The future of Europe's seas - LIFE marine report by LIFE Programme

ASTRALE ʻgamma-CONTRACTʼ

MARINE THEMATIC REPORT Dr Lynne Barratt, Mr John Houston, Mr Chris Rose, Mr Dan Mitchell

The future of Europe’s seas – contribution of the LIFE programme to protecting and improving the marine environment September 2014

Table of contents Table of contents Acronyms

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... i 1.

Introduction ..............................................................................................................................1

Legislative texts considered .......................................................................................................4

Evaluation of LIFE projects ....................................................................................................... 15

1.1. 1.2. 1.3. 1.4. 1.5.

2.1. 2.2. 2.3. 2.4. 2.5. 2.6.

Specific Issues Raised by Units C2 and B3 .................................................................................................................... 1 Directive Overlap ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1 Principal objectives of the study ....................................................................................................................................... 2 Evaluation Methodology....................................................................................................................................................... 2 Limitations to the Study ....................................................................................................................................................... 3

European Instruments .......................................................................................................................................................... 4 The Marine Strategy Framework Directive .................................................................................................................. 5 The Water Framework Directive ....................................................................................................................................... 9 The â&#x20AC;&#x2DC;Natureâ&#x20AC;&#x2122; Directives ........................................................................................................................................................ 11 Other relevant Directives ................................................................................................................................................... 13 Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) ........................................................................................................................ 14

3.1. Overview ................................................................................................................................................................................... 15 3.2. Means of Intervention ......................................................................................................................................................... 16 3.3. Projects which address cross-cutting issues .............................................................................................................. 19 3.3.1. Governance ................................................................................................................................................................................... 19 3.3.2. Stakeholder and public engagement ................................................................................................................................ 19 3.3.3. Maritime spatial planning .................................................................................................................................................... 20 3.3.4. Ecosystems based approach ................................................................................................................................................. 21 3.3.5. Transboundary issues. ............................................................................................................................................................. 22 3.4. Good Environmental Status (GES).................................................................................................................................. 23 3.5. Projects which address marine ecosystem health ................................................................................................... 24 3.6. Projects which address pressures on the marine environment......................................................................... 27 3.7. Programmes of Measures (POM) .................................................................................................................................... 31 3.7.1. Input controls .............................................................................................................................................................................. 32 3.7.2. Output controls........................................................................................................................................................................... 32 3.7.3. Spatial and Temporal Distribution ................................................................................................................................... 33 3.7.4. Management Coordination ................................................................................................................................................... 33 3.7.5. Traceability of Pollution......................................................................................................................................................... 34 3.7.6. Economic Incentives ................................................................................................................................................................. 34 3.7.7. Mitigation and remediation ................................................................................................................................................. 35 3.7.8. Communication .......................................................................................................................................................................... 35 3.8. Integrated Coastal Management ..................................................................................................................................... 35 3.9. Gap Analysis............................................................................................................................................................................. 35 3.9.1. Eutrophication ............................................................................................................................................................................ 36 3.9.2. Contamination of Seafood ..................................................................................................................................................... 36 3.9.3. Invasive species........................................................................................................................................................................... 36 3.9.4. Physical and chemical parameters .................................................................................................................................... 36 3.9.5. Underwater noise ...................................................................................................................................................................... 36 3.10. Project Costs ............................................................................................................................................................................ 37 3.10.1. Total Costs and EU Commitment .................................................................................................................................. 37 3.11. Best of LIFE projects ............................................................................................................................................................ 39

Marine Thematic Report

Final Report

September 2014

In Depth Analysis of selected projects ...................................................................................... 40

Conclusions and recommendations .......................................................................................... 54

4.1. 4.2. 4.3. 4.4. 4.5. 4.6. 4.7. 4.8. 4.9.

SWOT Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................ 40 Maintaining Biodiversity .................................................................................................................................................... 40 Reconstruction and Remediation ................................................................................................................................... 41 Inventories ............................................................................................................................................................................... 45 Reducing/Re-using fishing discards .............................................................................................................................. 46 Contaminated Sediments ................................................................................................................................................... 49 Reducing Atmospheric Emissions from Shipping .................................................................................................... 50 Avoiding conflict and conflict resolution ..................................................................................................................... 51 Ones to Watch ......................................................................................................................................................................... 53

Figures Figure 2-1: MSFD/WFD boundaries (Adopted from DEFRA, 2012b). ........................................................................ 5 Figure 2-2: Marine Strategy Framework Directive Timeline ...................................................................................... 6 Figure 3-1: Number of marine projects funded each year between 2005 and 2012. ............................................. 15 Figure 3-2: Number of marine projects by LIFE funding stream .............................................................................. 16 Figure 3-3: Delivery Mechanisms for Policy Implementation for all Projects .......................................................... 17 Figure 3-4: Breakdown of projects by GES indicator ................................................................................................ 23 Figure 3-5: Projects illustrating the extent and dangers of marine litter ................................................................. 28 Figure 3-6: Number of POM in each project ............................................................................................................ 31 Figure 3-7: Number of projects per POM type ........................................................................................................ 32 Figure 3-8: Distribution of Total Project Values for LIFE ENV and NAT projects ...................................................... 38

Tables Table 2-1: The MSFD GES Descriptors ........................................................................................................................ 7 Table 2-2: Directives Targeted by LIFE Environment Projects .................................................................................. 10 Table 2-3: Nature conservation issues addressed by LIFE projects.......................................................................... 12 Table 3-1: Total Costs of Delivering LIFE Projects in the Marine Sector ................................................................... 37 Table 3-2: Highest and Lowest Ranking Projects on Total Cost ................................................................................ 38 Table 3-3: Best of LIFE Awards â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Marine Projects .................................................................................................... 39 The authors would like to acknowledge copyright of all photographs taken by the LIFE projects and used in this report.

Marine Thematic Report

Final Report

September 2014

Acronyms BEOS

BIO

CARE CFP DG DG ENV DG MARE EEA EC EIA EMFF ENV EQS EU GAM GAMM GES GES GHG GIS GMES IAS IBA ICES ICM IMO IMP INF iNspire IPPC LIFE + LIFE III LIFETrack LTER Marpol MPA

Biomass Estimation Optical System

LIFE Biodiversity Projects

Collect by Artificial Reef Eco-Friendly System Common Fisheries Policy Directorate General Directorate General Environment Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries

European Environment Agency

European Commission Environmental Impact Assessment European Fisheries Fund LIFE Environment Policy and Governance strand Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directives 82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council European Union Generalised Additive Modelling Generalised Additive Mixed Modelling Good Environmental Status (as set out in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive ) Good Ecological Status (as set out in the Water Framework Directive) Greenhouse Gas Geographical Information System Global Monitoring for Environment and Security Invasive Alien Species Important Bird Areas International Council for the Exploration of the Sea Integrated Coastal Management International Maritime Organisation Integrated Maritime Policy LIFE Information and Communication strand Directive 2007/2/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 14 March 2007 establishing an Infrastructure for Spatial Information in the European Community Directive 96/61/EC and 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament and of the Council of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (Integrated Pollution Prevention and Control) European Union Financial Instrument for the Environment (2007-2013) European Union Financial Instrument for the Environment (2000-2006) LIFE programme monitoring database European Long-Term Ecosystem Research Network International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships Marine Protected Area

Marine Thematic Report

Final Report

September 2014

MS MSP MSFD NAT Natura 2000 NGO NIS PAP PCB POM RBMP RAC REACH SAC SEA SPA SPC SWOT TCY TED UNEP UWWT WFD VOC

Member State Maritime Spatial Planning Directive 2008/56/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 17 June 2008 establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy (Marine Strategy Framework Directive) LIFE Nature and Biodiversity strand The EU wide network of nature protection areas established under Directive 92/43/EEC of 21 May 1992 on the conservation of natural habitats and of wild fauna and flora (Habitats Directive) Non-Governmental Organisation Non Indigenous Species Priority Action Programme

Poly chlorinated biphenol Programmes of Measures River Basin Management Plan Regional Activity Centre Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals Special Areas of Conservation Strategic Environmental Assessment Special Protected Area Speciality Polymer Coating Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats LIFE Third Countries strand Turtle Exclusion Device United Nations Environment Programme Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2000 establishing a framework for Community action in the field of water policy (Water Framework Directive) Volatile Organic Compound

Marine Thematic Report

Final Report

September 2014

Executive Summary

In the forward to the EU publication ‘Seas for Life 1’ the European Commissioner for the Environment Janez Potočnik wrote: ‘Our activities at sea and on land are disrupting the vulnerable balance of the marine environment. Our seas and oceans are under pressure from pollution, such as oil spills or marine litter, from over-fishing and climate change. Only a limited number of marine species are now found in favourable conservation status. We have to protect our ecosystems and their biodiversity now, not only to conserve nature, but also to support the livelihoods of those that depend on them. That is why the European Union has adopted the Marine Strategy Framework Directive which aims to protect and manage our seas and oceans in a sustainable way. The Directive sets an ambitious objective: it requires Member States to achieve and maintain the good environmental status of European seas and oceans by 2020’.

The document goes on to reinforce the importance of establishing a network of marine protected areas, promoting the sustainable use of resources and using tools like (such as?) maritime spatial planning to achieve these objectives. Close cooperation with all stakeholders will also be a crucial factor for success. This report highlights the contribution that LIFE projects can make to all stages of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) implementation schedule. A total of 72 projects between 2005 and 2012 were analysed representing an average of nine projects per year. The LIFE programme funds approximately 200 projects per year and so only 4.5% have a marine element. Given that the majority of Member States have a coastline and will need to implement the MSFD, the number of LIFE projects is quite low and perhaps the Thematic Unit’s working groups could make some concrete recommendations for projects to fill some of the gaps that have been highlighted as a result of this report. Four separate analyses were run on all 72 projects to investigate the means of intervention, cross cutting issues, good environmental status (GES) and programmes of measures (POM). Once the projects had been analysed seven special topic areas were selected for more detailed SWOT assessment. The topic areas were selected because they represent subject areas at which LIFE projects excel, which had a good spread of projects and tangible results. The first project analysis demonstrates that the LIFE projects are evenly split between the Nature (NAT) and Environment (ENV) strands of the LIFE programme and the means of delivery is also evenly split between management measures (mainly NAT projects) and the development of new technologies (mainly ENV projects). Monitoring is one of the main elements of the Marine Strategy which requires Member States to establish a monitoring programme for ongoing assessment and regular updating of targets by 15th July 2014. However, projects which have monitoring as their central theme are not well represented in the LIFE portfolio even though most LIFE projects do monitor their own project actions. A number of cross cutting issues were examined in the second project analysis from governance, stakeholder engagement, maritime spatial planning, ecosystem based approaches and transboundary issues. LIFE projects are exceptionally good at stakeholder engagement and there are many projects which can be used to illustrate how engagement should be conducted with all stakeholders at all levels including raising public awareness. Indeed some of the LIFE Information (INF) projects are specifically designed to improve stakeholder awareness. Within this broad topic the ability to first identify and then resolve

EU (2011). Seas for Life: Protected- Sustainable – Shared European Seas by 2020.

conflicts has been recognised as critical for the delivery of other crucial aspects of marine resource management such as maritime spatial planning and the establishment of marine parks. Conflict recognition and resolution has been dealt with as a special topic and the lessons learnt could be captured in a more systematic way to allow wider dissemination. There are also many LIFE projects that deal in some way with transboundary issues; this is because the very nature of marine projects means that cross-border cooperation is necessary. Perhaps one weakness is the perceived inability of LIFE projects to include non Member States in project activities. There are some ground breaking LIFE projects that deal with promoting a better understanding of the ecosystem based approach and projects actually adopting this approach are beginning to appear in the portfolio. The MSFD defines good environmental status as ‘the environmental status of marine waters where these provide ecologically diverse and dynamic oceans and seas which are clean, healthy and productive’. The LIFE projects were analysed for a third time for each GES indicator and then discussed under two broad headings of ‘ecosystem health’ and ‘pressures’. Almost half the LIFE projects have an element of maintaining ecosystem health, mainly because the NAT projects are obliged to operate within the Natura 2000 network and demonstrate that they are working towards good conservation status of target species. As a consequence there are many good examples of projects contributing to maintaining biodiversity and good ecosystem health and the majority either promote management measures to achieve good conservation status within existing marine protected areas or establish new protected areas within a network. There are two special topic areas that support the ecosystem health indicators. The first is that LIFE projects can also operate outside the Natura 2000 network and can make a significant contribution to maintaining biodiversity on a number of levels (Section 4.2). The analysis demonstrates that there are projects which allow countries to understand more about the marine habitats that occur in their sea space and which they may not yet have classified. Indeed the importance of some of these habitats has been highlighted and the projects call for their inclusion in the Habitats Directive. Some projects are truly ground-breaking and contribute knowledge in important areas (e.g. protection of fish larvae) taking research knowledge and turning into practical application. The second special topic area deals with inventories (Section 4.4), an essential starting point for many countries to deliver their initial assessments in 2012 and, perhaps more importantly, to deliver the six-year review in 2018. LIFE NAT projects are particularly important in delivering some of these inventories which, for some Member States, represents the first time that such comprehensive assessments of marine resources have been made. The ENV projects tend to focus more on resolving pressures on the marine environment and so there are fewer projects in each GES indicator category. Most LIFE ENV projects deal with contaminants and marine litter and there have been a number of EU publications that have reported on the progress on these issues. Three special topic areas are devoted to show how LIFE projects can contribute reducing pressures on the marine environment. The reduction of fishery discards (Section 4.5), a hot topic at the moment, which has implications for the delivery of the revised Common Fisheries Policy shows an interesting shift of emphasis from some of the earlier projects (2005-2009) where the re-use of discards was the principle theme to the newer projects (2010-2012) where reducing discards is the main objective. LIFE projects dealing with the treatment of contaminated sediments in ports and estuaries to prevent the spread of contamination are generally highly specialised and technical projects which are more difficult to disseminate and to replicate due (understandably) to private sector interests (Section 4.6). On the other hand the reduction of atmospheric emissions from marine sources is an interesting topic that is specifically referred to in the Marine Strategy. LIFE projects deal with this in a number of highly innovative ways that are worthy of further replication (Section 4.7). The fourth analysis looked at the contribution that projects made (or can make) to the development of a programme of measures. This was a more subjective task because very few of the projects actually mentioned specific measures and so some interpretation by the authors was necessary. The majority of projects did demonstrate one or more of the programmes of measures listed in the Marine Strategy and some projects had a combination of more than one measure up to a maximum of five. The most commonly ii

occurring POMs were input controls (measures controlling human activity) and output controls (measures controlling perturbation) both largely delivered through the establishment of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs); communication and stakeholder engagement which is a particular strength of the LIFE projects and management coordination which is another great strength of the LIFE projects and is an essential feature of so many NAT projects in particular. Other POMs such as traceability of pollution and spatial and temporal controls are applied in a limited number of cases but it is difficult to draw any conclusions from the limited data sources. There are one or two projects that examine the use of economic incentives and these are largely associated with projects dealing with fish and the fishing industry e.g. providing an economic incentive to re-use fish discards for either human consumption or for high value products. One interesting potential POM is examined in more detail in the special topic section, mitigation and remediation (restoration of habitats) (Section 4.3). The analysis of projects which attempt to restore marine habitats shows quite clearly that, while this might be a very important instrument adopted in terrestrial and freshwater habitats it is not widespread in marine habitats. In fact there are very few projects that attempt restoration and when they do it is an expensive option and technically challenging option. There are some very pertinent lessons to be learnt from this analysis, not least that it is by far more effective to protect existing resources than to restore lost habitats. This analysis of POMs illustrates the importance of systematically capturing this kind of information which would otherwise probably not be highlighted in any reports. The gapanalysis takes into account the results of the previous four analyses and shows that eutrophication, contamination of seafood, invasive species, physical and chemical parameters and underwater noise are the areas where there are few if any LIFE projects. Given that there are a lot of LIFE projects that deal with comparable issues in the terrestrial and freshwater environments, most notably eutrophication and invasive species; it can only be assumed that providing technical solutions to some of these issues and delivering successful projects is actually far more problematic in the marine environment. However, more projects in these crucial areas should be encouraged. Finally, the report points to the future and highlights some new projects with promising early signs that should be watched closely as they could either generate new technologies or solutions, some of which could be ground breaking and widely applicable in terms of delivery of the Marine Strategy. Value for money was broadly assessed by looking at total costs and the EU contribution. Overall between 2005 and 2012 the EU contributed €70,5 million to marine projects which was matched by €76,4 million by the beneficiaries. ENV projects accounted for 48.5% of the funds with the balance of 51.5% going to NAT projects. Most projects were quite small requesting between €1-2 million of EU funds; given the amount of information generated by the projects this represents very good value for money. In conclusion, LIFE projects can make a significant contribution to the understanding and future implementation of the MSFD. In order to do so the output from the projects must be captured and included in the decision making process. The following are ways in which the output of the LIFE projects could be made more accessible to the Thematic Units: • • • •

Wider Dissemination. LIFE projects should be considered as a source of reference for achieving certain aspects of GES and POM in the context of the MSFD. Systematic screening and reporting of LIFE project results for best practice. Systematic ex-post analysis

iii

1. INTRODUCTION The LIFE Environment and Eco-Innovation Unit requested that Astrale GEIE should, in the context of the Enhancing Tasks of the Astrale C contract (2010-2011), assess the contribution of LIFE projects to the implementation, dissemination and further development of EU environmental policies and legislation, focusing in particular on resource efficiency. Accordingly, Astrale GEIE undertook a ‘pilot study’ in 2011 which, besides providing an in-depth analysis of waste projects funded by LIFE, developed a methodology that has subsequently been used and adapted to produce a series of thematic studies including, air & noise, soil and most recently in 2012, water. Following the thematic study on water the LIFE Unit requested a similar piece of work concerning the contribution of the LIFE programme to the understanding, dissemination and further development of EU marine environmental policies and legislation (prepared as part of Astrale Beta contract 2013). The study has been supported by a number of stakeholders from within DG ENV including Mr Joachim D’Eugenio and Mr Nigel Smith representing Unit C2 (Marine Environment & Water Industry), a representative of Unit B3 (Nature) and the focal point for the study, Mr Francois Delcueillerie of Unit E4 (LIFE Environment). Experts from Unit B2 (Biodiversity) were also consulted where necessary. 1.1. Specific Issues Raised by Units C2 and B3 At the time the study commenced, Member States had submitted their environmental targets (related to Good Environmental Status (GES)) to the European Commission for review under Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) Procedure 10(2) as part of the initial assessment stage of the implementation of the Directive (see Section 2 for a fuller analysis of the Directive). There was, and continues to be, a high level of interest in the MSFD, with a number of projects across the EU seeking to address various aspects of the Directive. Unit C2 identified the need to ensure that the experience and best practice from these projects, including those benefitting from LIFE funding, is shared with Member States in a positive, forward looking approach to assist in the implementation of the Directive. It was requested that the study draws out good examples of LIFE projects that have contributed to solutions for Programmes of Measures (POM) and monitoring, and the effectiveness of those solutions. Specific areas of interest included good practice in maritime spatial planning, addressing noise and litter issues and linkages to the Common Fisheries Policy and its reform. Finally, Unit C2 expressed the desire to see the MSFD being used as a lever to influence change. In this respect, LIFE projects do not necessarily have to specifically set out to address the MSFD but they should be factoring it in. 1.2. Directive Overlap Although the study seeks to examine the contribution of the LIFE programme to protecting and enhancing the marine environment, it has to be recognised that many of the pressures affecting this environment come from a series of land based sources such as pollution and eutrophication that are primarily covered by other directives – most predominantly the Water and Waste Framework Directives. Therefore, it has been necessary to define a set of boundaries to ensure that the study looks at how LIFE has dealt exclusively with the marine environment, and hence avoiding overlap with the previous sectoral studies on water and waste. The most appropriate starting point for setting these boundaries was to refer to the legislation itself – the MSFD includes Coastal Waters (as defined by the Water Framework Directive), but does not include WFD Transitional Waters (e.g. estuaries, sea lochs, coastal lagoons) or, of course, inland water bodies as covered by the WFD. So, for example, if a project deals with eutrophication in lakes or upstream river systems it is primarily covered by the WFD and therefore is not covered by the study. Only a project dealing with eutrophication events triggered in the marine zone would be considered. Similarly with projects operating in the coastal zone or dealing with Integrated Coastal Management (ICM), unless there is a strict marine component it will not be considered here. An example might be a project dealing with a terrestrial species or coastal habitat such as saltmarsh or sand dunes.

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

In narrowing down the study to focus on strictly marine based aspects, it allows the analysis to encompass the full spread of the marine environment policy. This can be categorised into three overarching areas: Cross cutting themes; Ecosystem health; and Environmental pressures. Further analysis of marine environment policy is covered in section 2. 1.3. Principal objectives of the study • • • • •

Review current marine related legislation Review all marine related LIFE projects to examine trends and what the costs of implementation were (both total and EU contributions). Review selected projects relating to the implementation of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and associated Programme of Measures, using SWOT analysis. Review of selected projects that provide new solutions and best practice for implementation of EU legislation and policy in the most efficient way and a high potential for transferability within the EU. Selected projects also allow understanding of factors for failure or success of certain approaches. Relevance of project approaches

1.4. Evaluation Methodology The format and content of the marine report is somewhat different from the reports produced for the waste, water, air and noise sectors. The report is structured to contain an in-depth analysis of both the Good Environmental Status (GES) indicators and any contributions that LIFE projects have made to Programmes of Measures (POM). From the initial analysis of marine related projects it was found that none mentioned either GES or POM. It was therefore necessary to carry out a series of complex key-word searches on both the LIFE projects website and the Astrale LIFEtrack database to identify relevant projects. By combining the search outputs the authors are confident that all relevant projects have been captured. The search parameters were restricted to projects starting between 2005 and 2012 and projects that did not have a significant marine element were rejected. This resulted in a long list of 106 projects for which basic information (website, LIFE weblink, project manager, etc.) were compiled into a database. Each project was then examined in detail by reading the project monitoring file and the web summary. This was considered the only way to extract the necessary information, particularly in relation to the POM. A second database (the matrix) was established to capture the analysis of projects in terms of both GES and POM. At this stage, some projects were removed from the long list as they did not have any marine elements or had been subject to early termination without any results. A further set of projects were classified as ICM, these were all coastal in nature but the coastal elements did not have any strictly marine components that could be analysed in the context of the MSFD requirements. This left a total of 72 projects that comprised the main analysis. The GES analysis has been presented in three separate categories: • projects with a cross-cutting nature, including governance, stakeholder engagement, public engagement, maritime spatial planning, ecosystems based approach, transboundary issues; • projects that address ecosystem health, including sea floor integrity, fisheries (including the effectiveness of the new CFP provisions and their links to MPAs and LIFE), Marine Protected Areas (MPAs), biodiversity and Birds and Habitats Directives; and • projects that deal with environmental pressures, including pollution, litter, nutrients, noise and invasive species. This assessment is accompanied by a broad analysis of the types of programmes of measures that are used to deliver the project results e.g. the majority of projects which address the GES indicator ‘biodiversity is maintained’ are Nature projects (NAT) and involve some form of marine protected area which is analysed as an ‘input control’ (management measures that influence the amount of human activity that is permitted) under the POM analysis. A gap analysis indicates areas where LIFE is under-represented and could perhaps

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

do more. However, not all relationships are as clear cut and many of the Environment (ENV) projects deal with more than one POM. A more detailed analysis has been conducted using a themed approach. Seven themes have been selected from the broad analysis that the authors believe are representative of marine specific LIFE projects and cover a number of important aspects of ecosystem health or environmental pressures. Three exemplar projects in each theme have been selected to illustrate the LIFE contribution and each project has been subjected to a SWOT analysis. The results of the SWOTs are consolidated to inform the section on lessons learnt and the way forward. The associated POMs from the selected projects have also been analysed in greater depth to explore the most suitable instruments for each themed approach. 1.5. Limitations to the Study In addition to the boundaries that have been set to deal with overlap of EU legislation, there are several other limiting factors that should be taken into consideration when reading this study: • •

•

It is has been recognised from the outset that, unlike the previous sectoral reports, it may not be possible to draw too many conclusions on the LIFE Programme’s contribution to the implementation of the MSFD, as the legislation only came into force relatively recently in 2010. The study is focussed primarily on the LIFE Programme’s contribution to the implementation of EU marine legislation. Where projects include a relevant international dimension (for example a direct link to international conventions such as MARPOL) then these are mentioned and used to illustrate links with EU policy. The study has been prepared in such a way to complement existing thematic reports such as the LIFE Focus edition LIFE and coastal management 2012.

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

2. LEGISLATIVE TEXTS CONSIDERED 2.1. European Instruments European seas are under severe environmental pressure from land based sources of pollution, from overexploitation of natural resources, from multiple uses of the marine environment and from the spread of nonnative species 2. Several key pieces of marine legislation, including the Common Fisheries Policy, are designed to meet targets for sustainable use and environmental quality. In an attempt to create a coherent and integrated regulatory and governance structure, the Integrated Maritime Policy (IMP) was launched in 2007 setting out a framework for a holistic approach to address economic and sustainable development on a pan-European basis. A first aim of the IMP was to raise the visibility of Europe’s maritime identity and economic potential among Europeans. The IMP strives to integrate a range of diverse sectoral policies including fisheries, aquaculture, energy, tourism, maritime transport, research as well as protection of the marine environment. The EU issued a Regulation in 2011 3 establishing a Programme to support the further development of the IMP. A Progress Report was published in 2012 concerning the progressive adoption of work programmes focussing on Blue Growth (European Union, 2012) 4. Blue Growth promotes economic development through existing, emerging and potential activities such as short-sea shipping, coastal tourism, offshore wind energy, desalination and the use of marine resources in the pharmaceutical and cosmetic industries. In 2008 the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD) was introduced as the environmental pillar of the cross-cutting IMP, and is aimed at ensuring the environmental sustainability of the economic pillar of the Policy. The LIFE programme is established with the explicit purpose to support the implementation of EU environmental policy, including the MSFD. This review is designed to show how the LIFE programme has and will continue to support EU marine environmental policy. It follows a number of previous studies on LIFE and the coastal and marine environment 5 6 and is one of a series of thematic studies of the LIFE programme, including water 7, waste 8 and air & noise 9. This section outlines the scope of the MSFD and the relevant parts of EU legislation which support the aims of the Directive, principally the Water Framework Directive (WFD) and the nature Directives (Birds and Habitats Directives). A number of other Directives relevant to specific aspects are also included. Whilst the focus of this study is on the marine environment the links to Integrated Coastal Management are also discussed. It will never be possible to draw a clear distinction between terrestrial-based issues and marine-based issues and EU policy (e.g. WFD) acknowledges the overlap.

See, for example, the most recent assessment of coastal issues published by EEA in 2013. Balancing the future of Europe’s coasts – knowledge base for integrated management. http://www.eea.europa.eu/publications/balancing-the-future-of-europes 3 Regulation 1255/2011 http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2011:321:0001:0001:EN:PDF 4 European Union (2012). Progress of the EU’s Integrated Maritime Policy. COM (2012) 491 final. http://eurlex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0491:FIN:EN:PDF 5 LIFE and the marine environment. Promoting Sustainable Management of Europe’s Seas. LIFE III Focus Publication. 2006. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/lifefocus/documents/marine_lr.pdf 6 LIFE and coastal management. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/lifefocus/documents/coastal.pdf 7 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/generalpublications/documents/160812water_report.pdf 8 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/generalpublications/documents/waste_report230112.pdf 9 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/generalpublications/documents/noise_air_study.pdf

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

2.2. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive (Directive 2008/56/EC on establishing a framework for community action in the field of marine environmental policy) Adopted in 2008, the MSFD establishes a framework within which Member States will take the necessary measures to achieve the over-arching goal of good environmental status (GES) in the marine environment by 2020 (Art 1.1). The aim of the Directive is to protect, preserve, prevent deterioration or, where possible, restore Europe’s oceans and seas where they have been adversely affected and to prevent or reduce inputs in the marine environment (Art 1.2). This is to be achieved by applying an ecosystems-based approach to management whilst ensuring sustainable use of goods and services. The MSFD sets targets for good environmental status (GES) and outlines a number of programmes of measures (POM). The MSFD establishes four European Marine Regions (North-East Atlantic Ocean, Black Sea, Baltic Sea and Mediterranean Sea): these are broadly similar to the marine regions of the Habitats Directive. Each Member State, cooperating with others, and non-EU countries as appropriate, is required to develop a marine strategy for their waters with the coordination achieved through Regional Seas Conventions. The marine strategies must contain: • • • • •

An initial assessment of the current environmental status of the Member State’s marine waters A determination of what Good Environmental Status means for those waters Targets and indicators designed to show whether a Member State is achieving GES A monitoring programme to measure progress towards GES A programme of measures designed to achieve or maintain GES

Marine waters as defined by the MSFD, also include the seabed and subsoil under the water column. The MSFD includes Coastal Waters (as defined by the Water Framework Directive), but does not include WFD Transitional Waters (e.g. estuaries, sea lochs, coastal lagoons). The requirements of the MSFD and WFD overlap in WFD Coastal Waters and the extent of WFD Coastal Waters differs depending on the Member State definition. The general situation is illustrated in Figure 2-1. Figure 2-1: MSFD/WFD boundaries (Adopted from DEFRA, 2012b) 10.

(to extent of MS jurisdiction)

The timeline for the implementation of the Directive is illustrated in Figure 2-2.

Op. Cit., note 39.

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

Figure 2-2: Marine Strategy Framework Directive Timeline

nowSeas.com

A TIMELINE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE

MARINE STRATEGY FRAMEWORK DIRECTIVE 5(2a) Initial assessment A determination of GES Establish environmental targets & associated indicators

Milestones 9(3) Supplement to Annex I & III criteria and methodological standards to be laid down

DATE

15.7.10

Procedures

Member States

26(1) Member states shall bring into force the laws, regulations and administrative provisions necessary to comply

10(2) In respect of each marine region or subregion establish environmental targets and indicators

15.7.11

15.7.12

19(3) Public consultation process

7(1) Annex II designate authority + international bodies + international coordination & cooperation

5(2b) Programme of Measures to achieve or maintain Good Environmental Status

5(2a) Establish and implement monitoring programme

15.10.12

9(2) Notify the Commission on the assessment and determination of Good Environmental Status

by 2013

15.7.14

19(3) Initial assessment data made available for European Environment Agency

19(3) Public consultation and information process

by 2014

by 2015

19(3) Public consultation and information process

5(2b) Entry into operation of the Programme of Measures

by 2016

Achieve Good Environmental Status at the latest

by 2019

2020

18 Brief interim progress report within 3 years of each program of measures

13(6) Make publicly available spatial protection measures: •Special Areas of Conservation (HD) •Special Protection Areas (BD) • Marine Protected Areas (International and Regional Agreements)

7(1) Designate authority for each marine region and subregion

Regional Institutional Cooperation Structures

10(2) Notify the Commission on the environmental targets

Commission/EU 20(2) Commission report assessing the contribution of this directive to the implementation of environmental protection

Authors

EVA ROTH and TIM O’HIGGINS KnowSeas contact details: Tim O’Higgins SAMS Scottish Marine Institute Oban Argyll PA37 1QA Scotland T: (+44) (0)1631 559000 F: (+44) (0)1631 559001

Entry into force 20th day following its publication in the Official Journal of the European Union

12 The Commission reply to member states on consistency and provide guidance following earlier notifications

21 Commission progress report on the establishment of Marine Protected Areas

12 The Commission reply to member states on consistency and provide guidance following earlier notifications

20(1) A first evaluation report on the implementation (having received all programs of measures)

General Provision: The Commission must respond within 6 months 17(2) Every six years the marine strategy shall be updated

knowseas-coordination@sams.ac.uk

http://www.knowseas.com

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

The research leading to these results has received funding from the European Community’s Seventh Framework Programme [FP7/2007-2013] under grant agreement number 226675 The contents of this poster represent the views of the authors and the European Community is not liable for any use that may be made of the information presented here

The MSFD does not prescribe any specific measures except the requirement to establish Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). The MSFD does outline 11 high level descriptors of GES and further guidance is published on criteria and methodological standards in Commission Decision 2010/477/EU 11. The GES descriptors develop themes within the MSFD. The descriptors are high level and generic across the EU. The further guidance identifies GES criteria based on characteristics which define GES in each Member State and GES indicators and targets which provide the final level of detail. If the targets are met the GES should be achieved. The numbered MSFD descriptors are outlined in Table 2-1 and, where known, links are shown to associated legislation and policy. Table 2-1: The MSFD GES Descriptors MSFD Descriptor

Background

Associated legislation and policy

1. Biodiversity is maintained

Supported by monitoring criteria for species, habitats and ecosystems. Marine Protected Areas will incorporate all marine Natura 2000 sites (SAC and SPA)

2. Non-indigenous species do not adversely alter the ecosystem

Main areas of concern are ballast water (addressed through International Maritime 13 Organisation (IMO) ), fouling of ships, ‘hitch-hiking’ (e.g. with stock for aquaculture) and commercial introductions.

3. The populations of commercial fish species are healthy

Linked to achieving Maximum Sustainable Yields as advised through ICES Convention. A specific concern for marine biodiversity is the impact of bottom trawling on biodiversity (but actually highlighted under Descriptor 4).

4. Elements of the food webs ensure long-term

Fishing and pollution have direct effects on food webs. Pollution and contaminants (Descriptor 8) enter the marine food web

Strong link to Habitats and Birds Directives although MSFD covers all biodiversity so also linked to EU Biodiversity Strategy. Interactions, overlaps and potential areas for closer coordination set out in EC 12 information document . Link to EU Biodiversity Strategy (Invasive Alien Species (IAS) directly targeted) and to proposal for ‘regulation on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species’. Aquaculture is a particular risk: addressed in regulation 708/2007/EC on ‘use of alien and locally absent species in aquaculture’. Strong link to Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) which aims to conserve stocks at sustainable levels and to avoid damage to the marine environment. The proposed ‘reform of the CFP’ in 14 2013 is focused on sustainability including putting an end to fish discards. It would bring the CFP in line with the MSFD. Links to CFP and WFD (for control of some pollutants) and Environmental Quality Standard

http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:232:0014:0024:EN:PDF Links between the Marine Strategy Framework Directive (MSFD 2008/56/EC) and the Nature Directives (Birds Directive 2009/147/EEC (BD) and Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC (HD)) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/FAQ%20final%202012-07-27.pdf 13 http://www.imo.org/About/Conventions/ListOfConventions/Pages/International-Convention-for-the-Control-and-Management-ofShips'-Ballast-Water-and-Sediments-(BWM).aspx 14 But there are delays to agreement, see http://ec.europa.eu/information_society/newsroom/cf/mare/itemdetail.cfm?item_id=13612&subweb=343&lang=en 12

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

abundance and reproduction

putting top predators at most risk. Indirect effects of fishing include damage to the sea floor.

5. Eutrophication is minimised

Human induced eutrophication from several sources including agriculture, nitrogen gases (including shipping), aquaculture, waste water treatment and industrial discharges. Impact of algal blooms can be significant for environment, economy and health. Descriptor focuses on the protection of sea bed including habitats such as Posidonia meadows, biogenic reefs, cold corals and maerl beds. Wide range of potential threats including trawling, coastal nearshore and offshore infrastructure, mining and sand extraction, changes in outputs from rivers, sludge dumping etc Changes to the physical parameters of sea water; temperature, depth, salinity, turbidity etc. Particular pressures in coastal areas, estuaries and navigation routes.

6. Sea floor integrity ensures functioning of the ecosystem

7. Permanent alteration to hydrographic conditions does not adversely affect the ecosystem 8. Concentrations of contaminants have no effect

9. Contaminants in seafood are at safe levels

10. Marine litter does not cause harm

11. Introduction of energy (including underwater noise) does not adversely affect the ecosystem

Contaminants are toxic, persistent and liable to bio-accumulate. They include pesticides, anti-foulants, pharmaceuticals and heavy metals. Sources are land based industry, pollution from ships, atmospheric deposition and oil, gas and mineral exploration. Emissions of sulphur from maritime transport might be covered here. Concentrations of all contaminants should be below the maximum level set for human consumption. Concerns include organo-chlorine pesticides, dioxins, PCBs, heavy metals and radionuclides. The main concern is the accumulation of plastic waste in the oceans. About 80% of litter in the North Sea is from land based sources. The EC is actively engaged in raising awareness of the issue and in 17 promoting solutions . The introduction of energy includes light, electricity, heat, noise, electromagnetic radiation, radio waves or vibrations. Noise (both ambient and impulsive) is the input of most concern as it can disrupt the behaviour of marine species.

Directive (EQS) (for safe levels of contaminants). The MSFD Task Group 4 report provides more 15 information . Linked to legislation targeting land use including Nitrates Directive, Urban Waste-Water Treatment Directive and WFD.

Link to Habitats Directive, Marine Protected Areas and EU Biodiversity Strategy.

Link to Habitats Directive (assessments) and WFD (discharges)

WFD, Environmental Quality Standard Directive and EU REACH Regulation. Directive 1999/32/EC Sulphur Directive regulated sulphur emissions from ships by limiting the sulphur content of marine fuel. Amended by Directive 2012/33/EU 16 and to come into force in 2015 . Regulation 1881/2006 regulates the maximum levels in foodstuffs including fish. Shellfish Waters Directive applies to all brackish and marine waters. Links to initiatives and policies on 18 MSFD web-pages. Link to Waste Framework Directive and associated Directives (packaging, landfill etc.) and Directives linked to shipping. 19 Working group report outlines the types and impacts of noise in marine environment. Although a focus for research there appears to be no legislation operating in the marine environment to control noise.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/pdf/4-Task-group-4.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/environment/air/transport/ships.htm 17 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/pdf/SWD_2012_365.pdf 18 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/good-environmental-status/descriptor-10/index_en.htm 19 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/pdf/MSFD_reportTSG_Noise.pdf 16

[Marine Thematic Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Version â&#x20AC;&#x201C; September 2014]

The themes and issues covered by the GES descriptors are comprehensive and it is expected that marine strategies will also address implications of climate change. A further level of detail is provided in the ‘indicative lists of characteristics, pressures and impacts’ in Annex III of the MSFD. Pressures on the marine environment are listed in the following categories: • • • • • • • •

Physical loss (smothering, sealing etc) Physical damage (siltation, abrasion, extraction etc) Other physical disturbance (including noise, litter) Interference with hydrological processes (changes to thermal regime or salinity regime) Contamination by hazardous substances (synthetic compounds, non-synthetic substances and radionuclides) Systematic and/or intentional release of substances Nutrient and organic matter enrichment (inputs of nitrogen and phosphorus-rich substances, inputs of organic matter) Biological disturbance (pathogens, non-indigenous species, selective extraction including non-target catches)

LIFE projects are designed to find solutions to environmental problems and threats. They can address specific pressures and can also be associated with developing or implementing the programmes of measures of the MSFD as set out in Annex VI of the Directive. The Programmes of Measures (POM) are given as: 1. Input controls: management measures that influence the amount of a human activity that is permitted 2. Output controls: management measures that influence the degree of perturbation of an ecosystem component that is permitted 3. Spatial and temporal distribution controls: management measures that influence where and when an activity is allowed to occur 4. Management coordination measures: tools to ensure that management is coordinated 5. Measures to improve the traceability, where feasible, of marine pollution 6. Economic incentives: management measures which make it in the economic interest of those using the marine ecosystems to act in ways which help to achieve the good environmental status objective 7. Mitigation and remediation tools: management tools which guide human activities to restore damaged components of marine ecosystems 8. Communication, stakeholder involvement and raising public awareness The MSFD provides the over-arching legislation for the delivery of environmental goals in Europe’s oceans and seas. The main complementary Directives are the Water Framework Directive (and its associated Directives), Birds Directive and Habitats Directive. There are also specific links to a range of other Directives (covering, inter alia, fisheries, shipping, waste and energy). 2.3. The Water Framework Directive The Water Framework Directive (WFD), adopted in 2000, sets the goal of achieving Good Status for all EU ground and surface waters, including coastal waters, by 2015, thus complementing the goal of achieving Good Environmental Status under the Marine Directive. Actions taken under the WFD will reduce marine pollution and nutrient input from land-based sources and will protect ecosystems in coastal and transitional waters, which are vital spawning grounds for many marine fish species. The LIFE ‘water report’ showed that the majority of LIFE projects in the water sector since 2005 identified the

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

Water Framework Directive as either a primary or secondary legislative consideration. 20 Several of these projects addressed issues relevant to the marine environment. The programmes of measures produced for each River Basin District under the WFD will identify the links to other relevant Directives (e.g. IPPC Directive, UWWT Directive, Bathing Waters Directive…) and the WFD legislation has repealed a number of earlier Directives (in 2007 and 2013). Table 2-2 lists a range of water, pressure and procedural related Directives linked to or repealed by the WFD, a wide range of LIFE Environment projects illustrating various aspects of these Directives. Table 2-2: Directives Targeted by LIFE Environment Projects Directive

Description

IPPC: Directive 96/61/EC and 2010/75/EU of the European Parliament of 24 November 2010 on industrial emissions (integrated pollution prevention and control)

The IPPC Directive requires industrial and agricultural activities with a high pollution potential to have a permit. The aim is to prevent or reduce pollution of the atmosphere, water and soil, as well as the quantities of waste arising from industrial and agricultural installations, to ensure a high level of environmental protection.

