LIFE Project Number LIFE08NAT/EE/ FINAL Report Covering the project activities from 01/01/2010 to 31/10/2015. Reporting Date 29/04/2016

LIFE Project Number LIFE08NAT/EE/000257 FINAL Report Covering the project activities from 01/01/2010 to 31/10/2015 Reporting Date 29/04/2016 LIFE+ PROJECT ACRONYM DRAGONLIFE Project location Project Data Estonia, Denmark Project start date: 01/01/2010 Project end date: 31/12/2014 Extension date: 31/10/2015 Total Project duration (in months) Total budget 1 050 430 Total eligible budget 1 050 430 EU contribution: 525 215 (%) of total costs 50% (%) of eligible costs 50% 70 months ( including Extension of 10 months) Name Beneficiary Contact person Postal address Visit address Beneficiary Data Environmental Board Mr Voldemar Rannap Narva mnt 7a, EE-15172, Tallinn, Estonia Narva mnt 7a, EE-15172, Tallinn, Estonia Telephone +372 680 7438, direct n +372 5341 1962 Fax: E-mail Project Website info@keskkonnaamet.ee, direct voldemar.rannap@envir.ee www.keskkonnaamet.ee/dragonlife

1 List of contents 2 Executive Summary 2 3 Introduction 6 4 Administrative part 7 4.1 Description of the management system 7 4.2 Evaluation of the management system 9 5 Technical part 11 5.1 Technical progress 12 5.2 Dissemination actions 26 5.2.1 Dissemination overview per activity 26 5.2.2 List of deliverables 37 5.3 Evaluation of project implementation 38 5.3.1 Achievement of the project objectives 38 5.3.2 Methodology 40 5.3.3 Emergence of results 41 5.3.4 Effectiveness of dissemination 42 5.4 Analysis of long-term benefits 43 5.4.1 Environmental benefits 43 5.4.2 Long-term benefits and sustainability 43 5.4.3 Replicability, demonstration, transferability, cooperation 46 5.4.4 Best practice lessons 47 5.4.5 EU funding added value 47 5.4.6 Long term indicators 48 6 Comments on the financial report 49 6.1 Summary of costs incurred 49 6.2 Accounting system 49 6.2.1 Cost approving procedures 50 6.2.2 Codes identifying the project costs 50 6.2.3 Registration of working time 52 6.2.4 Reference to the DRAGONLIFE 52 6.3 Partnership arrangements 52 6.4 Auditor s declaration 53 6.5 Summary of costs per action 53 1

2 Executive Summary One of the aims of the European Union is to make sure that valuable rare and threatened species and habitats are preserved. With their protection in mind, the Natura 2000 network was created. Through its various projects, the European Union s LIFE programme supports nature conservation efforts in Natura sites. The LIFE programme also supported the DRAGONLIFE project ( Securing Leucorrhinia pectoralis and Pelobates fuscus in the northern distribution area in Estonia and Denmark, LIFE08NAT/EE/000257), whose overall objective was to secure the small and isolated populations of the dragonfly yellow-spotted whiteface Leucorrhinia pectoralis and the common spadefoot toad Pelobates fuscus in the northern part of their distribution range in Estonia and Denmark and to elaborate conservation measures for the species successful population management that would be applicable on a wider national and European scale. To attain the project s main objective and to secure the long-term sustainability of project results, special attention was given to working with local inhabitants and nature conservation experts and to international cooperation between experts and nature managers. Leucorrhinia pectoralis (Annexes II and IV of the EU Habitats Directive) and Pelobates fuscus (Annex IV of the EU Habitats Directive) are threatened species in Europe. Their populations declined considerably during the 20 th century. One of the main reasons for this drastic decline has been the destruction of their habitats, small freshwater bodies surrounded by natural or seminatural communities, due to intensive agriculture (excessive use of artificial fertilizers and pesticides), changes in land use (massive monoculture fields taking the place of small fields and garden plots) and the withering of traditional country life (succession of abandoned areas). The project joined partners from two countries: Estonia and Denmark. The coordinating beneficiary was the Estonian Environmental Board. Associated beneficiaries were the Danish municipalities of Allerød, Gribskov, Hillerød, Hjørring and Vejle and the Danish company Amphi Consult. Actions were carried out in eight project sites in Estonia and also in eight sites in Denmark. The project lasted six years (2010 2015). The project budget was 1,050,430 euros, half of it was provided by the European Union s LIFE programme and half by project partners. The project manager was hired by the Environmental Board and he was responsible for the general coordination of the project, the project s general accountancy and compilation of project reports. The actions in Estonia were also coordinated and organised by the project manager. The actions in Denmark were organised and implemented by the chief staff of municipalities. Amphi Consult was the Danish national manager. It was tasked with coordinating the work of the municipalities, ensuring the completion of joint project actions and preparing Danish reports, along with collecting the necessary documents and data. It also assisted the municipalities in planning and carrying out other activities as needed. The project underwent a significant structural change in 2010 in the form of adding the associated beneficiary Amphi Consult /v Lars Christian Adrados, who took over the coordination of actions in Denmark. This was necessary because municipalities were not able to coordinate and organise inter-municipal cooperation, as the staff working on DRAGONLIFE also had numerous other responsibilities. Supplementary Agreement No 1 was signed on 28.10.2010, whereafter the coordinating beneficiary signed, in November 2010, partnership agreements with all associated beneficiaries. In 2012, the restoration and creation of ponds failed both in Estonia and Denmark. It could also be seen that the nature centre in Hjørring Municipality where the project was to open an exhibition 2

