural habitats. This Agri-envi-


Birds after LIFEObviously, a single project lasting four or five years is only a first step in the long-term

management of sites or to protect endangered birds.

The Commission’s strategy is to insure that there is a commitment to continue when needed.

The results achieved with LIFE have to be maintained in the future.

Other financial instruments can be tapped to ensure the long-term conservation

after the LIFE project end. These can be own funds from the site’s management body

or supplementary resources from national institutions or from the EU

1European Commission. Life afterLIFE. Luxembourg: Office forOfficial Publications of theEuropean Communities. 2002

The Great Bustard population of VillafàfilaSPA, in Spain, and of Castro Verde SPA,in Portugal, have significantly benefitedfrom LIFE project and the subsequentagri-environmental schemes. In Portugalthe population raised from 400 birdsbefore 1998 to 1.022 in 2004

From: Naumann, Naturgeschichte der Vögel Mitteleuropas: Band VII, Table 5 - Gera, 1899

ronment Regulation is part of the EUCommon Agricultural Policy, a secto-rial policy that has a very importanteffect on the land use in the EU withpotential for both damage to biodi-versity (favouring agricultural intensi-fication) and benefits through envi-ronmental protection.

EU Structural Funds are another mainoption. They are the main instrumentsof the European Union to achievesocial and economic cohesion andserve six main objectives related toindustrial and economic development.Of these, Objective 1 covers the regi-ons where development is lagging,Objective 5a is specifically related tothe adjustment of agricultural struc-tures and Objective 5b widely addres-ses rural development issues. Eventhough the use of these EU funds hasbeen criticized due to their frequentnegative impact on biodiversity, ifproperly used, the Structural Fundscan provide long-term financing forconservation and socio-economicactivities, as is illustrated by the fol-lowing case studies.

The use of agri-environmentalschemes for long-term conservation

The Varde river valley is the onlyremaining large river in Denmark tohave escaped from regulation throughdikes and locks. The estuary and thesurrounding meadows however havebeen subject to agricultural intensifi-cation and become a major centre forthe production of grass feeding pel-lets, through the draining of wet areasand a heavy use of fertilizers. With thecrash in grass pellet prices, the Vardefarmers Union began exploring waysto change agricultural practices. Theyfound that the areas would be ideallysuited for agri-environmental sche-mes, which would give them at leasta 20-year span of activity. However,for these schemes to be eligible, thefields would have to be restored totheir former wetter state. The Ministryof Environment recognised this to bean ideal opportunity to improve theconservation status of the areas aswell. Therefore, in partnership with theMinistry of Agriculture and the localfarmers union, a LIFE project was

launched to restore the SPA. The ob-jective was to determine the besthydrological asset for each of the 13compartments in the project area andto construct an extensive system ofsluices and dams to allow for therewetting of the areas. Once this wasdone and the farmers agreed to seve-ral restrictions, such as a ban on ferti-liser use, then they were able to accessthe local agri-environment schemes.

The final result was that around 260landowners joined the agri-environ-mental agreements by the end of pro-ject: 2.488 ha, or 92 % of the initialtarget of 2.700 ha, was restored to alevel where it could enter long-termagri-environmental agreements, secu-ring its conservation over the next 20years. Each agri-environment plan fol-lows the prescriptions appropriate forthe conservation of the area. More-over, even the landowners outside theproject site were interested in joiningthe agri-environmental agreements.

This project represents an excellent“case study” showing the potential ofLIFE money to favour long-term man-agement agreements within agri-envi-ronmental schemes. The LIFE fundingallowed the crucial restoration actionsnecessary to recover habitat quality,while the long-term management wasensured by the EU Agri-environmentfunds.

Long-term management ofsteppe habitat through EU funding

Another LIFE-Nature project carriedout in Spain can be considered a pilotexperiment that encouraged the pro-motion of traditional practices to besupported by agri-environmental pro-grammes, and implemented a formulathat may be the best solution for manycases of SPA management.

The Great Bustard, a priority speciesfor conservation in the EU, is one ofthe most representative species ofEuropean steppes zones. In the Ca-stilla y León Region in Spain, andespecially in the Reserva Nacional delas Lagunas de Villafáfila, the GreatBustard finds its best habitat in thecereal pseudosteppe, where exten-sive cereal fields are the predominant

landscape feature. The area has beendeclared an SPA and contains a sub-population with the highest density ofGreat Bustards in the world, estimatedat 2,000 individuals, approximately8% of the world population.

The main threats to this species arehabitat loss due to the irrigationschemes and the disappearance ofthe traditional crops, mainly the dry-farmed alfalfa (Medicago sativa) onwhich the bustards rely, especially inthe breeding season.