UWWT: Council Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment (not repealed by WFD)

Sets requirements for pretreatment of industrial waste water entering collecting systems and the disposal of sewage sludge. Directive requires Member States to draw up lists of sensitive and less sensitive areas which receive the treated waters.

Discharge of Pollution Directive (76/464/EEC; 80/68/EEC and) 2006/11/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 15 February 2006 on pollution caused by certain dangerous substances discharged into the aquatic environment of the Community (repealed by the WFD)

The Directive was one of the first water related directives and covered discharges to inland surface waters, territorial waters, inland coastal waters and groundwater. The Directive introduced the concept of List I and List II substances: the aim being to eliminate pollution from List I substances and to reduce pollution from List II substances. Its principal aim is to prevent nitrates from agricultural sources

Nitrates Directive 91/676/EEC (repealed by WFD)

LIFE projects relevant to marine environment Projects assist the IPPC by developing new technologies to improve water quality either in the industrial or agricultural sectors thereby addressing some of the issues related to both point source and non-point source pollution. LIFE04 ENV/ES/000239 GESTINMER - development of an integrated system for management of wastes produced by raft-cultured mussels. Projects focussed on providing new technical solutions for the treatment of waste water. Examples ranging from the development of Best Available Techniques (BAT) to the improved treatment of storm water. Most projects relate to rivers and inland treatment. One example directly related to marine waters was LIFE99 ENV/IT/000155 Aquarius – which developed techniques for assessing operating conditions and controlling the efficiency of sea outfalls in coastal WWTP. Several projects, e.g.: LIFE07 ENV/EE/122 BaltActHaz targeting the reduction of dangerous substances entering the Baltic Sea LIFE09 ENV/SE/351 Mare Purum developing an anti-fouling alternative to TBT based paints for use in the shipping industry.

Many LIFE projects have addressed nitrate reduction and some have

In that report 113 projects out of 197 projects screened (57%) were linked to the WFD. Many were linked to the older directives (e.g. Nitates) repealed by the WFD at the end of 2013.

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

from affecting ground and surface waters. Member States must establish codes of good agricultural practice to be implemented by farmers on a voluntary basis. The Nitrates Directive is much more flexible than the UWWT Directive, giving space for voluntary schemes and variability with the ultimate aim of establishing good agricultural practices. EQS (Priority Substances) Directive 2008/105/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 16 December 2008 on environmental quality standards in the field of water policy, amending and subsequently repealing Council Directives 82/176/EEC, 83/513/EEC, 84/156/EEC, 84/491/EEC, 86/280/EEC and amending Directive 2000/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council (linked to WFD)

Shellfish Waters Directive 2006/116/EC (repealed by WFD in October 2013)

Bathing Waters Directive 2006/7/EC (to come into force in 2015, not repealed by WFD)

Directive lays down environmental quality standards (EQS) for priority substances and certain other pollutants as provided for in Article 16 of the WFD. The aim is to achieve good surface water chemical status, in accordance with the objectives specified in article 4 of the WFD. The EQS sets out standards for fresh water (pollution control, quality etc.) and marine waters in respect of pollution control, marine pollution, marine pollution (land-based sources), effluent waste water/discharge and hazardous substances. The aim is to protect or improve shellfish waters to protect the aquatic habitat of edible bivalve and gastropod molluscs. The Directive only applies to coastal and brackish waters and provides for the establishment of pollution reduction programmes for designated waters. The revised Bathing Water Directive will be implemented in stages to 2015, when the original Directive will be repealed. The revised Directive sets much tighter standards than the original Directive.

had a marine element. LIFE09 ENV/RO/612 CLEANWATER project intends to develop, at the river basin scale, an integrated water management system to identify waters under threat and designate nitrate vulnerable zones. LIFE10 ENV/IT/321 ZeoLIFE aims to exploit the zeolitic cycle by adopting an integrated approach that reduces the nitrogen content in livestock effluents and agricultural soils This Directive is not well served by the LIFE programme although the reason for this is not clear. Only one relevant LIFE project has been identified: LIFE10 ENV/ES/521 AQUATIK, is the development and validation of an advanced monitoring system for control of organic priority pollutants in treated wastewater effluents

Direct project experience in this area is limited: Project LIFE06 ENV/F/136 MARECLEAN, aimed to improve water quality in designated mussel/oyster production areas.

Only three examples have been identified, one of which is the LIFE06 ENV/F/136 MARECLEAN project cited above and the other two were LIFE 92/ENV/FR/0023 restoring of the water quality in the bay of Brest and LIFE97 ENV/UK/00431 - an investigation into the survival of sewage indicating organisms discharged to the marine environment.

2.4. The ‘Nature’ Directives The MSFD is strongly associated with the Birds Directive 2009/147/EC and the Habitats Directive 92/43/EEC. The Directives are obviously inter-related in that all address biodiversity in the marine environment including requirements to achieve ‘good environmental status’ for the aspects of biodiversity targeted by each.

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

Although the extension of Natura 2000 to the marine environment followed on from the process established for the terrestrial area, LIFE-Nature has delivered many successful marine conservation actions. Early successes are described in the publication Life and the marine environment 21. LIFE and the marine environment (2006) provides a useful summary of the contribution of LIFE projects (NAT and ENV) to the protection of the marine environment. Several of the early projects were concerned with acquiring knowledge about the distribution of, for example, sea birds, cetaceans and marine habitats. The annexes of the Habitats and Birds Directives list nine habitat types, 29 seabirds and 16 other marine animals in need of protection through the Natura 2000 network. Several LIFE projects have focused on the conservation of endangered species and a sub-set of projects has focused on solutions to conflicts between fishing activity and species. Guidance on the links between the MSFD and the Nature Directives show that, although there are differences in definitions, the Directives are mutually supportive. The MSFD can promote nature conservation aims through the marine strategies and the identification of Marine Protected Areas (MPAs). As all marine Natura 2000 sites will automatically be MPAs the Nature Directives (and LIFE projects) can provide background surveys, mapping and monitoring to support the targets of the MSFD. Marine habitats in the Habitats Directive are: 1110 sandbanks which are slightly covered by sea water all the time 1120 Posidonia beds 1130 Estuaries 1140 Mudflats and sandflats not covered by seawater at low tide 1150 coastal lagoons 1160 large shallow inlets and bays 1170 Reefs 1180 Submarine structures made by leaking gases 8330 submerged or partially submerged sea caves The habitats listed above show the considerable overlap between the interests of the Habitats Directive, WFD and MSFD in, for example, estuaries and coastal lagoons. Habitats not strictly covered by the MSFD according to the definition given in Figure 2-1 are not considered further in this assessment. Completed LIFE projects focusing on marine nature conservation issues can be sub-divided into a number of broad categories, all relevant to the MSFD. The MSFD might provide future LIFE projects with a broader scope to address wider marine biodiversity issues. The main nature conservation themes addressed by LIFE projects with some examples are presented in Table 2-3.

Table 2-3: Nature conservation issues addressed by LIFE projects Nature conservation theme Inventories

Management planning Intertidal habitats

Description Surveys and mapping to identify sites for inclusion in Natura 2000 network or distribution of species Developing partnership approaches to marine conservation issues These include estuaries, mudflats and sandflats.

LIFE project examples IBAs in Spain and Portugal Baltic sea habitat inventories Post larval fish in Mediterranean Marine Protected Areas Working with stakeholders Marine spatial planning Limited examples

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/appendix_4_life.pdf

[Marine Thematic Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Version â&#x20AC;&#x201C; September 2014]

Marine habitats Sea Birds Wildlife and fisheries Turtles Seals Cetaceans

True marine habitats include reefs, caves, and Posidonia beds. Sea birds nesting places, sites of congregation and feeding areas Projects which are specifically designed to address problems between fisheries and wildlife All species are protected Monk seal is the focus of several projects All cetaceans are protected through Habitats Directive

Posidonia beds Reconstructed boulder reefs Audouin’s gull Petrels, shearwaters, terns, shag Monk seal Small cetaceans Turtles Loggerhead Turtle Monk seal Dolphins and porpoises

The range of projects supported by LIFE in the marine environment includes those that: 1. Directly conserve endangered species and habitats 2. Provide information for the establishment of Natura 2000 in the marine environment 3. Promote the implementation of the Habitats and Birds directives in the marine environment 4. Improve the knowledge base concerning marine biodiversity 2.5. Other relevant Directives LIFE projects may address a specific area or several areas of policy. Whilst, for this review the selection of projects is primarily through their links to the GES descriptors of the MSFD, there will clearly be links to other Directives and EU policy. In some cases the projects may have a very precise focus on one area of environmental policy. Other relevant Directives and policies include: •

Common Fisheries Policy (Council Regulation 2371/2002 of 20 December 2002 on the conservation and sustainable exploitation of fisheries resources under the Common Fisheries Policy) –The MSFD provides a policy context for the CFP. The CFP, including the future reform, should take into account the environmental impacts of fishing and the objectives of the MSFD. There is already good synergy between the Directives: they both use the ecosystem approach, have closed areas/ MPAs and address threats and opportunities. Marine Spatial Planning will be a common tool. UK government guidance is that “objectives of MSFD for fisheries will be delivered through existing policies and management mechanisms, including the reformed Common Fisheries Policy (CFP), existing mechanisms for national fisheries management, and the designation of marine protected areas” 22.

•

Renewable Energy Directive (Directive 2009/28/EC of the European Parliament and of the council of 23 April 2009 on the promotion of the use of energy from renewable sources). Whilst there is no explicit link between the Renewable Energy Directive and MSFD, plans for offshore energy developments would be expected to undergo Strategic Environmental Assessment. The main threat identified from renewable energy development is on seafloor integrity (GES 6) 23 Motorways of the Sea initiative (Decision 884/2004/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council amending Decision No 1692/96/EC on Community guidelines for the development of the trans-European transport network). The shipping sector is one of the main causes for the spread of non-native species in the seas 24 affecting GES 2. The Motorways of the Sea initiative aims to increase shipping traffic and open up new routes so it is important that solutions are found to reduce or eliminate the problems.

•

http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/documents/legislation/msfd-factsheet4-fishing-industry.pdf http://www.liv.ac.uk/media/livacuk/odemm/docs/ODEMM,Deliverable,1.pdf (pages 25-26) 24 http://www.liv.ac.uk/media/livacuk/odemm/docs/ODEMM,Deliverable,1.pdf (pages 29-32) 23

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

•

EIA Directive (85/337/EEC) and SEA Directive (Directive 2001/42/EC). The EIA and SEA Directives will support the MSFD by, for example, ensuring that developments in the offshore zone (oil, gas, renewable energy etc) are subject to rigorous analysis. An example would be the SEA drawn up by the Scottish government to guide the development of offshore wave and tidal power. 25 The EIA Directive commonly applies to marine and harbour works.26 Waste Framework Directive 2008/98/EC. The Directive covers a range of issues of direct relevance to the MSFD, including the collection, transport, recovery and disposal of waste. Specific elements are waste shipment regulations, packaging waste and disposal of ships. Waste includes dredged material where management options should be to re-use or to recycle with disposal as a last option. 27 Floods Directive 2007/60/EC of the European Parliament and of the Council of 23 October 2007 on the assessment and management of flood risks. The Floods Directive includes the risk of coastal flooding and is relevant to marine and ICM issues. The Directive covers coastal flooding and storm surges and therefore is linked to actions concerning coastal defence and climate change adaptation. 2.6. Integrated Coastal Management (ICM)

Integrated Coastal Management remains a key issue for the EU. The 2002 EU Recommendation on Integrated Coastal Zone Management sets out a number of principles for sustainable use. ICM is required because coastal planning activities and development decisions often take place in a sectoral, fragmented, way leading to inefficient use of resources, conflicting claims on space and missed opportunities for more sustainable coastal development. However, as highlighted in the recent EEA report ‘Balancing the future of Europe’s coasts’ (EEA 2013) perhaps only 50% of the EU coastal zone is effectively covered by ICM principles. Given the need to maintain momentum the EC has issued a proposal for a new Directive for integrated coastal management and for maritime spatial planning. Thus it is the intention that aspects of marine spatial planning (MSP) and integrated coastal zone management (ICM) will also be covered by EU legislation. It is hoped that such a directive could provide a coordinating framework for all of the EU policies that touch on maritime and coastal issues (such as the Habitats Directive, the Water Framework Directive, Marine Strategy Framework Directive etc.). The EU ICM programme has been led by DG ENV. However, the proposal for a Directive establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management is submitted by both DG MARE and DG ENV demonstrating close links between the DGs in relation to maritime planning. The proposed Directive would have links to all the Directives and policy documents already outlined above. The current proposal includes draft Articles on maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management strategies. For the future, therefore, there are several strands of environmental planning and management outlined above which could be supported through the EU LIFE programme. The development of ICM in Europe has already been well supported by the LIFE programme, including several projects in the ICM ‘demonstration programme’ which ran from 1996-1999 28. Further EU-wide studies have addressed coastal erosion, through the ‘EUROSION’ and ‘CONSCIENCE’ programmes 29, and climate change. 30 The EU also directly supported the ‘Ourcoast’ project which has assembled an ICM database 31 which contains links to a number of LIFE projects. The contribution that LIFE projects have made to ICM has been comprehensively reported in the recent publication ‘Life and coastal management’ (published in 2012 32). Cross cutting policies such as climate change research, transboundary issues and adaptation to climate change might be relevant in both the marine and ICM groups.

http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/marineenergy/wave/WaveTidalSEA See, for example http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/licensing/supporting/eia.htm 27 See for example http://www.marinemanagement.org.uk/licensing/supporting/waste.htm 28 Information at http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/demopgm.htm 29 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/coast.htm 30 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/state_coast.htm 31 http://ec.europa.eu/ourcoast/index.cfm?menuID=4 26

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/lifefocus/documents/coastal.pdf

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

3. EVALUATION OF LIFE PROJECTS 3.1. Overview Of the 106 projects reviewed for this study a total of 72 met the criteria to qualify for further analysis as projects in which part or all of the objectives were related to marine issues. The projects covered the timescale between 2005 and 2012 as the authors were instructed to make this a forward looking report if at all possible. It is useful to observe any trends over time in terms of the number of projects funded and this is shown in Figure 3-1. Figure 3-1: Number of marine projects funded each year between 2005 and 2012.

16 14 12 10 8 6 4 2 0

2005

2006

2007

2008

2009

2010

2011

2012

Numbers appear to be fairly stable with an average of nine projects funded each year. The exception is 2009 when nearly twice the average number of projects was funded. It is possibly a coincidence that this follows on one year from the date when the MSFD came into force. All types of LIFE project have been reviewed for this assessment as there was an instruction to look at the LIFE contribution to ecosystem health – which are mostly NATURE projects - as well as to environmental pressures – which are mostly ENVIRONMENT projects. The breakdown in Figure 3-2 shows the contribution that all types of LIFE project make to marine affairs. It appears that more projects dealing with ENV issues are funded than any other project type. On examining the range of topics dealt with by these projects it is clear that they deal not only with pressures on the marine environment (like pollution, litter and alternative energies) but some deal with biodiversity isues outside Natura 2000, others deal with maintenance of the food web and some deal wih fisheries related issues. NAT projects on the other hand must deal with issues related to Natura 2000 sites and for the mostpart projects deal with the exsiting network because it is a risky business to attempt a project outside the Natura 2000 network – projects must be able to demonstrate that new designations will indeed be designated or risk losing part or all of the LIFE funding. There are a few INFORMATION projects that attempt to raise the profile of key issues relating to both nature conservation and the reduction of environmental pressures. Despite the fact that with the MSFD it is very clear that MPAs are just one (albeit very important) mechanism for halting the loss of biodiversity, only one

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

project dealing wih marine issues has been funded under the BIODIVERSITY funding stream. This is perhaps one area where more effort to meet the requirements of the Directive could be made. Figure 3-2: Number of marine projects by LIFE funding stream

Nature Environment Information Biodiversity

3.2. Means of Intervention Arguably, all LIFE projects aspire to assist with the implementation of one or more directives. It is, however, true to say that for many projects precisely how they contribute to policy is not as clearly defined as perhaps it could be. For example, many projects, where improvement in water quality is an objective, tend to use the WFD as a ‘catch all’ Directive and often fail to elaborate specific links between the project and the policy. Similarly, projects which specifically target the marine environment usually mention the MSFD in the project design but often fail to follow up on exactly how the project has contributed to the Directive in the final assessment. In an effort to explore how projects meet the policy objective, the 72 selected projects were further screened to assess the methods and means of delivery. This led to breaking down projects into the following action areas: • • • • • •

Development of new/innovative technologies. Demonstration of good practice or management techniques. Stakeholder engagement and awareness building. Data collection and data management. Monitoring. Policy.

It must be remembered that many LIFE projects are designed to deliver more than one of these categories, for example the dissemination strand of most projects involves some kind of awareness building but awareness-raising has only been included in the above analysis if it was a primary objective of the project (for example the LIFE INF projects have awareness raising as a primary goal). An example of this is project LIFE07 ENV/UK/943 PISCES which has, as its over-riding action, engagement with stakeholders to deliver an ecosystem-based approach within the MSFD. Similarly, some projects do have more than one primary objective and in these cases more than one activity has been recorded for the project. Two examples of this come from Sweden and relate to activities in the

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

Baltic Sea. LIFE08 NAT/S/000261 SAMBAH successfully combined the demonstration of good practice through the use of static acoustic monitoring to collect data in order to determine distribution patterns and hotspots for the harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena in the Baltic to lead to improved management. Although the use of hydrophones to map distribution patterns for marine mammals is by no means new the fact that tried and tested techniques are used to provide solid information upon which to base management decisions is a hallmark of LIFE NAT projects. LIFE ENV projects tend to involve more innovative approaches, often trying out new techniques or methods that could be applied on a wider scale. In another Baltic Sea project dealing with underwater sound, LIFE11 ENV/SE/000841 BIAS, the objective is to ensure that the introduction of underwater noise is at levels that do not adversely affect the marine environment. The project is developing a new approach, collecting data and establishing a monitoring programme. Although in its early stages the project is progressing well and should yield some very interesting results that could be applied in the context of other regional seas. Figure 3-3 shows the breakdown of projects in terms of delivery mechanisms. It is very clear that the majority of projects contribute to policy implementation through either the development of innovative technologies (22%) or the adoption of best practices/management (24%) or through the involvement of stakeholders (25%) and in some limited cases all three methods are used. A good example of where all three methods have been employed is the Greek project LIFE05 NAT/GR/000083 MOFI where, in addition to the significant communication efforts that were made to reduce the impact on the critically endangered monk seal Monachus monachus, the project also introduced new types of fishing traps and fishing methods that exclude seals and so reduce by-catch. A number of best practice methodologies were developed and used to addresses conflict with the fishing communities. The Portuguese project LIFE09 NAT/PT/000038 MarPro adopts a similar balance of approaches to reduce conflict with fishing communities and reduce their impact on cetacean and seabird populations, as does the more recent Italian project LIFE12 NAT/IT/000937 TARTALIFE where the project aims to have an impact on reducing loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta losses to fishing. Figure 3-3: Delivery Mechanisms for Policy Implementation for all Projects

Stakeholders 25%

New technologies 22%

Policy 3%

Information systems 5%

Managememt 24% Data 16%

Monitoring 5%

An increasing number of projects involve data collection and/or data management (16%) as their primary activity. This is particularly important in respect of marine systems as there are still areas where the full extent and nature of the marine benthic and pelagic communities are not well understood. Many of these inventories naturally focus on habitats and species that are of major conservation interest under the nature directives outlined in Section 2.4. Thus many of the projects that collect data are found under the LIFE NAT funding strand and are limited in application to the Natura 2000 network. However, many of these projects also aim to extend the Natura 2000 network and sound data collection is a vital aspect of ensuring that

[Marine Thematic Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Version â&#x20AC;&#x201C; September 2014]

aspirations and expectations for enhanced nature conservation can be met. There are some fine examples of projects that have provided the necessary evidence to extend existing Natura 2000 marine networks. Of particular note is the Spanish project LIFE07 NAT/E/000732 INDEMARES, due to close in 2014, which set out to improve the protection and sustainable use of biodiversity in Spanish seas through the implementation of the Natura 2000 network. A wide range of inventories and studies have all been completed and the project is seeking to establish at least 10 new Natura 2000 sites before the close. This is an extremely ambitious project with a total budget approaching €15.5 million; this is unusual and most LIFE project budgets are much lower than this with lower aspirations to match. For example the Finnish project FINMARINET, with a budget of nearly €3.5 million, successfully produced inventories and maps for underwater habitat types and their flora and fauna in key marine Natura 2000 sites and then used the fieldcollected data in GIS distribution modelling for habitats and species. In this case an extension of the existing Natura 2000 network was proposed. Projects that produce inventories outside the existing Natura 2000 network are of equal importance and in some cases reveal important new discoveries that should have an influence on policy implementation. The Lithuanian project LIFE09 NAT/LT/000234 DENOFLIT is producing inventories and maps for underwater habitat types and their flora and fauna outside the Natura 2000 network in the Baltic, during the course of the project some new boulder reef habitats that support dense populations of mussels have been discovered in deep water. These hitherto undescribed habitats appear to be quite extensive in the eastern Baltic and are worthy of protected status. In addition, some Member States are using LIFE funds to prepare the initial inventories of marine benthic habitats for inclusion in a Natura 2000 network, such as the Maltese project LIFE12 NAT/MT/000845 LIFE BaĦAR for N2K. There are very few projects that are designed to improve monitoring. Even though this is a key element of the MSFD only 5% of projects overall have monitoring as part of the project architecture and even fewer address any kind of harmonisation of monitoring across the Member States. This is not to say that projects do not monitor the outcome of their work, in fact the majority of LIFE projects monitor their impact very closely and it is highly likely that some of these monitoring efforts could equally well be applied in the context of the national monitoring plans that are required under the MSFD. However, such monitoring efforts were not designed per se to be implemented in this way and further effort would be required to make them fit for such a purpose. In respect of LIFE NAT project monitoring tends to occur within the confines of the Natura 2000 network. Two projects that demonstrate the value of adopting sound monitoring methodologies for data collection are the Italian project LIFE09 NAT/IT/000190 ARION, and the Swedish project LIFE08 NAT/S/000261 SAMBAH, both of which are monitoring cetacean populations within MPAs using hydrophones. The technique could well be applied in the context of national monitoring programmes should these be required by the Member States. Worthy of special mention here is the Latvian project LIFE09 NAT/LV/000238 MARMONI, a project which is developing new ecosystem-based monitoring and assessment approaches using marine biodiversity indicators. LIFE ENV projects tend to be more expansive, the Italian project LIFE08 ENV/IT/399 EnvEurope is particularly ambitious as it is designed to make best use of the vast range of monitoring data collected across Europe at both the national and international level which are often incompatible. The project aims to build on the work of the European Long-Term Ecosystem Research Network (LTER) and to provide an analysis of the longterm ecological data and its comparison across eco-domains. In so doing the project will supply relevant

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

scientific support to EU environmental policy and conservation in an integrated ecosystem approach. Similarly, the Finnish project LIFE09 ENV/FI/000569 GISBLOOM is developing a participatory monitoring tool for forecasting, controlling and predicting socio-economic impacts of eutrophication and algal blooms in eight river basins districts which include inputs to the marine environment. Information management systems are arguably as important as the monitoring systems and data collection programmes that underpin their design. Only 5% of the marine projects identified develop some kind of information system as the main delivery instrument. The two examples given here are relatively new projects and this could suggest that this is an area of expansion within the LIFE programme. The UK project LIFE10 ENV/UK/000182 SEWeb is designing an information system capturing all Scotland’s environmental data including marine to make better informed decision making and allow prioritisation of actions (and budgets). Even more recently the Italian project LIFE12 ENV/IT/001054 LIFE + IMAGINE, is developing an integrated coastal area Management Application implementing GMES, INspire and sEis data policies. 3.3. Projects which address cross-cutting issues 3.3.1. Governance Good governance of Europe’s regional seas is inherent in the MSFD and the structures necessary to support the governance process are the subject of this section. While MSFD working groups have been established in each Member State there are a large number of existing organisations, operating on a number of levels (from international to local) who are also responsible for implementing the Directive. LIFE projects deal with governance issues on almost all levels and this is arguably one of the strengths of the programme. The examples given below demonstrate interventions at the national through to the local level. The UK project LIFE11 ENV/UK/000392 Celtic Seas Project (CSP) has developed a series of national advocacy plans for each of the countries of the Celtic Seas region; the intention is to implement these plans during the course of the project. In Italy LIFE12 ENV/IT/000289 LIFE SMILE is establishing local governance institutions for waste management and prevention at the river basin level and LIFE10 ENV/IT/000367 Sustainable Cruise has an entire action devoted to waste ashore governance involving port authorities, waste disposers and waste generators. Finally, the French project LIFE12 ENV/FR/000316 PecheAPiedDeLoisir intends to implement local governance plans for sustainable recreational fishing in 11 pilot territories as well as coordination of these plans at a national level; they will also be monitoring the degree of local stakeholder involvement in the governance process. 3.3.2. Stakeholder and public engagement The MSFD prescribes early and effective engagement with stakeholders. One of the outcomes of the series of ‘Resource Efficiency ‘ studies conducted by Astrale covering water, air & noise and waste has been that projects are particularly effective in engaging with stakeholders. This applies to stakeholders on a range of different levels from the policy makers to the local communities. Many LIFE projects deal with stakeholder engagement as an integral part of the project and conflict resolution is often the key to project progress. This is particularly true when trying to balance conservation requirements (like establishing MPAs) with perceived loss of economic resources (fishing); or trying to balance the needs of two different economic interests like fishing and tourism. This topic is dealt with in more detail in Section 4.8.

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

At the level of implementing the MSFD engaging with stakeholders to develop a coordinated marine strategy for a regional sea is far more problematic. One of the key outputs of the recently completed LIFE07 ENV/UK/000943 PISCES, was identification of a range of ways in which stakeholders can become actively involved and support implementation of the MSFD in the southern waters of the Celtic Seas sub-region. This project also involved stakeholder engagement with Government and fisheries industry representatives from Spain that operated in the Celtic Seas. The benefits of involving stakeholders are also likely to provide opportunities to reduce regulatory burden, more certainty for investment, fairer and more affordable measures, and increased commercial opportunities. At a time when public authorities are stretched resource-wise, it seems sensible to incorporate as much voluntary effort as possible by utilising the skills and knowledge of stakeholders (or interested parties) as a contribution to the successful implementation of the MSFD. Some examples of ways in which stakeholders can participate in the implementation of the MSFD are given in Box 1. Of course making this happen is an entirely different matter. Engaging with the public is equally important because many people want to remain informed if not necessarily involved. Some people want to get involved but not particularly at the level of decision making as suggested could be the case in Box 1. The LIFE INF projects are particularly well placed to deliver public information and many of them deliver much needed advice and support. The Greek project LIFE12 INF/GR/000985 AMMOS will deliver an integrated information campaign for the reduction of smoking litter on beaches through a series of different media approaches. This is a relatively new project with few tangible results at this stage. The Estonian project LIFE10 INF/EE/000108 BaltInfoHaz is seeking to reduce the amount of hazardous substances entering the Baltic through an integrated information campaign working with decision makers, enterprises and the public. The recently closed Greek project LIFE09 INF/GR/000320 Thalassa was designed to mitigate the imminent danger, caused by human-related threats, to the long-term term viability of all rare, endangered and important marine mammals inhabiting Greek waters. In order to achieve this, the project aims to raise the awareness of selected target audiences. The final report for the project is not yet available but it appears to have delivered the objectives, at least at the regional level.

Box 1: Potential stakeholder involvement in the MSFD •

•

Supporting assessment and monitoring: stakeholders can contribute to the programme design; collecting, providing and validating data; supporting data analysis and interpretation; and collaborating on joint-data collection. Implementing voluntary sectoral measures: stakeholders can help meet policy targets, encourage others to do so, and highlight these efforts to government. Helping to identify, test and evaluate measures: stakeholders can improve the quality of marine strategies and help government meet targets while minimising costs. Providing evidence to support over-riding public interest and disproportionate cost arguments: stakeholders can actively help to ensure that sustainable development requirements are met

3.3.3. Maritime spatial planning Published earlier in 2013, the main purpose of the proposed Directive establishing a framework for Maritime Spatial Planning and Integrated Coastal Management 33 is to promote the sustainable growth of maritime and coastal activities and the sustainable use of coastal and marine resources by establishing a framework

Proposal for a Directive establishing a framework for Maritime Spatial Planning and Integrated Coastal Management COM (2013) 133 final

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

for the effective implementation of maritime spatial planning in EU waters and integrated coastal management in the coastal areas of Member States. Competition for maritime space – for renewable energy equipment, aquaculture and other growth areas – has highlighted the need for efficient management, to avoid potential conflict and create synergies between different activities. It's about planning when and where human activities take place at sea – to ensure these are as efficient and sustainable as possible. Maritime spatial planning involves stakeholders in a transparent way in the planning of maritime activities and is an important aspect of ICM (see Section 3.8) as will be prevalent in the Marine Strategies that each member state needs to develop under Article 5 of the MSFD. In terms of LIFE projects most progress in the field of maritime spatial planning as been made with projects dealing with ICM, and especially those that deal with conflict resolution in the coastal zone. A list of projects contributing to ICM is given in Annex 1 and will not be discussed further here. There are a number of projects that map maritime resources and their uses – at least at the local scale. It is recognised that resolving conflicts in maritime areas is not without difficulties as the Greek project LIFE05 ENV/GR/000242 Elefsina 2020 discovered when it aimed to establish a collaborative approach to the integrated socio-environmental regeneration of the Elefsina Bay urban area but was unable to complete its objectives due to a lack of common vision amongst the stakeholders. One of the Third Country projects LIFE06 TCY/INT/000250 DESTINATIONS contributed considerably to the development of environmentally friendly tourism in the Mediterranean region, in particular in the three pilot regions in Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. The methodology used was based on the strategic planning approach. So the integrated strategic planning approach followed by the DESTINATIONS project could serve as a model. The experience of the project was used by the UNEP PAP/RAC (Priority Action Programme Regional Activity Centre -the Coastal Management Centre for the Mediterranean 34) in the preparation of a methodological manual for sustainable tourism planning in coastal areas. Clearly the project also addressed some transboundary issues. Projects that have a strong inventory element also contribute to the mapping requirements that underpin sound spatial planning. These projects have already been mentioned in Section 3.5 and are further considered in Section 4.4. There are no LIFE projects that have maritime spatial planning as the main objective, although the two UK projects LIFE07 ENV/UK/000943 PISCES and LIFE11 ENV/UK/000392 CSP do recognise this as a major area that requires work. In fact the PISCES project developed an on-line tutorial within the project dealing with maritime spatial planning issues targeted at policy makers. 3.3.4. Ecosystems based approach The adoption of an ecosystem based approach during the implementation of the MSFD is one of the central tenants of the directive and is indeed being afforded prominence in the European Commission’s current review of the Common Fisheries Policy (see Section 2.5). Simplistically put, ecosystem based management, considers all aspects of the ecosystem, including economic and human, with a view to equitable use and future sustainability. Given its prominence, ecosystem based management approaches appear in only a handful of LIFE projects. The LIFE09 NAT/LV/000238 MARMONI project has a specific objective to elaborate innovative and ecosystem based monitoring and assessment approaches based on a joint set of marine biodiversity indicators for assessment of conservation status of species and habitats and impacts of human activities. More recently in Greece, the LIFE12 NAT/GR/000688 CYCLADES Life is seeking to establish a unique protected area on the island of Gyaros and its adjacent marine area. This effort will be based on the ecosystem based management approach, forging the participation and active involvement of local stakeholders from the adjacent islands of Andros and Syros.

http://www.pap-thecoastcentre.org/index.php?lang=en

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

Perhaps the most significant contribution LIFE projects have made to the understanding and implementation of an ecosystem based approach is that of the UK project LIFE07 ENV/UK/000943 PISCES where the project stakeholders developed of a set of transferable guidelines for the ecosystem based approach to marine management specifically designed to demonstrate how stakeholders can work together and participate in EU marine policy at a multi-national scale. The output from PISCES is being carried forward into a new implementation phase by follow on project LIFE11 ENV/UK/000392 CSP, adopting the same approach, to examine the GES indicators, transboundary issues and possible conflict between sea users. 3.3.5. Transboundary issues. The MSFD calls for Member States to cooperate to ensure the coordinated development of marine strategies for each region or subregion, including third countries as appropriate in recognition of the transboundary nature of the marine environment. Water projects in general and marine projects in particular are perhaps uniquely placed in their requirement to cross boundaries and borders either following river courses or in wider bodies of Europe’s seas and oceans. The nature of LIFE projects means that Member States are able to collaborate to develop new techniques and management approaches to protect biodiversity and reduce environmental pressures. The value of MPAs has been well established in terms of the benefits for sessile organisms and protecting critical stages of migratory organisms. However, there is little point in protecting turtle nesting beaches if the animals are being caught at sea in fishing nets or being exposed to marine litter that they consume in mistake for food. Thus many LIFE projects have a transboundary aspect, even if it is implicit rather than explicit in the project design. Some examples of projects which involve several countries are noted below: • • • • • • • • •

LIFE12 ENV/IT/001054 LIFE+INSPIRE: development of an integrated coastal area management application is coordinated by the Geographical Information Systems Group which is a European association with partners in more than 20 countries; LIFE11 ENV/UK/000392 CSP: the project has a number of actions that deals with identifying best practice in designing and establishing transboundary marine governance structures for ecosystem based management; LIFE11 ENV/SE/000841 BIAS: underwater sound in the Baltic involving partners from Estonia, Finland, Latvia, Poland, Sweden and Denmark; LIFE10 INF/EE/000108 BaltInfoHaz: Baltic Information Campaign on Hazardous Substances involving collaboration between Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania; LIFE09 NAT/LV/000238 MARMONI: Innovative approaches for marine biodiversity monitoring and assessment of conservation status of nature values in the Baltic Sea with cooperation between Finland, Estonia, Latvia and Sweden; LIFE08 ENV/IT/000399 EnvEurope: Environmental quality and pressures assessment across Europe involving partners from Italy, Germany, Poland, Finland, Germany, Romania, Hungary, Lithuania, Austria, Spain, Sweden and Bulgaria; LIFE07 ENV/EE/000122 BaltActHaz: Baltic actions for reduction of pollution of the Baltic Sea from priority hazardous substances, a collaboration between Estonia, Latvia and Lithuania; LIFE07 ENV/UK/000943 PISCES: developing ecosystem based management guidelines through a partnership in the Celtic Seas Region (UK, Ireland, France and Spain); and LIFE05 NAT/LV/000100 Baltic MPAs: creating a network of MPAs in the eastern Baltic to improve conservation actions.

In this respect marine projects sometimes have to deal with non-Member States which may have a direct impact on the outcome of a project. One such example of a truly international project was LIFE05 NAT/LV/100 Baltic MPAs, which made a significant contribution to the protection and sustainable use of marine biodiversity in the Eastern Baltic and involved Lithuania, Latvia and Estonia. However, due to the close ecological connectivity of the Baltic Sea ecosystem and taking into account serious threats originating from the adjacent non-EU territories, the project involved some key stakeholders from the North West

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

Russian Region in the threat assessment, awareness and capacity building activities. In fact a set of high quality dissemination products were prepared and distributed including a film and a book aimed at the general public and published in English, Latvian, Lithuanian, Estonian and Russian, which can still be accessed from the website www.balticseaportal.net. One fine example comes from the UK where the LIFE 07/ENV/UK/943 PISCES project made a significant contribution to the implementation of the MSFD outside the project target area of the Celtic Sea. The project team was able to influence how the MSFD working groups throughout Europe could implement the ecosystems based approach called for by the Directive using the direct results of the project. 3.4. Good Environmental Status (GES) Figure 2-2 shows that under the MSFD published timetable Member States were required to establish series of indicators that could be used to assess GES by the end of 2012. In order to provide equitability across all Member States, Annex I of the MSFD sets out the qualitative descriptors to be used. To establish what kind of contribution the LIFE projects may have made to better understanding these qualitative indicators, or indeed making the indicators quantitative, each of the 72 projects was examined in detail in respect of Annex 1 of the MSFD. The results are shown in Figure 3-4 as the totals for all projects plus a breakdown between the ENV and NAT funding streams – the INF and BIO projects have been included under the parent funding stream because of the low numbers of projects involved. Figure 3-4: Breakdown of projects by GES indicator

40 35 30 25 20 15

Total all projects

Total ENV projects

Total NAT project

The overwhelming number of projects that address biodiversity is due to the contribution made by the NAT projects which deal with the conservation of marine resources within the Natura 2000 network. This possibly overshadows the contribution that LIFE projects make to other indicators. Arguably the contribution the LIFE programme makes to biodiversity issues outside the protected area network is also possibly overlooked and although only a small number of projects they are most interesting and there are valuable lessons to be learnt. This will be dealt with in geater detail in Section 4.2. Understandably the ENV funding covers a much broader topic range as the projects are not limited to where they can operate and so the ENV projects are much better represented throughout the topic areas. The

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

analysis above provides some information on the gaps in the LIFE programme which is dealt with further in Section 3.9. Broadly speaking the GES can be divided into two separate categories, one that deals with ecosystem health and one that deals with environmental pressures. These two major topic areas are considered further in the following sections. Topic areas that have been selected for more detailed consideration in Section 4 will not be considered in the following sections. It should be noted that the same projects may appear in more than one topic area as they frequently deal with more than one issue. Wherever possible projects that illustrate the best example of a technical or management solution have been selected. 3.5. Projects which address marine ecosystem health The GES indicators that describe ecosystem health are: i. ii. iii. iv. v.

Biological diversity is maintained. The quality and maintenance of habitats and the distribution and abundance of species are in line with prevailing physiographic, geographic and climatic conditions. Sea-floor integrity is at a level that ensures the structure and functions of the ecosystems are safeguarded and benthic ecosystems, in particular, are not adversely affected. Populations of all commercially exploited fish and shellfish are within safe biological limits, exhibiting a population age and size distribution that is indicative of a healthy stock. All elements of the marine food webs, to the extent that they are known, occur at normal abundance and diversity levels capable of ensuring long-term abundance of the species and their full reproductive capacity. Permanent alteration of hydrographical conditions does not adversely affect marine ecosystems.