was not going to be completed by 2014. Thirdly, it had become necessary to modify the project budget. In 2013, we prepared a request to extend the project s duration by 10 months, until 31 October 2015. Amendment No 2 to Grant Agreement for project DRAGONLIFE was signed on 22 April 2014. The methodology used for achieving project aims and implementing specific actions proved to be adequate. The best proof is the fact the aims were achieved and the actions were carried out as planned. Although the project was extended by 10 months, we managed to keep the total project budget at the initial level. The changes in cost categories were not significant. At the beginning of the project the Estonian and Danish experts on amphibians and invertebrates elaborated an inventory form and 511 water bodies were inventoried in Estonia, Denmark and in the Netherlands. The inventory data formed the basis for determining the criteria for the favourable conservation status and the habitat requirements of L. pectoralis and P. fuscus. The international cooperation, use of research data and fieldwork carried out in various countries made it possible to use the inventory forms as well as the elaborated habitat requirements, favourable conservation status criteria and other materials in most of Europe. Completing these actions in the very first stage of the project was very important, as the knowledge gained formed the basis for successfully carrying out pond restoration and terrestrial management. In terms of species protection, the project s most immediate efforts consisted in restoring and creating water bodies suitable for the breeding of the L. pectoralis and P. fuscus and managing the surrounding terrestrial habitats. During the project period, we dug 83 and restored 106 small water bodies in Estonia and Denmark. It was often difficult to tell the difference between restoring a pond or digging it anew, as the old ponds were completely overgrown and had been replaced by willow thickets. During restoration, we eliminated invasive alien species (mainly Prussian carp) from numerous water bodies and compiled guidelines for the eradication of invasive alien species based on the practical experiences that we had gained. We cleaned up ca 50 ha of terrestrial habitats around the new and restored water bodies by clearing scrub and creating suitable hibernation sites for P. fuscus. The status of P. fuscus has deteriorated significantly over the past two decades in several regions in Denmark, and its numbers have declined drastically. It was therefore decided to also contribute to P. fuscus breeding in project sites and to establish three reserve populations as envisaged in the project. Over the course of the project we managed to release over 10,000 reared tadpoles and young newly metamorphosed toads into the ponds created by the project. As a result, some of the most important remaining P. fuscus populations, including their entire genetic variation, have been saved. Keeping in mind the sustainability of project actions but also the future in a much broader sense, we dedicated a significant portion of the project to educating, training and teaching people. The activities were aimed at diverse age groups (students and adults) and target groups (nature enthusiasts, landowners, nature conservation specialists, local governments, community cooperation networks), and we employed a variety of methods (TV and radio, the Internet and printed publications, exhibitions and study trails, guided tours and training days). All this was accompanied by a lot of talking with local people and landowners when planning and carrying out the work. We published different folders on the project, on P. fuscus and L. pectoralis in order to introduce the project and the target species. In order to raise awareness regarding invasive alien species 3

threatening small water bodies, we published a folder discussing the relevant species, the threats that they present and the options for cleaning small water bodies of invasive alien species. We erected 18 information boards in project sites, introducing the project target species as well as project actions and the LIFE programme. We placed the information boards near nature trails, rest areas and visitor centres. One study trail on dragonflies and toads was made in Estonia. Studying the biota of small water bodies is interesting and in a sense, simple: the water bodies are small, clearly defined, but usually very rich in species. Together with teachers, we prepared various worksheets that had the students pose hypotheses, collect and analyse data and then address the hypotheses. We published a new and updated edition of the identification key on Estonian amphibians. The main innovation was a mobile application, developed together with the University of Tartu, which makes it possible to identify amphibians in nature using modern smart apps. Amphibian sounds were also added to the app. A major challenge for the project team was compiling a completely new identification key on Estonian dragonflies. At the launch event for the identification key in 2013, we learned to our surprise that the previous in-depth publication on dragonflies in Estonia had been published exactly 50 years ago, in 1963. We organised 16 guided tours and training days in Estonia and 38 in Denmark and altogether ca 1,400 people took part in the tours. The main aim was to get people outdoors, to teach them about biodiversity, but also to show how anyone can contribute to the welfare of nature or refrain from doing things that harm nature. In Denmark, one temporary and one permanent exhibition, and in Estonia, one permanent exhibition were compiled and built. Both permanent exhibitions are situated in nature schools. In addition, Vejle Municipality made a 10-minute video about the species and the project. It is available on YouTube. We organized four site visits for project experts and people whose everyday work involves making nature conservation decisions, like biologists and conservation specialists of municipalities and the Environmental Board. We held three international workshops and a final seminar. More than a hundred people took part and a good and solid network was established between experts from different countries. We enjoyed useful cooperation and exchange of knowledge with many projects. To introduce the project results to a wider audience, the Layman s Report was compiled. It discusses the project, its activities and results and is illustrated with many photos. For the experts and nature conservation staff, the project s major experiences are summarised in the Best Practice Guidelines. The document provides a collection of the various guidelines prepared during the project. The text also conveys experiences and know-how related to the restoration of habitats and achieving the favourable status of species. The After-LIFE Conservation Plan describes the various aspects of continuing project actions in Estonia and Denmark. The compilation answers questions such as how P. fuscus and L. pectoralis habitats are to be continually managed in project sites, which specific actions are required and who carries them out and funds them. In Estonia, species protection is based on species action plans. During the DRAGONLIFE project, we compiled action plans for both of the project s target species. A species action plan is a state document signed by the Minister of the Environment, indicating strong legal force, and it encompasses the whole of Estonia. The project s homepage was set up at the beginning of the project and it is available in both Estonian and English. The project homepage provides an overview of the project and project actions, the target species and ponds. Separate sections are for events, project and other publications, reports, results and different important links (incl. the Natura 2000 and LIFE homepage). The project homepage was updated constantly according to project progress. 4

Of the ponds restored and newly dug in Estonia by the project, 92 are located in P. fuscus distribution area, and breeding is already taking place in 31 of them. Of the ponds restored and newly dug in Denmark by the project, 36 are located in P. fuscus distribution area, and calling males were recorded already in 10 of them. According to the guidelines prepared on the basis of various project actions, L. pectoralis prefers larger water bodies (beaver floods, shallow littoral zones of lakes, etc.) for breeding and uses ponds more as stepping stones between various larger populations or for expanding its distribution area. The species has expanded its distribution area in Estonia significantly during the project years. Seeing as L. pectoralis uses also project ponds for breeding, a definite boost to the expansion of the distribution area can be discerned. In Denmark, L. pectoralis established a new permanent population during the project period. All the project actions envisaged in the application were implemented, and the results and objectives were achieved. The small and isolated populations of L. pectoralis and P. fuscus in the project sites were secured and conservation measures for the species successful population management, applicable on a wider national and European scale, were elaborated. Awareness among nature conservation staff, site managers and local inhabitants of the target species and the importance of small freshwater bodies as well as knowledge about conservation measures have by now increased considerably. The network of experts created and complemented during the project allows for an extensive application of the know-how and expansion into new domains. It is equally important that various stakeholders (landowners, nature conservation staff, the authorities) can make use of the gained know-how and experiences (the instructions, Best Practice Guidelines, publications and website produced by the project). The stakeholders have been provided specific guidance materials for making decisions and analysing results. This allows them to conduct actions and processes much more effectively. Project actions and implementation principles are replicable and transferable to other regions both domestically and internationally. The international cooperation, use of research data and fieldwork carried out in various countries made it possible to use the elaborated habitat requirements, favourable conservation status criteria and all other materials in most of Europe. The project actions aimed at clarifying P. fuscus and L. pectoralis distribution and status and restoring the species habitats are directly linked to achieving the objectives of the Habitats Directive. As small water bodies are important for many other species, in addition to these two, project actions also contributed to maintaining biodiversity in Estonia and Denmark. The project included, as separate actions, the preparation of instructions for eradicating invasive alien species from small water bodies and the actual removal of invasive alien species from ponds, which is relevant in terms of the Regulation of the European Parliament and of the Council on the prevention and management of the introduction and spread of invasive alien species. 5