A LIFE project was funded in 1996 forthe conservation of the Great Bustardand it was assessed that a minimumof 8.4 percent of the SPA area neededto be sawn with alfalfa to avoid con-servation problems. .

The LIFE-Nature project was linked tothe agri-environmental programmewith excellent results for the GreatBustard population. The regional gov-ernment, beneficiary of the LIFE fund-ing, managed the acquired plots byfollowing the agri-environmental sche-me, particularly by promoting alfalfacultivation. At the end of the projectthe area sown with alfalfa covered2,622 ha (8.5% of the SPA), with anincrease of 80% in comparison to theinitial area, and reaching the neededpercentage to guarantee the GreatBustard presence. Moreover, duringthe four years of project implementa-tion, the beneficiary invested 168,000Euro, outside the LIFE co-financing,in actions related to the species andthe project. Likewise, Great Bustardpopulation trends in the SPA areshowing a slight increase. Implemen-tation of the LIFE-Nature project was,therefore, exemplary for the conser-vation of the steppe area.

A second phase was also financed byLIFE-Nature as well as a further pro-ject for the conservation of the LesserKestrel in the same SPA. Other Euro-pean funds (Structural Funds, INTER-REG, LEADER, etc.) were also inve-sted in this area simultaneously. Thisis a further case in which LIFE-Naturehas complemented EU and localfunds to achieve several objectives:the conservation of a rare habitat ofthe EU with its important bird com-

LIFE-Nature has made a strategiccontribution to the conservation ofendangered birds in the EuropeanUnion.

This has been achieved because therehas been a clear strategy that focusedon actions directed at the conserva-tion of the most threatened birds andtheir habitats. LIFE-Nature has alsomade a significant contribution to theestablishment and management ofthe SPAs network, as well as in iden-

tifying participatory mechanisms toengage local interest groups andstakeholders.

The achievements of LIFE projectscan be summarized using some “indi-cators” of success, listed below.

LIFE-Nature indicators of successin bird conservation

Bird species conservation Almostall the 194 bird species and sub-spe-


General conclusionsmunity and the sustainable support ofthe local farming activity.

Conclusions

Carrying out a project with clearobjectives, efficient resource man-agement and good relationship withlocal communities, is the best way toguarantee maintenance and improve-ment of the conditions of the targetedhabitats and species after the end ofa LIFE project.

LIFE-Nature projects often have apump priming effect, catalyzing theuse of additional human and financialresources. Many project managershave demonstrated that tapping otherfinancial resources, either local, natio-nal or from the EU, is feasible and canguarantee, if some basic conditionsare satisfied, long term conservationof habitats and species together withdevelopment of sustainable humanactivities. The issue of the long-termcommitment to continue conservationactions initiated under LIFE-Natureprojects is a subject that merits furtherconsideration.

Above. Golden Eagle, FinlandBelow. Goosander, Finland

Pho

to ©

Jor

ma

Luht

a

Pho

to ©

Jor

ma

Luht

a

cies included in Annex I of the Direc-tive, have been addressed, directly orindirectly, by at least one LIFE project.For some bird species, as in the caseof the Lammergeier or the SpanishImperial Eagle, almost the entire Euro-pean population has been targeted.All the species, with a few exceptionsthat are considered as priority for LIFEfunding, have been the subject of atleast one project. The few, non directlyaddressed priority species are theCorso-Sardinian Goshawk, theCanarian-Madeiran Sparrowhawk, theGyrfalcon and the Scottish Crossbill.However, some of these species haveindirectly benefitted from LIFE-Natureprojects aimed at the conservation ofhabitats, as in the cases of theMediterranean forests, the habitat ofthe Corso-Sardinian Goshawk and ofthe Caledonian Pine Forest, home ofthe Scottish Crossbill. LIFE has beenhighly effective in implementing theEU’s strategy for the conservation ofendangered species. According to arecent evaluation by BirdLife Interna-tional, some of the priority birdspecies have shown clear signs ofrecovery, which is also a result of thepreparation of the species actionplans and their implementation.

Habitats for birds A significant partof the habitats most rapidly being lostin the EU, such as wetlands or steppehave been targeted by numerous LIFEprojects, with a continent wide im-pact. Mountains, forests and agricul-tural land are among the “under rep-resented” habitats in LIFE proposals.Even though some experience hasbeen gained, a stronger effort for theirprotection is needed. Agricultural in-tensification is the main factor respon-sible for the general loss of bird diver-sity and shrinking populations densityof many formerly common bird spe-cies across the whole of the continent.