The MSFD supports the strong position taken by the Community in the context of the Convention on Biological Diversity, on halting biodiversity loss, ensuring the conservation and sustainable use of marine biodiversity, and on the creation of a global network of marine protected areas by 2012. The obligation for Member States to designate Natura 2000 sites under the Birds and Habitats Directives can clearly make an important contribution to this process. Accordingly 30 projects have been funded by the LIFE programme in the marine sector under the NAT funding strand between 2005 and 2012. All of these projects operate within the existing Natura 2000 network, only a few projects aim to delineate and establish new Natura 2000 sites. All of these projects address some aspect of the Habitats Directive or the Birds Directive. There are several documents that deal with the relationship between LIFE projects, Natura 2000 and Marine Protected Areas 35. Some of the more recent successes are mentioned here. Lack of scientific knowledge has been the main gap for the implementation of the Natura 2000 network in the marine area, especially concerning habitats and species offshore. Research in marine areas far from the coast is not only costly but few organizations or institutions have the necessary means and capacities to undertake such work. Member States were committed to provide by mid-2008 a clear identification of scientific information required to complete the marine Natura 2000 network at sea, or to provide a clear time frame to achieve this. Understandably many of the LIFE projects focused on collecting data and this is discussed further in Section 4.4. A number of projects under the NAT funding stream deal with priority habitats as identified under the Habitat Directive and several deal in some way with the conservation of Posidonia beds. Seagrass meadows around the Mediterranean sequester carbon and produce large quantities of oxygen. They also protect the coast from erosion and act as nursery areas for many crustaceans, molluscs and fish. There are at least five projects where the Posidonia beds were the main objective, although there were many more where some

35 LIFE and the marine environment – promoting sustainable management of Europe’s seas (2006) http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/appendix_4_life.pdf Contains a section on Natura2000 and MPAs

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

action concerning the conservation of this habitat type were included in a wider set of project objectives. This aspect of improving coastal waters was featured recently in the Life and Coastal Management publication 2012 (p. 82-83– minding the meadows). The five projects are: • • • • •

LIFE09 NAT/ES/000534 Life Posidonia Andalucia: Conservation of Posidonia oceanica meadows in Andalusian Mediterranean Sea; LIFE09 NAT/IT/000176 POSEIDONE: Urgent conservation actions of Posidonia beds of Northern Latium; LIFE06 NAT/P/000192 Biomares: Restoration and Management of Biodiversity in the Marine Park Site Arrábida-Espichel; LIFE06 NAT/IT/000050 Co.Me.Bi.S.: Urgent conservation measures for biodiversity of Central Mediterranean Sea; and LIFE06 NAT/IT/000053 CILENTO IN RETE: Management of the network of pSCIs and SPAs in the Cilento National Park.

All five projects aim to control activities within the grass beds through a combination of concrete actions and management approaches. The key stakeholders involved are representatives of the fishing industry who can cause significant damage through the use of inappropriate fishing gear and the tourism / recreational sector through use of fast boats in shallow water and anchoring in the grass beds. The concrete actions all involve installation of mooring buoys, to limit anchor damage, and this measure has been found to be very successful in reducing damage. One project LIFE09 NAT/IT/000176 POSEIDONE is attempting to halt the damage done by trawling by placing 500 anti-trawl devices (tetrapods) in strategic locations (fishing hotspots) around the SCIs. The Italian project LIFE06 NAT/IT/000053 CILENTO IN RETE established an underwater trail to both inform tourists as to the fragile nature of the habitat and to confine their activities in a controlled area. In some cases translocation of seagrasses has been attempted in an effort to restore damaged areas. The Portuguese project LIFE06 NAT/P/000192 Biomares tried this approach by taking healthy Zostera material from elsewhere in an effort to restore ‘the lost seagrass meadow at Portinho da Arrábida’. This aspect of the project ran into difficulties in that the success rate for translocation was low and not cost effective. However, it could be that this was because the translocation events were undertaken on the exposed Atlantic coastline and better success may be obtained in more sheltered areas. Several projects address the requirements of the Birds Directive, although it must be said that the majority of the NAT projects deal with conservation issues which arise during the terrestrial phases of the seabirds’ life cycles. Accordingly there are many projects that address predators on land and the availability of suitable nesting sites. Whilst it is acknowledged that these are critical elements for the survivorship of several species these terrestrial elements are not dealt with in this report. Two Maltese projects illustrate how LIFE projects can contribute to the conservation of seabirds with a focus on marine actions. LIFE06 NAT/MT/000097 GARNIJA-MALTIJA set a precedent for undertaking seabird research and conservation in Malta, with intensive fieldwork undertaken to ascertain key feeding and rafting areas for the Yelkouan Shearwater Puffinus yelkouan breeding colony at Rdum tal-Madonna, the largest of its kind in Malta. The research for this project was undertaken with the aim of trialling methods to identify marine Important Bird Areas (IBAs) for this species and other seabird species, designed to help the Maltese government designating marine Special Protected Areas (SPAs). As a second output, the project created a roadmap for the Maltese government to fulfil its obligations for designating marine SPAs for all of its internationally important seabird colonies. The follow up project LIFE10 NAT/MT/000090 MALTA SEABIRD PROJECT uses the roadmap to address the designation of marine SPAs for three important bird species, across multiple colonies, through the identification of marine IBAs. These marine IBAs will then be designated as marine SPAs by the Maltese government. The majority of actions take place in territorial waters (up to 25 nautical miles) but there will also be recommendations for IBAs in international waters beyond the 25 nautical mile boundary.

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

In reality most projects which attempt to deal with seabird conservation have elements of both terrestrial and marine management. A recent example is the Greek project LIFE10 NAT/GR/000637 ANDROSSPA where the rocky coasts host important nesting areas for, inter alia, the shag Phalocrocorax aristotelis and Audouin’s gull Larus audouinii. The area is also important for seabirds such as Cory’s shearwater Calonectris diomedea and the Yelkouan shearwater , as well as for migrating birds. Consequently, the project aims to reduce nest predation by rats and gulls as well as installation of mooring buoys in the seagrass beds and delineation of seasonal fishing grounds to increase prey. The LIFE programme continues to build upon the many past successful projects which have focussed on the conservation of endangered and critically endangered marine turtles and mammals. Recent projects have targeted various populations of loggerhead turtle Caretta caretta, monk seal Monachus monachus, the common bottlenose dolphin Tursiops truncatus and the harbour porpoise Phocoena phocoena. Occasionally the needs of more than one target species are addressed in the same project such as the recently funded LIFE11 NAT/MT/001070 MIGRATE where the objective is to identify the relevant marine areas for the loggerhead turtle and the bottlenose dolphin, in order to designate marine SCIs within Malta's 25 nautical mile Exclusive Fishing Zone. As such LIFE will make a significant contribution to the conservation of these species in Maltese waters. However, it is more usual for projects to target a single species but often the same technique can be used to obtain information on other species. For example, the use of hydrophones to track harbour seal Phoca vitulina movements was referred to in Section 3.2, but the same technique has been applied to detect and track bottlenose dolphins in Portofino (LIFE09 NAT/IT/000190 ARION). Conversely, a more traditional approach to observing marine mammals has been adopted by some projects and is often used in conjunction with the more technical acoustic approach. The Portuguese project LIFE07 NAT/P/000646 CETACEOSMADEIRA II used the traditional observer based approach to identify and catalogue the movements of individual bottlenose dolphins in order to propose, inter alia, suitable areas and respective carrying capacities for whale watching. Notwithstanding the interesting technical and management solutions outlined above the raison d’être for most NAT projects is the strengthening of existing protected areas or the establishment of new ones and so all the projects discussed above perform the project actions with this in mind. Many projects deal with the issues involved in a single protected area such as LIFE06 NAT/P/000192 Biomares which focussed on habitat restoration of reefs and submerged sandbanks in the Marine Park Site Arrábida-Espichel for a total cost of €2.3 million. Other projects are more ambitious in nature and deal with an entire network of MPAs such as the Italian project LIFE06 NAT/IT/000053 CILENTO IN RETE which successfully established systems for the management of the network of pSCIs and SPAs in the Cilento National Park with management plans adopted at the end of the project. Arguably the most ambitious LIFE project ever to be funded in the marine environment is the Spanish LIFE07 project NAT/E/732 INDEMARES which is not due to close until the end of 2014 (following a 12 month prolongation) and which cover a number of regions and seeks to establish 10 new Natura 2000 sites. Goals set out in the MSFD provide a legal impetus for extending the coverage of Natura 2000 into offshore territories and projects such as INDEMARES are helping to pioneer methods that can assist marine areas comply with the Directive. Early outputs identified suitable sites and selection criteria that prioritised locations with diverse features or varied biodiversity in natural states. The ten locations were chosen from the Atlantic, Mediterranean and Macaronesian regions. LIFE is contributing €7.7 million of EU funding to support these prospective members of the marine Natura 2000 network 36. A major part of the project in the

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/features/2012/marine.htm

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

initial stages was data collection and as a consequence of these activities three new habitat types have been identified and recommended for inclusion in Annex 1 of the Habitats Directive. Finally, changes in spatial and temporal distribution of salinity appear on the indicative list of characteristics (Table 1, Annex III, MSFD) under physical and chemical features. The LIFE09 ENV/GR/000299 SOL-BRINE project is developing an advanced, innovative, autonomous energy system for the treatment of brine from seawater desalination plants. Desalination plants have been developed to deal with water shortage problems in the Cycladic Islands. This process produces two streams: a clean water product and a reject concentrate, brine. The normal route is to dispose of the concentrated brine at sea. However, disposal at sea causes significant pressure to aquatic organisms; it is estimated to be twice as salty as seawater. Furthermore, desalination is energy intensive and energy can be expensive for island communities. The project aims to eliminate high salinity brine disposal to sea by desalination plants through innovative technology that produces solid brine -an economic product - and uses less energy. In many ways this project illustrates the overlap between projects that are designed to protect ecosystem health and those projects designed to reduce pressure (Section 3.6) as this project is clearly achieving both. 3.6. Projects which address pressures on the marine environment The GES indicators that describe pressures on the marine environment are: i. ii. iii. iv. v. vi.

Non-indigenous species introduced by human activities at levels that do not adversely alter the ecosystem. Human-induced eutrophication is minimised, especially adverse effects thereof, such as losses in biodiversity. Ecosystem degradation, harmful algae blooms and oxygen deficiency in bottom waters. Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution effects. Contaminants in fish and other seafood for human consumption do not exceed levels established by Community legislation or other relevant standards. Properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment. Introduction of energy, including underwater noise, is at levels that do not adversely affect the marine environment.

It should be noted that the pressures and impacts on marine systems, Annex III Table 2 of the MSFD, are described in more detail and include inter alia the selective extraction of species, including incidental non – target catches (or by-catch) by both commercial and recreational fishermen. This topic has been addressed by a number of LIFE projects and so is featured in detail in Section 4.5. The contribution of LIFE projects to reducing threats to the marine environment pre-2005 has been reviewed 37,38. This report focuses entirely on achievements post 2005 and is restricted to projects that are considered to be exclusively marine. As a result, although there are a number of projects that aim to improve water quality through technological interventions (e.g. waste water treatment) unless these projects are located in a coastal setting and/or can demonstrate a direct benefit to the marine environment they have not been included here. Arguably, such projects can contribute to an overall reduction in impacts on the marine environment but this aspect is covered in the previous reports noted above. As can be seen from Figure 3-4 the majority of projects that address the pressures on marine systems are funded through the ENV part of the LIFE programme. There are fewer representative projects in each GES category because, although there are more ENV projects than NAT projects overall, they are spread across a wider range of topics. Topic areas dealing with by-catch, contaminated sediments and reducing emissions are considered in detail in Section 4.

LIFE and the marine environment – promoting sustainable management of Europe’s seas (2006). http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/appendix_4_life.pdf - Contains a section on marine threats/pressures 38 Water for life – LIFE for water: Protecting Europe’s water resources. http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/lifefocus/documents/waterlife.pdf. Section on eutrophication but focused on inland waters, also section on other marine threats.

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

Litter from land based sources and from ships is an increasing problem; it pollutes beaches and is a threat to ecosystems and individual organisms. However, marine waste also includes drifting organic material, such as algae, kelp and seagrass. This organic waste often presents a greater environmental challenge to beaches than litter and man-made debris and costs of tackling the problem are typically high. Several LIFE projects such as the Italian project, LIFE09 ENV/IT/000061 ‘P.R.I.M.E.’ have demonstrated models for the management and reuse of this organic material. More information on LIFE projects that have addressed marine litter can be found in the European Commission’s LIFE and coastal management publication 39 (p.6365). Figure 3-5 shows some of the dangers that can occur to benthic habitats and pelagic species from discarded waste materials that can persist in the marine environment for decades. Figure 3-5: Projects illustrating the extent and dangers of marine litter

LIFE07 NAT/FIN/000151 FINMARINET Car batteries on the baltic seabed

LIFE07_NAT_E_000732 INDEMARES Dolphin with black plastic bag

Land-based pollution from urban areas, from industry and from intensive agriculture causes eutrophication (accelerated growth of algae that reduces oxygen levels, disturbing the balance of organisms and the quality of the water), contaminates fish and shellfish, causes acidification of marine waters and is a source of marine litter. Most sources of marine pollution are land based. The pollution often comes from nonpoint sources such as agricultural runoff, wind-blown debris and dust. In the case of persistent toxic chemicals contamination can be generated well inland and enter the marine environment via rivers and estuaries. Chemicals bound to sediments can be ingested by planktonic and sessile organisms and bioaccumulate through the food web. In addition, an increase in shipping has a major impact on the marine environment through the emission of greenhouse gases and the inadvertently alien species carried in ballast water. When introduced into European seas many of these species have no natural predators and can disrupt ecosystems. There are several LIFE projects designed to reduce the levels of contaminants reaching the sea. Two projects in Estonia have looked at ways of reducing priority hazardous substances from entering the eastern Baltic. In the first project LIFE07 ENV/EE/000122 BaltActHaz an inventory of substances was prepared, environmental permits were optimised and tools to reduce level of pollutants were developed. Of particular importance were publications aimed at industry demonstrating the effectiveness of substitution. Significant efforts were made to stress that it is usually much cheaper to avoid the use of hazardous substances in the production or manufacturing processes than to deal with various regulatory requirements regarding the use and discharge of hazardous substances. The follow-on project LIFE10 INF/EE/000108 BaltInfoHaz tackles the issue from a different perspective by recognising the potential power of the consumer. This main objective of this INF project is to strengthen consumer demand in the three Baltic States for products free of hazardous substances. They plan to achieve this by changing consumption patterns among pilot stakeholder groups and to communicate its environmental message to policymakers nationally and internationally.

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/lifefocus/documents/coastal.pdf

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

As with eutrophication there is only a single example of a project dealing with the reduction of microbial pollution in the sea, addressing the Bathing Waters and Shellfish Directives. The French project LIFE06 ENV/F/136 MARECLEAN, aimed to improve water quality in 12 designated mussel/oyster production areas by reducing microbial pollution discharge to coastal waters. The second objective for the 40 km of coastline covered by the project was to reduce the number of bathing sites rated ‘sufficient’ according to the Bathing Water Directive from 5 to 2 areas and from 3 to 0 for those rated poor. Although at the end of the project there was a significant improvement in water quality at most designated areas the project did not entirely meet the objectives because not all the sites fully complied with the Directive. However, the water quality modelling showed that the project targets would be met by 2012-2015 thanks to the implementation of the overall project actions. The main sources of coastal pollution were found to be i) from non point sources coming from coastal rivers due to cattle farming and ii) a substantial impact from the overflow of sewage after heavy rainfall. The project developed a risk based assessment tool to reduce storm water overflow (which has been adopted by the local authorities) and introduced better cattle management procedures on two sensitive rivers. It is quite possible that a number of other LIFE projects that deal with coastal pollution can also have some influence on shellfish areas although none are specifically stated.

Likewise only one project truly addresses underwater noise. The growing levels of underwater background noise are becoming a major concern throughout the marine environment. Sources of anthropogenic noise include shipping, seismic operations, sonar, piling and possibly generation of noise in coastal areas and from the air transmitted to the sea. The body of evidence for noise disturbance to cetaceans has been growing over the last few decades and a review compiled by Richardson et al. (1995 40) drew together all the available knowledge at that time. Since then other workers have researched the possible effects of elevated noise on other marine groups, notably fish, with some contributions dealing with crustaceans and marine turtles. However, the science concerning background noise in the marine environment and the impact on receptor organisms is far from complete. A new LIFE project LIFE11 ENV/SE/000841 BIAS is designed to ensure that the introduction of underwater noise is at levels that do not adversely affect the marine environment of the Baltic Sea. The project intends to establish and implement standards and tools for the management of underwater noise in accordance with MSFD. As this is a new project there are few results to report at this stage but this innovative project is one to watch for the future.

Richardson, J.W., Green, C.R. Jnr., Malme, C.I. & Thomson, D.H. (1995). Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

While there are a number of projects that deal with eutrophication in inland surface waters, there are few projects acknowledging the potential Although the LIFE07 NAT/FIN/000151 marine impact. The project LIFE09 ENV/FI/569 FINMARINET project did not aim to GISBLOOM aims to build capacity to ensure better reduce eutrophication, the effect of integration of climate change into river basin eutrophication underwater can be clearly management plans in Finland. It will demonstrate seen. an integrated model to quantify the effects of different climate change scenarios to help tackle threats of eutrophication and algal blooms. It will use a combination of nationwide data and models for hydrology, land-use changes and nutrient loads to generate data and real-time forecasts for algal blooming in eight river basins on a daily basis. The web-based map feature will inform the selection of measures for river basin management plans which incorporate estuaries and the coastal areas. Their implementation will be subject to cost-benefit analyses. By working to integrate climate change effectively into river basin management plans and to develop a participatory approach, this project will contribute to the achievement of the environmental objectives of the MSFD and the WFD. Although the geographical scope of the GISBLOOM project is limited to Finland the tools which will be demonstrated and evaluated are applicable to all the other EU countries. Arguably the LIFE07 ENV/D/000229 ECOSMA indirectly contributed to reducing the problem of eutrophication in coastal waters through the development and promotion of criteria for organic mariculture which led to a reduction in pollution associated with mariculture practices and improved water quality. However the reduction of eutrophication was not a stated objective. The introduction of invasive species (or non-indigenous species (NIS)) is considered as a pressure on the marine environment according to the MSFD. There are a significant number of projects that deal with invasive species in the terrestrial and freshwater environments but virtually none that address nonindigenous species in the marine environment even though this is a topic of major concern. It is estimated that Europe’s marine waters are now home to almost 1,400 alien species 41. Whilst there are a few projects pre-2005 that aimed to halt the progression of the Caribbean alga Caulerpa taxifolia overtaking the Posidonia meadows in the Mediterranean (LIFE 92 ENV/F/ 00066 and LIFE 95 ENV/F/000782 42) there is only one post-2005 project whose principal objective is the development and demonstration of eradication and control methods for an invasive species. Spanish marine habitats have been adversely affected recently by increased populations of the predatory jellyfish Carybdea marsupialis. The main objective of the Spanish project LIFE08 NAT/E/000064 CUBOMED project is to gain sufficient understanding about C. marsupialis blooms to help develop measures capable of mitigating negative impacts from the jellyfish on Mediterranean marine ecosystems in Europe. The project will develop a model to predict the potential for jellyfish blooms in the

41 42

Seas for Life – protected – sustainable – shared European Seas by 2020. European Union 2011 See Life and the marine environment – promoting sustainable management of Europe’s seas. Life III focus. 2006 for a full analysis of these projects.

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

Mediterranean based on detailed biological knowledge of the species and the optimum oceanographic conditions required to trigger blooms. Another Spanish project LIFE09 NAT/ES/000534 Life Posidonia Andalucia has an action dedicated to the identification and eradication of small areas of Caulerpa racemosa and Lophocladia lallemandii in the seagrass beds. The early warning system established through this project appears to be effective in eliminating algae before it has time to flourish on a large scale. Several projects address the issue of toxicity in treatments designed to prevent marine fouling on commercial shipping and leisure boats. One good example is LIFE06 ENV/B/000362 ECOTEC-STC project which is featured in detail in Section 4.7 - Reducing Atmospheric Emissions from Shipping. The greatest benefits of the project comes from its non-toxicity and long lifespan plus regular cleaning which makes a contribution to the reduction of non-indigenous marine organisms that adhere to the hull. The project LIFE09 ENV/SE/000351 Mare Purum also aimed to develop a novel hull coating using an already patented formula. However, at an early stage the laboratory testing of the paint revealed that it would not provide adequate protection to vessel hulls. The project was terminated early on technical grounds. 3.7. Programmes of Measures (POM) Under the MSFD the Member States are obliged to develop their POM by 2015 for entry into operation by 2016 (Figure 2-2). There are no projects that specifically state that they are developing POM as a part of the project objectives. However, by examining each project in detail it is possible to determine whether or not there is an implicit, rather than explicit, contribution to developing or promoting a particular POM. The analysis showed that most, but not all, projects did adopt one or more POM during the course of the project and that some POMs were more regularly adopted than others. The full analysis can be found in Annex 2. Figure 3-6 indicates the frequency of occurrence that one or more POM was included in a project. Of the eight POM cited in Section 2.2 one third of the projects had one or two POMs in the project design, just over 25% had three POMs in the project design and there were three projects which appeared to have the highest number of five POMs within the project. There were seven projects out of the 72 where it was not possible with the documentation provided to determine any POM in the project design. Figure 3-6: Number of POM in each project 30

number of projects

25 20 15 10 5 0 1

Number of POM included in the project

The projects where five POMs were included in the design are:

[Marine Thematic Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Version â&#x20AC;&#x201C; September 2014]

LIFE05 NAT/GR/000083 MOFI – Monk seal & fisheries: Mitigating the conflict in Greek seas LIFE06 NAT/IT/000053 CILENTO IN RETE - Management of the network of pSCIs and SPAs in the Cilento National Park LIFE07 NAT/E/000732 INDEMARES - Inventory and designation of marine Natura 2000 areas in the Spanish sea The POM common to all three were Input controls and Communications, in fact most projects which sought to establish input controls also needed good communication and stakeholder involvement. The MOFI project also included a major public awareness campaign. Output controls and mitigation measures also feature heavily in these projects. Mitigation and remediation measures are addressed in more detail in Section 4.3 and will not be considered further in this section. All three projects are considered to have been successful and represent good examples of implementing multiple POMs. 3.7.1. Input controls The analysis of the projects by type of POM (see list in Section 2.2) reveals some interesting trends and these are shown in Figure 3-7 – which also shows the differences between the ENV and NAT funding streams. Nature projects make up almost the entire contribution to input controls (management measures that influence the amount of human activity that is permitted). This is hardly surprising as all the NAT projects must operate within the Natura 2000 network and as such are obliged to develop management plans for the area which will inevitably influence human activity within a protected area. Again the Spanish project INDEMARES is perhaps the best example of identifying and designating a network of marine protected areas in a national context. However, there are many more good examples of designating and /or implementing MPAs on a smaller scale. Figure 3-7: Number of projects per POM type

number of projects

30 25 20 15 10 5 0

Total all projects Total ENV projects Total NAT projects

3.7.2. Output controls Output controls concern measures that influence the degree of perturbation of the environment and so all those projects that in some way reduce pollution or degradation of the seabed are included in this category. As may be expected the majority of these projects are funded through the ENV mechanism although there

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

are one or two good examples of NAT projects that make a contribution in this area. The majority of these projects have already featured in Section 3.6 or Section 4 and will not be revisited here. 3.7.3. Spatial and Temporal Distribution The spatial and temporal distribution controls that operate on a project do so through management measures that influence when and where an activity can occur. Clearly many of the Nature projects that restrict activities within a protected area are imposing such control mechanisms. In such cases the management measure are embedded in management plans and are underpinned by a legal requirement to maintain the biodiversity of the area in support of the Natura 2000 network. However, there are other instances where spatial and temporal distribution controls are equally as important as it may be desirable to implement activities outside the network of protected areas. An example can be seen with the Greek project LIFE05 ENV/GR/000242 Elefsina 2020. The project developed a Vessel and Dangerous Cargoes Monitoring System by creating a pilot GIS based approach to minimise pollution risks inside the Bay and improve maritime and terrestrial transportation of dangerous goods and polluting cargoes. Although the tracking system for vessels and the early warning system for pollution events were installed they did not function after the project ended due to a lack of funds and issues with the partnership. One of the principal objectives of the third countries project LIFE06 TCY/INT/000250 DESTINATIONS was to develop mechanisms for controlling visitor numbers to tourist sites in space and time. One of the ways that this was managed was through the implementation of Tourism Carrying Capacity Assessments which included a thorough analysis of the project areas with regard to their physical, environmental, socioeconomic and economic characteristics. The project also developed guidelines to enable tourism promoters to evaluate the sustainability of their investments in terms of environmental risks. Putting in place spatial and temporal controls to limit impacts on marine animals that move so freely can be problematic. The LIFE08 NAT/S/000261 SAMBAH project collected acoustic data over a two year period to provide density estimates which were used to spatially model Baltic harbour porpoise presence, using generalized additive modelling (GAM), and generalized additive mixed modelling (GAMM). The main goal was to produce current distribution maps and to investigate if any habitat preferences existed. Various environmental factors (e.g. depth, bottom slope, salinity, fish distribution) were taken into consideration and possible hotspots determined. By combining these results with available data on anthropogenic activities (e.g. fishing, tourism, shipping) it was possible to pinpoint any areas with higher risk of conflict. In order to make informed decisions it follows that spatial and temporal data are required to support the decision-making process. Projects that contribute to the gathering of data and making it available are therefore invaluable to the decision makers. Projects LIFE08 ENV/IT/399 EnvEurope, LIFE09 ENV/FI/000569 GISBLOOM, LIFE10 ENV/UK/000182 SEWeb and LIFE12 ENV/IT/001054 LIFE + IMAGINE all contribute in this respect and have already been discussed in Section 3.2. 3.7.4. Management Coordination This POM focuses on ensuring that management efforts are coordinated at all levels from local to regional seas, including transboundary issues. Many of the projects dealing with Marine Protected Areas require some degree of management coordination in order to ensure cooperation between the interested parties; several good examples have been cited throughout this document. The Swedish project LIFE11 ENV/SE/000839 BUCEFALOS is an example of a more unusual project where management coordination will be critical to the successful outcome of the project. The project aims to demonstrate a holistic approach to regional coordination for sustainable resource management of aquatic biomass. In order to do so the project must engage with a variety of service providers and decision makers throughout the Baltic. The project will demonstrate innovative methodologies and technological applications for cultivating and harvesting mussels. It will also restore wetlands and establish algae cultivation sites with a view to cleaning freshwater and providing efficient yields of biomass for biogas.

[Marine Thematic Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Version â&#x20AC;&#x201C; September 2014]

Working on a different level the Spanish project LIFE08 ENV/E/000119 FAROS needs to develop and implement an efficient network for managing fishing discards and by-catch. The network will integrate key stakeholders from Spain’s fishing industry (fleets, ports, auctions, industries, etc.) with the core objectives of minimising the amount of discards/by-catch that reach port and using the discards/by-catch to produce chemicals of interest for the food and pharmaceuticals industries. If the project cannot achieve a coordinated response among the various stakeholder groups it will not be possible to achieve the objectives. 3.7.5. Traceability of Pollution Even the description of this POM in the MSFD indicates that it may be difficult to achieve; ‘measures to improve the traceability, where feasible, of marine pollution’. It is assumed that this refers to finding the source input for a specific type of pollution so that the ‘clean up’ operation can be targeted in a meaningful way and so that costs can be equitably apportioned on a ‘polluter pays’ principle. There are a few LIFE projects that touch upon this issue; in general projects target a source of pollution which is already known, such as LIFE08 ENV/IT/000426 COAST-BEST and LIFE07 ENV/E/000787 Recyship. Arguably the use of models is a potentially powerful tool in tracing the origin of pollution and also predicting the likelihood of occurrence. This applies equally well to single events (catastrophic) and to chronic pollution sources. Thus a project such as LIFE06 ENV/F/000136 MARECLEAN is an important step forward in determining where a pollution event might occur and indicating the measures that might be taken to avoid or alleviate a reoccurrence of the event. Within the project point and diffuse sources of pollution were identified, with the most significant being identified as inland pasturing, followed by sewer overflow and salt marsh grazing. Data gathered were used to model pollution risks as a function of weather and sea conditions. The MARECLEAN team developed both a watershed load model (MAREFLUX) and a sea dispersion model (MARS). One of the four tools developed by the project prioritised the protection of river banks (diffuse pollution sources) based on the state of the riverbank and the critical load. One of the actions in the Spanish project LIFE07 NAT/E/000732 INDEMARES concerns mapping of pollution events recorded throughout the Spanish seas. In addition the project is developing a predictive model, based on ‘crash points’ identified by the project. The model will predict the likely trajectory of an oil spill based largely on the climatic data obtained throughout the project. The oil spill model will allow the regulatory bodies to determine the ecological risk to the various habitat types and so develop the most appropriate oil spill contingency plans and ensure that suitable prevention and clean up operations can be launched in the event of a major incident. These types of projects yield extremely valuable results and there is scope for more projects of this nature in the LIFE portfolio. 3.7.6. Economic Incentives This POM is described as management measures which make it in the economic interest of those using the marine ecosystems to act in ways which help to achieve the good environmental status objective. There are a number of good examples of LIFE projects which have demonstrated a positive cost benefit ratio in implementing the project actions. For example, the new technologies promoted by the LIFE05 ENV/E/000267 BE-FAIR project for innovative ways of using fishing discards proved both technically and economically viable in terms of converting bycatch matter into commercially valuable products. Key markets were identified for Gelatine from fish skins, Chondroitin sulfate from cartilage, fish oil and Hiarulonic acid. Prototypes for these production systems can still be accessed via the LIFE website for the project. The economic incentives demonstrated by the LIFE06 ENV/B/000362 ECOTEC-STC were the overall reduction in costs for maintaining the bio-fouling coating and the reduction in fuel use brought about by more efficient

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

removal of organisms. Economically, the first application of Ecospeed is more expensive than alternative coatings. However, given that it does not need to be reapplied, just cleaned underwater, it is estimated that using Ecospeed™ would reduce costs between 33% and 50% over other treatments on a 1000 tonne container ship for 25 years. The project team estimated that, over 25 years, a copper-based treatment emits more than 23 times and a foul-release treatment nearly 13 times as many VOCs than Ecospeed. The LIFE09 ENV/IT/000061 PRIME project is working towards reducing the costs of beach clean up to local authorities by reducing the removal of washed up seagrass biomass to landfill, producing a valuable product that can be used for agriculture and limiting damage done to the beach structure by the clean-up activities that are currently being used. The project has only just closed and so any cost-benefit analyses are pending along with the final report. However, the project has met all its objectives and so is likely to bring about cost savings. 3.7.7. Mitigation and remediation The mitigation and remediation tools are seen as a key feature of the POM and an area where LIFE projects excel. As such this is dealt with briefly in Section 3.5 and appears as a detailed topic in Section 4.3; it will not be discussed further here. 3.7.8. Communication Similarly, communication, stakeholder engagement and raising public awareness have been addressed in some detail in Section 3.3.2 and the specific area of conflict resolution is discussed in detail in Section 4.8 as this is also an area where LIFE projects excel. 3.8. Integrated Coastal Management LIFE projects addressing the principles of Integrated Coastal Zone Management are not addressed in this review. The LIFE programme has supported the development of EU policy on ICM from the 2002 Recommendation on Integrated Coastal Zone Management to several ongoing projects. The contribution of LIFE to ICM is described in the publication LIFE and coastal management (2012) 43. The publication also includes reference to several of the projects in this study. LIFE projects supported the ICM ‘demonstration programme’ from 1996-1999 44and many LIFE projects are included in the ICM ‘Ourcoast’ database 45. The Ourcoast database has a number of themes grouped under three policy objectives: adaptation to risk, sustainable use of resources and sustainable economic growth. A comparative analysis of the Ourcoast case studies is available 46. ICM as a tool contributes to the objectives of the Marine Strategy Framework Directive and there is considerable overlap in the area of spatial planning. The European Commission, through DG ENV and DG MARE, has set out a proposal for a Directive establishing a framework for maritime spatial planning and integrated coastal management reflecting the strong links between the MSFD and ICM initiatives. 3.9. Gap Analysis The various analyses carried out as part of this assessment have shown the areas where the numbers of representative LIFE projects are limited and as such may represent ‘opportunities’ for expansion of the programme.

LIFE and Coastal Management (2012): http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/lifefocus/documents/coastal.pdf http://ec.europa.eu/environment/iczm/demopgm.htm 45 http://ec.europa.eu/ourcoast/index.cfm?menuID=4 46 http://ec.europa.eu/ourcoast/download.cfm?fileID=1709 44

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

3.9.1. Eutrophication This is seen as a major issue throughout Europe’s rivers, lakes and seas and yet appears to be an area neglected by the LIFE programme in relation to marine events (see Figure 3-4). It is acknowledged that there are likely to be a number of projects that address eutrophication in rivers and surface water bodies that may also have some impact on reducing eutrophication in the marine environment but any contribution that these projects make is not immediately apparent. Some projects that address this topic would be appreciated. 3.9.2. Contamination of Seafood With only one project in 2006 that directly addressed this issue this is, perhaps, one of the most underrepresented of the GES in the LIFE portfolio. It is possible that there are more LIFE projects that may contribute to this GES than appears to be apparent from the analysis. Arguably, all projects that aim to improve water quality in coastal areas could potentially make an impact. As a result, the contribution of the LIFE programme to this particular GES may be under-estimated. 3.9.3. Invasive species With an estimated 1,400 alien marine species invading European seas the fact that there are only three projects examining practical measures to deal with non-indigenous species appears inadequate. This is especially so when two of the three projects include this as one action within the project design and so there is only one project where this is the main objective. Given the number of LIFE projects that deal with nonindigenous species in terrestrial and freshwater environments this is an area that could be better promoted in the LIFE programme. 3.9.4. Physical and chemical parameters Arguably any activities including this GES will be related to either baseline data collection or monitoring programmes. While there are few projects that actually look at hydrographic conditions as a principle objective, many more do have some element of chemical and or physical survey embedded in the project design, more a means to an end than the end itself. Also major oceanographic surveys are generally very expensive and outside the usual range of a LIFE project budget. 3.9.5. Underwater noise Although there is only one project that is really addressing this issue as a main objective and has been developed as a direct response to the MSFD requirements in this field, it is recognised that this is one area where LIFE projects could have a great deal to contribute in the future and more projects should be encouraged. There is an issue of timing of the directives and the length of time it takes for a LIFE project to be approved and produce results. This is highlighted by the LIFE 07 UK/ENV/932 PISCES project which commenced in 2009 and closed in December 2012. The project assisted the implementation of the MSFD through the production of a Guide to implementing the ecosystem approach. The Guide only became available in October 2012 but the MSFD called for all Member States to produce targets and indicators by June 2012; clearly the project outputs were not developed in time for the initial stages of implementation of this Directive but may be influential in the development of the Programme of Measures which are not due for the MSFD until 2015. There are a number of reasons why certain GES or POM appear to be under-represented in the LIFE programme, these include:

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

• •

Project proponents do not consider LIFE funding appropriate; The length of time it takes to approve and implement a LIFE project does not fit with the MSFD implementation timetable; Applications for LIFE funding supporting certain parts of the MSFD are not successful but it has not been possible to assess whether this is the case as the application information was not available for this study; The importance of some aspects of the MSFD is not stressed in the annual call for LIFE applications; and Certain activities are covered by other national/European or International funding mechanisms.

• • •

There could, of course, be other reasons for the apparent lack of support for certain parts of the Directive but it has not been possible to determine which the main influential factors are because the necessary information to assess this was not available at the time of this study. 3.10.

Project Costs

3.10.1. Total Costs and EU Commitment It must be remembered that there are two cost components; the total cost of the project which includes the beneficiary and partner contributions, and the contribution made by the EU. This second contribution varies depending on the type of project and the different depreciation rates applied to infrastructure and equipment costs in LIFE projects. Wherever possible the final cost calculation of the project has been taken into account - that is the actual cost of the project and the actual contribution made by the EU. Clearly this cannot be done for projects which are still open and in these cases the commitment costs have been included. Therefore this assessment can only paint a broad picture of the costs involved in delivery. Table 3-1 shows the broad breakdown of project costs for all projects and also broken down by LIFE funding stream. Over the period 2005 through 2012 the EU has committed a total of €70,5 million to projects supporting marine policies and this has been matched by €76,4 million coming from the beneficiaries, partners and cofinanciers in the Member States. A further breakdown reveals that 48.5% (or €34,2 million ) of EU funding is committed to ENV projects and the remaining 51.5% (or €36,3 million) is committed to NAT projects. However, ENV projects make up 54% of the total projects and so it can be concluded that NAT projects cost slightly more to deliver than ENV projects in terms of EU contribution. This is supported by average cost per project data as this clearly demonstrates that a NAT project costs in the region of10% more overall than the ENV projects and the EU contribution is, on average, €0,22 million per project higher for NAT projects. Table 3-1: Total Costs of Delivering LIFE Projects in the Marine Sector

Total for all projects Total for ENV projects Total for NAT projects Average cost per project Average cost per ENV projects Average cost per NAT projects

Total Project Costs million € 146,9 78,5 68,5 2,04 2,00 2,06

EU Contribution million € 70,5 34,2 36,3 0,98 0,87 1,09

No of Projects 72 39 33

A closer examination of the distribution of individual projects shows that for both ENV and NAT projects there is a narrow distribution with the majority of projects costing between €0.5 million and €6.0 million in total with by far the largest number falling with the €1-2 million bracket (see Figure 3-8).

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

Number of Projects

Figure 3-8: Distribution of Total Project Values for LIFE ENV and NAT projects

10 8 6 4

ENV

NAT

0 0.5 1 1.5 2 2.5 3 3.5 4

4.5

ENV 6+

Total Project Cost Million €

The highest and lowest cost projects are shown in Table 3-2. This table shows that projects with the highest total cost do not necessarily receive the highest grant contribution from the EU, indeed this is rarely the case. The most costly marine project to be funded by the LIFE programme in the last eight years is the NAT project LIFE07 NAT/E/000732 INDEMARES, with a total budget of €15.4 million, over twice that of the second most expensive. This extremely ambitious project set out to collect the necessary data to support the implementation of ten new protected areas. This is still an active project which has received a one year extension to ensure completion of all the actions; the project is meeting all its objectives and is expected to achieve more than originally intended. It is probably the most expensive marine project ever to be funded by the LIFE programme. Table 3-2: Highest and Lowest Ranking Projects on Total Cost Ranking

Project

Top 5 ranked highest total cost projects 1 LIFE07 NAT/E/000732 INDEMARES 2 LIFE09 ENV/NL/000426 BLUETEC 3 LIFE08 ENV/IT/000399 EnvEurope 4 LIFE09 NAT/LV/000238 MARMONI 5 LIFE06 ENV/B/000362 ECOTEC-STC Bottom 5 ranked lowest total cost projects 5 LIFE11 ENV/ES/000600 SEA-MATTER 4 LIFE06 TCY/INT/000250 DESTINATIONS 3 LIFE09 INF/PT/000045 ECO-COMPATÍVEL 2 LIFE12 INF/GR/000985 AMMOS 1 LIFE10 NAT/SI/000141 SIMARINE

Total Cost Million €

EU Contribution Million €

15.4 7.4 6.1 5.9 5.2

7.7 2.5 3.0 2.9 1.5

0.74 0.70 0.61 0.59 0.47

0.37 0.42 0.28 0.29 0.28

The next highest value project funded under the Nature banner is LIFE09 NAT/LV/000238 MARMONI. This project has many similarities with the INDEMARES project in that it aims to produce inventories and maps of underwater habitat types and their flora and fauna with a view to consolidating a Natura 2000 network in

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

the Baltic. Clearly marine projects where inventories are a necessary part of the design are costly and this perhaps reflects the difficulties encountered when working underwater. The three Environment projects in the top five are quite different from each other and this reflects the variety within this part of the LIFE programme. The LIFE09 ENV/NL/000426 BLUETEC will demonstrate the technological, economic and environmental sustainability of a full-scale tidal energy device in an offshore environment. The LIFE06 ENV/B/000362 ECOTEC-STC has developed a new coating for vessels to reduce contamination and improve fuel efficiency. The LIFE08 ENV/IT/000399 EnvEurope project is collecting metadata to support an environmental quality and pressures assessment across Europe; this project has many partners and relies on multi-national cooperation. Interestingly the project with the lowest overall budget is LIFE10 NAT/SI/000141 SIMARINE this is also a NAT project which sets out to prepare an inventory and implement some activities for the designation of a marine IBA and SPA site for Mediterranean shag Phalacrocorax aristotelis desmarestii in Slovenia. While there are obvious similarities with the most expensive projects, Slovenia has only a very small coastline in comparison to either Latvia or Spain and so the costs are bound to be much lower. Of the remaining low budget projects, two are INF projects and whilst the media campaigns have a wide scope it could suggest that INF projects might represent good value for money provided they meet their objectives and the outcomes can be measured in a meaningful way. 3.11.