3 Introduction The yellow-spotted whiteface Leucorrhinia pectoralis (Annexes II and IV of the EU Habitats Directive) and the common spadefoot toad Pelobates fuscus (Annex IV of the EU Habitats Directive) are threatened species in Europe. Their populations declined considerably during the 20 th century. One of the main reasons for this drastic decline has been the destruction of their habitats, small freshwater bodies surrounded by natural or seminatural communities, due to intensive agriculture (excessive use of artificial fertilizers and pesticides), changes in land use (massive monoculture fields taking the place of small fields and garden plots) and the withering of traditional country life (succession of abandoned areas). For example, the extinction rate of small water bodies may amount to as much as 50 90 % in Europe, depending on the country. The remaining water bodies are often polluted, silted up or stocked with fish, and therefore no longer suitable as habitats for many aquatic and semi-aquatic species. The overall objective of the project was to secure the small and isolated populations of L. pectoralis and P. fuscus in the northern part of their distribution range in Estonia and Denmark and to elaborate conservation measures for the species successful population management that would be applicable on a wider national and European scale. In addition, the goals of the project were: to rescue the isolated populations of L. pectoralis from extinction in four out of seven known localities of this species in Denmark; to rescue the populations of P. fuscus from extinction in the extreme northern part of its distribution range (Estonia) and in isolated sites in Denmark; to carry out habitat restoration, in order to preserve the populations of L. pectoralis and P. fuscus and to restore the structure of meta-populations; to establish three reserve populations of P. fuscus in Danish project sites; to draw attention to small freshwater bodies unique and valuable habitats for the target species and also for many other rare and threatened aquatic and semi-aquatic species; to raise awareness among nature conservation staff, site managers and local inhabitants about the target species and the importance of small freshwater bodies by involving them in the different activities; to establish an international cooperation network between experts and nature managers. The project joined partners from two countries: Estonia and Denmark. The coordinating beneficiary was the Estonian Environmental Board. Associated beneficiaries were the Danish municipalities of Allerød, Gribskov, Hillerød, Hjørring and Vejle and the Danish company Amphi Consult. Actions were carried out in eight project sites in Estonia (Lahemaa, Mõdriku-Roela, Varangu, Lasila, Porkuni, Neeruti, Emajõe-Suursoo and Piirissaar, Karula) and also in eight sites in Denmark (Vandplasken, Store Vandskel, Roerbaek Soe, Tinnet Krat, Arresø, Egtved, Kattehale Mose, Gribskov). The project restored 105 and dug 82 new ponds in project sites. The banks of all the new and restored ponds were managed and 11 P. fuscus hibernation sites were created. In Denmark, 18.4 ha of dune habitats were cleaned of dense vegetation. In order to create P. fuscus reserve populations, 11,646 large tadpoles and metamorphosed toads were released into project ponds. The actions carried out have created a situation conducive to the increase and strengthening of P. fuscus and L. pectoralis populations. In Estonia, both species find themselves in a favourable conservation status. In Denmark, some of the most important remaining P. fuscus (including their entire genetic variation) and L. pectoralis populations have been saved as a result of the total renovation of the few remaining habitats in Denmark. 6

4 Administrative part 4.1 Description of the management system The coordinating beneficiary of the project was the Estonian Environmental Board. The organisation coordinates habitat and species conservation in Estonia, including preparing and subsequently implementing area management plans and species action plans. The associated beneficiaries were five Danish municipalities (Allerød, Gribskov, Hillerød, Hjørring and Vejle) and the organisation Amphi Consult / Lars Christian Adrados. Municipalities are responsible for the implementation of several environmental and nature protection acts in Denmark. Amphi Consult is a private company that has been involved in nature conservation in Denmark and other countries since 1995. The project manager was hired by the Environmental Board and he was responsible for the general coordination of the project, the project s general accountancy and compilation of project reports. The actions in Estonia were also coordinated and organised by the project manager; his tasks included finding the people and companies for implementing project actions (finding the possible candidates, preparing tenders and price requests, etc.), preparing contracts and other documentation, making the necessary arrangements for carrying out actions, accepting the completed work, superscribing receipts, ensuring that the actions were implemented in accordance with Estonian legislation and LIFE rules, organising the project s promotion in the media, etc. The project manager also took part in concrete project actions. The structure of the Environmental Board is made up of seven geographical regions. Project actions took place in three regions. Each region has its own conservation planning, nature conservation and other specialists. The actions were planned, prepared and implemented in close cooperation between the project staff and local regional specialists. The actions in Denmark were organised and implemented by the chief staff of municipalities (the tasks were similar to the Estonian project manager functions described above). Amphi Consult was the Danish national manager. It was tasked with coordinating the work of the municipalities, ensuring the completion of joint project actions and preparing Danish reports, along with collecting the necessary documents and data. It also assisted the municipalities in planning and carrying out other activities as needed. Regular working meetings were held in both Estonia and Denmark for organising the work. In Denmark, the meetings were attended by representatives of project partners and experts; and in Estonia, by the project manager, experts and regional specialists. The project manager and the Danish national manager had meetings where they discussed general project coordination. The various project-related topics were also discussed with the representatives of partners during site visits, workshops and seminars. The project had two steering committees, one in Denmark and one in Estonia. 7

Organigramme of the project team and the project management structure External Monitoring Team EU LIFE- Nature Program Hjørring Municipality, associated beneficiary Velje Municipality, associated beneficiary Allerød Municipality, associated beneficiary Hillerød Municipality, associated beneficiary Gribskov Municipality, associated beneficiary Amphi Consult, associated beneficiary Environmental Board, coordinating beneficiary Steering Committee Steering Committee Local Project Manager Local Project Manager Local Project Manager Local Project Manager Local Project Manager National (DK) Project Manager Project Coordinator Local experts Local experts Description of changes due to amendments to the Grant Agreement The project underwent a significant structural change in 2010 in the form of adding the associated beneficiary Amphi Consult /v Lars Christian Adrados, who took over the coordination of actions in Denmark. This was necessary because municipalities were not able to coordinate and organise inter-municipal cooperation, as the staff working on DRAGONLIFE also had numerous other responsibilities. The partnership modification did not result in changes to the project objectives, actions or total budget. Supplementary Agreement No 1 was signed on 28.10.2010, whereafter the coordinating beneficiary signed, in November 2010, partnership agreements with all associated beneficiaries and sent copies to the Commission in November 2010. In 2012, the restoration and creation of ponds (actions C1 and C2) failed both in Estonia and Denmark. In Estonia, the offers received through the procurement procedure were very expensive and Denmark experienced delays in receiving the necessary permits. It could also be seen that the nature centre in Hjørring Municipality where the project was to open an exhibition (action D4) was not going to be completed by 2014. Thirdly, it had become necessary to modify the project budget. In 2013, we prepared a request to extend the project s duration by 10 months, until 31 October 2015, and sent the request to the Commission in January 2014. Amendment No 2 to Grant Agreement for project DRAGONLIFE was signed on 22 April 2014. 8