SPAs designation The designation ofthe SPAs is a mandatory task of theMember States and is to be carriedout by the relevant national authori-ties. LIFE-Nature, given its limited

Ptarmigan in Finnish landscape

Pho

to ©

Jor

ma

Luht

a

Participatory approach LIFE hasbeen a strategic mechanism to rec-oncile different land uses with con-servation of SPAs. LIFE, for example,has encouraged the involvement ofhunting associations, through agree-ments and/or the establishment oflocal groups which commit them-selves to habitat management of bothprotected and hunted species.Thanks to LIFE, hunters have oftenbecome active parties in managementbodies of the Special ProtectionAreas. These results are important forat least two reasons: the improvedawareness among hunters of the con-servation problems affecting birdspecies, and the promotion of pilotexperiences in which hunters are rel-evant actors.

Catalyze use of other EU funds LIFEprojects have generally been aimed atestablishing the prior conditionsneeded to allow long term conserva-tion management. Often, actions tofavour the participation of the stake-holders in agri-environmental sche-mes or other Community funded pro-grammes were included in the projects.This has led to a greater knowledge ofthe various alternative funding sourcesthat are available for the long termmanagement of the sites.

Awareness raising and disseminationof results A great deal of work hasbeen devoted to awareness raising.Hundreds of LIFE projects have pro-vided information about Natura 2000.The spread of the Internet has repre-sented a major step forward in shar-ing of experience and facilitating con-tacts with project managers, expertsand local communities across Europe.


resources is not aimed at the estab-lishment of the SPAs network. How-ever LIFE projects have often pro-moted the enlargement or even thenew designation of SPAs all overEurope. A typical case is when a pro-ject aimed at bird conservation is sub-mitted for an area that is still not des-ignated as SPA as required by theLIFE regulation. In many cases, SPAshave been created to comply with thisrule and obtain funding of the project.In other cases, on the basis of theresults of scientific research or resultsof LIFE project, the European Com-mission has asked to enlarge the SPA.Where the site boundary did not fol-low its natural ecological boundariesthe beneficiary was asked to promoteits modification.

SPAs management A major step inensuring the conservation of a SPA isthe elaboration of a management plan.Out of 300 projects dedicated to birds,about one third have included thepreparation of management plans, inorder to promote the collection ofcomplete and updated information onthe sites and identify the most coher-ent actions to be implemented, accor-ding to the identified threats. A largenumber of the management planselaborated have been adopted by thecompetent authorities with a recog-nized regulatory value.

Species action plans LIFE has alsodirectly contributed to the conserva-tion of endangered bird species sup-porting the preparation and imple-mentation of action plans. Speciesaction plans are tools aimed at iden-tify and establishing priority conserva-tion actions. They have been elabo-rated for all the priority bird speciesand many of these plans have bene-

fited from the experience and theachievements of LIFE projects.

Identification of best managementpractices Identifying best manage-ment practices for habitats and spe-cies has been one of the major con-tributions of LIFE-Nature. This fundingopportunity has led to the acquisitionof relevant field experiences. Unsuc-cessful experiences have had also apositive value to avoid mistakes in thefuture. A number of different conserva-tion approaches has been experi-mented. These include “traditional”conservation measures based on thescientific knowledge of birds biologyand ecology, as well as innovativemanagement techniques (i.a. use oftraditional breeds of domestic animalsto manage pastures, mitigation ofimpact of electrocution cases onpower lines, reintroduction methods,etc.) and establishment of participatoryprocesses to reconcile nature conser-vation and socio-economic develop-ment. As a result a great deal of know-ledge is now available on many crucialand frequently encountered issuessuch as how to restore the water bal-ance of wetlands, how to managereedbeds and obtain economic rev-enue, how to involve stakeholders andface socio-economic issues in ruralareas or how to improve the breedingperformances of grassland birds.

Land acquisition The strategy ofland acquisition, either purchase orlong term lease, has enabled the high-est level of protection for some keybird habitats. Thousands of hectarhave been acquired in the frameworkof LIFE projects. Land acquisition isgenerally followed by dedicated man-agement by conservation NGOs orauthorities.

Red-necked Phalarope Phalaropus lobatusRoseate Tern Sterna dougalliiRuff Philomachus pugnaxSardinian Goshhawk Accipiter gentilis arrigoniiScottish Crossbill Loxia scoticaSemi-collared Flycatcher Ficedula semitorquataSlender billed Curlew Numenius tenuirostrisSpanish Imperial Eagle Aquila adalbertiThree-toed Woodpecker Picoides tridactylusWhite Stork Ciconia ciconiaWhite-backed Woodpecker Dendrocopos leucotosWhite-headed Duck Oxyura leucocephalaWhite-tailed Laurel Pigeon Columba junoniaeWhooper Swan Cygnus cygnusZino’s Petrel Pterodroma madeira