Best of LIFE projects

One way of recognising the success of a LIFE project is through the Best of LIFE project awards which are made on an annual basis. Scoring of completed LIFE projects began in 2004. The system was introduced by the Commission, following an initiative taken by Sweden and the Netherlands. A set of ‘best practice’ criteria, with different adaptations for ENV and NAT projects, was developed in collaboration with the Member States. For ENV projects, these criteria included: projects’ contribution to immediate and long-term environmental, economic and social improvements; their degree of innovation and transferability; their relevance to policy and their cost-effectiveness. For NAT projects, these criteria included: an assessment of the improvement in conservation status; short- and long-term leverage effect; long-term sustainability and regional/national or international impact. In view of the importance of these aspects to project success, project beneficiaries are also required to provide an After-LIFE Communication Plan or an After-LIFE Conservation Plan and an analysis of the long-term benefits of the project with their final report. This information forms an integral part of the evaluation process. All completed projects are initially technically assessed by the LIFE Unit’s external monitoring team (the Astrale consortium). The monitors rank all the projects that ended during the year to produce a first list. The final selection is undertaken by the Member States. The objective of the exercise is to help improve the dissemination of LIFE project results by clearly identifying those projects whose results, if widely applied, could have the most positive impact on the environment. The best LIFE projects relating to this study are shown in Table 3-3. Details of these projects can be found by clicking on the website links below. Table 3-3: Best of LIFE Awards – Marine Projects Award Year 2009 2010

Project LIFE05 ENV/NL/000018 NoMEPorts LIFE06 ENV/B/000362 ECOTEC-STC

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

Weblink http://www.hydrex.be/

2012 2013

LIFE07 ENV/D/000229 ECOSMA LIFE07 ENV/UK/000943 PISCES 47

http://www.ecosma.de/ http://projectpisces.eu/

4. IN DEPTH ANALYSIS OF SELECTED PROJECTS 4.1.

SWOT Analysis

A total of 21 projects were selected to go forward for further analysis. Selection was based on the following criteria: • Project must have some tangible results. • Good cross section of the directives. • Clearly stated targets and objectives. • Project is approved by the monitoring team (for good implementation). • Geographic variety (ensuring geographic variety from many Member States). Furthermore, projects were selected based on their ability to contribute to the following focal areas that have emerged as a consequence of the analysis of all the available marine projects. These focal areas represent major topics where there is sufficient information to provide a robust analysis: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7.

Maintaining biodiversity Reconstruction and remediation Inventories Reducing/re-using fishing discards Contaminated sediments Reducing atmospheric emissions from shipping Avoiding conflict and conflict resolution

Each project has been subjected to a SWOT analysis to highlight Strengths, Weaknesses, Opportunities and Threats. It is important to underline that some of the projects analysed are still on-going, and hence the analysis is based on progress and results to date. It is also important to note that the full impacts of LIFE projects are often not visible at the end of the projects and that it may take time for projects to feed into the development of policy and to transfer to other settings. SWOT analyses for all 21 selected projects can be found in Annex 4. 4.2. Maintaining Biodiversity Three projects are selected which demonstrate different aspects of actions aimed at the protection of biodiversity. Many Member States have faced the dilemma of simply not knowing what biodiversity lies within their territorial waters. The project LIFE05NAT/LV/000100 Baltic MPAs pulled together resources from Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia to carry out a detailed study of important sites for species and habitats of conservation interest. What makes this project stand out from a straightforward inventory project, however, is that it combined data collection with addressing stakeholders concerns about marine use and the impact of pollution on the environment. Fishing interests, for

Project is shortlisted – final selection pending

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

example, were represented on a high level Steering Group and fishermen were willing to try out new types of fishing gear that would reduce by-catch of seals and seabirds. The project demonstrated quite clearly that current levels of fishing are not a major threat to Baltic marine life. It was expected that the EMFF (European Fisheries Fund) would be able to help subsidise the deployment of new designs of net. The project pioneered the preparation of management plans for MPAs in the Baltic and was successful in proposing additional and extended Natura 2000 sites. Wildlife can also be threatened by a lack of awareness of what people can do to protect it. The information project LIFE09INF/GR/000320 Thalassa, run by the Hellenic Society for the Study and Protection of the Monk Seal, seeks to raise awareness in all levels of society about the threats to the seals and cetaceans which live in and visit Greek waters. The project employed an advertising agency to develop a powerful multi-media communication programme. Social media was used well to reach young professionals and the project posters won several advertising industry awards for social responsibility. The campaign has attracted foundation and business sponsorship. The ‘Thalassa Campaign’, however, has to be heard by policy makers and attention has been drawn to MEPs and a presentation will be made to the Greek Parliament. The project is convinced that people would be willing to adapt their behaviour to protect wildlife if they knew more about the issues. The designation of MPAs is a vital step for the recovery of both rare and exploited species. However, what if there is a problem with the recruitment of young fish to these protected zones? The post-larval survival of fish species is a conservation issue being addressed in the project LIFE10 NAT/FR/000200 SUBLIMO. The project is designed to assess the survival of the post-larvae stage in the overall lifecycle of several species. The project design uses a passive system, the Collect by Artificial Reef Eco-friendly system (CARE), to collect post-larvae fish, which are then reared to juveniles in two fish rearing centres and re-introduced to artificial reefs in priority sites. The aim is to increase the survival rate of juvenile fish to conserve the biodiversity of Mediterranean species. As with the Baltic MPA project the support of fishermen is important in both helping to catch fish and to help with restocking. The fishermen can see that the survival of these young fish is vital for long term sustainability of their livelihoods. The project is supported by scientific studies and networking with similar projects through a Mediterranean Post-Larval Network (MEDPLANET). 4.3. Reconstruction and Remediation One of the stated Programmes of Measures in the MSFD concerns the reconstruction and remediation of habitats. Arguably the main reason for this inclusion is the undoubted success that such programmes have had on restoring degraded habitats on land. Indeed there are many good examples (most Nature LIFE projects) where reconstruction and remediation measure have been adopted in terrestrial, coastal and freshwater habitats in order to restore valuable ecosystems with a view to achieving Good Environmental Status. However, reconstruction/remediation activities are more difficult to achieve in the marine environment than in more traditional settings. This is because the number of tried and tested remediation therapies is more limited in the marine sector and the results of previous interventions are much more difficult to visualise because they are underwater. Monitoring the impact of interventions is also more problematic and generally more costly as it is more difficult to collect quantitative information. For example, establishing a permanent quadrat on land is relatively straightforward, in the ocean there are issues with relocating a particular point on the seafloor, poor underwater visibility, shifting seabeds, tides and currents, waves and storms, and bio-perturbation. In addition, recurring management of these habitats is much more difficult to

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

achieve and it is absolutely critical to ensure that the reason for the initial degradation has been removed or is being addressed otherwise restoration attempts will fail. It is hardly surprising that there are relatively few examples of LIFE projects that attempt to remediate lost marine ecosystems. Most LIFE efforts have been made in the restoration of seagrass meadows and this often forms a small part of a larger basket of interventions intended to restore a particularly diverse area. There are several projects that essentially deal with coastal management and have one action devoted to enhancement of seagrass meadows because they are an integral part of the system. The three projects selected for this analysis all have reconstruction or remediation as the central focus of the project. All three projects have different approaches to restoration but the SWOT analysis indicated some common areas that were essential for success, opportunities, weaknesses and threats. Two projects deal with seagrass meadows utilising very different approaches and the third is an extremely innovative project, quite unique in the LIFE project portfolio. The Portuguese project LIFE06 NAT/P/000192 Biomares was designed to restore and manage biodiversity in the Arrábida-Espichel marine park. One major element of the project was the attempt to restore the lost seagrass meadow at Portinho da Arrábida which has been completely destroyed by inappropriate fishing activities, mainly trawling, and recreational boating. This proved to be one of the most challenging objectives of the project. The project team attempted to transplant three species of seagrasses Zostera marina, Zostera noltii and Cymodocea nodosa (none of which are Annex I or II) from donor populations, the cultivation of seagrass from seeds and propagation of seagrass shoots. They launched four campaigns between 2007 and 2010 in an attempt to restore 60 seagrass plots.

Transplanted seagrass

Seagrass biota: the seahorse

Estimation of available meadow area and genetic diversity of donor seagrass populations was assessed to assure maintenance of genetic diversity of the planted population. Project actions included monitoring of seagrass populations in the restored area and donor areas, as well as pre- and post- habitat restoration to track recovery. Quantitative spatial models to estimate time required for total recovery of a continuous seagrass meadow as a function of different planting densities were developed and validated by examination of patch dynamics to forecast patch growth and meadow recovery by calibrating the spatial model. However, most of the transplanted plots were destroyed by storms or predated by herbivorous fish species and the germination of seeds was extremely reduced not allowing their use in the seagrass habitat recovery. The approximate costs per hectare had the interventions been successful would have been 150,000€. By the end of the project the team concluded that it was much more effective to protect the existing seagrass meadows through the removal and/or management of on-going threats, such as trawling and boat anchoring, rather than attempting to restore lost habitats. To this effect the project installed 100 seagrass friendly mooring

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

systems within the park to limit damage from leisure craft. The approximate cost per mooring was 24,000€ (and in all probability is much less); although there are no figures for how much seagrass meadow can be protected by a single mooring this option does appear to be more cost effective. The development of a countrywide GIS showing seagrass meadow distribution should be a useful tool in determining where future efforts should be addressed. One of the main conclusions of the BIOMARES project was that protection of existing resources is far cheaper, more effective and technically easier to achieve than restoration of lost habitats. The Italian project LIFE09 NAT/IT/000176 POSEIDON commenced with this basic premise, of protecting the existing Posidonia oceania meadows in Northern Latium, as the central theme. The main aim of the project (which is still open) is to discourage illegal fishery in two SCIs, in line with the EU fisheries policy and in particular the EU "zero tolerance" campaign against illegal fishing launched in 2010 to establish a real culture of compliance to stop overfishing and help to make EU fisheries more sustainable. To address this, the project is restoring Posidonia meadows damaged by illegal trawling fishing and increasing the awareness of the importance of such habitats amongst the key stakeholders. The project has already completed the only concrete action by placing 550 anti-trawling tetrapods in the sea, at strategic points to protect the Posidonia meadows. The strategic points were determined following extensive consultation with fishermen to determine where they fish so that the structures could be places correctly to deter trawling and illegal trawling ‘hotspots’ could be identified. The results of this consultation resulted in amendments to the original proposal in relationship to placement of the structures. The project is currently monitoring the impact of the structures on seagrass health, predation rates, genetic diversity and extent of invasive species Caulerpa taxifolia. The monitoring data will be compared with baseline data collected before the structures were placed. Should the technique prove to be successful there is a potential for extensive replication. It can also be assumed that the unit costs (currently running at 2,435€ per tetrapod unit) can be reduced with increased placement and buying in bulk. It is by no means clear at this stage of the project whether the threat from illegal fishing can be removed completely, although there is an indication that a Memorandum of Understanding will be signed between the competent authority and the fishermen presumably with the intent of avoiding the area. The obvious lack of fisheries surveillance will inevitably lead to on-going damage within the meadows. One weakness of the project could be the monitoring programme which does not take into account natural fluctuations (that can be considerable) and does not appear to include seagrass associated organisms or assessment of the areal extent of the meadows. Furthermore the lack of mathematical or physical modelling prior to the placement of the reef structures may eventually result in displacement of the structures and engineering instability.

Box 2: Mitigation in Seagrass beds The use of tetrapods – or devices to discourage trawling - are a common intervention to protect marine benthic habitats. Trawling particularly affects seagrass beds in soft sediments.

An older project LIFE06 NAT/IT/000050 Co.Me.Bi.S. also adopted the approach of protecting the resources by installing anti-trawl devices.

The design was refined for a later project LIFE09 NAT/ES/000534 Life Posidonia Andalucia; the combined analysis should prove helpful for projects wishing to replicate the technique

Although the BIOMARES project collected a great deal of information there were important knowledge gaps concerning specific physical and

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

chemical features at the local scale that were critical in determining site selection. For example the physical nature of the sediments at the donor sites and the translocations sites was very different as were the wave and tidal regimes. This underlines the absolute importance of categorising all elements of a potential reconstruction site perhaps in greater detail than the terrestrial equivalent requires. The Danish project LIFE06 NAT/DK/000159 BLUREEF took a very different approach during rebuilding of marine cavernous boulder reefs in the Kattegat. The project team gathered extensive physical, chemical and biological information which was used to develop a physical model - to simulate how the reconstructed boulder reef would behave under extreme waves and tidal regimes and to ensure that the design of the boulder reef could withstand even extreme events. In addition the project developed a mathematical model to show that the placement of the structure would not have an impact on water flow and water quality on ecosystems downstream. This level of preparation, coupled with very careful site selection, ensured that the reef was placed in the optimum location; as a result the new reef is extremely stable and will not move or degrade. The monitoring programme revealed: • •

Extensive colonisation after 4 years with increase in biodiversity macro algal vegetation and bottom fauna of approximately 6 and 3-ton ash free biomass respectively; estimated surplus of nearly 700 million fauna; Cod increased on average 3-6 fold in the reef area; and Restored reef has proved to have an instant and positive effect on harbour porpoise in the area. The porpoises occurred more often and also for longer periods of time and likely as a result of increased amount of prey.

The project produced a best practice document for the restoration of boulder reefs but found that marine nature restoration projects are quite difficult to disseminate due to their somewhat ‘invisible’ nature and the demonstration value of the project was supported by a high quality video documenting the activities from the initial field investigations and modelling and design, to the construction of the reef and the colonisation of fauna and flora. The BLUEREEF project is unique in terms of LIFE projects, the original feldspar rocks that formed the cavernous boulder reef were removed for use in marine construction works leaving only rubble and cobble stones that were continuously eroding. This was not a habitat that could regenerate itself. The project was unique because there are no other projects that successfully reconstruct a completely degraded marine environment.

Placement of boulders

Boulder reef after placement

Boulder reef after 4 years

The project was not without its problems and concerns over leisure craft safety and navigation needed resolution with the Danish Maritime Authority after the end of the project. There was, perhaps, a lack of consultation with the fishing population on Læsø Island as to how the changes in fishing practice (trawling ban) might affect them – although the fishing ban that was put in place at the beginning of the project was suspended on 31/12/12 at the end of the project and discussions are underway to establish a permanent trawling ban on the reef and a 240m buffer zone throughout. Fishing from trawlers therefore remains a threat to the sustainability of the project. In addition, this is a very expensive option and if the whole costs of the project are taken into account (including baseline studies, monitoring and awareness) then the reconstruction costs of the project are approximately €1 million per hectare of restored habitat.

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

The SWOT analyses of these three projects illustrate a number of common traits that might need to be considered for any marine reconstruction or restoration project. These are: •

•

• • •

•

• • • •

The importance of obtaining detailed physical, chemical and biological data to inform site selection and engineering design cannot be over-emphasised. It appears that biological data (particularly in NAT projects) is prioritised and that the physical properties of the environment are least well defined. In projects where biological reconstruction is being attempted it is critical to make sure that: o Any original impacts (pollution, physical disturbance, invasive species etc.), which may have caused the original decline of the ecosystem, have been removed and the original conditions restored; o Physical and chemical properties of donor sites and translocation sites need to be as close to each other as is feasibly practical; and o Biological material for translocation should be selected carefully to ensure genetic diversity is maintained. It is more difficult to achieve success in marine restoration projects than in terrestrial counterparts because of the difficulties of working underwater. It is also more difficult to disseminate the results of marine projects than terrestrial counterparts and demonstration sites can only be accessed by people with the requisite skills. Good video material is essential to dissemination but it is still difficult to make a project ‘high-profile’. All three projects could have improved the communication with some of the key stakeholders and principally the fishing communities as these are the stakeholders that could affect the sustainability of the project in the long-term. Trawling, and the resultant damage to the seabed habitats, was a key issue in all three projects and remained so at the end of the project i.e. there was still work to do. The BLUEREEF project was the only one that could demonstrate a (statistically) significant increase in both algal and bottom fauna biomass. The BIOMARES project showed an increase in fish biodiversity between the protected and non-protected areas due to management measures, but no statistical analysis is presented. The costs of restoration are very high and it is better to protect remaining resources in some instances than try to restore biological habitats especially if conditions are not favourable. Lack of surveillance and monitoring is an issue throughout and allows illegal practices to continue. Marine biotopes outside the Natura 2000 network could be equally important and worthy of protection and/or restoration. Some species and habitats, which are not cited in the Annexes to the Habitats Directive, could provide ecosystem services equal to some of the protected habitats e.g. the Zostera and Cymodocea meadows provide the same ecosystem services as Poseidonia meadows but are not included in the Annexes.

4.4. Inventories Accurate base line inventories are essential to the establishment of monitoring programmes which themselves are an important component of the MSFD. In the early 2000s the development of the Natura 2000 marine network was hampered by a lack of knowledge. Collecting this information is expensive and requires coordination. A good example of an early project is LIFE07NAT/FIN/0001451 FINMARINET. The project to develop inventories and planning for the marine Natura 2000 network in Finland was led by a government research centre with the support of the statutory nature conservation body and academic institutions. The project carried out a range of physical and biological surveys of the seabed and water column. The information obtained was of great scientific interest but also of direct practical value in supporting extensions to the Natura 2000 network and providing information necessary to assess the potential impacts of projects and processes on the marine environment. The results of the study therefore form part of the data necessary for Marine Spatial Planning. One of the successes of the project was in its sharing of knowledge, networking and support for other projects. The project complemented national studies and could be harmonised with Baltic Sea datasets. It also provided international training opportunities in marine inventory techniques.

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

Box 3: INVENTORIES A similar project in Lithuanian waters lIFE09NAT/LT/000234 DENOFLIT is led by Klaipeda University with the state fishery research centre and other academic and NGO partners. The project aim is to produce an inventory of marine species and habitats for development of the Natura 2000 network in the offshore waters of Lithuania. The surveys included ship-based surveys of seabird distribution, satellite telemetry to obtain information on the movement of birds and mapping of the abundance and distribution of fish species. It is expected the project results will support the identification of new or enlarged Natura 2000 sites (both SPA and SCI). The project also has a strong education component, with the Lithuanian Sea Museum as a partner, and will target families and schoolchildren. It gives added value to the survey work through its dissemination activity. A project which focuses on seabirds is LIFE10NAT/MT/000090 Malta Seabird Project. The aim of this project, led by BirdLife Malta with the support of the Maltese government, is to assemble the necessary information to identify Marine IBAs for the Yelkouan Shearwater Puffinus yelkouan, Cory’s Shearwater Calonectris diomedea and Storm Petrel Hydrobates pelagicus. Once these important bird areas (IBAs) have been confirmed the intention will be to designate the sites as SPAs within the Natura 2000 network. The project is a good example of the use of BirdLife survey techniques to confirm the location and densities of the target species, and the problems of collecting this type of information at sea. Several innovative techniques for telemetry have been applied to map the movements of birds and the results will be shared in a central Mediterranean IBA workshop in 2015. The project is one of a number of projects in Malta (including LIFE06NAT/MT/000097 Yelkouan Shearwater and LIFE11NAT/MT/001070 MIGRATE) which are helping to raise awareness about the marine environment in Malta.

The FINMARINET project conducted a series of inventories of benthic organisms in the Eastern Baltic revealing some exciting and beautiful habitats.

The DENOFLIT project also looked at pelagic resources in the Eastern Baltic. These two projects have much in common.

4.5. Reducing/Re-using fishing discards This topic area is mentioned as one of the pressures on the marine environment under the pressure criteria outlined in Annex III of the MSFD. This is also a ‘hot topic’ in terms of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP). In February 2013 the European Parliament voted the reform of the CFP including measures to protect endangered stocks and the progressive ending of discards, in particular, to ‘the reduction of unwanted by-catches and progressive elimination of discards’ and ‘making the best possible use of the captured resources avoiding its waste’. This policy is due to come into force in 2014.

On the other hand the Maltese project Yelkouan Shearwater looked at only a single species in much greater depth.

There are a surprising number of projects that deal with discards as a part of the project. These projects fall into two broad categories which directly address the two principal issues raised by the revised CFP. The older projects look at a variety of techniques for reusing fishing by-catch (rather than discarding them at sea) and so reducing waste; all these projects are closed and have good results that are discussed in detail in this section. This group of projects are mostly

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

LIFE ENV projects which provide a range of innovative, technological solutions to address the issue of waste reduction. The second group of projects are more recent and are still open and so have few results to report as yet. This group of projects focuses on reducing by-catch and progressively eliminating unwanted catch rather than reusing fish that would otherwise be discarded. The majority of these projects are LIFE NAT projects which will promote the use of various exclusion devices to reduce the incident catch of marine turtles, cetaceans and other marine organisms through fishing improved practices. The results of these projects will be of great benefit in the future and are included in the ‘ones to watch’ section – they will be revisited in the first revision of this report. Two Spanish projects, operated by the same beneficiary, deal with re-using discards in very different ways. The first project was the LIFE05 ENV/E/000267 BE-FAIR developed a range of benign and environmentally friendly fish processing practices to provide added value and innovative solutions for the responsible and sustainable management of fisheries. The project first collected a great deal of valuable information to characterise discards at sea and by-products. From this information base they developed five processes and constructed four prototypes to deal with specific waste streams for producing gelatine from fish skins, Chondroitin sulfate from cartilage and Hiarulonic acid and fish oil. Different processes were developed for onshore and offshore utilisation. In addition to the prototypes the project produced a series of best practice manuals for separation, classification, handling, conservation and pre-treatment of fish waste, defined separately for long-liners, trawlers, fish auctions, and food transformation industry. The prototypes performed very well and the dissemination of the results showed that here was a high level of interest amongst the interested stakeholders. However, the prototypes need to be commercially available before they can be installed (and purchased) by the fishing community. As a consequence there is a big question mark over whether the equipment will be affordable once it is commercially available. The project did not include an economic analysis of the products and so costs are not clear. Similarly there was no assessment of the potential environmental benefits, these are assumed rather than proven. The project does recognise that the market place is an important factor in determining whether or not any one of the project prototypes could be successful in the long-term. The main constraints are the availability of raw material as commercial scale processing would only be viable with minimum production guaranteed and there is competition from third countries which can produce a cheaper product which could make production (and production methods) less viable. This underlines the absolute importance of conducting an effective market study to test the viability of the production system. One potential concern with projects that develop methods of re-using discards (rather than reducing discards) is that by conferring a potentially high value on a particular species it could increase the amount of by-catch; particularly if laws are passed to force fishermen to bring by-catch ashore. The follow on project LIFE08 ENV/E/000119 FAROS adopted a slightly different approach with a greater emphasis on improving the management of discards at sea and onboard. As with the BE-FAIR project the initial tasks involved the collection of a lot of information on by-catch but on this occasion they develop a GIS tool to predict where the discard species are most likely to occur and trialled a virtual network for discards management called ‘Management Geoportal Network’. The intention was to highlight areas where high densities of discards occurred so that fishermen would avoid them; again there is an assumption that there is a willingness to pay for this type of information amongst the fishing community or that governments are willing to support these systems financially. Additional new technologies to improve the management of discards onboard were also developed through the project. The Biomass Estimator Optical System (BEOS)

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

hardware was developed for use on board vessels and used a photographic method for the automatic identification and quantification of the discards – target species were programmed into the photographic system so that they could be separated out for reuse. The system can be adapted for use on different conveyor belt systems on a variety of vessels. The Redbox system was developed for data processing and transmission of data concerning volume of capture, composition of hauls and geographical position. This software is available on the project website and is free for all users. The value of the BEOS system was proven during the project lifetime but there is a potential issue with commercialisation of the system and how this might be financed and the cost of investment to implement these technologies might hinder their adoption especially as there could be costs involved to upgrade vessels. However, there are possible funding opportunities through the EMFF (European Fisheries Fund) which foresees funding of such innovative monitoring technologies as part of the new CFP. The project highlighted the lack of understanding at all levels concerning discards coupled with a lack of will and commitment from politicians and administration in general to bring about the necessary changes in fishing practices to address the discard issue. The next necessary step is a move/commitment from the public bodies, political parties, fishermen associations and lobbies to enforce the gradual ban on discards. The third project is LIFE09 INF/IT/000076 FISH SCALE this is an INF project which aims to educate people to increase consumption of discard species. Clearly this requires buy-in from a wide network of stakeholders from consumers to wholesale distributors, in effect the entire supply chain. Fundamentally, INF projects are designed to get the message across to a wide audience. However, the project must still rely on sound baseline data and they have scientifically identified and ranked 18 discard species that are best suited to marketing and consumption. The project has established a strong FISH-SCALE network of commercial operators distributing ‘neglected’ fish and the awareness campaign has showed at least a 54% increase in awareness over the project lifetime. The most innovative part of the project was the development of an application available for download at the AppStore for iPhone. Additional opportunities might arise because the Portuguese and French administrations have expressed interest in replicating the scheme. However, at the mid-point stage of the project there were only 45 restaurants, 10 fishmongers and a single supermarket chain that were part of the project – clearly there is room for further expansion because a programme such as this needs to be nationwide if it is to be at all successful in changing attitudes and the way that people consume less attractive fish species. The sales reported for the one chain outlet were very high and could be replicated at other outlets given the right marketing environment. The awareness campaign showed a good increase in awareness but this was assessed through a questionnaire based survey and this increase in awareness needs to be translated into concrete action if the project is to maintain the necessary momentum. The project does not appear to include a cost-benefit analysis or a socio-economic analysis and so it could be very difficult to measure the actual success of the campaign in terms of changing behaviour. Arguably the campaign would have benefitted from a high profile celebrity/media person to make the message come alive and be relevant to everyone (e.g. Hugh Fernley Whittingstall in the UK, a celebrity chef who has elevated the awareness of discards at the national level). The SWOT analyses of these three projects illustrate a number of common traits that might need to be considered for any reduction/re-use of by-catch project. These are: • • • • •

There is an issue with the development of pilot technologies to address the re-use of discard species in that, while they may do the job, they are relatively expensive and need some form of additional financing to make them affordable for most fishing enterprises. Costs of implementing interventions at the individual fishing vessel level could be prohibitive. The methods are selective of the discard species, which places a value on the discards and could encourage increased exploitation. The development of any methodology required the acquisition of robust and scientifically sound baseline data and this needs to be built into any project. There is insufficient recognition and understanding of the importance and severity of the discard

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

•

issue among all levels of stakeholders from decision makers through to civil society. There needs to more emphasis on reducing discards rather than re-using discards.

4.6. Contaminated Sediments Dredging is usually carried out to keep shipping routes and ports navigable, but it is also used to gather sediment in order to replenish sand beaches (to compensate for coastal erosion) or provide aggregate for concrete. Dredging greatly disturbs the sea bed, threatening its integrity and related ecosystems. The presence of contaminated sediments in coastal environments means that dredging may also release toxic chemicals into the water. The removal of sediments by dredging results in a large amount of material that needs to be managed; this is particularly challenging when the material is polluted. The three projects studied demonstrate innovative ways of treating and reusing dredged sediments. LIFE06ENV/FIN/000195 STABLE tested an ‘environmentally friendly’ dredging equipment to reduce disturbance and the spread of contaminated sediments. Process stabilisation of the extracted sediments was used to immobilise contaminants, producing a solid material suitable for use as a construction material for harbour extension. The stabilisation equipment demonstrated by the project resulted in improved quality and stabilisation of the material and reduced the amount of binder material required; binders are a major cost factor for the stabilisation process. The project also demonstrated the feasibility of using industrial byproducts such as fly ash and blast furnace ash as binder components to decrease the cost and environmental impacts of the process compared to the use of commercial binders such as cement. Two Italian projects, LIFE08ENV/IT/000426 COAST-BEST and LIFE09ENV/IT/000158 SEDI.PORT.SIL, demonstrated integrated approaches for the management of dredged sediment. COAST-BEST developed a network-based system linking the sediments dredged from nine small harbours in the Emilia-Romagna Region with the best available options for treatment and end use, (e.g. beach nourishment), based on the specific characteristics of the sediment. The approach reduces the need to dispose of sediment in landfill leading to savings of around 60-120 €/t of sediment. A pilot separation and treatment plant able to apply tailor-made sediment treatment chains for different sediments was demonstrated. The process enabled separation of the clean fraction of sediments from the contaminated fraction, allowing them to be managed individually. SEDI.PORT.SIL demonstrated its approach using dredged sediments from the port of Ravenna in Italy. A pilot plant was constructed to demonstrate an efficient treatment process for the decontamination of polluted sediments resulting in the transformation of 99% of contaminated sediment fractions into marketable products. The feasibility of ferrosilicon extraction from polluted sediments using a plasma treatment was also demonstrated. A Master Plan and Business Plan developed for a full scale sediment treatment plant at the Port of Ravenna showed that this was an economically attractive option considering a life cycle of about twenty years. The project addressed the linkage between the processing and treatment of sediment with its potential uses following treatment by developing a GIS database containing information on sites within the Ravenna territory with potential uses for sediment. The transferability of the SEDI.PORT.SIL methodology was successfully demonstrated by the project at the Midia Harbour in Romania. A common strength across all three of the projects analysed is that they addressed sediment management in an integrated way, linking the processing and treatment of sediment with its intended end use. In the STABLE project the stabilised sediment was intended for a specific use in the extension of the harbour in the port of Turku, whereas COAST-BEST and SEDI.PORT.SIL developed regional systems to identify potential uses for dredged sediments. A common limitation identified is the high cost associated with scaling up of sediment treatment process. COAST-BEST tackled this by developing a simple, low-tech treatment process which could be easily adapted to treat different sediments types.

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

4.7. Reducing Atmospheric Emissions from Shipping Emissions from the global shipping industry amount to around 1 billion tonnes a year, accounting for 3% of the world's total greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions and 4% of the EU's total emissions. Without action, these emissions are expected to more than double by 2050. Whilst the EU and Member States favour a global approach led by the IMO, in June 2013 the EC set out a strategy for progressively integrating maritime emissions into the EU's policy for reducing its domestic greenhouse gas emissions. The strategy consists of three consecutive steps: • Monitoring, reporting and verification of CO 2 emissions from large ships using EU ports; • Greenhouse gas reduction targets for the maritime transport sector; • Further measures, including Market Based Mechanisms, in the medium to long term. 48 The LIFE programme has already contributed to the EU strategic approach. For example LIFE08 ENV/CY/000461 MARITIMECO2 has conducted an impact assessment for the adoption of CO 2 emissions trading for maritime transport, with final results due to be released soon. Elsewhere, the LIFE programme has helped demonstrate the market viability of technologies and solutions that will help to meet future greenhouse gas reduction targets as well as reduce operating costs and create new jobs. LIFE06 ENV/D/000479 WINTECC demonstrated the 160 m² Skysails automated towing kite system on the Beluga Skysails vessel. The system proved 5% fuel savings (equalling 500 t/yr of fuel and correspondingly 1,600 tonnes of CO 2 per year) on an average route mix, with 10-12% fuel savings predicted on North Atlantic and North Pacific routes. Assuming bunker oil prices of €430-700 annual cost savings of €135,000 – €220,000 could be achieved leading to amortisation of the costs of installing the kite within 2 - 3 years. Since the demonstration of the 160 m² kite, Skysails has sold a number of kites to shipping operators, attracted a further €15m of venture capitalist funding and developed and installed a 320 m² kite for R&D purposes. There is also potential for the technology to be applied to smaller fishing vessels where lower speeds should mean that fuel consumption is reduced even further by the use of a Skysail. LIFE06 ENV/D/000465 ZEM/SHIPS demonstrated a 100 person hydrogen-power passenger ship and refuelling infrastructure on the inland waterways around Hamburg. The ship, which operated for two seasons without significant reliability problems, achieved zero local emissions which equated to savings of 47.3kg CO 2 , 774kgNOx, 68kg SOx and 3.2kg PM 10 against the equivalent diesel-electric ship. A large number of administrative obstacles had to be dealt with in order to register the ship but the lessons learnt from this process were captured by the project in the world’s first guidelines for fuel cell ships. This deliverable can be used as the basis for further development of fuel cell powered ships in inland and marine settings. The major barrier to the widespread use of the technology remains the development of a cost effective, energy efficient hydrogen power industry. But with the potential to significantly reduce atmospheric emissions and the near silent operation of hydrogen powered drivetrain (due to reduced noise and vibration), ZEM/SHIPS has made a key contribution to the future of hydrogen-powered vessels. LIFE06 ENV/B/000362 ECOTEC-STC demonstrated the economic, social and environmental benefits of the application of Ecospeed™, a non-toxic underwater ship hull coating system which provides vessels with longterm anti-fouling protection. Fouling of ship hulls has major consequences for sea-going vessels, with increased drag causing higher fuel consumption and associated increased costs and emissions. The application of anti-fouling coatings is also associated with the release of VOCs into the atmosphere. Traditional anti-fouling paints use metallic compounds that slowly leach into the sea water, killing barnacles

http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/shipping/index_en.htm

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

and other marine life that have attached to the ship. These compounds persist in the water, polluting harbour bottoms, killing sealife and entering the food chain. The project demonstrated that over the life-cycle of the product (application, operation and maintenance) Ecospeed delivered better environmental performance and lower costs (less than half of an SPC and two-thirds that of a foul release coating for a 1000-TEU container vessel over 25 years) mainly due to its non-toxicity and longevity (coating re-application once every 25 years v 3-5 years for other coatings). Lab tests showed that compared to SPC, conditioned Ecospeed exhibited 1.9% less drag, thus improving fuel efficiency and reducing emissions. Several ports and countries banned underwater cleaning due to pulsed release of biocides or risk of transferring non-indigenous species. The experimental results and the derived criteria for environmentally safe underwater cleaning developed as part of the project convinced several economically important ports to overturn the ban for vessels coated with Ecospeed. This has enabled the beneficiary to create jobs by establishing a network of divers to perform underwater cleaning. 4.8. Avoiding conflict and conflict resolution The MSFD requires an ecosystem based approach which fundamentally means that people and livelihoods should be factored into assessments and solutions – this also means that stakeholders are part of the process and need to be engaged at an early stage in proceedings. As part of the stakeholder engagement process being able to resolve complex conflicts between different user groups is key to progress. A number of LIFE projects have sought to address conflicts and not all have always been successful, whilst others have demonstrated significant progress. LIFE05 NAT/GR/000083 MOFI successfully engaged with fishermen operating in 7 ‘hot spots’ in the Mediterranean Sea where damage inflicted upon fishing gear as well as perceived competition for declining fish stocks led to a deeply entrenched problem of revenge killings of Mediterranean monk seal Monachus monachus by fishermen. Having overcome initial strong resistance, the project carried out direct work with fishermen to measure the actual extent of the human-monk seal conflict, paying the owners of vessels for each investigative journey. As a result, a 12% average decrease in deliberate killings was recorded during the project (2005-2009). The beneficiary collaboratively developed a strategy and action plan to protect the species and address the immediate economic concerns of fishermen, proposing an approach whereby compensation payments were made to replace damaged fishing gear. However, the strategy and action plan were not adopted by the relevant national authorities during the lifetime of the project due to significant difficulties in engaging with government institutions where there were continuous changes in personnel. Questions remain as to whether the compensation scheme adequately addresses the root of the conservation problem (in this case overfishing and lack of prey) and is viable in economically challenging times. There is also a concern that having engaged with fishermen on the basis of financial incentives, failure to implement the action plan could lead to failed expectations, which may result in a loss of engagement and return to revenge killings.

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

Whilst the MOFI project sought to address a specific local conflict, LIFE07 ENV/UK/000943 PISCES primary objective was to generate interest and understanding of the concepts of ecosystem based approaches in a wide and diverse range of stakeholder groups on a regional basis in the Celtic Seas. It demonstrated that through a relatively intensive stakeholder engagement process collaboration between sea-users to identify tangible benefits from working in partnership could be stimulated (e.g. ways to share sea-space, avoid conflict, jointly engage in projects/initiatives etc). As part of the guidelines produced for implementing the ecosystems approach, PISCES identified key lessons for stakeholder engagement: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5.

Clearly explain purpose, role and benefits; Engage early and continuously; Create an open and transparent process; Work with neutral (preferably external) facilitator; Continue efforts to engage those who are disinterested but focus activities on those who are positive and committed.

PISCES was particularly successful in engaging with government stakeholders, providing government policymakers with a better understanding of the potential benefits of greater stakeholder participation in implementation of marine policy, and what the expectations of different stakeholders are. However, engaging with the fishing community, who see the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) as their major interest, proved exceptionally difficult and the lack of input from this major group could undermine the effectiveness of the guidelines in the long term. The beneficiary is now implementing LIFE11 ENV/UK/000392 Celtic Seas Partnership enabling it to continue the stakeholder-led approach, this time contributing to the development of marine strategies, particularly under the MSFD. LIFE07 NAT/E/000732 INDEMARES represents the key governance tool for the construction of the Spanish Natura 2000 network in the marine environment, bringing together and coordinating major stakeholders and promoting the political thrust of this initiative. Despite not having involved all stakeholders (including fishermen) from the very beginning of the project it has achieved considerable success in bringing together political, administrative and scientific stakeholders together with fisheries representatives and the general public to create positive synergies and consensus between interested parties. Given the huge gap that traditionally existed among the fisheries sector, public administrations and NGOs, the channels of dialogue and collaboration opened by INDEMARES is one of the main achievements of this project. One of the key contributing factors to this was the development of a new methodology for the elaboration of fisheries footprints. The methodology enables precise identification of the areas targeted by the different fishing methods and the species targeted which allows detailed planning and avoids the imposition of generic constraints that are of little environmental benefit but that may have considerable economic impacts upon fishermen. Whether the approach in the Spanish marine Natura 2000 network and the Celtic Seas will continue to prevent conflict and will be able to solve any new conflicts that arise in the future is a moot point, however, it is likely that the inclusion of stakeholders in policy implementation will result in measures being more widely accepted and implemented, thereby resulting in long-term environmental benefits and costs savings.