4.2 Evaluation of the management system The project s management system corresponded to the planning, organising and implementing needs of project actions. However, the project s final phase brought problems in the cooperation between the coordinating beneficiary and Amphi Consult as well as disruptions in project management in Denmark. This was caused not by an error in the management system, but by the fact that the Danish national manager began contributing less to the DRAGONLIFE project. As Amphi Consult is a project-based organisation, it probably began concentrating more on securing the future and applying for new projects as DRAGONLIFE was drawing to a close. The project manager discussed the situation with Danish municipalities, and we decided during the final seminar in June 2015 that Mads Fjedsø Christensen from Vejle Municipality would take over finalising the project in Denmark. The partners met in Denmark in August, and the national manager from Amphi Consult was also present. Together, they established a timetable and persons in charge for carrying out pending work. Although Amphi Consult continued to participate to some extent in the final project actions, the actual Danish coordinator was now Mads Fjedsø Christensen. The project manager now also communicated directly with the associated beneficiaries. This was particularly important when preparing the final financial and final activity report. Communication with the Commission and Monitoring team. On 15 (Denmark) and 17 (Estonia) June 2010, the project was visited by the External Monitoring Team (EMT). The national manager (in Denmark) and project manager (in Estonia) gave an overview of the project, followed by discussing the actions and partnership modification. The discussion was followed by site visits. On 1 2 (Estonia) and 6 7 (Denmark) June 2011, the project was visited by the EMT. The project manager (in Estonia) and national manager (in Denmark) gave an overview of the project and the actions. The discussion was followed by site visits. On 25 26 June 2012, the project was visited by the Commission and the EMT. The project manager gave an overview of the project and actions. The discussion was followed by a site visit. On 26 June 2013, the project was visited by the EMT. The project manager gave an overview of project progress, and the modifications were discussed. Afterwards, a site visit took place. On 12 June 2014, the project was visited by the EMT. The project manager gave an overview of project progress. On 13 June, a site visit took place. On 1 June 2015, the project was visited by the EMT. The project manager gave an overview of project progress. On 13 14 June, a site visit to Piirissaar and Emajõe-Suursoo took place. The television nature programme OSOON was also scheduled to shoot on Piirissaar Island at the same time, and the EMT could observe the shoot. The episode on P. fuscus and project actions aired in the autumn of 2015. On 5 January, the project was visited by the EMT. The project manager gave an overview of project progress, and issues concerning the final report were discussed. We answered all the Commission s questions on time (usually with the following report). We enjoyed a very constructive cooperation with the Commission and External Monitoring Team throughout the entire project. In addition to the above-mentioned visits, we consulted with the EMT on various issues (project modifications, interpreting the rules correctly, etc.) and we always received prompt and sufficient answers. 9

Delivered reports On 28.09.2010, the Inception Report was sent to the Commission (our letter No 36963 dated 28.09.2010). The report is available on the project homepage. On 28.02.2012, the Mid-Term Report was sent to the Commission (our letter No 25813-2 dated 28.02.2012). The report is available on the project homepage. On 04.03.2013, the Progress Report No 1 was sent to the Commission (our letter No 6074 dated 04.03.2013). The report is available on the project homepage. On 18.03.2014, Progress Report No 2 was sent to the Commission (our letter No 6161 dated 18.03.2014). The report is available on the project homepage. On 09.03.2015, Progress Report No 3 was sent to the Commission (our letter No 5345 dated 09.03.2015). The report is available on the project homepage. 10

5 Technical part Project progress 2010-2015 Final report was completed in April 2016 Action 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 1T 2T 3T 4T 1T 2T 3T 4T 1T 2T 3T 4T 1T 2T 3T 4T 1T 2T 3T 4T 1T 2T 3T Reports Proposed O IR MT PR PR PR Actual Action A1 Action A2 Action A3 Action A4 Action A5 Action C1 Action C2 Action C3 Action C4 Action C5 Action D1 Action D2 Action D3 Action D4 Action D5 Action D6 Action D7 Action D8 Action E1 Action E2 Action E3 Action E4 Proposed Actual Proposed Actual Proposed Actual Proposed Actual Proposed Actual Proposed Actual Proposed Actual Proposed Actual Proposed Actual Proposed Actual Proposed Actual Proposed Actual Proposed Actual Proposed Actual Proposed Actual Proposed Actual Proposed Actual Proposed Actual Proposed Actual Proposed Actual Proposed Actual Proposed 4T Actual 11

5.1 Technical progress A1 EVALUATION OF BREEDING PONDS OF TARGET SPECIES Milestone Deadline Status 31/10/2015 Pond inventory form Spring 2010 Completed, May 2010 Evaluation of breeding ponds in Estonia 30/11/2011 Completed, June 2010 (270 water bodies) Evaluation of breeding ponds in Denmark 30/11/2011 Completed, July 2010 (195 water bodies) Data analysis and reporting 30/11/2011 Completed, December 2011 The aim of the action was twofold: 1) to determine the exact distribution of project target species in project areas and to gather information on the presence of other species; 2) to determine the parameters of the breeding ponds suitable for target species. In spring 2010, the Estonian and Danish experts on amphibians and invertebrates elaborated an inventory form, which was filled for each examined water body during the inventory. In Estonia, the inventory was conducted in June in all project areas by 15 people from Estonia, Denmark, the Netherlands and the Czech Republic. The involvement of foreign experts played a particularly important role, as there are almost no dragonfly experts in Estonia (of the six foreign experts five were experts on invertebrates). The Danish inventory was conducted in all project areas in June and July. Fourteen people from Denmark, Estonia and Germany participated. In addition to the inventories carried out in Estonia and Denmark, local experts also inventoried 46 small water bodies in the Netherlands in 2010. They used the form prepared by the project and the same methodology. In May 2011 an additional inventory of P. fuscus was conducted in Estonia in project site Karula. The hydrophone was used to find calling males. To find out the habitat requirements of L. pectoralis and P. fuscus, data from breeding ponds evaluation was used and report was compiled in 2011. According to the analysis P. fuscus preferred large and relatively shallow water bodies with extensive zone of shallow water for breeding. Additionally, clayish sediment of water body, transparent and clear water and low conductivity were essential aquatic characteristics for the toad. P. fuscus also avoided to breed in the water bodies with fish. L. pectoralis preferred large and deeper water bodies with extensive shallow margins. Thus lakes were preferred for breeding by the species. The breeding waters had peaty bottom, clear brownish water and low conductivity and ph of water. Importantly, muddy waters were avoided by L. pectoralis. Water bodies surrounded by forest and peat land were favoured by dragonflies, while open areas, such as fields and grasslands around the breeding site were avoided. It was important to inventory in addition to Estonian and Danish ponds also Dutch ponds in order to collect as much data as possible on the project s target species in different regions. As a result, the species habitat requirements analysis prepared on the basis of inventory data can be used at the very least throughout the entire northern distribution area of the species. Completing this action in one year, instead of two, was very important, as distribution data and the results of breeding pond analysis formed the basis for successfully carrying out several other project actions (A3, A4, C1, C2, C3, C4, C5, D6, E4). The inventory form was sent to the Commission together with the Inception Report in 2010. The report was sent together with the Mid-term report in 2012 and is available on the project homepage. 12