List of cited bird species scientific names

Aquatic Warbler Acrocephalus paludicolaAudouin’s Gull Larus audouiniiAzores Bullfinch Pyrrhula murinaAzores Wood Pigeon Columba palumbus azoricaBalearic Shearwater Puffinus mauretanicusBernacle Goose Branta leucopsisBittern Botaurus stellarisBlack Stork Ciconia nigraBlack-winged Stilt Himantopus himantopusBlue Chaffinch Fringilla teydeaBonelli’s Eagle Hieraaetus fasciatusCanarian-Madeiran Accipiter nisus grantiSparrowhawkCapercaillie Tetrao urogallusCinereous Vulture Aegypius monachusCommon Crane Grus grusCorncracke Crex crexCory’s Shearwater Calonectris diomedeaCrane Grus grusDalmatian Pelican Pelecanus crispusDark-tailed Laurel Pigeon Columba bolliiEgyptian Vulture Neophron percnopterusFea’s Petrel Pterodroma feaeFerruginous Duck Aythya nyrocaGolden Eagle Aquila chrysaetosGreat Bustard Otis tardaGreat Grey Owl Strix nebulosaGreat Spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopos major tanneri(Gran Canaria subspecies)Great Spotted Woodpecker Dendrocopos major (Tenerife subspecies) canariensisGreater Spotted Eagle Aquila clangaGreenland White-fronted Goose Anser albifrons flavirostrisGrey headed Woodpecker Picus canusGriffon Vulture Gyps fulvusGyrfalcon Falco rusticolusHubara Bustard Chlamydotis undulataLammergeier Gypaetus barbatusLark Alauda arvensisLesser Kestrel Falco naumanniLesser Spotted Eagle Aquila pomarinaLesser White-fronted Goose Anser erythropusLittle Bustard Tetrax tetraxLong-toed Pigeon Columba trocazMarbled Teal Marmaronetta angustirostrisNightingale Luscinia megarhynchosOrtolan Bunting Emberiza hortulanaPallid Harrier Circus macrourusPartridge Perdix perdixPin-tailed Sandgrouse Pterocles alchataPurple Gallinule Porphyrio porphyrioPtarmigan Lagopus mutusRed-backed Shrike Lanius collurioRed-breasted Goose Branta ruficollis

Appendix

Name LIFE (“L’Instrument Financier pour l’Environnement” / The financial instrument for the environment)

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

LIFE is made up of three subject headings: “LIFE-Nature”, “LIFE-Environment” and “LIFE – Third countries”.

Objectives> with a view to sustainable development in the European Union, contribute to the drawing up, implementation

and updating of Community policy and legislation in the area of the environment;> explore new solutions to environmental problems on a Community scale.

Beneficiaries any natural or legal person, provided that the projects financed meet the following general criteria:> they are of Community interest and make a significant contribution to the general objectives; > they are carried out by technically and financially sound participants;> they are feasible in terms of technical proposals, timetable, budget and value for money.

Types of project> Eligible for LIFE-Environment are innovative pilot and demonstration projects which bring environment-related

and sustainable development considerations together in land management, which promote sustainable water and waste management or which minimise the environmental impact of economic activities, products and services. LIFE-Environment also finances preparatory projects aiming at the development or updating of Community environmental actions, instruments, legislation or policies.

> Eligible for LIFE-Nature are nature conservation projects which contribute to maintaining or restoring natural habitatsand/or populations of species in a favourable state of conservation within the meaning of the « Birds » (79/409/EEC)and « Habitats » (92/43/EEC) Community Directives and which contribute to the establishment of the European network of protected areas – NATURA 2000. LIFE-Nature also finances “co-op” projects aiming to develop the exchange of experiences between projects.

> Eligible for LIFE-Third countries are projects which contribute to the establishment of capacities and administrativestructures needed in the environmental sector and in the development of environmental policy and action programmesin some countries bordering the Mediterranean and the Baltic Sea.

Implementation National authorities in the Member States or third countries send the Commission the proposals of projects to be co-financed (for LIFE-Environment preparatory projects, the applicants send their proposals directlyto the Commission). The Commission sets the date for sending the proposals annually. It monitors the projectsfinanced and supports the dissemination of their results. Accompanying measures enable the projects to be monitoredon the ground.

Period of involvement (LIFE III) 2000-2006.

Funds from the Community approximately 638 million for 2000-2004 and 317 million for 2005-2006.

ContactEuropean Commission – Environment Directorate-GeneralLIFE Unit – BU-9 02/1 - 200 rue de la Loi - B-1049 Brussels – Fax: +32 2 296 95 56 Internet: http://europa.eu.int/comm/environment/life/home.htm

14K

H-59-04-613-E

N-C

life for birds - 25 years from the birds directive: the...

Documents