[Marine Thematic Report â&#x20AC;&#x201C; Final Version â&#x20AC;&#x201C; September 2014]

4.9. Ones to Watch There are a number of new projects which have not yet produced any results but which have promising aims and objectives and which may produce some exciting innovations in due course. These projects are listed below and will be revisited during the first revision of this report. •

•

LIFE12 ENV/IT/001054 LIFE + IMAGINE: This project is going to develop an integrated coastal area management application implementing GMES, INspire and sEis data policies. It will be designed to provide detailed information concerning land based activities in two coastal locations susceptible to flooding and erosion. The project illustrates the POM that calls for spatial and temporal distribution controls. LIFE12 ENV/IT/000289 LIFE SMILE: is developing strategies for marine litter and environmental prevention of sea pollution in coastal areas. This will be achieved through the development of a governance processes for implementing an innovative ‘catching mechanism’ for marine litter in a pilot area. The project focuses on smoking related litter and has a strong element of raising public awareness. The project addresses the GES of marine litter and includes the POMs of output measures and management controls. LIFE12 BIO/IT/000556 LIFE Ghost: a project which examines and introduces new techniques to reduce the impacts of ghost fishing gears and to improve biodiversity in north Adriatic coastal areas. The project addresses two GES indicators, maintaining biodiversity and maintaining the health of populations of commercial fish species; the project will deliver the project through the POMs of, management controls, economic incentives and communication programmes. LIFE12 NAT/IT/000937 TARTALIFE: The project aims to reduce sea turtle mortality through the introduction of low impact fishing gears including TED and anti - turtle spray for nets. The main GES targeted is the maintenance of biodiversity and it aims to deliver this through management controls, improved communication and spatial and temporal controls. LIFE11 ENV/UK/000392 CSP: this project follows on immediately from the successful PISCES project and is a stakeholder driven integrated Management of the Celtic Seas Marine Region which aims to address all GES. The project acts mainly through communication and management coordination measures. LIFE10 NAT/IT/000271 SHARKLIFE: this project aims to improve conservation of elasmobrachs in Italian waters through the introduction of new, low-impact fishing gears to reduce by-catch from commercial and leisure fishing; some interesting and innovative methods of excluding target species from catches (e.g. basking sharks Cetorhinus maximus based on weight). The project addresses two GES indicators, maintaining biodiversity and maintaining the health of populations of commercial fish species; the project will deliver the project through the POMs of, input controls and communication programmes. LIFE10 NAT/FR/000200 SUBLIMO: this innovative project is capturing a small number of endangered or over-exploited fish at the post-larval stage - rearing them in laboratories and releasing juveniles into designated habitats to improve adult viability. In terms of GES the project will address the maintenance of biodiversity, the maintenance of commercial fisheries and food-webs and aims to deliver this through the POM of spatial and temporal distribution controls. LIFE11 ENV/SE/000841 BIAS: another innovative project which aims to ensure that the introduction of underwater noise is at levels that do not adversely affect the marine environment of the Baltic Sea. The project seeks to establish and implement standards and tools for the management of underwater noise in accordance with MSFD. This is one of the few projects to address the GES concerning the introduction of energy (including underwater noise) does not adversely affect the ecosystem. The project aims to achieve the results through the POM of output controls, spatial and temporal distribution controls and management control measures. LIFE09 NAT/LV/000238 MARMONI: a project which is developing new ecosystem-based monitoring and assessment approaches using marine biodiversity indicators. The project targets biodiversity maintenance and improving the long-term abundance of the food web. The POMs are spatial and temporal distribution controls and management coordination measures.

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS The present study has been prepared on joint request from the LIFE Unit (E4 Environment) and the Thematic Unit on Marine Environment and Water Industry (C2) with the input and support of the Nature (B3) and Biodiversity (B2) Thematic Units. The main aim of the thematic LIFE studies is to provide useful information on LIFE projects' results to Thematic Units, and consequently strengthen the link between the LIFE Unit in charge of the management of operational projects and Thematic Units dealing mainly with environmental policy. The MSFD is at a pivotal point in terms of implementation with Member States having submitted their environmental targets relating to Good Environmental Status to the Commission for review and moving into the development of monitoring programmes in 2014 and the identification of Programmes of Measures in 2015. This report examined the contribution that LIFE projects have made thus far in assisting Member States to meet GES and in looking forward to developing POMs. The LIFE projects examined for this study covered a broad range of topics in terms of types of marine issues addressed and solutions proposed. The number of projects aiming to contribute directly to the MSFD is limited and this is thought to be attributable to the length of time it takes to develop and complete a LIFE project. On the other hand, a considerable number of projects demonstrate concrete management measures or develop new technologies including, remediation and prevention practices, which show a range of economically feasible and environmentally sound options which could contribute to the development POMs and the revision of GES in the future. The role that LIFE projects can play in various phases of the MSFD cycle can be generally detailed as follows: •

•

Examination of the Means of Intervention showed that LIFE projects are strong on development of management measures, new technologies, stakeholder engagement (at all levels) and data collection. There are many very good examples of projects that deliver on one or more of these aspects which may be of value as a source of reference for implementation at the national or regional level. Areas of relative weakness are in the development of monitoring programmes; although this is perhaps under-estimated as many projects do monitor the results of their efforts on a project, rather than a programme basis and so their effectiveness in terms of a national programme is debateable. Cross-cutting Issues examined in this report were governance, stakeholder and public engagement, maritime spatial planning, ecosystems based approaches and transboundary issues. There are some representative LIFE projects that address each of these issues, even if they do not specifically mention it in the project materials. Of particular importance at the present time in the MSFD cycle could be the way that LIFE projects deal with transboundary issues and there are many good examples of cooperation between countries and at the regional level that could be used to inform future decision-making. There are fewer examples that deal with maritime spatial planning as this is considered difficult to accomplish, particularly if transbundary issues are also considered. Where projects do consider this aspect they rely on collection of large sets of metadata and achieve functionality through the development of a GIS interface. The continuity of this interface after the end of the project is often difficult to achieve and possibly calls into question the effectiveness of the intervention. There are more LIFE projects that address Ecosystem Health than any other indicator. Almost half the projects have some aspect that aims to maintain biodiversity, the integrity of the sea-floor, commercially important fish and shellfish, the food web and hydrographic conditions. This is because almost 50% of the projects are funded through the LIFE Nature strand and must focus on conservation of biological resources within the Natura 2000 network. As a consequence there are many excellent examples of conservation projects that either improve the management of existing protected areas or create new marine protected areas as a direct result of the project. Lessons learnt from these projects can certainly be taken forward into the 2014 MSFD programme which

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

•

requires Member States to submit MPA plans. Important factors for success appear to be collection of detailed and robust scientific data, widespread stakeholder engagement, conflict resolution and careful site selection. There are fewer projects that deal with other aspects of ecosystem health and often this is not the main feature of the project but could be described as ‘value added’. There are however, some excellent projects that collect inventories of marine ecosystems that have been instrumental in describing new habitats that might be worthy of inclusion in the Habitats Directive. Therefore, the Thematic Units would obtain significant benefit from reviewing the results of such projects. Projects that address Pressures on the Marine Environment generally tend to come from the LIFE Environment strand. There are a number of projects that deal in general with contamination and these are probably under-estimated because projects dealing with clean up campaigns in rivers and estuaries have been difficult to identify given the information and time available. There are also sufficient projects dealing in some way with marine litter to provide a degree of analysis, although it must be said that there is only one project that deals with marine litter at sea, all the others deal with land-based sources so there is perhaps additional capacity here. However, these projects provide highly innovative and technical solutions to pollution issues. There are some pressures that are not covered in depth by the LIFE programme and these are highlighted in the gap analysis. Most notable is the lack of attention to invasive species. Despite the fact that there are an estimated 1400 non-indigenous species (NIS) in European marine waters, there is only one project where this is the main subject and two more that deal with NIS as an action within the project. While there are lessons to be learnt from the application of the methods there is insufficient data to assume widespread application. A similar picture has emerged with eutrophication where there are no projects that deal with this issue in the marine environment. There are probably some projects that might claim to address eutrophication in the marine environment but they are principally surface water projects and it is difficult to determine their impact in marine situations. Similarly the issue of underwater noise is not an area where LIFE projects have contributed, although there is one new project that could provide some ground-breaking results if it achieves its objectives. Therefore, ‘pressures on the marine environment’ is the area that contributes most to the gap analysis and possibly presents the greatest opportunity for expansion of the LIFE project portfolio. Finally projects contributing to knowledge of Programmes of Measures were analysed in respect of the categories laid out in the MSFD. The highest number of projects use communication, input and/or output controls. There are many good examples of projects adopting these measures and one of the great strengths of LIFE projects is communication which has been emphasised throughout this report. The input controls are mainly in respect of making provision for MPAs and the output measures are generally in respect of restricting access to critical locations or at least managing access. One area the report focuses on is the reduction in by-catch (considered an output control) which is also required by the revised Common Fisheries Policy. There are some valuable lessons to be learnt from a number of closed projects that focus on the re-use of discards and the Thematic Units may wish to use these to inform future progress in limiting discards. Some new LIFE projects (as yet without results) focus on the reduction of discards. Another area of interest is the restoration or reconstruction of habitats. Again there are some excellent lessons to be learnt from LIFE projects implementing restoration projects which could provide valuable information for other countries wishing to replicate the restoration techniques. Arguably the weakest area for LIFE projects is ‘traceability of pollution’. However, this is probably not an area that really qualifies for LIFE funding.

Undoubtedly LIFE projects can make a significant contribution to the understanding and future implementation of the MSFD. In order to do so the output from the projects must be captured and included in the decision making process. The following are ways in which the output of the LIFE projects could be made more accessible to the Thematic Units: •

Wider Dissemination – although this is a very strong feature of all LIFE projects there is a tendency to disseminate information about the project only at the local or regional scale and occasionally at the national scale. Few projects disseminate their results to the decision makers at the international

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

• •

•

scale. This is particularly true of the ENV projects. LIFE projects should be considered as a source of reference for achieving certain aspects of GES and POM in the context of the MSFD. Technical achievements of LIFE projects, especially those that deal with technical solutions or difficult conservation issues, have the potential to be used as ‘best practice’ in the context of the MSFD. Therefore a systematic screening and reporting of LIFE project results for best practice is recommended. Many of the very technically orientated and experimental LIFE projects do not achieve sustainability during the projects’ lifetime mainly because the project cycle is too short to cement the project findings into routine practice. Similarly, projects often aspire to replicability and transferability but frequently cannot demonstrate success in these areas at the end of the project. However, this does not mean that the projects are unsuccessful. Many beneficiaries continue to operate the project after the end of the LIFE contract and can show impressive results at a later stage. Similarly, many projects that were already quite successful at the end can be developed further and can produce even more impressive results. These value added results cannot be captured by the LIFE programme unless there is an ex-post evaluation of the project. A more systematic approach to ex-post monitoring would allow the LIFE unit and the Thematic Units to assess the long-term benefits of the projects, especially landmark projects. Although the LIFE programme does conduct an ad-hoc expost monitoring programme this is only done on a few selected projects which are selected to assess the overall success of the programme rather than the individual project. One way to achieve a better understanding of the long term success and benefits of the project would be to request the beneficiaries to provide a two and five year update after the end of the project.

[Marine Thematic Report – Final Version – September 2014]

Annex 1 Initial Project Assessment

[Marine Thematic Report September 2014]

Annex 1

Website

Project Information YES

Comment

YES

information

Yes

Project acronym

Project title

Funding

contract code

start date

end date

e-mail coordinator

name coordinator

LIFE12 ENV/IT/001054

02/07/2013

01/07/2016

g.saio@gisig.it

Giorgio Saio

LIFE12 ENV/IT/000289

01/07/2013

01/07/2016

ilaria.fasce@regione.ligu ria.it

Ilaria Fasce

LIFE-NAT

LIFE12 NAT/GR/000688

01/07/2013

30/06/2017

c.liarikos@wwf.gr

Constantinos Liarikos

01/10/2013

30/09/2018

a.sala@ismar.cnr.it

Antonello Sala

Integrated coastal area Management LIFE + IMAGINE Application implementing GMES, INspire LIFE-ENV and sEis data policies Strategies for MarIne Litter and LIFE SMILE Environmental prevention of sea pollution LIFE-ENV in coastal areas

Website

LIFE database website http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=4531 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=4563 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=4718 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=4548

Financial Data Info collected

Comments

Total Budget

EC contribution

21/07/2013

1,521,258.00 €

754,628.00 €

21/07/2013

1,186,944.00 €

570,958.00 €

21/07/2013

2,237,346.00 €

1,677,977.00 €

21/07/2013

4,228,000.00 €

3,171,000.00 €

CYCLADES Life

CYCLADES "Integrated monk seal conservation in Northern Cyclades"

TARTALIFE

Reduction of sea turtle mortality in commercial fisheries

LIFE-NAT

LIFE12 NAT/IT/000937

Yes

LIFE Caretta Calabria

LAND-AND-SEA ACTIONS FOR CONSERVATION OF Caretta caretta IN ITS MOST IMPORTANT ITALIAN NESTING GROUND (IONIAN CALABRIA)

LIFE-NAT

LIFE12 NAT/IT/001185

01/10/2013

30/12/2017

valeriapulieri@gmail.co m

Valeria Pulieri

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 21/07/2013 age&n_proj_id=4514

2,916,834.00 €

1,689,461.00 €

Yes

LIFE BaĦAR for N2K

Life+ Benthic Habitat Research for marine Natura 2000 site designation.

LIFE-NAT

LIFE12 NAT/MT/000845

01/10/2013

30/06/2017

bahar@mepa.org.mt

Darrin T. Stevens

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 21/07/2013 age&n_proj_id=4750

2,612,810.00 €

1,306,405.00 €

Yes

LIFE Ghost -

LIFE12 BIO/IT/000556

01/07/2013

30/06/2016 luisa.daros@ismar.cnr.it

Luisa Da Ros

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 21/07/2013 age&n_proj_id=4778

1,127,020.00 €

544,763.00 €

LIFE12 ENV/FR/000316

01/07/2013

01/07/2017 stephanie.tachoires@air es-marines.fr Stéphanie Tachoires

Yes

Pilot experiments on sustainable and ecosystems based PecheAPiedDeLoi participatory management of recreational LIFE-ENV management sir seafood hand harvesting marine litter LIFE - AMMOS

Yes

CSP

Yes

BIAS

yes

Yes

Integrated information campaign for the reduction of smoking related litter on beaches

Celtic Seas Partnership (CSP) – stakeholder driven integrated management of the Celtic Seas Marine Region

reuse of seaweed

offshore marine habitats

SEA-MATTER

ANDROSSPA

LIFE-ENV

LIFE12 INF/GR/000985 LIFE11 ENV/UK/000392

01/07/2013

31/03/2015 info@medsos.gr

01/01/2013

31/12/2016

jmiller@wwf.org.uk

Evangelos Koukiasas

Janet Miller

LIFE11 ENV/SE/000841

01/09/2012

31/08/2016

LIFE-ENV

LIFE11 ENV/SE/000839

01/09/2012

31/08/2015 bo.fransman@skane.se

Bo Fransman

LIFE-NAT

LIFE11 NAT/MT/001070

0/10/2012

29/04/2016

Petra Bianchi

Revalorization of coastal algae wastes in textile nonwoven industry with LIFE-ENV applications in building noise isolation

LIFE11 ENV/ES/000600

01/09/2012

28/02/2015

Management of the SPA site of Andros Island to achieve a favourable LIFE-NAT conservation status for its priority species

LIFE10 NAT/GR/000637

01/09/2011

31/08/2015

01/09/2011

30/06/2014

Prototypes and approaches for raising the Sustainable Cruise waste hierarchy on board and certifying it

information

LIFE-INF

LIFE-ENV

Baltic Sea Information on the Acoustic Soundscape

BlUe ConcEpt For A Low mussel cultivation BUCEFALOS nutrient/carbOn System –regional aqua resource management Conservation Status and potential Sites of Community Interest for Tursiops Project MIGRATE truncatus and Caretta caretta in Malta

Yes

yes

Techniques to reduce the impacts of ghost fishing gears and to improve LIFE-BIO biodiversity in north Adriatic coastal areas

LIFE-ENV

peter.sigray@foi.se

funding@mepa.org.mt

rlopez@aitex.es

inikolaou@andros.gr LIFE10 ENV/IT/000367

pinna@costa.it

Peter Sigray

Rosa López Ferre

Nikolaou ISIDOROS

SUBLIMO

BaltInfoHaz

Biodiversity Survey of Fish Post-Larvae in LIFE-NAT the Western Mediterranean Sea Baltic Info Campaign on Hazardous Substances

LIFE-INF

LIFE10 NAT/FR/000200 LIFE10 INF/EE/000108

01/09/2011

01/12/2011

28/02/2015

01/04/2015

ursa.koce@dopps.si

lenfant@univ-perp.fr

31/03/2015

369,458.00 €

www.androslife.gr

1,805,749.00 €

1,354,312.00 €

964,252.00 €

1,683,396.00 €

834,573.00 €

Urša KOCE

Philippe LENFANT

kitty.kislenko@bef.ee 01/10/2011

738,918.00 €

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=4091 03/01/2014

1,947,590.00 €

Guerrino Cravin

LIFE10 NAT/SI/000141

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=4205 05/01/2014

284,675.00 €

g.cravin@alles.it

LIFE-NAT

www.seamatter.com

474,458.00 €

30/09/2013

SIMARINENATURA

476,003.00 €

668,820.00 €

01/10/2011

sdimarco@cts.it

964,006.00 €

1,337,640.00 €

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000343

31/12/2014

1,634,311.00 €

Luigi VEDOVATO

LIFE-ENV

01/10/2011

3,681,067.00 €

436,982.00 €

Green Site : supercritical fluid technologies for river and sea dredge sediment remediation

Preparatory inventory and activities for the designation of marine IBA and SPA site for Phalacrocorax aristotelis desmarestii in Slovenia

2,215,567.00 €

873,964.00 €

GREEN SITE

LIFE10 NAT/IT/000271

4,577,315.00 €

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ http://www.sharklife.it/en/theProjects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 12/01/2012 project age&n_proj_id=4078

Mr Martin Marsden

LIFE-NAT

1,973,546.00 €

Paul DEBONO

SEWeb@sepa.org.uk

Urgent actions for the conservation of cartilaginous fish in Italy

3,963,025.00 €

684,298.00 €

31/08/2014

SHARKLIFE

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ http://www.foi.se/en/Customer-Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 21/07/2013 Partners/Projects/BIAS/BIAS/ age&n_proj_id=4183 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 21/07/2013 age&n_proj_id=4182 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ http://lifeprojectmigrate.com/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 21/07/2013 age&n_proj_id=4298

1,377,428.00 €

01/09/2011

paul.debono@birdlifema lta.org

299,709.00 €

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ http://maltaseabirdproject.word Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 12/01/2012 press.com/about/ age&n_proj_id=4055

LIFE10 ENV/UK/000182

30/06/2016

599,918.00 €

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ www.celticseaspartnership.eu Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 21/07/2013 age&n_proj_id=4218

2,351,950.00 €

LIFE-ENV

01/09/2011

1,949,810.00 €

4,876,006.00 €

Elisabetta PINNA

Scotland's Environmental Web

LIFE10 NAT/MT/000090

3,899,625.00 €

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=4722 05/01/2014

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP http://www.sustainablecruise.eu age&n_proj_id=3933 03/01/2014 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ http://www.environment.scotlan Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 14/12/2011 d.gov.uk/life_project.aspx age&n_proj_id=3990 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ http://www.green-site.net/en Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 08/10/2011 age&n_proj_id=3972

SEWeb

Creating an inventory of Marine IBAs for MALTA SEABIRD Puffinus Yelkouan, Calonectris diomedea LIFE-NAT PROJECT and Hydrobates pelagicus in Malta

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=4704 05/01/2014

Ms Kitty Kislenko

http://ptice.si/simarinenatura/en/

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 12/01/2012 age&n_proj_id=4061

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ http://www.life-sublimo.fr/en/leProjects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 12/01/2012 projet/ age&n_proj_id=4075 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ http://www.thinkbefore.eu/en/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 14/12/2011 age&n_proj_id=4034

2,629,246.00 €

1,314,623.00 €

Yes

RED/climate change

BLUETEC

Demonstration of the technological, economic and environmental sustainability of a full-scale tidal energy device in an offshore environment

Actions for the conservation of coastal habitats and significant avifauna species in NATURA 2000 network sites of posedonia ACCOLAGOONS Epanomi and Aggelochori Laggons, Greece Participatory monitoring, forecasting, control and socio-economic impacts of GISBLOOM eutrophication and algal blooms in river basins districts Mare Purum - Prevention of Marine project terminated Mare Purum Fouling on Commercial Shipping and no results Leisure Boats with a Non Toxic Method

Yes

P.R.I.M.E.

yes

SEDI.PORT.SIL

Yes

MARMONI

Yes

yes

WEBAP

data management inlcudes marine

EnvEurope

Yes

FAROS

Yes

MARITIMECO2

Yes

BOATCYCLE

yes

Yes

COAST-BEST

invasive species

CUBOMED

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=3882 05/01/2014

1,639,770.00 €

1,229,828.00 €

30/09/2013

olli.malve@ymparisto.fi

Senior Research Scientist Olli Malve

www.environment.fi/syke/gisblo http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ om Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 16/09/2011 age&n_proj_id=3719

3,060,856.00 €

1,503,638.00 €

1,800,673.00 €

886,211.00 €

1,152,917.00 €

568,455.00 €

1,969,614.00 €

931,192.00 €

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ http://uest.ntua.gr/solbrine/?lan Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 16/09/2011 g=en age&n_proj_id=3679

1,209,689.00 €

604,844.00 €

01/09/2010

01/09/2013

di.susca@tin.it

Donato SUSCA

http://www.lifeprime.eu/

Recovery of dredged SEDIments of the LIFE-ENV PORT of Ravenna and SILicon extraction

LIFE09 ENV/IT/000158

01/09/2010

31/08/2012

elisa.ulazzi@medingegn eria.it

Elisa ULAZZI

http://www.lifesediportsil.eu

Inventory of marine species and habitats for development of NATURA 2000 network in the offshore waters of Lithuania Comunicando para a sustentabilidade socioeconómica, usufruto humano e biodiversidade em Sítios da rede Natura 2000 no arquipélago da Madeira Conservation of Posidonia oceanica meadows in Andalusian Mediterranean Sea

LIFE09 ENV/GR/000299

01/10/2010

31/03/2013

dimostinou@gmail.com

Simeon ORFANOS

LIFE-NAT

LIFE09 NAT/IT/000190

01/10/2010

30/09/2014

taiuti@ge.infn.it

Mauro TAIUTI

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 16/01/2012 age&n_proj_id=3851

1,733,377.00 €

1,110,885.00 €

LIFE-NAT

LIFE09 NAT/LT/000234

01/10/2010

31/03/2015

darius@corpi.ku.lt

Darius DAUNYS

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 16/01/2012 age&n_proj_id=3787

1,569,699.00 €

784,849.00 €

LIFE-INF

LIFE09 INF/PT/000045

01/10/2010

30/09/2014

LIFE-NAT

Innovative approaches for marine biodiversity monitoring and assessment LIFE-NAT of conservation status of nature values in the Baltic Sea

LIFE09 NAT/LV/000238

Thalassa Campaign: Learn, Act, Protect/Awareness, Educational and Participation Campaign for Marine Mammals in Greece Food Information and Safeguard of Habitat a Sustainable Consumption Approach in Local Environment Wave Energized Baltic Aeration Pump Environmental quality and pressures assessment across Europe: the LTER network as an integrated and shared system for ecosystem monitoring Integral networking of fishing actors to organize a responsible optimal and sustainable exploitation of marine resources Impact assessment for the adoption of CO2 emission trading for maritime transport Management, recycling and recovery of wastes of recreational boat scrapping CO-ordinated Approach for Sediment Treatment and BEneficial reuse in Small harbours neTworks Development and demonstration of eradication and control methods for an invasive species: Carybdea marsupialis (Cubozoa), Mediterranean

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 16/09/2011 age&n_proj_id=3711 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 16/09/2011 age&n_proj_id=3694 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 16/09/2011 age&n_proj_id=3682

LIFE-ENV

LIFE09 NAT/ES/000534

POSEIDONE

FISH SCALE

http://www.accolagoons.gr

Apostolos GIANTSIS

LIFE-ENV

Urgent conservation actions of *Posidonia beds of Northern Latium

Yes

A.Giantsis@nath.gr

29/09/2013

NONE FOUND

Conservation of Marine Protected Species in Mainland Portugal

Thalassa

2,512,695.00 €

Gunilla ÖSTBERG

MarPro

Yes

7,447,940.00 €

gunilla@ekomarine.se

Systems for Coastal Dolphin Conservation in the Ligurian Sea

Life Posidonia Andalucia

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ http://www.bluewater.com/bluet Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP ec age&n_proj_id=3640 05/01/2014

28/02/2014

ARION

ECOCOMPATÍVEL

01/10/2010

Harry.Brouwer@bluewa ter.com Harry BROUWER

01/09/2010

Yes

stakehlder engagement conflict resolution including marine biodiversity and development/fishermen

LIFE09 ENV/FI/000569

01/10/2010

01/03/2014

LIFE09 ENV/IT/000061

Posidonia Residues Integrated Management for Eco-sustainability

SOL-BRINE

Yes

LIFE-ENV

LIFE09 NAT/GR/000343

01/09/2010

LIFE09 ENV/SE/000351

yes

DENOFLIT

LIFE-NAT

LIFE09 ENV/NL/000426

LIFE-ENV

Development of an advanced innovative energy autonomous system for the treatment of brine from seawater desalination plants

Yes

LIFE-ENV

sarafreitas.sra@govmadeira.pt

Sara FREITAS

www.lifeecocompativel.com

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=3772 05/01/2014

607,792.00 €

285,646.00 €

01/01/2011

elena.diaz@juntadeand aluia.es; Elena DÍAZ ALMELA 31/12/2013 dgdsia.cma@juntadean dalucia.es

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ http://www.lifeposidoniandaluci Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 16/01/2012 a.es/en/index.aspx age&n_proj_id=3829

3,562,125.00 €

2,474,902.00 €

01/10/2010

31/03/2015 heidrun.fammler@bef.lv

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ http://marmoni.balticseaportal.n Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 16/01/2012 et/wp/ age&n_proj_id=3822

5,888,801.00 €

2,944,400.00 €

2,773,032.00 €

1,386,516.00 €

1,339,500.00 €

542,787.00 €

1,343,248.00 €

667,124.00 €

1,074,026.00 €

537,013.00 €

1,178,605.00 €

562,553.00 €

Heidrun FAMMLER

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ http://marprolife.org/index.php/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 16/01/2012 en/home age&n_proj_id=3842 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ http://www.lifeposeidone.eu/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 16/01/2012 age&n_proj_id=3808

LIFE-NAT

LIFE09 NAT/PT/000038

01/01/2011

31/12/2015

LIFE-NAT

LIFE09 NAT/IT/000176

01/12/2010

paololupino@beachmed 30/09/2014 .eu

LIFE-INF

LIFE09 INF/GR/000320

01/09/2010

31/12/2013

v.savvidou@mom.gr

Valia SAVVIDOU

LIFE-INF

LIFE09 INF/IT/000076

01/10/2010

30/09/2013

bvalettini@acquariodige nova.it

Bruna VALETTINI

www.fishscale.eu/

LIFE-ENV

LIFE08 ENV/S/000271

01/01/2010

31/12/2012

christian.baresel@ivl.se

Christian Baresel

www.webap.ivl.se

LIFE-ENV

LIFE08 ENV/IT/000399

01/01/2010

31/12/2013

alessandra.pugnetti@is mar.cnr.it

Alessandra PUGNETTI

http://www.enveurope.eu/

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 15/09/2011 age&n_proj_id=3445

6,067,876.00 €

3,003,938.00 €

LIFE-ENV

LIFE08 ENV/E/000119

15/01/2010

14/01/2013

antonio@iim.csic.es

Antonio ÁLVAREZ ALONSO

http://www.farosproject.eu/

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 15/09/2011 age&n_proj_id=3431

2,182,906.00 €

1,063,357.00 €

LIFE-ENV

LIFE08 ENV/CY/000461

20/01/2010

20/07/2012

sserghiou@dms.mcw.g ov.cy

Sergios SERGHIOU

830,946.00 €

411,723.00 €

LIFE-ENV

LIFE08 ENV/E/000158

01/01/2010

01/07/2012

cavolio@leitat.org

Ciro AVOLIO

925,458.00 €

358,601.00 €

LIFE-ENV

LIFE08 ENV/IT/000426

01/01/2010

31/12/2012

1,730,501.00 €

812,465.00 €

LIFE-NAT

LIFE08 NAT/E/000064

01/01/2010

31/12/2014 cesar.bordehore@ua.es

1,683,195.00 €

813,498.00 €

catarina.eira@ua.pt

Catarina EIRA

Paolo LUPINO

alessandra.polettini@uni Alessandra Polettini roma1.it Cesar BORDEHORE FONTANET

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ http://www.thalassa-project.gr Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 12/01/2012 age&n_proj_id=3775 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 16/09/2011 age&n_proj_id=3880 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 16/09/2011 age&n_proj_id=3469

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 16/09/2011 age&n_proj_id=3482 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ http://www.life-boatcycle.com/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 15/09/2011 age&n_proj_id=3455 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ http://www.coast-best.eu/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 15/09/2011 age&n_proj_id=3434 http://www.maritimeco2.com/

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 16/01/2012 age&n_proj_id=3530

Yes

SAMBAH

Yes

3R-FISH

Yes

BaltActHaz

Static Acoustic Monitoring of the Baltic Sea Harbour porpoise Integral management model of recovery and recycling of the proper solid waste from the fishing and port activities Baltic actions for reduction of pollution of the Baltic Sea from priority hazardous substances

Yes

ECOSMA

Ecological Certification of Products from Sustainable Marine Aquaculture

Yes

PISCES

Partnerships Involving Stakeholders in the Celtic sea Eco-System

LIFE08 NAT/S/000261

31/12/2009

LIFE-ENV

LIFE07 ENV/E/000814

01/01/2009

01/01/2012

jtaboada@cetmar.org

LIFE-ENV

LIFE07 ENV/EE/000122

01/01/2009

31/12/2011

kitty.kislenko@bef.ee

Kitty Kislenko

LIFE-ENV

LIFE07 ENV/D/000229

01/01/2009

31/12/2011

stefan.rehm@crmonline.de

Stefan REHM

LIFE-ENV

LIFE07 ENV/UK/000943

01/07/2009

30/12/2012

jmiller@wwf.org.uk

Janet Miller

LIFE07 ENV/E/000787

01/01/2009

31/12/2012

mgarcia@reciclauto.es

Miguel Ángel García Molina

LIFE-NAT

Proyecto piloto de desmantelamiento y Recyship descontaminación de barcos fuera de LIFE-ENV uso Identifying critical marine areas for CETACEOSMAD bottlenose dolphin and surveillance of the LIFE-NAT EIRA II cetaceans' conservation status in Madeira archipelago Concrete Conservation Actions for the ConShagAudMIB Mediterranean Shag and Audouin's gull LIFE-NAT in Greece including the inventory of AGR relevant marine IBAs

Yes

FINMARINET

Inventories and planning for the marine Natura 2000 network in Finland

LIFE-NAT

30/12/2014 Mats.amundin@kolmar den.com Mats AMUNDIN Julio Taboada Pérez

397,537.00 €

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ http://www.ornithologiki.gr/page Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 16/01/2012 _in.php?tID=2569&sID=172 age&n_proj_id=3372

2,357,922.00 €

1,768,442.00 €

01/01/2009

31/12/2012

pasi.laihonen@ymparist o.fi

Pasi LAIHONEN

www.ymparisto.fi/finmarinet

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 16/01/2012 age&n_proj_id=3329

3,408,950.00 €

1,704,315.00 €

indemares@fundacionbiodiversidad.es; dpena@fundacionbiodiversidad.es

David PEÑA

http://www.indemares.es

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 16/01/2012 age&n_proj_id=3370

15,405,727.00 €

7,702,863.00 €

LIFE06 NAT/MT/000097

01/09/2006

30/06/2010 nicholas.barbara@birdlif emalta.org Nicholas BARBARA

STABLE

Controlled Treatment of TBTContaminated Dredged Sediments for the Beneficial Use in Infrastructure Applications Case: Aurajoki - Turku

LIFE-ENV

LIFE06 ENV/FIN/000195

01/04/2006

31/03/2009

Yes

MARECLEAN

Risk based reduction of microbial pollution discharge to coastal waters

LIFE-ENV

LIFE06 ENV/F/000136

01/10/2006

30/12/2009

clement.nalin@villegranville.fr

Clément NALIN

Yes

ZEM/SHIPS

Zero.Emission.Ships

LIFE-ENV

LIFE06 ENV/D/000465

01/11/2006

30/04/2010

Anke.Stolper@bsu.ham burg.de

Anke STOLPER

Yes

ECOTEC-STC

Demonstration of a 100% non-toxic hull protection and anti-fouling system contribution to zero emissions to the aquatic environment and saving 3-8 % heavy fuels

LIFE-ENV

LIFE06 ENV/B/000362

01/06/2006

01/12/2009

life@hydrex.be

Kristof ADAM

Yes

Biomares

Restoration and Management of Biodiversity in the Marine Park Site Arrábida-Espichel

LIFE-NAT

LIFE06 NAT/P/000192

01/01/2007

01/01/2011

kerzini@ualg.pt

Karim ERZINI

Yes

BLUEREEF

Rebuilding of Marine Cavernous Boulder Reefs in Kattegat

LIFE-NAT

LIFE06 NAT/DK/000159

01/08/2006

01/04/2012

anb@sns.dk; ogc@sns.dk

Henrik CHRISTENSEN; Olaf CHRISTIANI

Yes

CILENTO IN RETE

Management of the network of pSCIs and SPAs in the Cilento National Park

LIFE-NAT

LIFE06 NAT/IT/000053

01/01/2007

30/12/2010

direttore@pncvd.it

Giuseppe TARALLO; Angelo DE VITA

Urgent conservation measures for LIFE-NAT biodiversity of Central Mediterranean Sea

LIFE06 NAT/IT/000050

rdefilippis@regione.lazio Raniero DE FILIPPIS 01/10/2006 30/09/2009 .it

Jarmo.Yletyinen@terra mare.fi Jarmo YLETYINEN

DESTINATIONS

Development of Strategies for Sustainable Tourism Investments in the Mediterranean Nations

LIFE-TCY

LIFE06 TCY/INT/000250

01/02/2007

01/12/2009

zeljka.skaricic@ppa.htn et.hr

Ivica Trumbic

WINTECC

Demonstration of an innovative wind propulsion technology for cargo vessels

LIFE-ENV

LIFE06 ENV/D/000479

01/01/2006

31/12/2009

anja.koutsoutos@Belug a-Group.com

Anja KOUTSOUTOS

Elefsina 2020

795,074.00 €

LIFE07 NAT/FIN/000151

LIFE-NAT

spatial planning

1,686,773.00 €

Jakob FRIC

SPA Site and Sea Actions Saving Puffinus yelkouan in Malta

yes

3,393,046.00 €

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 16/01/2012 age&n_proj_id=3344

jakobfric@ornithologiki. gr

GARNIJAMALTIJA

BE-FAIR

1,022,753.00 €

31/12/2012

Yes

2,103,888.00 €

01/01/2009

31/12/2013

Benign and environmentally friendly fish processing practices to provide added LIFE-ENV value and innovative solutions for a responsible and sustainable management of fisheries. Collaborative Environmental Regeneration of Port-Cities: Elefsina Bay LIFE-ENV 2020

414,072.00 €

LIFE07 NAT/GR/000285

01/01/2009

alternative energy

828,144.00 €

Luis FREITAS

LIFE07 NAT/E/000732

Yes

851,816.00 €

luisfreitas@museudabal eia.org

LIFE-NAT

yes

1,715,632.00 €

30/06/2013

Inventory and designation of marine Natura 2000 areas in the Spanish sea

Co.Me.Bi.S.