A2 CREATION OF AN INTERNATIONAL NETWORK Milestone Deadline Status 31/10/2015 International network of experts 2010 2015 Completed Site visit to Estonia 30/10/2011 Completed, June 2011 Site visit to Denmark 30/10/2012 Completed, June 2012 Site visit to France 31/10/2013 Cancelled Additional site visit to Estonia Completed, June 2013 Site visit to Germany and the Netherlands 30/08/2014 Completed, June 2014 From 11 to 13 June 2011 a site visit to Estonia took place (the site visit was described in Mid- Term report). From 10 to 13 June 2012 a site visit to Denmark took place (the site visit was described in Progress Report no 1). From 16 to 17 June 2013 a site visit to Western Estonia took place (the site visit was described in Progress Report no 2). From 16 to 22 June 2014 a site visit to Germany and the Netherlands took place (the site visit was described in Progress Report no 3). Unfortunately we had to cancel the planned site visit to France. The local expert with whom we were cooperating closely got an unexpected scholarship to French Guiana. We have not managed to establish any new contacts in France. We informed Commission about this cancellation in our Progress Report no 2. The participants included, in addition to representatives of Danish and Estonian beneficiaries and project experts, people from different institutions (Estonian Environmental Board, Ministry of the Environment and State Forest Management Centre, Danish Entomological Society, Norwegian Institute for Nature Research, Stiftung Naturschutz of the Schleswig-Holstein). The site visits days were filled with presentations, discussions, visits to sites and practical fieldwork. Exchange of experiences, searching for solutions, establishing contacts and planning cooperation all this equipped the participants with new knowledge and experiences. In the broader sense and longer term, it is very important that many of the site visitors were people whose everyday work involves making nature conservation decisions. Their knowledge affects the quality of the decisions that determine the fate of the P. fuscus and L. pectoralis as well as all other species. One participant summed the visits up nicely by saying that we see more clearly from afar. Indeed, by witnessing the situations in various countries, we can not only find solutions to problems together, but also nip them in the bud. Nature knows no state borders and the need to cooperate is programmed into nature conservation. Communities and species do not abide by the administrative borders set by people; their distribution is instead determined by climatic conditions and the availability of suitable habitats. As a result, the distribution areas of most species encompass several countries and the problems are relatively similar. P. fuscus and L. pectoralis are good examples of this. The primary threats to both species are the destruction of water bodies appropriate for breeding and the shortage of suitable terrestrial habitats. This applies to Estonia and Denmark, but also to Germany and the Netherlands and elsewhere. This was one of the main drivers for making DRAGONLIFE an international project, bringing together partners from Estonia and Denmark. In addition, we planned many of the actions in a way that would allow involving experts from other countries. During the project numerous contacts were established with experts from various countries (Estonia, Denmark, Sweden, Finland, Germany, Norway, England, the Czech Republic and the Netherlands), representing various institutions. We are both exchanging information and cooperating with them. 13

A3 CRITERIA FOR ASSESSING THE FAVOURABLE CONSERVATION STATUS OF TARGET SPECIES Milestone Deadline Status 31/10/2015 Criteria for L. pectoralis 30/11/2012 Completed, December 2012 Criteria for P. fuscus 30/11/2012 Completed, December 2012 The bases for the criteria for assessing the favourable conservation status of Leucorrhinia pectoralis and Pelobates fuscus was the data gathered as a result of evaluation of species breeding ponds (Action A1). Based on the analysis of distribution, breeding ponds and terrestrial habitats and using the know-how gathered in the course of this project as well as other projects, the experts elaborated the criteria for assessing the favourable conservation status of the project s target species. The criteria for assessing the favourable conservation status of L. pectoralis were simultaneously worked out by Danish and Estonian experts in 2011 2012. The availability and quality of aquatic and terrestrial habitats as well as population structure was taken into account. According to our results the population of L. pectoralis can be estimated as favourable when it has stable annual breeding success in at least two larger water bodies in one site. The breeding waters must have naturally clean water and an extensive shallow zone of sun-exposed vegetation along the banks. The maximum water depth should be at least 1.5 m and the preferred sediment type is peat. The terrestrial habitat must contain forest in the nearby surroundings and in the vicinity of the breeding pond. Intensive agriculture in the close surroundings must be avoided. The effective population size should be at least 400 adults (the population must count at least 800 adults). The criteria for assessing the favourable conservation status of P. fuscus were simultaneously worked out by Estonian, Danish and Dutch experts in 2011 2012. The effective population size, structure of meta-populations and availability and quality of aquatic and terrestrial habitats were taken into account. According to our results the population of P. fuscus can be estimated as favourable when it has stable annual breeding success in at least three water bodies. The breeding waters must be large, fish free, with naturally clean water and an extensive zone of shallow water. The preferred sediment type of the breeding pond is clay. Additionally, the breeding sites have to be sun-exposed, particularly in Estonia and to a lesser extent also in Denmark. The terrestrial habitat has to contain sandy and loose soil (at least within a 100-m radius around the breeding pond). Deciduous forest should be avoided in the close vicinity of the breeding pond. Intensive agriculture in the close surroundings of the breeding sites has to be avoided. The effective population size must be at least 500 adult toads (the population must count at least 1,000 adults during each decade). Both reports were sent to the Commission together with the Progress Report no 1 in 2013 and are available on the project homepage. 14