2,112,098.00 € 595,620.00 €

01/06/2009

INDEMARES

Yes

4,242,013.00 € 1,447,990.00 €

LIFE07 NAT/P/000646

Yes

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=3564 05/01/2014 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ http://www.3rfish.org Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 14/09/2011 age&n_proj_id=3287 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ http://www.baltacthaz.bef.ee/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 13/09/2011 age&n_proj_id=3285 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 14/09/2011 http://www.ecosma.de age&n_proj_id=3299 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ http://projectpisces.eu/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 09/08/2013 age&n_proj_id=3281 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ http://www.recyship.com/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 14/09/2011 age&n_proj_id=3241

http://www.sambah.org

LIFE05 ENV/E/000267

15/11/2005

15/11/2008

LIFE05 ENV/GR/000242

01/10/2005

30/09/2009

grammatiads@olesa.gr Panagiotis MANAKOS

antonio@iim.csic.es

Antonio Álvarez Alonso

Yes

Baltic MPAs

Marine protected areas in the Eastern Baltic Sea

LIFE-NAT

LIFE05 NAT/LV/000100

01/08/2005

31/07/2009

heidrun.fammler@bef.lv

Heidrun FAMMLER

Yes

MOFI

Monk seal & fisheries: Mitigating the conflict in Greek seas

LIFE-NAT

LIFE05 NAT/GR/000083

01/07/2005

30/06/2009

admin@mom.gr

Spyros KOTOMATAS

http://www.cetaceosmadeira.com

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ http://www.lifeshearwaterprojec Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP t.org.mt age&n_proj_id=3143 03/01/2014

919,732.00 €

459,866.00 €

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ http://projektit.ramboll.fi/life/stab Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP le/index.asp age&n_proj_id=3102 03/01/2014 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ http://www.smbcgProjects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 23/03/2011 mareclean.eu age&n_proj_id=3104 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ http://www.zemships.eu/en/ind Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 21/09/2011 ex.php age&n_proj_id=3081

1,569,358.00 €

783,429.00 €

5,158,348.00 €

2,384,424.00 €

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ http://www.hydrex.be/life_index. Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 20/09/2011 htm age&n_proj_id=3087

5,200,611.00 €

1,525,413.00 €

16/02/2011

2,364,438.00 €

1,182,219.00 €

22/02/2011

4,808,398.00 €

2,364,199.00 €

1,598,932.00 €

1,039,306.00 €

22/02/2011

1,100,000.00 €

525,000.00 €

30/03/2011

702,864.00 €

419,923.00 €

http://www.ccmar.ualg.pt/bioma http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ res/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=3164 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ www.bluereef.dk Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=3109 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ www.lifecilentoinrete.eu Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=3218 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ http://www.lifecomebis.eu/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=3162 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ http://www.projectProjects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP destinations.org/ age&n_proj_id=3171 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=3074

22/02/2011

20/12/2013

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ http://www.befairproject.com/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 20/09/2011 age&n_proj_id=2876 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 20/09/2011 age&n_proj_id=2836 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ http://lifempa.balticseaportal.net Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 16/02/2011 / age&n_proj_id=2927 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ http://mofi.mom.gr Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP 16/01/2012 age&n_proj_id=2936 http://www.life-ole.gr/

3,721,425.00

website not in english

4,115,882.00 €

974,228.00

1,212,685.00 €

1,858,552.00 €

909,248.00 €

1,921,600.00 €

751,425.00 €

3,111,316.00 €

1,555,658.00 €

1,564,735.00 €

938,841.00 €

Yes

Seems to cover only on land noise mapping

NoMEPorts

Noise Management in European Ports

LIFE-ENV

LIFE05 ENV/NL/000018

2005-2012 Number rejected after moderation Number assigned to coastal management Projects for analysis Total Projects Reviewed

20 14 72 106

01/03/2005

31/08/2008

ton.van.breemen@porto Ton VAN BREEMEN famsterdam.nl

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/ Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP age&n_proj_id=2870 20/12/2013

1,503,489.00 €

707,645.00 €

Of Interest? YES

Maybe

Website

Project Information JH Comment wetland reconstruction just dunes

Project acronym

Project title

LIFE CWR

Ecological Restoration and Conservation of Praia da Vitória Coastal Wet Green Infrastructure

REDCOHA-LIFE

Restoration of Danish Coastal Habitats

Funding

contract code

start date

end date

LIFE-BIO

LIFE12 BIO/PT/000110

01/08/2013

31/07/2018

LIFE-NAT

LIFE12 NAT/DK/001073

0/08/2013

e-mail coordinator

name coordinator

geral@cmpv.pt

Elisabete Nogueira

31/08/2018

nst@nst.dk

Uffe Strandby

jordi.bacardit.penarroya @acciona.com

Jordi Bacardit

Improving Water Reuse at the coastal areas by an advanced desalination process Reconciling agriculture with environment through a new water governance in coasta and saline areas Urgent Measures to Restore and Secure Long-term Preservation of the Atanasovsko Lake Coastal Lagoon

LIFE-ENV

LIFE12 ENV/ES/000632

01/10/2013

30/09/2016

LIFE-ENV

LIFE11 ENV/IT/000035

01/11/2012

lorenzo.furlan@venetoag LORENZO FURLAN 31/10/2015 ricoltura.org

LIFE-NAT

LIFE11 NAT/BG/000362

01/07/2012

31/08/2018

LIFE AUFIDUS

Habitat restoration actions in the SCI "Ofanto Valley - Lake Capacciotti"

LIFE-NAT

LIFE11 NAT/IT/000175

01/09/2012

31/12/2017

ing.orsino@gmail.com

Lattanzio Angela

no marine priority habitats

MAESTRALE

Actions for the recovery and the conservation of dune and back dune habitats in the Molise Region

LIFE-NAT

LIFE10 NAT/IT/000262

19/09/2011

30/06/2017

fusco.sara@gmail.com

Sara Fusco

Coastal lagoons/ mudflats & sand flats not covered by seawater at low tide

∆-LAGOON

Restauración y gestión del hábitat en dos lagunas costeras del Delta del Ebro: Alfacada y Tancada

LIFE-NAT

LIFE09 NAT/ES/000520

01/09/2010

31/12/2014

carles.ibanez@irta.cat

Carles IBAÑEZ

TaCTICS

TaCTICS - Tackling Climate ChangeRelated Threats to an Important Coastal SPA in Eastern England

LIFE-NAT

01/01/2009

31/12/2012

LIFE-OFREA groundwater management in coastal areas does not include any marine priority habitats does not include any marine priority habitats

does not include any marine priority habitats managed realignment no longer included

WSTORE2

Salt of Life

MR Mo ToWFO

Managed Realignment Moving Towards Water Framework Objectives

no marine priority habitats included

KokemäenjokiLIFE

From Ancient to the Present Estuary, Kokemäenjoki Wetland Chain

no marine priority habitats included

Marais de Rochefort

Preservation and restoration of the Rochefort marshes biological functions

BALTCOAST

Rehabilitation of the Baltic coastal lagoon habitat complex

no priority marine habitats no marine priority habitats

HABI.COAST

LIFE07 NAT/UK/000938

diyana.kostovska@biodi Diyana KOSTOVSKA versity.bg

Nick Folkard nick.folkard@rspb.org.uk

LIFE-ENV

LIFE06 ENV/UK/000401

01/10/2006

WinnP.Willerby1.NE@en 31/12/2009 vironment-agency.gov.uk

LIFE-NAT

LIFE06 NAT/FIN/000129

01/08/2006

Arto.Ahokumpu@metsa.f 31/07/2011 i; tapio.aalto@elykeskus.fi

LIFE-NAT

LIFE06 NAT/F/000147

01/10/2006

31/12/2010

thierry.micol@lpo.fr

Thierry MICOL

LIFE-NAT

LIFE05 NAT/D/000152

31/12/2011

project@lifebaltcoast.eu; kueper@snsh.de

Britta KÜPER

Protection of coastal habitats in pSCI Torre LIFE-NAT Guaceto

LIFE05 NAT/IT/000050

31/12/2008

segreteria@riservaditorr eguaceto.it

Alessandro CICCOLELLA

01/05/2005

01/01/2006

Philip Winn Arto AHOKUMPU; Tapio AALTO

Website

LIFE database website

Financial Data Info collected

Total Budget

EC contribution

21/07/2013

2,163,042.00 €

1,081,521.00 €

21/07/2013

2,845,912.00 €

1,422,956.00 €

21/07/2013

797,976.00 €

398,988.00 €

21/07/2013

1,576,521.00 €

686,210.00 €

21/07/213

2,013,027.00 €

1,450,558.00 €

21/07/2013

2,354,000.00 €

1,765,500.00 €

12/01/2012

1,479,986.00 €

1,109,989.00 €

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr http://lifedeltalagoon.eu/lifedeltal ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage 04/03/2011 agoon/index.php?lang=en &n_proj_id=3845

3,054,703.00 €

1,490,084.00 €

17/05/2011

898,232.00 €

417,232.00 €

16/03/2011

3,408,558.00 €

1,704,279.00 €

16/03/2011

791,216.00 €

395,608.00 €

16/02/2011

5,685,005.00 €

3,403,203.00 €

16/01/2012

730,000.00 €

365,000.00 €

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage &n_proj_id=4745 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage &n_proj_id=4618 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage &n_proj_id=4683 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage &n_proj_id=4232 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr http://www.saltoflife.biodiversity. ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage bg/en/ &n_proj_id=4322 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr http://www.lifeaufidus.it/ ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage &n_proj_id=4333 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr http://www.lifemaestrale.eu/ ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage &n_proj_id=4096

http://www.rspb.org.uk/reserves/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr guide/t/titchwellmarsh/coastalch ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage ange/ &n_proj_id=3321 http://www.environmenthttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/f ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage loods/123710.aspx &n_proj_id=3068 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.a ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage sp?node=21245&lan=en &n_proj_id=3151 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr http://www.maraisderochefort.lp ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage o.fr &n_proj_id=3139 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr www.life-baltcoast.eu ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage &n_proj_id=2998 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr http://www.riservaditorreguaceto ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage .it/intsites/habicoast/ &n_proj_id=2909

Comments

30/08/2013

Past projects might be used for illustration in Chapter 2 and not inlcuded in assessment Website

Project Information Comment

Project acronym

Project title

Funding

contract code

Non-contaminant ship painting - Building of a large scale pilot plant for nonLIFE-ENV LIFE94 ENV/D/000297 contaminating paint-coating of vessels

OSIS Marine Transport

Oil Spill Identification System for Marine Transport

Osis off shore

Sensor for identification of oil spills from offshore installations

SIMPYC

Environmental integration for ports and cities

LIFE-ENV

LIFE04 ENV/DK/000076

LIFE-ENV

LIFE02 ENV/DK/000151

start date

end date

01/10/1994

31/03/1998

01/11/2004

01/01/2002

30/06/2008

30/04/2005

e-mail coordinator

name coordinator

Website

only example of WWT directly related to sea

20/12/2013

1,323,261.21 €

pmj@osis.biz

20/12/2013

3,977,750.00 € 1,193,325.00 €

pmj@osis.biz

Peter MOELLERJENSEN

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=208 6

20/12/2013

3,359,448.00 €

867,392.00 €

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=271 4

20/12/2013

1,720,049.00 €

830,026.00 €

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=213 5

20/12/2013

3,222,366.09 € 1,335,495.00 €

01/01/2005

Eddy.Bruyninck x@haven.Antwe Eddy BRUYNINCKX rpen.be

01/10/2002

Aquarius

Techniques for the assessment of the operating conditions and the control of the efficiency of Sea Outfalls at the service of LIFE-ENV LIFE99 ENV/IT/000155 coastal WWTP - Waste Water Treatment Plants using underwater sensors and acoustic telemetry systems.

01/06/1999

31/05/2001

15/10/2004

15/10/2007

LIFE-ENV LIFE99 ENV/D/000414

01/10/1999

31/03/2002

New approach to an integrated electro-TBTdetoxification of dredged material on a pilot- LIFE-ENV Electro-TBT-detoxification scale LIFE99 ENV/D/000413

01/10/1999

30/06/2003

Restoring of the water quality in the bay of LIFE-ENV LIFE92 ENV/F/000023 Brest

01/12/1992

An investigation into the survival of sewage indicating organisms discharged to LIFE-ENV the marine environment

01/04/1997

Dock waste water recycling

Brest Water

System for the integral management of the wastes produced by the mussel cultured in rafts and longlines

Constructing a pilot unit to minimize the organic tin compound and heavy metal contamination of dock waste water

LIFE-ENV LIFE04 ENV/ES/000239

progcomunitari @mail.comune. genova.it Enrico DA MOLO Maria Luisa

mfernandez@c Fernández Cañamero etmar.org

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti http://www.gisig.it/Aqu on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=130 arius/Index.htm 9 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=268 http://193.144.36.199/li 8 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=104 2

249,974.66 €

03/01/2014

934,786.99 €

405,232.74 €

03/01/2014

669,599.37 €

334,800.00 €

03/01/2014

869,196.20

260,758.86

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/proj ect/Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=sear ch.dspPage&n_proj_id=1047

03/01/2014

1,153,157.48 €

451,824.14 €

31/12/1995

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=638

05/01/2014

31/03/1999

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=897

05/01/2014

334,307.51 €

159,883.10 €

N. PLATZ

LIFE97 ENV/UK/000431

Total Budget EC contribution

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti http://www.osis.biz/ss on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=268 2.asp 4

31/01/2008

TBT CLEAN

GESTINMER

bathing water

01/08/2004

Comments

Peter MOELLERJENSEN

ftorres@valenci Federico TORRES aport.com MONFORT

Development of an integrated approach for the removal of tributyltin (TBT) from waterways and harbours: prevention, LIFE-ENV LIFE02 ENV/B/000341 treatment and reuse of TBT contaminated sediments

demo of IPPC

shellfish and bathing waters

LIFE-ENV LIFE04 ENV/ES/000216

Financial Data Info collected

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/ project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=110 7

http://www.osis.biz

ICZM

LIFE database website

rehberg@tutech. Ludwig REHBERG

Roger WOOD

Website

Project Information Comment no marine habitats classified - coastal only

Project acronym

Project title

LIFE VIMINE

An integrated approach to the sustainable conservation of intertidal salt marshes in the lagoon of Venice

LIFE Stop CyanoBloom

Innovative technology for cyanobacterial bloom control

? Is this in lakes

LIFE Saimaa Seal

Safeguarding the Saimaa Ringed Seal

? Link to coastal/marine

Life+-ŁosośDrwęc-PL

Improvement of fish living conditions in River Drwęca and its tributaries.

Funding

contract code

LIFE-NAT

LIFE12 NAT/IT/001122

02/09/2013

01/09/2017

lpalmeri@unipd.it

Luca Palmeri

LIFE-ENV

LIFE12 ENV/SI/000783

01/07/2013

31/12/2016

info@arhel.si

Marko Gerl

LIFE-NAT

LIFE12 NAT/FI/000367

01/08/2013

31/08/2018

mikko.tiira@metsa.fi

Mikko Tiira

LIFE-NAT

LIFE12 NAT/PL/000033

01/09/2013

magdalena_kupiec@wp. 31/08/2017 pl

LIFE11 NAT/PL/000424

01/06/2012

30/09/2017

LIFE11 INF/AT/000902

01/07/2012

30/09/2015

jutta.jahrl@wwf.at

Jutta Jahrl

LIFE11 INF/PL/000480

01/09/2012

29/02/2016

rektor@wss.edu.pl

Barbara Kowalkowska

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000369

01/11/2011

life.anzio@libero.it, Gianluca IEVOLELLA 01/11/2015 life@comune.anzio.roma .it

LIFE09 ENV/IT/000125

01/09/2010

15/10/2013

The construction of the blue ecological Niebieski korytarz ? coastal corridor along the valley of Riga river and LIFE-NAT Regi its tributaries Saving Danube Sturgeons - Joint Actions ? Includes a SAVING DANUBE to Raise Awareness on Overexploitation of coastal/ marine LIFE-INF STURGEONS Danube Sturgeons in Romania and component Bulgaria Strengthening the awareness of Polish early termination AGROSAFE farmers to reduce the eutrophication LIFE-INF no results impact from agriculture cannot meet European Ports Life Cycle Assessment LCA4PORTS LIFE-ENV objectives - will be (LCA) terminated undergone early termination - not evaluated no data

E.N.A.

Eco-Design for the Nautical Sector

LIFE-ENV

start date

end date

e-mail coordinator

name coordinator

Halt the loss of European Biodiversity through the recovery of habitats and species of the islets of Porto Santo and surrounding marine area.

LIFE-NAT

LIFE09 NAT/PT/000041

01/09/2010

31/08/2014

http://danube-sturgeons.org/

Dilia MENEZES

Financial Data Info collected

Total Budget

EC contribution

21/07/2013

2,024,295.00 €

1,396,763.00 €

21/07/2013

1,300,963.00 €

648,792.00 €

21/07/2013

5,261,612.00 €

3,946,209.00 €

21/07/2013

3,401,394.00 €

1,700,697.00 €

21/07/2013

5,407,999.00 €

2,703,999.00 €

770,836.00 €

384,143.00 €

534,483.00 €

263,504.00 €

1,091,650.00 €

485,300.00 €

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage 21/07/2013 &n_proj_id=4340

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr http://agrosafe.pl/index.php?pag ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage 21/07/2013 e=home &n_proj_id=4417 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr http://www.lca4ports.eu/index.ph ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage 08/10/2011 p/en/ &n_proj_id=3934

www.progettoena.it

diliamenezes.sra@govmadeira.pt

LIFE database website http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage &n_proj_id=4555 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage &n_proj_id=4601 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage &n_proj_id=4768 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage &n_proj_id=4580 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage &n_proj_id=4286

Krzysztof Wolfram

Esoh ELAME

no marine habitats Life Ilhéus do Porto classified - coastal Sant only

Website

www.progettoena.it http://www.pnm.pt/

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage &n_proj_id=3716

05/01/2014

571,163.00 €

4,135,521.00 €

2,067,760.00 €

1,626,458.00 €

813,229.00 €

ZTAR

Zwin Tidal Area Restoration

LIFE-NAT

LIFE09 NAT/BE/000413

01/01/2011

31/12/2015

evy.dewulf@lne.vlaander en.be

Evy DEWULF

? Only because salmon, lamprey shad are migrating. But then would have to include all projects with anadromous fish

ISAC 08

Irfon Special Area of Conservation Project

LIFE-NAT

LIFE08 NAT/UK/000201

01/01/2010

15/09/2013

stephen@wyeuskfoundat ion.org

Stephen MARSHSMITH

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr http://www.wyeuskfoundation.or ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage 23/02/2011 g/isac/# &n_proj_id=3538

all meansures for on land conservation of nest sites

SAFE ISLANDS FOR SEABIRDS

Safe islands for seabirds/ Initiating the restoration of seabird-driven ecosystems in the Azores

LIFE-NAT

LIFE07 NAT/P/000649

01/01/2009

31/12/2012 pedro.geraldes@spea.pt

?Sea lamprey

P.A.R.C.

Petromyzon And River Continuity

LIFE-NAT

LIFE07 NAT/IT/000413

12/01/2009

31/12/2011 direttore@parcomagra.it

No-only use of freshwater-minor link to water cycle

Eco-animation

LIFE-INF

LIFE07 INF/UK/000950

01/01/2009

31/03/2011

luigi@bs-europa.eu

Mr. Luigi Petito

LIFE-ENV

LIFE06 ENV/D/000485

01/10/2006

30/06/2011

schmid.georg@e-werkmittelbaden.de

Georg SCHMID

Moveable HEPP ? Another anadromous fish project

LIFE-Projekt Maifisch

Eco-Animation: a cutting edge cartoon to raise awareness on climate change and sustainable use of natural resources among European children Demonstration Plant in the Kinzig River: Moveable Hydroelectric Power Plant for Ecological River Improvements and Fish Migration Reestablishment The re-introduction of allis shad (Alosa alosa) in the Rhine System

LIFE-NAT

LIFE06 NAT/D/000005

01/01/2007

1057761

507,118.00 €

1,511,286.00 €

755,500.00 €

http://www.animate-eu.com/eco http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr and ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage 14/12/2011 http://www.myfriendboo.com/wat &n_proj_id=3313 ch.html

541,092.00 €

258,371.00 €

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr http://www.moveable-hepp.com/ ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage 23/03/2011 &n_proj_id=3075

6,618,501.00 €

1,695,375.00 €

478,174.00 €

k.romeijnders@staatsbo Kees ROMEIJNDERS sbeheer.nl

3,406,241.00 €

953,747.00 €

30/09/2009

Renate.thole@mu.nieder sachsen.de

Renate THOLE

http://www.lifehttp://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr kuestenheiden.niedersachsen.d ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage 16/01/2012 e &n_proj_id=2946

928,996.00 €

464,498.00 €

31/07/2009

ole@sns.dk

Hans Ole HANSEN

13,385,913.00 €

8,031,548.00 €

Restoration of brackish ecosystems in Westzaan polder

LIFE-NAT

LIFE06 NAT/NL/000076

01/09/2006

31/08/2010

? Probably not heathalnd is quite far removed sea influence

Cuxhavener Küstenheiden

Large Herbivores for Maintenance and Conservation of Coastal Heaths

LIFE-NAT

LIFE05 NAT/D/000051

01/10/2005

? Does this have a marine phase

Houting

Urgent actions for the endangered Houting "Coregonus oxyrhunchus"

LIFE-NAT

LIFE05 NAT/DK/000153

01/02/2005

http://www.alosa-alosa.eu

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage 16/01/2012 &n_proj_id=3121

956,348.00 €

Verbrakking Westzaan

Heiner KLINGER

www.lifeparc.eu/

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage &n_proj_id=3349 03/01/2014 http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage 25/02/2011 &n_proj_id=3342

http://www.staatsbosbeheer.nl/A ctueel/Dossiers/LIFE%20Nature/ http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr LIFE%20Polder%20Westzaan/P ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage 18/03/2011 roject%20Verbrakking%20polde &n_proj_id=3126 r%20Westzaan.aspx

31/12/2010

no marine priority habitats - project terminated early with no results

Reasons for rejection 1. Where project seeks to protect andromadous fish and there is no marine element 2. Projects with a coastal element that have no marine function 3. Projects where 'coastal' clearly refers to a lacustrine system 4. Projects which do not have any marine priority habitats as defined in Chapter 2 of the report

heiner.klinger@lanuv.nrw .de

Patrizio Scarpellini

1,500,099.00 €

1,150,016.00 €

http://www.natuurenbos.be/nl- http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr BE/Overojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage 16/01/2012 ons/Projecten/Ztar.aspx &n_proj_id=3867

http://life-corvo.spea.pt/pt/

3,000,199.00 €

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage 16/01/2012 &n_proj_id=3802

no marine habitats classified - coastal only

Pedro GERALDES

Comments

http://www.snaebel.dk/

http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage 07/03/2011 &n_proj_id=2947

Annex 2 Project Assessment Matrix

[Marine Thematic Report September 2014]

Annex 2

LIFE12 ENV/IT/001054 12

LIFE12 ENV/IT/000289

LIFE12 NAT/IT/001185

1,689,461.00 €

Preparing an inventory of Malta's marine benthic habitats Project open - due to close 06/17 - no results for inclusion in Natura 2000 network reported to date

2,612,810.00 €

1,306,405.00 €

1,127,020.00 €

544,763.00 €

Techniques to reduce the impacts of ghost fishing gears and to improve biodiversity in north Adriatic - remediation of rocky aeas - protocols - strengthening of legislation - Project open - due to close 6/16 - no results public awareness - cost benefit analysis reported to date

Promotion of effective and transferable methods for promoting sustainable approaches to shore-based sea angling in 11 pilot Project open - due to close 09/17 - no data areas using ecosystem based approach to marine management, Includes plans for MPAs reported

Integrated information campaign for the reduction of smoking litter on beaches

Demonstrate a holistic approach to regional coordination for sustainable resource management of aquatic biomass. Thie project will demonstrate innovative methodologies and technological applications for cultivating and harvesting mussels. It will also restore wetlands and establish algae cultivation sites with a view to cleaning freshwater and providing efficient yields of biomass for biogas.

LIFE11 ENV/SE/000839

1 LIFE11 NAT/MT/001070 1 LIFE11 ENV/ES/000600

LIFE10 NAT/GR/000637 1

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000367

Project open - due to close 03/16 - no data as yet

Stakeholder Driven Integrated Management of the Celtic Project open - due to close 12/16 - progress according to schedule 1 Seas Marine Region - aims to address all GES Ensure that the introduction of underwater noise is at levels that do not adversely affect the marine environment of the Baltic Sea - establish and implement standards and tools for the management of underwater noise in accordance with 1 MSFD

Project open - due to close 06/14 - progress according to schedule

Development of green and compact technologies (that do not rely on solvents) for the quick decontamination of marine and fluvial sediments contaminated by hydrocarbons and other organic substances (PCBs, pesticides, etc) with an associated Project due to close 12/13 but prolongation request still pending - current status not known negative impact on human health and on ecosystems in waterside areas - prototype has been developed

LIFE10 ENV/UK/000182

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000343 1 LIFE10 NAT/MT/000090 1

Creating an inventory of Marine IBAs for Puffinus Yelkouan, Calonectris diomedea and Hydrobates pelagicus in Malta

599,918.00 €

1,949,810.00 €

299,709.00 €

3,963,025.00 €

1,973,546.00 €

4,577,315.00 €

2,215,567.00 €

3,681,067.00 €

1,634,311.00 €

964,006.00 €

476,003.00 €

Project open - due to close 08/15 - progress according to schedule

Conservation Status and potential Sites of Community Interest for Tursiops truncatus and Caretta caretta in Project open - due to close 04/16 - progressing Malta and pSAC based on outcome according to schedule Removal of marine algae debris from beaches using new techniques to reduce landfill and prevent damage to beac Project open - due to close 02/15 - progress ecosystems according to schedule Main actions concerns onshore activities to conserve bird but also includes reduction in damage to seagrass beds (Posidonia) and restructing fishing in protected area Project open - due to close 08/15 - progress through closed season according to schedule Reducing and recyling waste on board cruise liners to address waste disposal issues

3,899,625.00 €

Project open - due to close 08/16 - progress on schedule

information system covering all environmental data including marine to make better informed decision makingProject open - due to close 08/15 (with and allow prioritisation of actions (and budgets) prolongation) - progressing well

EU contribution

2,916,834.00 €

LIFE11 ENV/SE/000841

total costs

Project open - due to close 12/17 - no results reported to date

LIFE12 INF/GR/000985

Project score (relevance to policy area) out of 6 (ENV) Conservation Achieved out of 30 (NAT)

3,171,000.00 €

Retore and protect 4 key loggerhead nesting sites in Calibri in Natura 2000 areas

LIFE11 ENV/UK/000392

Project score overall %age

4,228,000.00 €

570,958.00 €

1,677,977.00 €

LIFE12 ENV/FR/000316 12

1,186,944.00 €

2,237,346.00 €

LIFE12 BIO/IT/000556 12

754,628.00 €

Reduction of se turtle mortality through introduction of low impact fishing gers including TED and anti - turtle spray Project open - due to close 30/09/18 - no for nets results reported to date

LIFE12 NAT/MT/000845 12

Strategies for MarIne Litter and Environmental prevention of sea pollution in coastal areas - achieved through the development of governance processes for implementing Project open - due to close 07/16 - activities an innovative ‘catching mechanism’ for marine litter in a progressing according to schedule at an early pilot area - raising awareness stage

1,521,258.00 €

1 LIFE12 NAT/IT/000937

comments Integrated coastal area Management Applicatio implementing GMES, INspire and sEis data policies designed to provide detailed information concerning land Project open - due to close 07/16 - activities based activities in 2 coastal locations suceptible to progressing according to schedule at an early flooding and erosion stage

Establish a unique protected area on the island of Gyaros and its adjacent marine area. This effort will be based on the Ecosystem Based Management (EBM) approach, encouraging Project open - due to close 06/17 - no results the participation and active involvement of local stakeholders reported to date

LIFE12 NAT/GR/000688 12

Objectives met

Introduction of energy (including underwater noise) does not advsersely affect the ecosystem

Marine litter does not cause harm

Contaminatants in seafood are within safe levels

Concentration of contaminants have no effect

Permanent alteration of hydrographic conditions does not adverley affect ecosystems

Sea floor integrity ensures functionng of the ecosystem

Eutrophication is minimised

Elements of the food webs ensue long-term abundance and repreoduction

The populations of commercial fish species are healthy

Non-Indgenous species do not adversely alter the ecosystem

Life Code

Biodiversity is maintained

Year

Project open - due to close 06/16 - progressing according to schedule

738,918.00 €

369,458.00 €

1,805,749.00 €

1,354,312.00 €

2,629,246.00 €

1,314,623.00 €

4,876,006.00 €

2,351,950.00 €

1,377,428.00 €

684,298.00 €

873,964.00 €

436,982.00 €

improve conservation of elasmobrachs in Italy through education and introduction of new low-impact fishing gears to reduce by-catch from commercial and leisure fishing Preparatory inventory and activities for the designation of marine IBA and SPA site for Phalacrocorax aristotelis desmarestii in Slovenia

Capturing a small number of endangered or over-exploited fish at the postlarval stage - rearing them in laboratories and releasing juveniles into designated habitats to improveProject open - due to close 04/15 - progressing adult viability according to schedule

LIFE10 NAT/IT/000271 10

1 LIFE10 NAT/SI/000141

10 LIFE10 NAT/FR/000200 10

LIFE10 INF/EE/000108 10

Baltic Info Campaign on Hazardous Substances through reduced demand for such substances by the public Project open - close date 03/15

Demonstration of the technological, economic and environmental sustainability of a full-scale tidal energy 1 device in an offshore environment

LIFE09 ENV/NL/000426 9

Mainly deals with coastal lagoons but has element of restoration of Poseidonia meadows in SAC

LIFE09 NAT/GR/000343 9

1 LIFE09 ENV/IT/000061

1 LIFE09 NAT/LT/000234

Elimnation of high salinity brine disposal to sea by desalination plants through innovative technology that produces solid brine -an economic product - and uses less energy

To safeguard and to restore some SCIs of particular importance to the conservation of the priority habitat Poseidonia beds - through concrete actions and education campaign to reduce (eliminate ?) damage done by fishing and Project open - due to close 11/14 - progress on anchoring - control of invasive algae species schedule but some issues require resolution

Production of inventories and maps for underwater habitat types and their flora and fauna outside Natura 2000 network in the Baltic - development of new ecosystembased monitoring and assessment approaches (using Project open - due to close 03/15 - progress on marine biodiversity indicators) schedule Reduction of impacts on target cetacean and seabird populations through inappropriate fishing techniques (promotion of new fishing gears to reduce by-catch) - aim to implement SCI/SPA in Portuguese waters and increaseProject open - due to close in 12/15 - meeting Natura 2000 network objectives ths far

LIFE09 NAT/PT/000038 9

LIFE09 NAT/IT/000176 9

1 LIFE09 INF/IT/000076

LIFE08 ENV/S/000271 8

Demonstrating the technical feasibility of using a wavepowered device - WEBAP - for the aeration of coastal zones and open seas suffering oxygen depletion without harming marine organisms

1,683,396.00 €

834,573.00 €

2,512,695.00 €

1,229,828.00 €

3,060,856.00 €

1,503,638.00 €

1,800,673.00 €

886,211.00 €

1,152,917.00 €

568,455.00 €

1,969,614.00 €

931,192.00 €

1,209,689.00 €

604,844.00 €

1,733,377.00 €

1,110,885.00 €

1,569,699.00 €

784,849.00 €

607,792.00 €

285,646.00 €

3,562,125.00 €

2,474,902.00 €

5,888,801.00 €

2,944,400.00 €

2,773,032.00 €

1,386,516.00 €

1,339,500.00 €

542,787.00 €

1,343,248.00 €

667,124.00 €

1,074,026.00 €

537,013.00 €

1,178,605.00 €

562,553.00 €

Project open due to close 09/14 - appears to b meeting objectives

To mitigate the imminent danger, caused by humanrelated threats, to the long-term term viability of all rare, endangered and important marine mammals inhabiting Greek waters. In order to achieve this, the project aims to Project closed 30/12/13 - appears to be on raise the awareness of selected target audiences track to meet objectives Changing in the attitudes of fish consumers by increasing Project closed 09/13 - project appears on track their awareness of the importance of by-catch and to deliver objectives at least at the regional discarded species level

LIFE09 INF/GR/000320

964,252.00 €

Project open - due to close 03/15 - progress on schedule

LIFE09 NAT/LV/000238 9

Project closed 12/13 - final report pending project meeting objectives

To address and resolve conflicts between conservation and users on two heavily populated islands within a Natur 2000 site - target here is fishing community conflict with Project open - due to close 09/14 - on schedule but facing some financing issues monk seals

LIFE09 NAT/ES/000534 9

1,947,590.00 €

Removal of Poseidonia debris from beaches using new techniques to reduce landfill and prevent damage to beac Project closed 12/13 - final report pending ecosystems project meeting objectives

Compiling inventories of marine habitats and species in offshore waters and designate new Natura 2000 sites

LIFE09 INF/PT/000045 9

Monitoring and management of bottlenose dolphin populations in marine MPA throuigh detection vis underwater hydrophones Project open - due to close 09/15 - project results will influence changes to MPA and managemet delayed in implementation by 12 months but methods for vessel activity in the area now on track - will require prolongation

LIFE09 NAT/IT/000190 9

284,675.00 €

1,639,770.00 €

1 LIFE09 ENV/GR/000299

474,458.00 €

7,447,940.00 €

Reduction of transfer of hazardous materials in sediments and water through maintenance dredging in harbours by improved treatment techniques - reduction of material to landfill also Objectives achieved

LIFE09 ENV/IT/000158 9

668,820.00 €

Project closed 09/13 - project prolongation of 12 months under consideration??

Project closed - objectives achieved Project open - due to close 02/14 - EC issues Prevention of Marine Fouling on Commercial Shipping an recovery order 12/12 - project willnot meet its Leisure Boats with a Non Toxic Method objectives

LIFE09 ENV/SE/000351

1,337,640.00 €

Project open - due to close 03/14 - prolongatio of 38 months pending

Reduction in eutrophication at river basin scale (using 8 river basins) but also - critically - in coastal areas and estuaries - cites MSFD as policy traget area

LIFE09 ENV/FI/000569 9

Project open - close date 12/14 - progress according to schedule Project open - due to close 02/15 - problems experienced with telemetry devices prolongation anticipated

Objectives were met - techology successfully demonstrated

Environmental quality and pressures assessment across Europe: Development of a metadatabase and a set of key environmental quality indicators, based on an exchange between stakeholders - particularly researchers and policymakers. This will help ensure both indicator quality and acceptance Project closed 31/12/13 Integral networking of fishing actors to organize a responsible optimal and sustainable exploitation of marine resources Objectives achieved

LIFE08 ENV/IT/000399 8 LIFE08 ENV/E/000119 8

1 LIFE08 ENV/CY/000461

1 LIFE08 ENV/E/000158

1 LIFE08 NAT/E/000064

1 LIFE08 NAT/S/000261

LIFE07 ENV/E/000814 7

1 LIFE07 ENV/EE/000122

1 LIFE07 ENV/D/000229

LIFE07 ENV/UK/000943 7 7

LIFE07 ENV/E/000787

6 n/a

Obectives met

Production of inventories and maps for underwater habitat types and their flora and fauna in key marine Natura 2000 sites, and then use the field-collected data in GIS distribution modelling for habitats and species. Extention of the Natura 2000 network proposed. Objectives met

protection and sustainable use of biodiversity in the Spanish seas through the implementation of the Natura 2000 network. Seeks to establish at least 10 new Natura sites - inventories and studies all completed. Project aimed to halt the delcine of the Yelkouan shearwater on the Maltese islands - SPA, management palns and reduced human intererance

1 LIFE06 NAT/P/000192 1

LIFE06 ENV/B/000362 6

1 LIFE06 ENV/D/000465

Yes

Habitat restoration for reefs and submerged sandbanks in Partially - restoration of seagrass beds prooved an MPA plus restoration of seagrass beds Zostera too challenging

358,601.00 €

812,465.00 €

1,683,195.00 €

813,498.00 €

2,112,098.00 €

1,447,990.00 €

595,620.00 €

1,715,632.00 €

851,816.00 €

828,144.00 €

414,072.00 €

2,103,888.00 €

1,022,753.00 €

3,393,046.00 €

1,686,773.00 €

795,074.00 €

397,537.00 €

2,357,922.00 €

1,768,442.00 €

3,408,950.00 €

1,704,315.00 €

15,405,727.00 €

7,702,863.00 €

n/a

Reducing SOX and NOX and PMx from ships - high contribution to air pollution but also deposition in marine environment. Prototypes ships using hydrogen power porpulsion mechanisms. Acheved all stated objectives

925,458.00 €

1,730,501.00 €

n/a

Assessed levels of microbial pollution loads to sea All objectives appear to have been achieved bu developed tools to reduce loads from a number of sourcesnot all expected results achieved hence low - specifically targetted shellfish toxicity and clean beachesscore

LIFE06 ENV/F/000136

Open project - closes 2014 - exceeding objectives n/a Project objectives met - revised targets met stakeholder engagement could have been mor effective

Following treatment of contaminants like TBT, dredged materials were to be reused as raw materials for infrastructure works, such as example harbour extensions. Yes

LIFE06 ENV/FIN/000195

LIFE06 NAT/MT/000097 6

Final Report due 30/09/13 - on target to meet objectives n/a

411,723.00 €

4,242,013.00 €

Improving the conservation status of the Mediterranean shag and Andouin's gull through reducing threats from: predation; gull competition; and commercial fishing and idemtifying marine IBAs.

LIFE07 NAT/E/000732 7

n/a

LIFE07 NAT/FIN/000151 7

n/a

All objectives met

830,946.00 €

Identification of critical areas for bottlenose dolhins in Madera waters - establishment of marine Natura 2000 sites for their protection

LIFE07 NAT/GR/000285 7

use of static acoustic monitoring to determine distribution patterns and hotspots for harbour porpoise in Baltc to lead to improved management Open - due to close 30/12/14

Development of a set of transferable guidelines for the ecosystem based approach to marine management developed by stakeholders. Specifically designed to demonstrate how stakeholders can work together and participate in EU marine policy at a multi-national scale.

1,063,357.00 €

Development and demonstration eradication and control methods for an invasive species: Carybdea marsupialis (Cubozoa), Mediterranean Open - due to close 30/12/14 - potential issues n/a

Reduction of pollution of the Baltic Sea by priority hazardous substances - prepared an inventory of substances - optimised environmental permits - tools to reduce level of pollutants All objectives met - expected reuslt delivered Developed and promoted criteria for organic mariculture reduced pollution associated with mariculture practices and imprpved water quality. All objectives met

2,182,906.00 € 6

Minimise the environmental impact of the most significant solid fishing industry waste (i.e. polystyrene, fishing nets and lighting devices/batteries) on water and seabed quality and to promote the sustainable development of fishing and port activities Objectives were met

3,003,938.00 €

n/a

Reduction of hazardous waste through new techniques fo Final report due 31/12/13 - project progressing dismantaling and disposal of vessels but not without difficulties n/a

LIFE07 NAT/P/000646 7

Project closed 07/2012 but final report not yet dn/a Objectives achieved

6,067,876.00 € n/a

Reduction in pollution exposure pathways by removal and reduction of dredged sediments containing hazardous materials and other pollutants Objectives achieved

LIFE08 ENV/IT/000426 8

Impact assessment for the adoption of CO2 emission trading for maritime transport Inventorise and develop best practice for recycling o recreastional vessels - to reduce waste - link to marine litter tentative

n/a

919,732.00 €

3,721,425.00

459,866.00 €

974,228.00

1,569,358.00 €

783,429.00 €

5,158,348.00 €

2,384,424.00 €

5,200,611.00 €

1,525,413.00 €

2,364,438.00 €

1,182,219.00 €

LIFE06 NAT/DK/000159 6

LIFE06 NAT/IT/000050 6

LIFE06 TCY/INT/000250

1 LIFE05 ENV/E/000267 1

Only partially - project encountered difficulties in implementation

Inventories compiled of benthic and pelagic organisms food web implications - creation of MPAs a strength of this project - again deals with conflict resolution with fishermenyes Significant communication efforts to reduce impact on critically endangered monk seals particularly addresses conflict with fishing communities - introduction of traps and fishing methods that exclude seals. Major public awareness campaign. yes

LIFE05 NAT/LV/000100 1

LIFE05 NAT/GR/000083 5

Project covered 9 coastal and marine SCIs - restoration and conservation activities - target marine habitat Posedonia beds.