A4 ACTION PLANS FOR TARGET SPECIES FOR ESTONIA Milestone Deadline Status 31/10/2015 Action Plan for L. pectoralis 01/11/2013 Completed, approved October 2015 Action Plan for P. fuscus 01/11/2013 Completed, approved October 2015 The compilation of action plans was based on the experiences and information gathered while implementing different project actions and the experiences and know-how gained through international cooperation among experts. The action plans of both species were completed at the end of 2014. As the project was extended, we used the summer of 2014 for gathering additional information. Species conservation in Estonia is based on action plans compiled for protected threatened species and for species that require action plans under international commitments. A species action plan covers the entire Estonian distribution area of that species. An action plan is compiled in accordance with set guidelines and the plan contains the following chapters: species biology, distribution in Estonia and in Europe, numbers, conservation status, conservation efficiency, conservation objectives, threats and risk factors, criteria of favourable conservation status, management actions, budget and references. The results of various actions foreseen in action plan form also the basis for Natura reporting. An action plan establishes short-term (5 years) and long-term (15 years) objectives. The plans are reviewed, revised and supplemented every five years. The chapter on management actions and their budgets is compiled for five years, whereafter new actions are planned for the following five years, as necessary. The action plan for P. fuscus was defended before the action plans special committee in January and the action plan for L. pectoralis in March 2015. After this, project experts introduced the agreed modifications and amendments to the action plans. Then, the deputy head and the chief specialist in species conservation of the Environmental Board reviewed the documents once again, whereafter they were submitted to the Ministry of the Environment. The Ministry s Nature Conservation Department also reviewed the action plans and then submitted them for approval to the relevant authorities. The action plans were approved by a directive of the Minister of the Environment in October 2015. The main actions foreseen in the action plan for L. pectoralis are inventory of the distribution area and national monitoring (monitoring is foreseen every year incl 2016). Although the restoration and creation of water bodies is the main conservation measure feasible for this species, this kind of work has not been envisaged for the next five years. The main reasons are that the population is in good condition and is expanding its distribution area and in addition the action plans of various amphibians also envisage the creation and restoration of ponds. The main consevation actions foreseen in the action plan for P. fiscus are restoration and creation of breeding ponds (in 2016 five ponds will be restored), managing breeding ponds and their surroundings, improving the status of terrestrial habitats, raising public awareness (3 infoboards will be erected in 2016-2017 and folder on restoration of ponds will be compiled in 2016) and national monitoring (monitoring is foreseen every year incl 2016). The action plans are available on the project homepage. 15

A5 GUIDELINES FOR ERADICATION OF INVASIVE ALIEN AQUATIC SPECIES Milestone Deadline Status 31/10/2015 Guidelines for eradication of IAS 30/09/2012 Completed, December 2012 Folder on invasive alien species 01/12/2013 Completed, March 2014 (500 copies) Methods and guidelines for the eradication of invasive alien aquatic species (IAS) were worked out by Danish, Dutch and Estonian experts in 2012. At present, invasive alien species are one of the most important direct drivers of biodiversity loss throughout the world and constitute the greatest threat to fragile ecosystems, such as small isolated water bodies. In spite of the wide distribution of some of these invasive alien species, there is a lack of effective methodology for mitigating the impacts of or completely eradicating such species in Europe. Thus, in the framework of the DRAGONLIFE project, methods and guidelines for the eradication of invasive alien aquatic species were elaborated and their effectiveness tested by Estonian, Danish and Dutch experts. It was considered that in Northern Europe the most invasive and problematic alien species for pond habitats are the Carassius fish group and Perccottus glennii (a fish species), followed by certain aquatic plants (Eleodea canadensis and Crassula helmsii). In the guidelines the best and most effective environmentally friendly methods avoiding hazardous chemicals or poisons were suggested. Although several methods were discussed, the best method for the eradication of aquatic invasive alien species turned out to be the mechanical cleaning of water bodies. In 2013 the folder on invasive alien species has been compiled. The folder discuss alien species in small water bodies: the notion of an alien species, how they find their way into our water bodies, why they are dangerous. The folder also points out that fish occurring naturally in rivers and lakes are alien species for the ponds, damaging the ponds ecosystem. The folder (500 copies) was printed in March 2014 and during the fieldwork in 2014-2015 was distributed to the main target group, the landowners and to the nature conservation specialists. The changes in the number of printed copies from 1000 to 500 was accepted in the Commission letter of 19 May 2014. Guidelines for eradication of invasive alien species was sent to the Commission together with the Progress Report no 1 in 2013 and the folder with Progress Report no 3 in 2015. Guidelines and folder are available on the project s homepage. Also available on the project s homepage is the Handbook on Aquatic Alien Species, published by the Estonian Ministry of the Environment, which discusses alien species in the sea, rivers and lakes, in addition to those found in ponds. 16

C1 C2 RESTORATION OF WATER BODIES CREATION OF NEW FRESHWATER BODIES Project site No of ponds planned Status 31/10/2015 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Suursoo and Piirissaar 6 9 6 8 2 6 4 2 C1 C2 C1 C2 C1 C2 C1 C2 C1 C2 C1 C2 C1 C2 C1 C2 Karula 20 22 22 36 6 9 8 8 2 5 6 14 Lahemaa 19 6 5 5 5 5 Emajõe- Lasila 0 0 0 0 Neeruti 4 2 3 1 3 1 Varangu 0 3 0 3 3 Mõdriku- 4 4 5 5 4 4 1 1 Roela Porkuni 2 0 1 1 1 1 Total 101 101 Hjørring 1 5 1 2 2 1 Vejle 0 5 2 3 1 3 1 Hillerød 24 1 24 4 10 1 12 2 3 Allerød 8 0 7 5 5 5 2 Gribskov 25 7 19 9 7 3 2 5 10 1 Total 76 76 Both the L. pectoralis and P. fuscus need water bodies with clean water for breeding. The destruction of such water bodies is the main factor causing a decline in numbers of both species and the fragmentation of existing populations. This was confirmed by the inventory of small water bodies and the analysis of the collected data carried out at the beginning of the project (action A1). Restoring existing small water bodies and creating new ones were envisaged as separate actions in the project. The aim of restoration was to preserve the water bodies that were in the process of growing over. New ponds were dug at locations with a shortage of existing water bodies suitable for breeding. Creating a network of diverse (larger/smaller, deeper/shallower) water bodies is an important factor for both species. This allows for the species to select the suitable water bodies for the spring in question. For example, the P. fuscus bred in different water bodies in 2014 and 2015 on Piirissaar Island. It was not possible to maintain the initial ratio of ponds to be restored and dug, as some of the old ponds were already so overgrown that they were not marked as water bodies on maps and had been instead categorised as scrub. In such cases, the official denomination of the action is creating a new water body, and the table also reflects this distinction. Reasons for the changes in the ratio of restored and new ponds are described in the Mid-Term Report. The changes in the number (ratio) of restored and created ponds were accepted in the Commission letters of 14 May 2012 and 14 August 2012. The main aim was to clean up a certain number of ponds over the course of the project. This was achieved. For the species is not important is it a new or restored pond, important is that species have enough suiteable ponds for breeding. Pond digging was completed in Estonia in 2014. In Denmark, the restoration of last 13 small water bodies was completed in the first half of 2015 (winter/spring), and the final pond was cleaned up in August. 17