Tracking system for vessels and early warning system for pollution events installed but not functioning after project Partially - due to problems with partnership and ended due to lack of funds lack of common vision

LIFE05 ENV/GR/000242

Targetted the IPPC in reducing pollution emmissions at sea with innovative wind propulsion system for caro vessels Yes Project reducing waste from fishing vessels including reducing by-catch - project had implications for MSFD and CFP - maintains biodversity and reduces litter (packaging). Yes

LIFE06 ENV/D/000479

Natura 200 site and SPA with inter alia fragile marine ecosystems. Steps were taken to reduce the impact on the Neptune grass beds. Specifically, two mooring buoy fields were Yes - management plans approved and installed to limit the damage done by ships' anchors and an underwater trail was established to confine tourist activity. adopted The project contributed considerably to the development of environmentally friendly tourism in the Mediterranean region, in particular in the three pilot regions in Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. The methodology used was based on the strategic planning approach. So the integrated strategic planning approach followed by the DESTINATIONS project could serve as a model. The experience of the project was used by PAP/RAC in the preparation of a methodological manual for sustainable tourism planning in coastal areas. Yes but no particular GES targetted - arguably

LIFE06 NAT/IT/000053 6

Restoration resulted in 6 tonnes of macroalgae and 3 tonnes of bottom fauna, plus 700 million individual fauna. Changes in the fish community structure were also evident. Cod increased by three to six fold in the restored reef area. Potential implications for MSFD. Yes

Mainly dealt with noise mapping on land - however, increasing awareness of contribution of land based noise sources to marine noise - although not explicit in project could be implicit in the results i.e. a reduction in land noise leads to reduction in underwater noise. Could be an 1 interesting area for future exloration. yes

LIFE05 ENV/NL/000018

5 36

4,808,398.00 €

2,364,199.00 €

1,100,000.00 €

525,000.00 €

1,598,932.00 €

1,039,306.00 €

702,864.00 €

419,923.00 €

4,115,882.00 €

1,212,685.00 €

1,858,552.00 €

909,248.00 €

1,921,600.00 €

751,425.00 €

3,111,316.00 €

1,555,658.00 €

1,564,735.00 €

938,841.00 €

1,503,489.00 €

707,645.00 €

146,899,637.00 €

70,531,736.00 €

LIFE12 ENV/IT/001054

LIFE12 ENV/IT/000289

LIFE12 NAT/GR/000688

LIFE12 NAT/IT/000937

LIFE12 NAT/IT/001185

LIFE12 NAT/MT/000845

LIFE12 BIO/IT/000556

LIFE12 ENV/FR/000316

LIFE12 INF/GR/000985

LIFE11 ENV/UK/000392

LIFE11 ENV/SE/000841

LIFE11 ENV/SE/000839

LIFE11 NAT/MT/001070

LIFE11 ENV/ES/000600

LIFE10 NAT/GR/000637

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000367

LIFE10 ENV/UK/000182

Communication, stakeholder involvement and raising public awareness

Mitigation and remediation tools (restoration of damaged components)

Economic incentives management measures in economic interest of users to achieve GES

Measures to improve the traceability of marine pollution

1 1

1 1 1

1 1 1 1 1

LIFE10 NAT/IT/000271

LIFE10 NAT/SI/000141

LIFE10 NAT/FR/000200

LIFE10 INF/EE/000108

LIFE09 ENV/NL/000426

LIFE09 ENV/SE/000351

1 1

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000343

LIFE09 ENV/FI/000569

1 1

LIFE10 NAT/MT/000090

LIFE09 NAT/GR/000343

Management coordination measures

1 1

Spatial and temporal distribution controls

Life Code

Input controls (management measures that influence the amount of human activity that is permitted e.g. MPA) Output controls (management measures that influence the degree of perturbation of an ecosystem component that is permitted)

Year

1 1

LIFE09 ENV/IT/000061

LIFE09 ENV/IT/000158

LIFE09 ENV/GR/000299

LIFE09 NAT/IT/000190

LIFE09 NAT/LT/000234

LIFE09 INF/PT/000045

LIFE09 NAT/ES/000534

1 1

LIFE09 NAT/LV/000238

LIFE09 NAT/PT/000038

LIFE09 NAT/IT/000176

1 1

LIFE09 INF/GR/000320

LIFE09 INF/IT/000076

LIFE08 ENV/S/000271

LIFE08 ENV/IT/000399

LIFE08 ENV/E/000119

LIFE08 ENV/CY/000461

LIFE08 ENV/E/000158

LIFE08 ENV/IT/000426

LIFE08 NAT/E/000064

1 1

LIFE08 NAT/S/000261

LIFE07 ENV/E/000814

LIFE07 ENV/EE/000122

LIFE07 ENV/D/000229

LIFE07 ENV/UK/000943

LIFE07 ENV/E/000787

1 1

LIFE07 NAT/P/000646

LIFE07 NAT/GR/000285

LIFE07 NAT/FIN/000151

LIFE07 NAT/E/000732

LIFE06 NAT/MT/000097

LIFE06 ENV/FIN/000195

LIFE06 ENV/F/000136

1 1

LIFE06 ENV/D/000465

LIFE06 ENV/B/000362

LIFE06 NAT/P/000192

LIFE06 NAT/DK/000159

LIFE06 NAT/IT/000050

LIFE06 NAT/IT/000053

LIFE06 TCY/INT/000250

LIFE06 ENV/D/000479

LIFE05 ENV/E/000267

LIFE05 ENV/GR/000242

1 1

LIFE05 NAT/LV/000100

LIFE05 NAT/GR/000083

LIFE05 ENV/NL/000018

1 1

108 54 0

96 48 0

70 35 0

84 42 0

24 12 0

48 24 0

28 14 0

120 60 0

Total all projects Total ENV/INF projects Total NAT project Total Nature Projects 46 Total Env and Inf projects 154

LIFE12 ENV/IT/001054

LIFE12 ENV/IT/000289

LIFE12 NAT/GR/000688

1 1

LIFE12 NAT/IT/000937

LIFE12 NAT/IT/001185

LIFE12 NAT/MT/000845

LIFE12 BIO/IT/000556

1 1

LIFE12 INF/GR/000985

LIFE11 ENV/UK/000392

LIFE11 ENV/SE/000841

1 1

LIFE11 ENV/SE/000839 LIFE11 NAT/MT/001070

LIFE11 ENV/ES/000600

LIFE10 NAT/GR/000637

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000367

LIFE10 ENV/UK/000182

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000343

LIFE10 NAT/MT/000090

LIFE10 NAT/FR/000200

1 1

LIFE12 ENV/FR/000316

LIFE10 NAT/IT/000271

LIFE10 NAT/SI/000141

LIFE12 ENV/IT/001054 LIFE12 ENV/IT/000289

1 1

LIFE11 ENV/SE/000841

LIFE11 ENV/SE/000839

LIFE11 ENV/ES/000600

11 10

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000367

LIFE10 ENV/UK/000182

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000343 LIFE10 INF/EE/000108

LIFE09 ENV/FI/000569

LIFE09 ENV/SE/000351

LIFE09 ENV/IT/000061

LIFE09 ENV/IT/000158

LIFE09 ENV/GR/000299

1 1 1

LIFE09 ENV/FI/000569

LIFE07 ENV/E/000814

LIFE09 ENV/SE/000351

LIFE07 ENV/EE/000122

LIFE09 ENV/IT/000061

LIFE07 ENV/D/000229

LIFE09 ENV/IT/000158

LIFE09 ENV/GR/000299

LIFE07 ENV/E/000787

LIFE06 ENV/FIN/000195

LIFE06 TCY/INT/000250

LIFE06 ENV/D/000479

LIFE05 ENV/E/000267

LIFE05 ENV/NL/000018

LIFE08 ENV/IT/000399

LIFE08 ENV/E/000119

LIFE08 ENV/CY/000461

LIFE08 ENV/E/000158

LIFE08 ENV/IT/000426

LIFE08 NAT/E/000064

LIFE08 NAT/S/000261

LIFE07 ENV/E/000814

LIFE07 ENV/EE/000122

LIFE07 ENV/D/000229

LIFE07 ENV/UK/000943

LIFE07 ENV/E/000787

LIFE07 NAT/P/000646

LIFE07 NAT/GR/000285

LIFE07 NAT/FIN/000151

1 1

LIFE06 NAT/MT/000097

LIFE06 ENV/FIN/000195

LIFE06 ENV/B/000362

LIFE06 NAT/P/000192

LIFE06 NAT/IT/000050

LIFE06 ENV/F/000136

LIFE06 NAT/DK/000159

LIFE06 ENV/D/000465

LIFE07 NAT/E/000732

1 1

LIFE09 NAT/IT/000176

LIFE09 INF/GR/000320

LIFE08 NAT/E/000064

LIFE08 NAT/S/000261

LIFE07 NAT/GR/000285

LIFE07 NAT/FIN/000151

Stakeholder enngagement and awareness

Policy

Information systems

1 1

LIFE07 NAT/E/000732 1

LIFE06 NAT/P/000192

LIFE06 NAT/DK/000159

LIFE06 NAT/IT/000050

LIFE06 NAT/IT/000053 LIFE05 NAT/LV/000100

LIFE06 NAT/MT/000097

LIFE05 NAT/GR/000083

1 1

Monitoring

LIFE07 NAT/P/000646

Dat collection , data management

Demonstration of good practice or managememt techniques

Development of new/innovative technologies

Stakeholder enngagement and awareness

Policy

Information systems

Monitoring

1 1

LIFE06 ENV/B/000362

LIFE08 ENV/S/000271

7 1

LIFE05 ENV/GR/000242

LIFE09 NAT/ES/000534

LIFE09 NAT/GR/000343

1 1

LIFE09 NAT/PT/000038

LIFE06 ENV/F/000136

LIFE06 ENV/D/000465

LIFE09 INF/IT/000076

LIFE10 NAT/FR/000200

LIFE09 INF/GR/000320

LIFE10 NAT/SI/000141

LIFE09 NAT/LV/000238

LIFE10 NAT/IT/000271

LIFE09 NAT/ES/000534

LIFE09 INF/PT/000045

LIFE10 NAT/MT/000090

LIFE09 NAT/LT/000234

LIFE09 NAT/IT/000176

LIFE09 NAT/LV/000238

LIFE10 NAT/GR/000637

LIFE09 NAT/PT/000038

1 1

LIFE11 NAT/MT/001070

LIFE09 INF/PT/000045

LIFE07 ENV/UK/000943

LIFE12 BIO/IT/000556

LIFE09 NAT/IT/000190

LIFE12 NAT/MT/000845

1 1

LIFE08 ENV/CY/000461

1 1

LIFE09 NAT/IT/000190

LIFE08 ENV/E/000158

LIFE09 NAT/LT/000234

LIFE08 ENV/IT/000426

LIFE12 NAT/IT/001185

LIFE08 ENV/E/000119

LIFE12 NAT/IT/000937

Dat collection , data management

LIFE09 INF/IT/000076

LIFE09 ENV/NL/000426

LIFE08 ENV/S/000271

LIFE09 NAT/GR/000343

LIFE12 NAT/GR/000688

LIFE08 ENV/IT/000399

Life Code 12

LIFE09 ENV/NL/000426

1 1

Year

LIFE10 INF/EE/000108

LIFE12 INF/GR/000985 LIFE11 ENV/UK/000392

Life Code

Demonstration of good practice or managememt techniques

Year

Development of new/innovative technologies

Stakeholder enngagement and awareness

Policy

Information systems

Monitoring

Dat collection , data management

Demonstration of good practice or managememt techniques

Life Code

Development of new/innovative technologies

Year

1 1 1

1 1

LIFE06 NAT/IT/000053

LIFE06 TCY/INT/000250

LIFE06 ENV/D/000479

LIFE05 ENV/E/000267

LIFE05 ENV/GR/000242

LIFE05 NAT/LV/000100

LIFE05 NAT/GR/000083

LIFE05 ENV/NL/000018

1 1

1 19

1 6

54 54 0

58 58 0

37 37 0

12 12 0

11 11 0

8 8 0

60 60 0

LIFE12 NAT/IT/001185

544,763.00 €

964,006.00 €

476,003.00 €

Conservation Status and potential Sites of Community Interest for Tursiops truncatus and Caretta caretta in Project open - due to close 04/16 Malta and pSAC based on outcome progressing according to schedule Main actions concerns onshore activities to conserve birds but also includes reduction in damage to seagrass beds (Posidonia) and restructing fishing in protected area Project open - due to close 08/15 - progress through closed season according to schedule Creating an inventory of Marine IBAs for Puffinus Yelkouan, Calonectris diomedea and Hydrobates Project open - due to close 06/16 pelagicus in Malta progressing according to schedule

improve conservation of elasmobrachs in Italy through education and introduction of new low-impact fishing gears to reduce by-catch from commercial and leisure Project open - close date 12/14 - progress fishing according to schedule Preparatory inventory and activities for the designation of Project open - due to close 02/15 - problems marine IBA and SPA site for Phalacrocorax aristotelis experienced with telemetry devices desmarestii in Slovenia prolongation anticipated

Capturing a small number of endangered or over-exploite fish at the postlarval stage - rearing them in laboratories and releasing juveniles into designated habitats to Project open - due to close 04/15 improve adult viability progressing according to schedule

LIFE10 NAT/SI/000141

LIFE10 NAT/FR/000200 1

Mainly deals with coastal lagoons but has element of restoration of Poseidonia meadows in SAC

Monitoring and management of bottlenose dolphin populations in marine MPA throuigh detection vis underwater hydrophones Project open - due to close 09/15 - project - results will influence changes to MPA and managemet delayed in implementation by 12 months but methods for vessel activity in the area now on track - will require prolongation

LIFE09 NAT/GR/000343

LIFE09 NAT/IT/000190

LIFE09 NAT/LT/000234 9

Project open - due to close 03/15 - progress on schedule

To address and resolve conflicts between conservation and users on two heavily populated islands within a Natura 2000 site - target here is fishing community conflict with monk seals

Project open - due to close 09/14 - on schedule but facing some financing issues

To safeguard and to restore some SCIs of particular importance to the conservation of the priority habitat Project open - due to close 11/14 - progress Poseidonia beds - through concrete actions and education campaign to reduce (eliminate ?) damage done by fishing and on schedule but some issues require anchoring - control of invasive algae species resolution

LIFE09 INF/PT/000045

LIFE09 NAT/ES/000534 9

Production of inventories and maps for underwater habita types and their flora and fauna outside Natura 2000 network in the Baltic - development of new ecosystembased monitoring and assessment approaches (using Project open - due to close 03/15 - progress marine biodiversity indicators) on schedule Reduction of impacts on target cetacean and seabird populations through inappropriate fishing techniques (promotion of new fishing gears to reduce by-catch) - aim to implement SCI/SPA in Portuguese waters and increaseProject open - due to close in 12/15 - meeting Natura 2000 network objectives ths far

LIFE09 NAT/LV/000238 9

LIFE09 NAT/PT/000038 9

LIFE09 NAT/IT/000176 9

Project closed 09/13 - project prolongation of 12 months under consideration??

Compiling inventories of marine habitats and species in offshore waters and designate new Natura 2000 sites

EU contribution

1,127,020.00 €

total costs 1,306,405.00 €

Project score (relevance to policy area) out of 6 (ENV) Conservation Achieved out of 30 (NAT)

1,689,461.00 €

2,612,810.00 €

LIFE10 NAT/IT/000271

Project score overall %age

2,916,834.00 €

Preparing an inventory of Malta's marine benthic habitats Project open - due to close 06/17 - no results for inclusion in Natura 2000 network reported to date

Objectives met

LIFE10 NAT/MT/000090

Introduction of energy (including underwater noise) does not advsersely affect the ecosystem

3,171,000.00 €

Project open - due to close 12/17 - no results reported to date

LIFE10 NAT/GR/000637

Marine litter does not cause harm

4,228,000.00 €

Retore and protect 4 key loggerhead nesting sites in Calibri in Natura 2000 areas

Contaminatants in seafood are within safe levels

Reduction of se turtle mortality through introduction of low impact fishing gers including TED and anti - turtle spray Project open - due to close 30/09/18 - no for nets results reported to date

LIFE11 NAT/MT/001070 11

Concentration of contaminants have no effect

1,677,977.00 €

LIFE12 BIO/IT/000556 12

Permanent alteration of hydrographic conditions does not adverley affect ecosystems

2,237,346.00 €

LIFE12 NAT/MT/000845 12

Sea floor integrity ensures functionng of the ecosystem

1 LIFE12 NAT/IT/000937

comments

LIFE12 NAT/GR/000688 12

Eutrophication is minimised

Elements of the food webs ensue long-term abundance and repreoduction

The populations of commercial fish species are healthy

Non-Indgenous species do not adversely alter the ecosystem

Life Code

Biodiversity is maintained

Year

Project open due to close 09/14 - appears to be meeting objectives

1,805,749.00 €

1,354,312.00 €

873,964.00 €

436,982.00 €

1,337,640.00 €

668,820.00 €

474,458.00 €

284,675.00 €

1,947,590.00 €

964,252.00 €

1,639,770.00 €

1,229,828.00 €

1,733,377.00 €

1,110,885.00 €

1,569,699.00 €

784,849.00 €

607,792.00 €

285,646.00 €

3,562,125.00 €

2,474,902.00 €

5,888,801.00 €

2,944,400.00 €

2,773,032.00 €

1,386,516.00 €

1,339,500.00 €

542,787.00 €

LIFE09 INF/GR/000320 9

Development and demonstration eradication and control methods for an invasive species: Carybdea marsupialis (Cubozoa), Mediterranean Open - due to close 30/12/14 - potential issuesn/a

n/a

use of static acoustic monitoring to determine distribution patterns and hotspots for harbour porpoise in Baltc to lead to improved management Open - due to close 30/12/14

n/a

Identification of critical areas for bottlenose dolhins in Madera waters - establishment of marine Natura 2000 sites for their protection

Improving the conservation status of the Mediterranean shag and Andouin's gull through reducing threats from: predation; gull competition; and commercial fishing and idemtifying marine IBAs. Obectives met

Production of inventories and maps for underwater habita types and their flora and fauna in key marine Natura 2000 sites, and then use the field-collected data in GIS distribution modelling for habitats and species. Extention of the Natura 2000 network proposed. Objectives met

LIFE08 NAT/E/000064 8

1 LIFE08 NAT/S/000261

8 LIFE07 NAT/P/000646 7 LIFE07 NAT/GR/000285 7

LIFE07 NAT/FIN/000151 7

Habitat restoration for reefs and submerged sandbanks inPartially - restoration of seagrass beds an MPA plus restoration of seagrass beds Zostera prooved too challenging

Project covered 9 coastal and marine SCIs - restoration and conservation activities - target marine habitat Only partially - project encountered difficulties Posedonia beds. in implementation

Natura 200 site and SPA with inter alia fragile marine ecosystems. Steps were taken to reduce the impact on the Neptune grass beds. Specifically, two mooring buoy fields were installed to limit the damage done by ships' anchors and Yes - management plans approved and an underwater trail was established to confine tourist activity. adopted

LIFE06 NAT/MT/000097 6 LIFE06 NAT/P/000192 6

LIFE06 NAT/DK/000159 6

LIFE06 NAT/IT/000050 6

LIFE06 NAT/IT/000053 6

Inventories compiled of benthic and pelagic organisms food web implications - creation of MPAs a strength of this project - again deals with conflict resolution with fishermen yes Significant communication efforts to reduce impact on critically endangered monk seals particularly addresses conflict with fishing communities - introduction of traps and fishing methods that exclude seals. Major public awareness campaign. yes

LIFE05 NAT/LV/000100 5

LIFE05 NAT/GR/000083 5

1 32

Open project - closes 2014 - exceeding objectives n/a Project objectives met - revised targets met stakeholder engagement could have been more effective

1,683,195.00 €

813,498.00 €

2,112,098.00 €

795,074.00 €

397,537.00 €

2,357,922.00 €

1,768,442.00 €

3,408,950.00 €

1,704,315.00 €

15,405,727.00 €

7,702,863.00 €

n/a

667,124.00 €

4,242,013.00 €

protection and sustainable use of biodiversity in the Spanish seas through the implementation of the Natura 2000 network. Seks to establish at least 10 new Natura sites - inventories and studies all completed. Project aimed to halt the delcine of the Yelkouan shearwater on the Maltese islands - SPA, management palns and reduced human intererance

LIFE07 NAT/E/000732 7

n/a

Final Report due 30/09/13 - on target to meet objectives n/a

1,343,248.00 €

n/a

919,732.00 €

459,866.00 €

2,364,438.00 €

1,182,219.00 €

4,808,398.00 €

2,364,199.00 €

1,100,000.00 €

525,000.00 €

1,598,932.00 €

1,039,306.00 €

3,111,316.00 €

1,555,658.00 €

1,564,735.00 €

938,841.00 €

74 68,451,428.00 €

36,345,508.00 €

LIFE12 ENV/IT/001054 12

LIFE12 ENV/IT/000289

LIFE12 INF/GR/000985

LIFE11 ENV/UK/000392 11

Integrated information campaign for the reduction of smoking litter on beaches

Project open - due to close 08/16 - progress on schedule

LIFE11 ENV/SE/000839

Project open - due to close 08/15 - progress according to schedule

Removal of marine algae debris from beaches using new techniques to reduce landfill and prevent damage to Project open - due to close 02/15 - progress beach ecosystems according to schedule

Reducing and recyling waste on board cruise liners to address waste disposal issues

LIFE11 ENV/ES/000600 1

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000367

Baltic Info Campaign on Hazardous Substances through reduced demand for such substances by the public Project open - close date 03/15

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000343 10 LIFE10 INF/EE/000108 10

Demonstration of the technological, economic and environmental sustainability of a full-scale tidal energy 1 device in an offshore environment

LIFE09 ENV/NL/000426 9

1 LIFE09 ENV/SE/000351

1 LIFE09 ENV/IT/000061

LIFE09 ENV/IT/000158 9

Removal of Poseidonia debris from beaches using new techniques to reduce landfill and prevent damage to beach ecosystems

EU contribution

total costs

1,949,810.00 €

299,709.00 €

3,963,025.00 €

1,973,546.00 €

4,577,315.00 €

2,215,567.00 €

3,681,067.00 €

1,634,311.00 €

369,458.00 €

1,314,623.00 €

4,876,006.00 €

2,351,950.00 €

1,377,428.00 €

684,298.00 €

1,683,396.00 €

834,573.00 €

7,447,940.00 €

2,512,695.00 €

3,060,856.00 €

1,503,638.00 €

1,800,673.00 €

886,211.00 €

1,152,917.00 €

568,455.00 €

1,969,614.00 €

931,192.00 €

Project closed 12/13 - final report pending project meeting objectives

570,958.00 €

2,629,246.00 €

Project open - due to close 03/14 prolongation of 38 months pending

Reduction in eutrophication at river basin scale (using 8 river basins) but also - critically - in coastal areas and estuaries - cites MSFD as policy traget area Project closed - objectives achieved Project open - due to close 02/14 - EC issues Prevention of Marine Fouling on Commercial Shipping an recovery order 12/12 - project willnot meet its Leisure Boats with a Non Toxic Method objectives

LIFE09 ENV/FI/000569

1,186,944.00 €

738,918.00 €

Project open - due to close 06/14 - progress according to schedule

LIFE10 ENV/UK/000182

754,628.00 €

599,918.00 €

Stakeholder Driven Integrated Management of the Celtic Project open - due to close 12/16 - progress according to schedule 1 Seas Marine Region - aims to address all GES

1,521,258.00 €

3,899,625.00 €

Project open - due to close 03/16 - no data as yet

Ensure that the introduction of underwater noise is at levels that do not adversely affect the marine environment of the Baltic Sea - establish and implement standards and tools for the management of underwater noise in accordance with 1 MSFD

Project score (relevance to policy area) out of 6 (ENV) Conservation Achieved out of 30 (NAT)

LIFE11 ENV/SE/000841

Project score overall %age

comments Integrated coastal area Management Application implementing GMES, INspire and sEis data policies designed to provide detailed information concerning land Project open - due to close 07/16 - activities based activities in 2 coastal locations suceptible to progressing according to schedule at an early flooding and erosion stage

LIFE12 ENV/FR/000316 12

Objectives met

Introduction of energy (including underwater noise) does not advsersely affect the ecosystem

Marine litter does not cause harm

Contaminatants in seafood are within safe levels

Concentration of contaminants have no effect

Permanent alteration of hydrographic conditions does not adverley affect ecosystems

Sea floor integrity ensures functionng of the ecosystem

Eutrophication is minimised

Elements of the food webs ensue long-term abundance and repreoduction

The populations of commercial fish species are healthy

Non-Indgenous species do not adversely alter the ecosystem

Life Code

Biodiversity is maintained

Year

Elimnation of high salinity brine disposal to sea by desalination plants through innovative technology that produces solid brine -an economic product - and uses Project closed 12/13 - final report pending less energy project meeting objectives Changing in the attitudes of fish consumers by increasing Project closed 09/13 - project appears on their awareness of the importance of by-catch and track to deliver objectives at least at the discarded species regional level

LIFE09 ENV/GR/000299 9

1 LIFE09 INF/IT/000076

Demonstrating the technical feasibility of using a wavepowered device - WEBAP - for the aeration of coastal zones and open seas suffering oxygen depletion without harming marine organisms

LIFE08 ENV/S/000271 8

Objectives were met - techology successfully demonstrated Environmental quality and pressures assessment across Europe: Development of a metadatabase and a set of key environmental quality indicators, based on an exchange between stakeholders - particularly researchers and policymakers. This will help ensure both indicator quality and acceptance Project closed 31/12/13 n/a Integral networking of fishing actors to organize a responsible optimal and sustainable exploitation of marine resources Objectives achieved

LIFE08 ENV/IT/000399 8 LIFE08 ENV/E/000119 8

1 LIFE08 ENV/CY/000461

1 LIFE08 ENV/E/000158

1 LIFE08 ENV/IT/000426

LIFE07 ENV/E/000814 7

1 LIFE07 ENV/D/000229

7 7

LIFE07 ENV/E/000787

1 LIFE06 ENV/D/000465

LIFE06 TCY/INT/000250

6 LIFE06 ENV/D/000479 6

1 LIFE05 ENV/E/000267 1

LIFE05 ENV/GR/000242 5

Final report due 31/12/13 - project progressing but not without difficulties n/a

Targetted the IPPC in reducing pollution emmissions at sea with innovative wind propulsion system for caro vessels Project reducing waste from fishing vessels including reducing by-catch - project had implications for MSFD and CFP - maintains biodversity and reduces litter (packaging).

Yes

Tracking system for vessels and early warning system for pollution events installed but not functioning after project Partially - due to problems with partnership ended due to lack of funds and lack of common vision

562,553.00 €

6,067,876.00 €

3,003,938.00 €

2,182,906.00 €

1,063,357.00 €

830,946.00 €

411,723.00 €

925,458.00 €

358,601.00 €

1,730,501.00 €

812,465.00 €

1,447,990.00 €

595,620.00 €

1,715,632.00 €

851,816.00 €

828,144.00 €

414,072.00 €

2,103,888.00 €

1,022,753.00 €

3,393,046.00 €

1,686,773.00 €

6 n/a

All objectives appear to have been achieved Assessed levels of microbial pollution loads to sea developed tools to reduce loads from a number of source but not all expected results achieved hence low - specifically targetted shellfish toxicity and clean beachesscore

Ecospeed paint as a Surface Treated Coating is a valuable alternative technology to the antifoulings that are currently on the market. The greatest benefits come from its non-toxicity and long lifespan plus regular cleaning to reduce NIS marine organisms Yes The project contributed considerably to the development of environmentally friendly tourism in the Mediterranean region, in particular in the three pilot regions in Algeria, Morocco and Tunisia. The methodology used was based on the strategic planning approach. So the integrated strategic planning approach followed by the DESTINATIONS project could serve as a model. The experience of the project was used by PAP/RAC in the preparation of a methodological manual for sustainable tourism planning in coastal areas. Yes but no particular GES targetted - arguably

LIFE06 ENV/B/000362

1 LIFE06 ENV/F/000136

1,178,605.00 €

n/a 4

Following treatment of contaminants like TBT, dredged materials were to be reused as raw materials for infrastructure works, such as example harbour extensions. Yes

537,013.00 €

Reduction of hazardous waste through new techniques for dismantaling and disposal of vessels

LIFE06 ENV/FIN/000195

Objectives achieved

1,074,026.00 €

Reduction in pollution exposure pathways by removal and reduction of dredged sediments containing hazardous materials and other pollutants Objectives achieved

LIFE07 ENV/UK/000943

604,844.00 €

n/a

Project closed 07/2012 but final report not yet dn/a

LIFE07 ENV/EE/000122 7

1,209,689.00 €

3,721,425.00

974,228.00

1,569,358.00 €

783,429.00 €

5,158,348.00 €

2,384,424.00 €

5,200,611.00 €

1,525,413.00 €

702,864.00 €

419,923.00 €

4,115,882.00 €

1,212,685.00 €

1,858,552.00 €

909,248.00 €

1,921,600.00 €

751,425.00 €

Mainly dealt with noise mapping on land - however increasing awareness of contribution of land based noise sources to marine noise - although not explicit in project 1 could be implicit in the results i.e. a reduction in land nois yes

LIFE05 ENV/NL/000018 5 4

1,503,489.00 €

707,645.00 €

78,448,209.00 €

34,186,228.00 €

LIFE12 NAT/GR/000688

LIFE12 NAT/IT/000937

Communication, stakeholder involvement and raising public awareness

Mitigation and remediation tools (restoration of damaged components)

Economic incentives management measures in economic interest of users to achieve GES

Measures to improve the traceability of marine pollution

Management coordination measures

Spatial and temporal distribution controls

Life Code 12

Year

1 1

LIFE12 NAT/IT/001185

LIFE12 NAT/MT/000845

LIFE12 BIO/IT/000556

LIFE11 NAT/MT/001070

LIFE10 NAT/GR/000637

LIFE10 NAT/MT/000090

LIFE10 NAT/IT/000271

LIFE10 NAT/SI/000141

1 1

LIFE10 NAT/FR/000200

LIFE09 NAT/GR/000343

LIFE09 NAT/IT/000190

LIFE09 NAT/LT/000234

LIFE09 INF/PT/000045

LIFE09 NAT/ES/000534

1 1

LIFE09 NAT/LV/000238

LIFE09 NAT/PT/000038

LIFE09 NAT/IT/000176

LIFE09 INF/GR/000320

LIFE08 NAT/E/000064

LIFE08 NAT/S/000261

LIFE07 NAT/P/000646

LIFE07 NAT/GR/000285

LIFE07 NAT/FIN/000151

LIFE07 NAT/E/000732

LIFE06 NAT/MT/000097

LIFE06 NAT/P/000192

LIFE06 NAT/DK/000159

1 1

LIFE06 NAT/IT/000050

LIFE06 NAT/IT/000053

LIFE05 NAT/LV/000100

LIFE05 NAT/GR/000083

1 26

1 9

104 52 0

32 16 0

36 18 0

1 4

1 6

1 17

36 18 0

4 2 0

16 8 0

24 12 0

68 34 0

Total all projects Total ENV/INF projects Total NAT project Total Nature Projects 46 Total Env and Inf projects 154

LIFE12 ENV/IT/001054 LIFE12 ENV/IT/000289

LIFE12 ENV/FR/000316

LIFE12 INF/GR/000985

LIFE11 ENV/UK/000392

LIFE11 ENV/SE/000841

LIFE11 ENV/SE/000839

LIFE11 ENV/ES/000600

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000367

LIFE10 ENV/UK/000182

1 1 1 1

LIFE09 ENV/FI/000569

LIFE09 ENV/SE/000351

LIFE09 ENV/IT/000061 LIFE09 ENV/IT/000158

LIFE09 ENV/GR/000299

LIFE09 INF/IT/000076

LIFE08 ENV/S/000271

LIFE08 ENV/IT/000399

LIFE08 ENV/E/000119

8 8

LIFE08 ENV/E/000158

LIFE08 ENV/IT/000426

LIFE07 ENV/E/000814

1 1

LIFE07 ENV/EE/000122

LIFE07 ENV/D/000229

LIFE07 ENV/UK/000943 LIFE07 ENV/E/000787

LIFE06 ENV/FIN/000195

1 1

LIFE08 ENV/CY/000461

1 1

Communication, stakeholder involvement and raising public awareness 1

LIFE10 ENV/IT/000343

Mitigation and remediation tools (restoration of damaged components)

Economic incentives management measures in economic interest of users to achieve GES

Measures to improve the traceability of marine pollution

LIFE10 INF/EE/000108

1 1

LIFE09 ENV/NL/000426

Management coordination measures

1 1 1

Spatial and temporal distribution controls

Life Code 12 12

Year

LIFE06 ENV/F/000136

LIFE06 ENV/D/000465

LIFE06 ENV/B/000362

LIFE06 TCY/INT/000250

LIFE06 ENV/D/000479

LIFE05 ENV/E/000267

LIFE05 ENV/GR/000242

LIFE05 ENV/NL/000018

1 1

4 2 0

64 32 0

34 17 0

48 24 0

20 10 0

32 16 0

4 2 0

52 26 0

Total all projects Total ENV/INF projects Total NAT project Total Nature Projects 46 Total Env and Inf projects 154

Annex 3 SWOT Analyses

[Marine Thematic Report September 2014]

Annex 席

SWOT matrix LIFE05NAT/LV/000100 Baltic MPAs-Marine Protected Areas in the Eastern Baltic Sea – maintaining biodiversity – closed project Strengths • International project between Latvia, Lithuania and Estonia supported by government agencies and other international partners • Steering Group with representatives of ministries, donors and stakeholders (e.g. fishermen) • Main output was preparation of 6 management plans for MPAs/ Natura 2000 sites. And proposal for 7 new marine Natura 2000 sites in Latvia, 1 in Lithuania and modifications to sites in Lithuania and Estonia. • Selected sites were mapped in each country and habitat, bird, cetacean and seal surveys completed • A new habitat classification system was developed (compatible with EUNIS) • New feature ‘underwater moraine ridges’ discovered in Lithuania and reefs (1170) fund to be rare and outside protected areas • Water birds surveys (for Annex I species) proposed 5 new SPAs in Latvia and 1 in Lithuania • Fish surveys concluded that commercial fishing impact has reduced and that fishing is not the main threat to species of conservation interest • Project developed skills by exchange of best practice in training course and study visits • GIS information from project included in national Natura 2000 databases • ‘Habitat sensitivity matrix’ developed to model the impact of dredging and dumping sediment • Positive response from fishermen to trials of safer equipment to reduce bycatch • Website ‘Baltic Sea Portal’ maintained: now includes LIFE+ MARMONI project • Excellent media and communication activity and dissemination of results Opportunities • Project included Russian partners and visited sites in Russia • A further 4 MPA management plans prepared after the project • Disturbances to birds and seals from human activity generally found to be low • The effect of local and trans-boundary pollution on Natura 2000 habitats

Weaknesses • Delays due to weather conditions –common to many marine projects • Delays in getting ministerial approval for MPA/Natura 2000 management plans-this was a considerable problem for the project. • Project hampered by the lack of awareness about Marine Strategy Framework Directive or marine spatial planning amongst stakeholders

Threats • Main concern is whether the protection regimes proposed by the project will be maintained in face of overriding public interest • Conclusion is that it is only possible to protect seal species across their whole range –not just Natura 2000 sites • Ringed Seal (Phoca hispida) is threatened by climate change

•

• • • •

considered to be low Project successfully tested alternative seal –safe fyke nets and bird-safe herring traps and the design was adopted outside the project. Support is possible through EFF. Long lining was shown to be as effective at catching cod than gill nets and can be introduced to reduce bird by-catch More work could be done on the ecosystem services value of reefs Knowledge from the project has been transferred, e.g. to Croatia Project led to submission of four follow-up projects including LIFE+ MARMONI and DENOFLIT

• • •

Harbour porpoise (Phocaena phocaena) cannot feasibly be protected as numbers are so low Fish species are at threat from eutrophication and pollution not fishing effort By-catch of birds in fishing gear is a threat but slightly reduced. Project recommends that reporting should be obligatory.

SWOT matrix LIFE05 ENV/E/000267 BE-FAIR – reducing by-catch and fishing discards – closed project Strengths • Extensive data collection to characterise by-products and discards at sea • Project covered practices at sea and on land • Developed new technologies (5) and methods for producing gelatine from fish skins, Chondroitin sulfate from cartilage, Hiarulonic acid and fish oil • 5 processes were developed and 4 prototypes constructed. • Best Practices and management solutions for separation, classification, handling, conservation and pre-treatment of this waste. • Best Practices defined separately for: longliners, trawlers, fish auctions, and food transformation industry • Dealt with by-catch (discards) as well as unwanted waste products from targeted species • Highly innovative solutions developed • pioneering in starting to define integral solutions for dealing with this type of waste • Of relevance to CFP and MSFD Opportunities • Interest shown by long-liners in the northern Galician coast to implement the liver oil extractor on board (and Southern California) • Results were used for the preparation of a new technological project by an important international enterprise (shipowner and transforming industry, no name mentioned)) to implement practices for management of discards and by products at industrial level • A local industry (Vigo area) is interested in installing a new line for producing chondroitin sulphate • Management of fish waste by an external entity (not the fishermen) that would fix the prices to avoid abuses of system (e.g. targeting by-catch because it is now economically viable • Technology gap needs to be filled to take project from ‘pilot’ to full industrial level • Some of the results (processing prototypes) can be directly applied to other fish auctions and fleets and are perfectly transferable to any EU countries where fishing activities take place

Weaknesses • Storage capacity on-board containers could be a critical (limiting) factor as all space is devoted to the storage of targeted species • Water reduction unit developed will probably be too costly for small shipowners • No economic analysis completed to determine affordability of the measures – full economic analysis essential • Innovation of design could limit widespread uptake due to requirement to apply to use the prototypes (possible costs involved not clear) • Impact of the project results in expected be much higher in areas with big fishing/canning/food processing companies. • Space available on board (especially smaller vessels) may not be sufficient to have industrialised units for processing • No assessment of potential environmental benefits (actual reduction in discards) – cost benefit analysis would have been useful • Stakeholder engagement could have been better • Real economic benefits need to be established Threats • Gelatine production process and plant: the main limiting factor would be the availability of raw material as it would only be viable with a minimum production • Minimum production volumes could drive an increase in by-catch to meet demand • New legislation is required to properly implement reuse of by-catch i.e. to force fishermen to bring by-catch to shore • Competition from third countries could make productions (and production methods) less viable

• • • •

Project technology and methodology could also be easily adapted to waste management related to coastal fishing activities and aquaculture Wide application of this waste management system could lead to the creation of new jobs and new businesses Market research revealed potential opportunities Recycling and waste management are generally positively appreciated and supported by governments and by the whole society

SWOT matrix LIFE 06 NAT P 192 – BIOMARES - reconstruction and remediation – closed project Strengths • Development of countrywide GIS seagrass meadow distribution to identify potential donor sites • Three species of seagrass incuded Zostera marina, Zostera noltii and Cymodocea nodosa (none of which are Annex I or II) • Four campaigns launched between 2007 and 2010 and 6o seagrass plots restored • Acoustic, sedimentology, benthic infauna, video surveys and SCUBA assessment all combined to produce habitat map of the park – including digital terrain modelling • Two different seagrass transplant methods used - one with and one without sediment from donor site – to compare effectiveness of methods • 100 seagrass friendly mooring systems established in the park to limit damage from leisure craft • Methods tested for collected seagrass seeds to allow possible reseeding of depleted areas • National seagrass status conservation awareness • Project could demonstrate increase overall fish species in protected areas (no fishing) vs non-protected areas where fishing is allowed by end of project. • Project also demonstrated that fish are bigger in the park (increase fecundity) than outside it Opportunities • By end of project conclusion was that it was more efficient to protect the existing seagrass resources rather than trying to transplant and restore – cheaper and more successful • Project outcomes will be useful to MPA to demonstrate the impact of protecting marine species to the various stakeholder groups. • ‘Adopt a seagrass meadow’ – awareness campaign and monitoring programme - launched as result of the project and funded after the project close

Weaknesses • • • •

• • • •

The seagrass meadow restoration task was unsuccessful due to natural constraints, namely the occurrence of seastorms, parasitic seaweed proliferation and fish herbivory. Lack of oceanographic information and water quality at local scale to define site selection. Germination of seeds was extremely reduced not allowing their use in the seagrass habitat recovery Important flagship species (seahorses) intimately associated with the seagrass beds could not be restored with implications for expansion of tourism Increase in larval settlement and juvenile survival in the restored seagrass area could not be demonstrated to the fishing stakeholders Lack of a professional Marine Park communication strategy. Lack of social-economic impact evaluation. Approx costs 150,000€/ha of restored meadow (but not viable)

Threats • Areas of seagrass outside the Park will continue to diminish unless active management steps are taken • Furtive/illegal fishing might continue even though banned • Lack of marine park surveillance. • Funding discontinuities for monitoring. • Changing of politics/ discontinuity of political support to Marine Protected Areas. • Natural catastrophes/increasing of extreme events (floods, warmer seawater, etc.)