Complementary actions outside LIFE Equally or even more important than the restoration of the 177 ponds envisaged in the project was the impetus that the project gave in terms of expanding the protection of both of its target species and other species connected to small water bodies. Already during the project, numerous small water bodies were being restored in Estonia and Denmark in project sites, in their immediate surroundings and also in other areas. And this is only the beginning. The actions are set to continue in many areas already in the immediate future (see Chapter 5.4. Analysis of long-term benefits, subsection 2. Long-term benefits and sustainability, paragraph d. Already ongoing projects). This may be considered one of the most important achievements of the project that best ensures the sustainability of actions and the favourable status of the species in the long term. The ponds were restored and created using the know-how and experiences of the DRAGONLIFE project. In total 37 ponds in Estonia and 54 ponds in Denmark were restored and created during the project period 2010-2015 addition to the DRAGONLIFE ponds. Estonia In Lasila 6 ponds were restored. They are situated in a gravel quarry that was in active use during the project s first years, until 2013. In 2014, the mining company restored 6 water bodies in the quarry at its own. Therefore no digging was made by the project in that area but at the same time the project s initial target for the area has been met. In addition to that during 2010-2015 Environmental Board, State Forest Management Centre and NPO Põhjakonn restored 9 ponds in Karula, 9 ponds in Lääne-Viru County (3 ponds are forming a corridor between Porkuni and Mõdriku-Roela project sites), 5 ponds in Tartu County and 8 ponds in Haanja Nature Park. All these ponds are foreseen for P. fuscus but also L. pectoralis can use these ponds. Denmark Hillerød Municipality restored 3 ponds and dug 8 new ponds for P. fuscus in 2014. In 2015, 2 ponds were restored and 5 new ponds were constructed specifically for this species. These ponds are located outside Nature 2000 areas, as this is where the majority of P. fuscus populations of Hillerød Municipality are found. Gribskov Municipality dug 2 new ponds and restored 1 in 2014, with the overall goal to create a corridor from an existing P. fuscus population to Hovgårs Pynt (Arresø). In addition, in 2015 5 ponds were restored and 2 new ponds dug in the Arresø. In 2015, further 4 ponds were restored to create better conditions for the dragonfly green hawker Aeshna viridis. Nevertheless, these ponds are expected to benefit also L. pectoralis, as the ponds are located in the area of Tisvilde Hegn and Gribskov, where occurrence of the species has been registered. Hjørring Municipality dug 10 new ponds in 2015. The new ponds were constructed in the area between the original ponds and the newly established reserve population at Vandplasken. The main goal is to establish a stepping stone between the two populations and secure a long-term exchange of genetic material. The ponds were dug close to the nature school and the P. fuscus exhibition elaborated as part of the DRAGONLIFE project. The new ponds were constructed with varying depth and circumference to comply with new knowledge gained from DRAGONLIFE. The mineral soil extracted from the pond digging was deposited in small dune rows around the ponds in order to create an optimal terrestrial habitat. Vejle Municipality dug 12 new ponds. With the newly dug ponds, Vejle has now at least three established and viable P. fuscus metapopulations. The cluster of ponds has been designed according to all the recommendations put forward by the DRAGONLIFE project, including with a focus on diversity in the shape and design of ponds and on the quality of terrestrial habitat. 18

C3 MANAGEMENT OF THE TERRESTRIAL HABITAT IN THE SURROUNDINGS OF THE PONDS Project site Target Status 31/10/2015 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Hjørring 15 ha 18,4 ha 10,3 ha 7,7 ha 0,4 ha Vejle 8 piles 8 piles 8 piles Hillerød 5 piles 3 piles, 2 ponds 3 piles 2 ponds Allerød 8 ponds 12 ponds 10 ponds 2 ponds Gribskov 5 piles, 5 ponds 13 ponds 13 ponds Total* 46 56,4 *In order to better summarise the results, every ha, pile, pond in the total column of the table corresponds to one unit. In addition to breeding ponds, the project s target species are significantly impacted by the terrestrial habitats surrounding the breeding ponds. A dense herbaceous layer and scrub obstruct the movement of individuals, thus fragmenting populations and making it difficult to reach the breeding ponds. Moreover, this kind of landscape provides good hiding opportunities for predators, allowing them to approach breeding ponds unnoticed. The surrounding scrub also accelerates the overgrowing of water bodies. Quality terrestrial habitats also require suitable hibernation conditions (piles, loose soil and other similar features are extremely important particularly for the common spadefoot toad). Thus, the project also envisaged the management of terrestrial habitats. In Estonia, pond surroundings were cleaned along with pond restoration and digging (actions C1 and C2), and the work was not envisaged as a separate action. In Denmark, intensive farming prevails in vast areas and the shortage of suitable terrestrial habitats is significantly greater than in Estonia. As a result, the need for restoring terrestrial habitats was greater in Denmark; the nature of the work was more specific and was envisaged as a separate action in the project. Most of the work was completed in 2014, and restoration was finalised in 2015. Hjørring: 18.4 ha of dune habitats were cleaned up in the course of the project, mainly in the form of clearing dense vegetation. Vejle and Hillerød: as part of pond restoration, the common spadefoot toad was provided with suitable piles for hibernation. In Hillerød, terrestrial habitats were restored in the vicinity of two ponds. In the first case, 0.14 ha were cleaned of scrub, and in the second, a cattle fence was expanded to include a new pond, so that cattle would manage the surroundings of the pond. Allerød: the surroundings of all restored and new ponds were cleaned up. Gribskov: common spadefoot toad ponds had been dug and restored in three different sites and there were already piles in the landscape in all three sites. As a result, no piles were added and the areas surrounding 13 ponds were cleaned up. Complementary actions outside LIFE The area Sorte-mosen in Allerød Municipality is situated close to the project site Kattehale Mose and is estimated to have great potential for L. pectoralis. As an extension to DRAGONLIFE, nature restoration has been executed on a wide scale over the past five years, and a continued management will be prioritized. In 2016 in Hillerød Municipality, willow (Salix) regrowth was cleared in three ponds that had been restored in 2013 for L. pectoralis. 19