SWOT matrix LIFE 06 NAT DK 159 – BLUEREEF - reconstruction and remediation –closed project Strengths • Extensive information gathering to ensure all factors in place for success. • Physical modelling of potential effect of waves and sediments increased chance of success. • Careful site selection. • Sensible sourcing of materials for restoration of boulder reef. • Increased awareness through various media activities. • Best practice document for restoration of boulder reefs. • Extensive colonisation after 4 years with increase in biodiversity macro algal vegetation and bottom fauna of approximately 6 and 3-ton ash free biomass respectively; estimated surplus of nearly 700 million fauna; Cod increased on average 3-6 fold in the reef area; • Restored reef has proved to have an instant and positive effect on porpoise in the area. The porpoises occurred more often and also for longer periods of time and likely as a result of increased amount of prey. • Marine nature restoration projects are in general difficult to disseminate. The demonstration value of the project is supported highly by the production of a video documenting the activities from the initial field investigations and modelling and design, to the construction of the reef and the colonisation of fauna and flora. • New reef is extremely stable and will not move or degrade – is sustainable in long term provided trawling issue is addressed Opportunities • The BLUEREEF has been added to the national monitoring plan for the Natura 2000 site and will be monitored every 6 years, at least for fish and algae. Progress past 2013 can be assessed. • Possible socio-economic opportunities in tourism industry and new LIFE project (agriculture) LIFE11NAT/DK/00089 on Læsø island. • New reef area may act as donor area and increase fish and shellfish numbers outside the BlueReef zone. • Many of the recommendations are also relevant for the restoration of other marine nature types like biogenic reefs. • Bathymetric surveys completed post-installation so that navigational charts can be updated

Weaknesses • Concerns over safety and navigation - warning buoys to avoid incidents with leisure craft not in place at end of project. • Agreement needed with Danish Maritime Authority over placement of buoys. • Anchoring buoy (for use by recreational divers) not in place at end of project. • Costs – approximately 1million € per ha of restored habitat. • No socio-economic studies undertaken – the 1900 population of Læsø island are mainly fishermen – how will the changes in fishing practices affect them (aging population many over 65). • No engagement with some of key stakeholders – fishermen • Materials derived from quarrying – more angular than marine feldspars and so more of a threat to navigation • Assume materials from quarry do not represent loss of habitat? • Underwater trail (for divers) not done – buoys placed twice but washed away with storms and ice

Threats • Fishing ban suspended 31/12/12 at end of project • Fishing from trawlers therefore remained a threat– trawling can disturb seabed and foul stones– plan to ban trawling on reef and 240m buffer zone surrounding – enacted? • Lack of surveillance/monitoring of trawling activities. • The local fishermen are critical about the planned prohibition of fishing. Not because of a stop for trawling on the reef itself but because the planned buffer zones can reduce the fishing potential in a larger area. The local fishermen are sceptical that the restored reef can contribute to better fishing by serving as a donor-area.

• •

Lobster populations likely to increase – slow growing species increase will not become apparent until several years post deployment. The increased biomass indicates that restoration of cavernous boulder reefs may be a tool to achieve good environmental status in implementing the Marine Strategy Framework Directive.

SWOT matrix LIFE 08 ENV IT 426 – COAST-BEST – contaminated sediments - closed project Strengths • The regional authority, Regione Emilia-Romagna, the main policy maker related to the project, was involved as co-financier. • The process for obtaining permits for dredging in the selected ports was started early in the project to avoid delays. • Integrated sediment management approach covering the different phases from dredging to final disposal/use. • Operating parameters of the pilot plant could be altered to carry out a tailor-made sediment treatment chain allowing processing of different kinds of contaminated dredged sediments. • Treatment process enabled separation of the clean fraction from the contaminated fraction of sediments allowing them to be managed individually. • Treatment procedures demonstrated were in many cases able to completely clean the samples and produce clean sand to be used in beach nourishment. • A GIS-based integrated sediments management system was developed to optimise the selection of management options for dredged sediments from the 9 ports in the Emilia-Romagna Region. • Identification of beneficial use of treated sediment is predicted to result in saving about 60-120 €/t of sediment. • The economic advantages from sand substitution by sediment lead to savings of between 10 and 30€/t. Opportunities • The treatment system is simple and has a low-tech character - economic constraints shouldn’t affect its full-scale transferability. • Pilot plant sequence can be easily adapted to treat sediments with different characteristics - promising for application in other territorial contexts. • Project developed a proposal for methodological criteria and guidelines for sediment management in the region which may be taken up by the regional authority. • Interest from local authorities in Tuscany to test the pilot plant in their region.

Weaknesses • The collection of data on dredged sediments and their management in such small harbours was complicated and required a lot of work. • Gaps in data on the quantitative and qualitative characteristics of dredged sediments, partly due to the lack of specific technical regulations. • The project originally intended to develop a mobile plant. This was rejected by the competent authorities so the project had to opt for a stationary R&D type of installation. These problems delayed the setup of the pilot plant. • The direct transferability of the pilot plant is limited as the operational parameters are optimised for the treatment of sediments from the ports covered by the project. • Questions over the efficiency of the treatment process when applied in an industrial scale plant. • For the process to be effective in separating valuable sediment fractions, an appreciable sand content is highly desirable. The tested process may not be suitable for finely grained sediments.

Threats • The plans for the pilot plant's use after the project end date were not finalised by the end of the project. • The operating parameters for the pilot plant need to be optimised with respect to the characteristics of the sediment being treated and to possible contaminants. Therefore it is not necessarily readily transferrable to new areas.

SWOT matrix LIFE09NAT/LT/000234 DENOFLIT- Inventories – open project Strengths • Partnership of state bodies, academic institutes and NGOs • Completion of bathymetric, sediment and habitat surveys and compilation of GIS- leading to positive identification of EU Habitat type Baltic reefs. • Mapping of abundance and distribution of fish species completed • Ship-based surveys of seabird distribution and densities has enough information to propose SPA designation on part of Klaipeda-Ventspils Plateau • The surveys support the designation of two SACs (Sambian Plateau and Klaipeda-Ventspils Plateau) • Satellite telemetry used to gain information about the movement of birds in the coastal area • The identification of new or enlarged Natura 2000 sites is an expected output of the project • The project will disseminate its results through a final conference and through a handbook. • Excellent networking with projects in Latvia, Estonia and Finland

Weaknesses • Delays due to technical problems with some equipment and methods (e.g. trying to capture birds at sea at night to fit transmitters) • Delays due to weather-but this had been expected • Availability of suitable survey vessels –leading to a delay of one year • Need to ensure that enough data is assembled to put forward the case for a marine SPA-this required additional survey time

Opportunities • To use project as a means to develop wider interpretation of the Baltic Sea for families and schoolchildren at the Lithuanian Sea Museum • Project provides an opportunity to publish a Lithuanian handbook of marine natural values aimed at a professional audience. • The final conference will be combined with a National Symposium on marine issues to increase its reach and impact. • Productive links with Latvian MARMONI project LIFE09NAT/LV/000238 on issues including EIA for wind parks

Threats • Significant decreases in EU Habitats Directive fish species Twaite Shad (Alosa fallax) and Common Whitefish (Coregonus lavretus) discovered by surveys • Possible lack of suitable survey vessels in the Marine Research Centre for follow up work • A wind park is planned in one of the main areas identified for SAC/SPA status (Klaipeda-Ventspils Plateau). Assessments will be undertaken by the Environment Ministry.

SWOT matrix LIFE06 ENV/B/000362 ECOTEC-STC – reducing atmospheric emissions from ships – closed project Strengths •

Demonstration of the economic, social and environmental benefits of the application of Ecospeed, a non-toxic underwater ship hull coating system which provides vessels with long-term anti-fouling protection. • Clear environmental benefits of Ecospeed compared to other antifouling paints over the life cycle of the product, mainly due to its non-toxicity and longevity (re-application once per 25 years vs 3-5 years for other coatings). • Significant reduction in paint and associated waste. If 80% of the world fleet switched from biocidal anti-foulings to Ecospeed, annual reduction of 12 million litres of paint, saving on resources and associated transportation • Significantly smaller amounts of VOCs released into the atmosphere with each application of Ecospeed vs existing anti-foulings. Over 25 years, nearly 13x as many VOCs are emitted with a Foul Release coating and more than 23x as many VOCs with a copper-based SPC coating scheme. • It is estimated that the life-cycle cost of Ecospeed (application, maintenance, fuel costs) is less than half of an SPC and 2/3 of a foul release coating for a 1000-TEU container vessel over 25 years. • Lab tests showed that compared to SPC, conditioned Ecospeed exhibited 1.9% less drag, which should improve fuel efficiency and reduce emissions. • Several ports and countries banned underwater cleaning due to pulsed release of biocides or risk of transferring non-indigenous species. The experimental results and the derived criteria for environmentally safe underwater cleaning convinced several ports to overturn the ban. • One of the main benefits that Ecospeed provides to ship owners is that a ten year dry dock interval can be achieved (instead of 3-5 years) which would mean a huge cost saving. Opportunities • If 80% of the world fleet would switch from biocidal anti-foulings to Ecospeed, this would save an estimated 28.5 million tonnes in annual fuel consumption and 90 million tonnes in annual CO2 output. • The beneficiary has already established a global network of maintenance professionals (divers and painters) – there are further opportunities through training to create further jobs and bring associated socio-economic advantages.

Weaknesses •

•

The original approach did not include collecting baseline data from uncoated ships to compare fuel efficiency performance. This was realised and rectified for demonstration ships later in the project. Due to the complexity of fuel consumption calculations (since many factors affect fuel efficiency), no statistically valid conclusions could be drawn regarding the fuel savings benefits of Ecospeed compared to other systems. Delays in the development of prototype cleaning tools resulted in no reallife cleaning been performed before the end of the project (only in-house tests). Further tests would have to take place in real life conditions.

Threats • The hull requires regular cleaning before leaving port in order to reduce the risk of the transfer of non-indigenous species. Failure to implement the regular cleaning regime required may increase the risk of the transfer of non-indigenous species. However, the reduced fuel costs achieved by lower drag from regular cleaning are likely to be a sufficient incentive for ship owners to regularly clean hulls.

SWOT matrix LIFE08 ENV/E/000119 FAROS – reducing by-catch and fishing discards – closed project Strengths • Extensive data collection to characterise by-products and discards at sea • GIS tool developed to predict discards from data collected by the project • New technologies to improve the management of discards onboard: BEOS (automatic identification and quantification) and Redbox (data processing and transmission) • virtual network for discards management called “Management Geoportal Network”, • Ecological Footprint of a commercial port (Port of Vigo) • A tool for environmental assessment (LCA and EF) of fishing activities

Opportunities • Dissemination and information activities to increase the project visibility, as well as advocacy work in relevant entities will be essential in the coming months as After-LifeIFE activities • Need to test the system in ‘real life’ – project works on pilot scale but need to demonstrate wide scale applicability before widescale uptake • Inform the regulatory bodies and decision makers concerning the appropriate treatment of, and acceptable level of, discards. • The future use and replication of the project at a large scale (which is the only way it can really be useful) • The EMFF (European Fisheries Fund) foresees funding of such innovative monitoring technologies as `part of the new CFP • Tools developed with feedback from all the relevant stakeholders to b better adapted to the end users

Weaknesses • Institutions do not seem to want take measures that are not "popular" or may create strong reactions from fishermen associations and companies • There is no guarantee at the moment for the replication and use of the system. • Costs and need to upgrade vessels • The dissemination activities have helped to gain interest from the fishing sector, but there is still some fear that the use of electronic tools and real time connection means fishing boats are more "controlled". • Lack of understanding at all levels (including within the legislation) concerning discards The cost of investment to implement these technologies might hinder their adoption • Cannot clearly demonstrate that there will be a reduction in discards Threats • A clear concern showed by the fishing fleets is the cost associated with the implementation of the BEOS system and the rest of the technological tools (Redbox, data transmission, etc), accentuated by the financial crisis in Spain. • The conservative mentality of the fishing sector might hinder the acceptance of new technologies. • Uptake of the project technologies by the administration (regional governments, national or European public agencies, port authorities), necessary as entities responsible for “managing the network” • Lack of will and commitment from the politicians and administrations in general, to induce strong changes in the way of fishing and controlling fisheries • Need to continue the project immediately- a gap would lead to all the progress made being lost • The next necessary step is a move/commitment from the public bodies, political parties, fishermen associations and lobbies to oblige the enforcement of the discard ban • By placing a value on discards is there a risk of increasing the harvest rather than decreasing it

SWOT matrix LIFE07NAT/FIN/000151 FINMARINET –Inventories – closed project Strengths • Project led by government research centre with support of academic institutions and statutory nature conservation body • Results are a tool to be used in Marine Spatial Planning • Efficient and cost effective acoustic-seismic survey techniques supplemented by sampling to determine seabed form and geology. • Completion of comprehensive biological survey of the sea floor using a range of techniques. Significant new information gathered on bryophytes and aquatic macrophytes • Physical and biological surveys supplemented by collection of information on water column and abiotic variables (light penetration etc) • Ability to complete the work as planned despite technical problems with equipment • Maps produced of Annex I habitats, EUNIS classification and predicted distribution of communities and species • Good dissemination of results through layman’s report and in the scientific literature • Project offered international training opportunities in marine inventory techniques • Recommendations for extensions to existing Natura 2000 sites and establishment of new Natura 2000 sites, to update Standard Data Forms and to extend national Park coverage included in After-LIFE plan Opportunities • Project was able to support development of national aquatic habitats information system (VEHAB) for Finland and complements Finnish Inventory Programme for the Underwater Marine Environment (VELMU). • The information gathered is of immediate value to the nature conservation agency in assessing development plans • Information collected by project can be harmonised with other datasets and projects, e.g. NANNUT project –nature and nurture of the Baltic Sea • The project has delivered a number of workshops and has been presented at HELCOM meetings • The habitat distribution models produced in FINMARINET were used in the Swedish project SAMBAH LIFE08NAT/S/261

Weaknesses • The information produced is good but ground-truthing is required for detailed evaluations • A delay occurred when it was realised that the release of marine geological information had to be licensed by the defence authorities. The licences were obtained but some mapping was also affected • Delays due to adverse weather-a risk with many marine projects • Delays due to mechanical failure of ROV equipment –alternative solutions were required and additional costs borne outside project budget

Threats • It is not yet known whether the project recommendations for Natura 2000 extensions, new sites and updated Standard Data Forms will be accepted by the Finnish Ministry of the Environment. • The project results will be used in assessing the potential impact of activities such as dumping of dredging waste but the level of use of the sea area will continue to bring threats from fisheries, shipping, wind farms, sand and gravel extraction, nuclear energy etc. • Fragmented private ownership of inshore waters makes coordinated management more difficult • Reduction of available finance to continue this work

â&#x20AC;˘

The establishment of the Bothnian Sea National Park is an opportunity to extend Natura 2000 coverage in this area

SWOT matrix LIFE09 INF/IT/000076 FISH SCALE – reducing by-catch and fishing discards –project closed Sept 2013 (final report not available) Strengths • Stimulating greater demand for discard species amongst distributors and consumers • Establishing a strong FISH SCALE network of commercial operators distributing ‘neglected’ fish • Highlighting the business opportunities they present to other economic operators • A 10% increase in the commercialisation of by-catch fish species (at least 3 more species included in the large-scale distribution network) • Development of an interactive, educational portal: “Map Fish” • Involves the entire supply chain • Is a nationwide project • Has scientifically identified and ranked 18 discard species that are best suited to marketing and consumption • Application is available for download in the AppStore for iPhone • Awareness campaign showed 54% increase in awareness over project Opportunities • Portugal and France have expressed interest in replicating the scheme • Dissemination and information activities to increase the project visibility, as well as advocacy work in relevant entities will be essential in the coming months as After-LifeIFE activities • The future use and replication of the project at a large scale (which is the only way it can really be useful) • Sales results for non standard fish from one chain outlet were good – could be replicated at other outlets given the right marketing • Only 45 restaurants took part – could be replicated on wider scale • Only 10 fishmongers took part – could be replicated on wider scale • Translate 54% awareness increase into concrete action

Weaknesses • Small number of organisations involved – only one major food outlet so difficult to see how the project can progress to widescale • There is no guarantee at the moment for the replication and use of the fish identified • No cost benefit analysis or socio-economic assessment as yet – all conclusions drawn from questionnaires • No champion (high profile media person (e.g. Hugh Fernley Wittinsal in UK) to make the campaign come alive and be relevant to everyone • Very difficult to measure actual success of the campaign in terms of changing behaviour – a lot of material produced but no measure of effectiveness • Does not aim for a reduction in discards

Threats • Need a much wider uptake to remain viable. • Hard to see sustainability continuing without some kind of financial incentives • Need to continue the project immediately- a gap would lead to all the progress made being lost • By placing a value on discards is there a risk of increasing the harvest rather than decreasing it

SWOT matrix LIFE07 NAT/E/000732 INDEMARES – Avoiding conflict and conflict resolution – open project Strengths • The project represents the key governance tool for the construction of the Spanish Natura 2000 network in the marine environment, bringing together and coordinating the major players and promoting the political thrust of this initiative. • Acts as a binding agent of all the parties involved (politics, administration, scientists, fisheries, general public), creating positive synergies and consensus between interested parties. • It is expected that by the end of the project 8% of the Spanish Territorial Waters (4,700,000 ha) will be protected as part of the Natura 2000 network (proposal/ designation of 10 SCIs and 39 SPAs), a major milestone in the conservation of the Spanish marine environment • Project received full institutional and political support from the MAGRAMA, which is essential as they are ultimately responsible for the proposal/ designation of these sites. • The development of a new methodology for the elaboration of fisheries footprints enables the precise identification of the areas targeted by the different fishing arts and the species targeted. From a managerial point of view, this is of high importance as it allows detailed planning, avoiding the imposition of generic constraints that do not benefit anybody. • Information on interaction of fishermen and cetaceans collected by means of embarkments • 11 beneficiaries coordinated through scientific and steering committees to provide best updated information on species, habitats and threats. Opportunities • Given the huge gap that traditionally existed among the fisheries sector, public administrations and NGOs, the channels of dialogue and collaboration opened by INDEMARES between them is one of the main achievements of this project. If properly used, this climate of dialogue could be most useful for the development of the future management plans of the sites. • Within the framework of the project the management guidelines for all the SCIs/ SPAs will be elaborated. This is a very significant step towards the elaboration and approval of the future management plans of these sites

Weaknesses • The beneficiaries acknowledged that one of the mistakes committed was not to have involved the stakeholders from the very beginning of the project but only once the results from the campaigns and the draft of the sites and their management plans were elaborated.

Threats • The information gathered in the framework of INDEMARES also identified a strong rebound of subsistence fishing, probably linked to the economic crisis. Given the huge complexity of this issue, the project did not carry out further study.

SWOT matrix LIFE10NAT/MT/000090 Malta Seabird Project – inventories – open project Strengths • Followed on from LIFE Yelkouan Shearwater project LIFE06NAT/MT/000097 which set precedent for seabird research in Malta • Using standard BirdLife survey techniques produced reliable data on species location and densities for target species Yelkouan Shearwater (Puffinus yelkouan), Cory’s Shearwater (Calonectris diomedea) and Storm Petrel (Hydrobates pelagicus). • Successful use of various telemetry methods including innovative techniques. • Work is designed to produce recommendations for IBAs • Plans to host a central Mediterranean IBA workshop in 2015 • Good support through BirdLife International Marine Task Force and Birdlife partners (RSPB and SPEA) • Project supported by Maltese Government: new SPAs will be identified Opportunities • As one of series of similar project in Malta can support new projects including project MIGRATE (Conservation Status and potential Sites of Community Interest for Tursiops truncatus and Caretta caretta in Malta) LIFE11NAT/MT/001070. • Target audience for media work is young people (18-25 year olds). Getting this group to accept messages about conservation is important for the future.

Weaknesses • Land based surveys for rafts of seabirds proved to be difficult. Suggested that aerial survey would be better but at a higher cost. • Lack of citizen awareness of the marine environment in Malta • Generally poor record of implementation of Birds Directive in Malta to date

Threats • Hostility towards project beneficiary from hunters on Malta • Presence of rats on remote islands could threaten breeding success

SWOT matrix LIFE 05 NAT GR 000083 MOFI – Avoiding conflict and conflict resolution – closed project Strengths • Resulted in a noticeable decrease in human related mortality of the Monk Seal (a 12% average decrease in deliberate killings was recorded in the project duration 2005-2009) • Strategy and action plan developed in collaboration with key stakeholders to protect species and address economic concerns of fishermen (compensation payments for gear damaged by Monk Seal). • Significant increase in the collaboration between the project implementing partners (NGOs) and the fishermen and other key stakeholders (educators, students, authorities) despite early resistance and difficulties. Engagement with 196 coastal fishermen, 19 fish farm owners, seven fishery departments and 64 port police authorities. • Direct work with fishermen to measure the actual extent of the humanmonk seal conflict. • The membership of the beneficiary’s Rescue and Information Network (RINT) was expanded from 1200 to 1821 members by the end of the project with the addition of aquaculture owners and fishery societies. • Awareness campaign targeted at the national level (general public) and locally at the project sites. TV and radio spots broadcast 1134 times in national and local media • Use of practical demonstrations using large toy seals on the beach to engage locals stakeholders, as well as information seminars and booklets. • An electronic Marine Mammal and Fisheries Network was set-up, including bodies (26 experts from 9 countries) that work on issues related to marine mammals and fisheries interactions from various countries. • During the project a new co-financier was secured, the Piraeus Bank, while one of the co-financiers, IFAW, agreed to repeat its contribution in each project year. Opportunities • High demonstration value - may be used as a model for structuring conservation projects aiming to tackle similar nature-human conflicts and also to address the seal-fishery conflict in different countries of the species range. • An important guarantee of the continuity of the project activities is the

Weaknesses • The Action Plan and Strategy were not adopted during the course of the project. • The compensation schemes do not essentially deal with the root of the conservation problem (in this case overfishing and lack of prey) • The role of the project’s Steering Committee was not as active and supportive as planned due to the continuous changes in the representatives of the various national authorities, heavy workloads and lack of direct responsibility for setting policy within key authorities. • Fishermen’s first reaction to any initiative related to the seal-fisheries conflict is to demand immediate and direct monetary compensation. Fishermen were paid to take part in project sampling/landing activity. Is this a sustainable/affordable approach to engaging fishermen and tackling the conflict? • No cost-benefit analysis or similar analysis of the approach of compensatory payments to fishermen.

Threats • There was a change in government shortly after the completion of the project. Coupled with the continuously changing personnel at key government institutions there is a real threat that the action plan and strategy will not be adopted and the proposed measures remain unimplemented.

•

beneficiary organisation itself. MOm is very competent and through almost 20 years’ experience has acquired significant expertise in research, conservation and policy as well as in public awareness, educational activities, project management and in securing funds. A number of the project activities will be continued by the beneficiary with its own resources. The engagement with school children through the education scheme will help improve the local community’s understanding of the issues in the future. 21 schools, 430 children visited at the 7 project “hot spot” sites. Teachers and students were very enthusiastic.

•

This could lead to failed expectations amongst fishermen, which may result in detrimental effects to attitudes and tolerance of monk seal. The conflict could get worse again. Lack of funding for compensation payments and monitoring the mortality of the Mediterranean monk seal throughout Greece could prevent the continuation of the project’s results.

SWOT matrix LIFE 07 ENV UK 943 PISCES – avoiding conflict and conflict resolution Strengths • Generating interest and understanding of the concepts of ecosystem based approaches in a wide and diverse range of stakeholder groups (sea-users, government representatives and others). • Working with committed stakeholders to produce guidelines for implementing ecosystems approach • Helped to stimulate collaboration between sea-users to identify tangible benefits from working in partnership (e.g. ways to share sea-space, avoid conflict, jointly engage in projects/initiatives etc). • Identification of, and engagement with, key policy stakeholders. Provided government policy-makers with a better understanding of the potential benefits of greater stakeholder participation in implementation of marine policy, and what the expectations of stakeholders are. The UK government has pledged to develop an MSFD-specific stakeholder engagement strategy, a key PISCES recommendation. • PISCES identified key lessons for stakeholder engagement: 1. Clearly explain purpose, role and benefits; 2. Engage early and continuously; 3. Create an open and transparent process; 4. Work with neutral (preferably external) facilitator; 5. Continue efforts to engage those who are disinterested but focus activities on those who are positive and committed. • The fact that the guidelines were developed by multi-sectoral stakeholders gives them added relevance and resonance with marine sectors. No one sector was allowed to dominate the guide development process, increasing legitimacy of the guidelines and project results. • Demonstrated how stakeholders can add value at each step of the MSFD implementation process through assisting in monitoring, data collection, testing measures and providing social and economic evidence. • Strong links developed with European Coordinating Group for Marine Strategy (ECGMS) for all member states, relevant country Marine Strategy Groups (MSGs) responsible for implementing MSFD nationally and other Regional/Local programmes e.g. Baltic Seas Regional Programme • Regular contact with FP7 - Making the European Fisheries Ecosystem Plan Operational (MEFEPO) and MESMA (marine Spatial Planning in the EU).

Weaknesses • Engaging with the fishing community proved exceptionally difficult – lack of input from major group could undermine effectiveness of guidelines. • Balancing national representation within the Celtic Sea Region has been difficult – main stakeholders initially from UK but other countries better represented towards end of project. • Staff turnover in all project beneficiaries and stakeholders was a challenge. Effective briefings and refreshers of project objectives helped to alleviate this issue. • Lack of public sector funding affected the ability of government representatives and statutory agencies to attend workshops and input into the guidelines development process. Issue mitigated by holding national workshops and using ICT to maintain dialogue.

Opportunities • Although stakeholder engagement is resource intensive, it can lead to longterm social, economic and environmental benefits. Stakeholder engagement is therefore highly cost effective, as if done well the results are owned and sustained by stakeholders themselves. • The beneficiary is implementing a follow-on project • PISCES results have relevance for all marine sectors and activities in Europe. The guidelines include recommendations for sea-users and governments on implementing the ecosystem approach through the MSFD and the role they can play in policy implementation. Guidelines developed to be transferable to any region/sea area. • Currently the mechanisms for regional coordination are at the government level and there is no forum for multi-sectoral, multi-country stakeholder engagement and coordination. The stakeholder group established through PISCES developed a strong commitment to continue to collaborate and engage with other sectors at a regional level. This will facilitate implementation of the MSFD and could also facilitate implementation of the forthcoming Marine Spatial Planning Directive. • The inclusion of stakeholders in policy implementation will result in measures being more widely accepted and implemented, thereby resulting in long-term costs savings. • North Sea Commission wants to adopt PISCES stakeholder model for Northern North Sea (funded by INTERREG) • Interest generated at MS level through the ECGMS Dissemination of guidelines through ECGMS and related policy groups – potential transferability significant – potential impact significant

Threats • Fishing communities not wholly engaged (especially industrial fishermen) who see the reform of the Common Fisheries Policy (CFP) as their major interest. • Complex and intensive stakeholder engagement (including continual engagement efforts, information provision and expectations setting) needed in order to maintain commitment and interest. • Extent to which PISCES’ recommendations are adopted by national governments during implementation of the MSFD (especially development of the Programmes of Measures) is subject to a number of potential barriers: lack of government funds / resources for engagement (exacerbated by the economic downturn), political will and stakeholder fatigue. • MSFD implementation different in different countries – Spain (and probably France) will adopt a regional approach – implemented through Regional Councils rather than national approach – could lead to differences in interpretation and conflicts emerging.

SWOT matrix LIFE09 NAT/IT/000176 POSEIDONE – reconstruction and remediation – open project Strengths • Detailed analysis of sea floor structure to ensure correct placement of devices • Consultation with stakeholders (fishermen0 to determine where they fish so that structures can be placed correctly to deter trawling • Amendment to original proposal based on the information collected through project – vital to correct placement • Illegal trawling hoptspots identified • Development and discussion of 2 management plans for two SCIs well in advance of schedule (lesson learnt from previous LIFE project where discussion took longer than anticipated) • 550 artificial reef structures placed to prevent trawling in future • Comprehensive ex-ante survey of the seagrass beds in the two SCI locations undertaken in year 1 of the project before structures placed (monitors health, predation, genetic diversity and invasive species Caulerpa taxifolia)

Weaknesses • Issue of possible fishermen claims over damage to nets and other trawling devices not addressed in project design • Does not appear to be a measurement of aerial extent of seagrass beds in ex-ante monitoring only in ex-post monitoring – difficult to see how meaningful this could be for comparative purposes • Monitoring seems weak (only before and after) no indication of potential natural fluctuation in community – which can be significant especially in areas of high current and dense beds • No mathematical or physical modelling of placement of reef structures – could result in seabed scour or hydrodynamic impact on existing coastline • No assessment of seagrass associated organisms • Lack of social-economic impact evaluation. • Cost 2435€/unit is expensive but includes monitoring

Opportunities • Project expects MoU to be signed between competent authority and fishermen (presumably to avoid area) • The project was included as a case study in the national commission on the artificial underwater barriers. • Ex-post survey, measuring same parameters as ex-ante survey will be conducted in final year of project to assess effectiveness of measures • Monitoring post project to establish long term impact of the interventions • Project intervention could be replicated elsewhere (see other LIFE project LIFE09 NAT/ES/000534 Life Posidonia Andalucia

SWOT matrix LIFE 09 ENV IT 158 – SEDI.PORT.SIL – contaminated sediments – closed project Strengths • Project involved the port authority ‘Autorità Portuale di Ravenna’ as a cofinancier. • Extensive information gathering at the start of the project on existing technologies for sediment restoration and the relevant legal and administrative framework. • Demonstrated the potential for, and cost-efficiency of, extraction of ferrosilicon from dredged sediments. • Achieved the transformation of 99% of contaminated sediment fractions into marketable products including, as a source of clean sand for beach replenishment and as a raw material for the building and construction industry. • Addressed the linkage between the treatment of contaminated sediment and the potential uses following treatment • Development of a GIS database containing information on potential sites within the Ravenna territory for the use of decontaminated sediment. • A Master Plan and a Business Plan demonstrating the feasibility of a full scale sediment treatment plant were developed. • The SEDI.PORT.SIL methodology was successfully demonstrated by the project at the Midia Harbour in Romania. Opportunities • The huge amount of energy required by the sediment treatment plant may make the business model more attractive in countries where the cost of electricity is lower. • Economic analysis in the business plan developed by the project showed that the SEDI.PORT.SIL plant has the potential to generate a good margin (6% of annual turnover, slowly increasing throughout the 20 years period covered by the business plan).

Weaknesses • Weak management of project activities and poor coordination between Italian and Romanian partners. • Sediment sampling was delayed several times due to bad weather conditions, pontoon unavailability and delays in authorization procedures. • The experimental nature of the project led to the need to introduce some changes in the laboratory methodology for the characterisation of the sediments which delayed implementation. • Some of the project activities didn’t achieve the expected level of stakeholder involvement (including lower than expected participation at the four project workshops). • Despite the potential for replication demonstrated by the project it is not clear whether other European port cities have been informed about the methodology developed by the project. • The sediment treatment plant requires a huge amount of energy to run.

Threats • Project identified an absence of specific legislation on the management of dredged sediments, especially in relation to their recovery and reuse. • The absence of a specific Community framework on sediment management means that there is a lack of harmonisation between Member States – this may affect the potential for replication in some countries. • Sustainability of the project depends on a full scale plant being constructed. It was not clear by the end of the project whether this would happen. • High costs associated with the establishment of a full scale plant. • Changes to the value of the products of sediment decontamination could affect the financial attractiveness of the treatment plant.

SWOT matrix LIFE 06 ENV/FIN/000195 STABLE – contaminated sediments - closed project Strengths • The port authority (Port of Turku) is a co-financier and is closely involved in the project. • Applied an “environmentally friendly” dredging method utilising a new type of crab steered using GPS – this method reduces water turbulence thus minimising the spread of contaminated sediments and enables precise removal of contaminated sediments. • Demonstrated process stabilisation of sediments through immobilisation of contaminants with binder materials resulting in a solid material suitable for use in infrastructure construction. • The dredging method applied reduces the water content of dredged sediments reducing the amount of binder needed to stabilise the sediment; binders are a major cost factor in stabilisation. • The stabilisation equipment achieves homogenous mixing of the sediment and binder resulting in improved quality and stabilisation of the material and reducing the amount of binder needed. • Process stabilisation shown to be an effective and economical way of dealing with contaminated sediments. • Industrial by-products used as binder components, decreasing the cost and environmental impacts of the process compared to commercial binders such as cement. • The risks that the contaminants in the stabilised mass will disturb the water environment are very small due to the very low water permeability of the stabilised material. Opportunities • Industrial by-products such as fly ash and blast furnace ash can be used as binder components thus preventing their disposal to landfill and lowering the cost and environmental impact of the process compared to the use of commercial binders such as cement.

Weaknesses • Problems encountered during the first pilot of the process stabilisation required improvement to be made to the equipment; this delayed implementation of this action. • The environmentally, technically and economically best binder admixture has to be determined individually for each different sediment types. • The efficiency of process stabilisation improves in direct relation to the increase of the volume of sediment to be treated and may therefore not be suitable for situations with low volumes of sediment to be treated.

Threats • The non-availability of alternative binder components may necessitate the use of cement thereby increasing the environmental impacts of this process. • The high cost of the stabilisation equipment may limit uptake. • Long-term stability of the stabilised sediment not yet proven in a real world context.

SWOT matrix LIFE10NAT/FR/000200 SUBLIMO – Maintaining biodiversity – open project Strengths • Innovative project addressing survival of range of Mediterranean fish species especially endangered and overexploited species • Support given to project by licensing authorities (permission to take fish) • Project is directly supported by knowledge of fishermen • Successfully adopts a standard passive methodology for capturing fish in traps-the CARE system (Collect by Artificial Reef Eco-Friendly system) • Post-larvae rearing systems established at two priority sites • First release of reared juveniles to artificial micro-habitats completed successfully • Project addresses restocking of MPAs and will hold workshops for managers and fishermen • Strong scientific input and dissemination (conferences, papers etc) • Communication (newsletters etc) to specialist network • Good range of public communication activities Opportunities • Project fish rearing equipment established in newly built research centre in Gulf of Lion and in an existing centre in Corsica which should provide permanent bases • The project is developing considerable experience in post-larvae identification and will produce an atlas-this will be of wider value • Wide networking and dissemination through Mediterranean Post-Larval Network, MEDPLANET, should encourage additional projects-e.g. interest from Cyprus and Malta • Networking with other LIFE+ projects-BIOMARES, MARMONI, ACCOLAGOONS and LAGNATURE

Weaknesses • An authorisation to rear wild vertebrates might be required-not foreseen at design stage • Catches of fish lower than expected at priority sites but better at secondary sites- an active system of fish capture (with lures) may be introduced • Problems with vandalism and loss of equipment • Human resources required for the rearing operation underestimated • Delays caused by bad weather-common with all marine projects

Threats • Fish populations and species diversity will remain threatened in short to medium term (habitat degradation, overuse, invasive species, pollution, climate change)

SWOT matrix LIFE09INF/GR/000320 Thalassa – maintaining biodiversity – closed but final report not available Strengths • Information project led by the respected NGO Mom (The Hellenic Society for the Study and Protection of the Monk Seal) • Project has created a strong identity and Communication Strategy with help from an advertising agency- important for an information project. • Well targeted media campaigns for general public, young professionals, school children and key stakeholders • Social media has helped the project reach over 1 million people (but expected number of visits to website is down) • Promotional material designed to have high impact and be delivery through a range of media • Printed adverts were eye-catching and received several advertising industry awards for social responsibility • 30 minute documentary film produced • Excellent contact with key stakeholders through meetings in Greece and meeting with MEPs and EC in Brussels. • MPs and MEPs factsheet produced • Greek Marine Mammal Conservation Handbook published • Thalassa Campaign presented to DG MARE Commissioner Opportunities • NGO campaign shown to be able to attract funding from public and private sources including donations through voluntary tourist contributions, e.g. WWF’s ‘Check out for Nature’ programme. • Campaigns for children and young professionals are raising awareness in younger generations • Financial crisis has reduced pressure on TV air time so project was able to benefit from more favourable broadcasting slots • People have some awareness of Monk Seal and Common Dolphin so the project can build on this knowledge • In ex-ante survey a high percentage (70%) of respondents willing to adapt behaviour to help marine mammals

Weaknesses • Lack of public awareness of presence and conservation status of marine mammals (80% of Greeks) - being addressed by repeating the same messages for three years. • Failure to fully develop an e-forum to encourage networking between similar projects • Some delays in getting the Education Kits finalised and distributed to regional education centres and schools • Political problems in Greece has delayed a planned presentation to the Greek Parliament • Financial pressures in Greece reduced willingness to travel to meetings-so project took meetings to cities throughout Greece

Threats • Pressures will continue on the marine mammals. Of particular concern is impact of noise on marine mammals and the project beneficiary has lobbied parliament on this issue. • In ex-ante survey 86% of respondents considered that marine mammals were threatened with extinction in Greek waters • TV companies may be reluctant in financial climate to give free airtime to conservation projects- being addressed by greater focus on social media

SWOT matrix LIFE06 ENV/D/000479 WINTECC – reducing atmospheric emissions from ships – closed projects Strengths • Construction, refinement and demonstration of 160 m² Skysails automated towing kite system on the “Beluga Skysails” vessel. • The system proved 5% fuel savings (equalling 500 t/yr of fuel and correspondingly 1600 tonnes of CO2 per year for the vessel "Beluga Skysails") on an average route mix, 10-12% on North Atlantic and North Pacific routes. • Strong dissemination and mass media coverage. • Fuel savings of 5% or 165 tons/yr for the "Beluga Skysails" equal €135,000 – €220,000 per year at bunker oil prices of €430-700.

Weaknesses • Some comparably minor problems that restricted reliability and therefore flight time were not resolved before the end of the project.

Opportunities • Larger kites (320 m²) that have the potential to achieve increased emissions reductions are currently in the R&D stage. • Use of the 160 m² kite on fish trawlers have the potential to deliver higher yields due to lower ship speeds. • The emissions reduction for 25,000 ships on 15 main trading routes using 600 m² kites would be between 5.6 and 8.1 million tons of fuel per year (equalling 17-25 million tons of CO2, 450-650.000.tons of NOx, 260380.000 tons of SOx and 30-50.000 tons of soot particles). • The estimated selling price of a 320 m² Skysails kite is about €1m. If the bunker oil price does not drop below 430 €/ton the scenario with 10% average fuel savings offers an amortisation within 2 - 3 years. • The introduction of increasingly stringent IMO Emissions Regulations (MARPOL Annex VI ) will increase the price of fuel, further improving the potential cost savings.

Threats • Lack of solutions to reliability issues. • Competition from other wind propulsion systems (sails and rotors)

SWOT matrix LIFE06 ENV/D/000465 ZEM/SHIPS – reducing atmospheric emissions from shipping – closed project Strengths • Construction and demonstration of a 100 person hydrogen-power passenger ship and hydrogen filling station • The ZEMSHIP was built as foreseen, operated for two seasons within the project duration producing zero local emissions. 47.3kg CO2, 774kgNOx, 68kg SOx and 3.2kg PM10 emissions were saved (based on the emissions of the equivalent diesel powered ship). • Use of fuel cell system significantly reduced noise and vibrations – it is virtually silent. • Dissemination was strong and demonstration will continue. Opportunities • Partner Germanischer Lloyd developed the world’s first guidelines for fuel cell ships – a large number of administrative obstacles had to be dealt with in order to get the project going. This deliverable can be used as the basis for further development of fuel cell powered ships. • The transition to a larger hydrogen power market is still in its very beginning and alternative hydrogen generation processes are growing. Both, H2 supply and pioneering H2 consumption projects like ZEMSHIPS have to be carried out concurrently in order to arrive at a viable large scale H2 alternative scenario in 10 or 20 years. • Socio-economics study concluded that most passengers preferred a ZEMSHIP to a diesel ship for a trip and that there is big market potential.

Weaknesses • Only 30% of the energy of the hydrogen used reached the drive shaft. • It was not possible to collect measurement data in such a way as to get a clear separation of the elements that consumed energy, and thus a clear analysis of the energy transmission path so that efficiency improvements can be targeted. • Although the ship produces zero local emissions, generation of the necessary hydrogen can vary significantly: for hydrogen generation by steam reforming of methane and use of liquid hydrogen for transport and storage the total carbon emissions are higher than those of the competing modern diesel electric ship. • Threats • As the technology is not yet economically self-sustaining, funding may be a problem in the coming years. • In order to be ecologically reasonable the hydrogen generation has to utilise more favourable sources such as renewable substances (e.g. glycerin from bio-fuel production) or excess electricity (e.g. wind power at night). • Hydrogen in general is competing against batteries and other forms of energy storage. If the latter make fundamental progress, the fuel cell technology may cease altogether, as the "detour via hydrogen" is expensive. • An issue to be dealt with for the use of the technology in maritime scenarios would be the storage of hydrogen on ships, given that there would be no opportunity to refill them when out at sea.