C4 ESTABLISHMENT OF RESERVE POPULATIONS FOR PELOBATES FUSCUS Project No of Status 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 site tadpoles 31/10/2015 Vejle 10000 10061 5975 1486 2600 Hjørring 4000 1585 312 1273 Total 14000 11646 In the project sites of Vejle Municipality there were only a few isolated breeding ponds left in a Natura site and a couple of ponds outside the Natura site when the project launched. The latter were, however, located in the middle of intensively farmed agricultural land. In order to rescue the offspring of the common spadefoot toads breeding in the ponds in question, it was decided to establish reserve populations inside the Natura site. And indeed, over the course of the project we managed to release over 10,000 reared tadpoles and young newly metamorphosed toads into the existing ponds and into the ponds created by the project. The 2015 inventory indicated satisfactory calling activity. The breeding, however, was not yet successful, probably due to the very cold spring, as common spadefoot toad breeding failed almost in all of Jutland. Nevertheless, the large numbers of calling common spadefoot toads give reason to hope that we will see many tadpoles swimming around in the new ponds in the next couple of years. P. fuscus population located among the scenic dunes in Hjørring Municipality in northwestern Denmark had shrunk in two decades. Males were heard calling only in a few ponds and there were some years where breeding did not take place at all. In 2012, we attempted to start collecting spawn. The attempts were unsuccessful, as the smooth newt immediately ate all the eggs. The following year, we tried a different approach. We fenced two ponds, caught the approaching P. fuscus and placed them in mesh mating cages inside the ponds, which were out of the newt s reach. Once the toads had spawned there, we took the spawn sausages to the rearing station. The experiment was successful, as we could release back over 300 newly metamorphosed toads. In 2014, most of the spawn was left unfertilized. Nevertheless, almost 100 metamorphosed toads and over 1,100 tadpoles made it back to the ponds. In 2015, we only managed to catch a few old individuals, who were no longer sexually active, and young toads, who were not active yet (they had probably been released in 2013). The passivity may have also been related to the cold spring. Like elsewhere in Denmark and also in Estonia, for example, 2015 was a very unfavourable year in terms of common spadefoot toad breeding. Complementary actions outside LIFE In continuation of the DRAGONLIFE project, 10 new ponds were dug in 2015 in Hjørring Municipality (see also description of actions C1&C2, Complementary actions outside LIFE). The new ponds were constructed in the area between the original breeding ponds and the newly established reserve population at Vandplasken. The main goal is to establish a stepping stone between the two populations and secure a long-term exchange of genetic material. The idea is also that now in addition to supporting breeding in future the specimens can itself contribute. If they colonise new ponds much bigger strong population forms including the old original population, new population we established during the project and future bridge population. In Allerød Municipality, DRAGONLIFE has focussed on L. pectoralis, since P. fuscus has been extinct since the 1980s. The new information provided by the project has created a baseline of knowledge for the future reintroduction of P. fuscus in the municipality. The species is present in many of the neighbouring municipalities and has been included in the species priority list of Allerød s Biodiversity Strategy. The plan is to identify suitable locations in the municipality for creating habitats and reintroducing P. fuscus in the period from 2016 to 2020. 20

C5 ERADICATING INVASIVE ALIEN SPECIES Project site No of ponds planned Status 31/10/2015 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Karula 2 5 4 1 Lahemaa 3 1 1 Emajõe- Suursoo and Piirissaar 2 3 2 1 Neeruti 1 1 1 Mõdriku- Roela 1 0 Porkuni 1 0 Total 10 10 Hillerød 2 2 1 1 Total 2 2 Methods and guidelines for the eradication of invasive alien aquatic species were worked out by Danish, Dutch and Estonian experts. In the guidelines the best and most effective environmentally friendly methods avoiding hazardous chemicals or poisons were suggested. Although several methods were discussed, the best method for the eradication of aquatic invasive alien species turned out to be the mechanical cleaning of water bodies. In the period 2013-2014, fish were removed from 10 ponds at Estonian project sites, and in the course of this the ponds were also completely cleaned of mud and scrub. In Mõdriku-Roela and Porkuni, cleaning the ponds of fish was not necessary. There were no ponds, important to the project s target species, with fish. Porkuni is also a karst area and most ponds dry up by late summer, which means that even if there are fish in the ponds, they die. In Lahemaa was only one pond with fish. Consequently, we cleaned in total 4 more ponds of fish in Karula and in Emajõe- Suursoo and Piirissaare. In 2011 an invasive alien fish species (Carassius auratus auratus) was eradicated from one pond in Denmark. The pond was pumped dry from water and cleaned from mud. After this operation a well was made with an overflow pipe. The pipe was installed because 80 m from the pond there is a ditch. There is a risk that during flooding the ditch water flows into the pond and fish will find their way back into the pond. The pond-side end of the pipe is open and the further end closed. In case of flooding, once the floodwater has subsided the pond can be emptied through the pipe and the pipe closed again afterwards. In addition to removing alien species from ponds in Denmark, i.e. dealing with consequences, there are also preventive measures that could be used. This principle was put into action in Hillerød. One P. fuscus breeding pond was threatened by becoming flooded by an adjacent river, which would have resulted in invasive alien fish species entering the pond. In order to avoid this, a dam was built between the pond and the river, thus preventing the river from flooding the pond. 21

E2 MONITORING OF THE EFFECTS OF PROJECT ACTIONS Milestone Deadline Status 31/10/2015 Monitoring 31/12/2010 Completed, June 2010 Monitoring 31/12/2011 Completed, June 2011 Monitoring 31/12/2012 Completed, June 2012 Monitoring 31/12/2013 Completed, July 2013 Monitoring 01/11/2014 Completed, June July 2014 Monitoring 01/08/2015 Completed, June July 2015 For the purpose of assessing the results of project actions C1, C2 and C5 (restoration and creation of ponds), we inventoried in Estonia and in Denmark in 2015 the ponds that had been restored and dug from 2010 to 2014. The inventory results are presented below. The number in the table reflects the number of project ponds with males and/or tadpoles of P. fuscus and larvae and/or flying L. pectoralis. Grey spaces indicate sites where the species does not exist. Pelobates fuscus 22 Leucorrhinia pectoralis Project site 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 Karula 4 8 10 14 19 9 5 5 6 Lahemaa Emajõe- Suursoo and 3 9 1 1 Piirissaar Lasila 1 Neeruti Varangu Mõdriku- Roela 1 1 1 Porkuni 1 Total 4 9 11 17 31 0 9 5 6 7 Hjørring 2 Vejle 3 Hillerød 2 5 1 1 Allerød 1 2 7 Gribskov 2 3 2 3 Total 0 0 4 0 10 0 3 4 5 7 Estonia 2014 and 2015 were extremely unfavourable for both species groups. The spring and first half of summer were cold. As a result of three consecutive winters lacking in snow (shortage of surface water), many natural and project-dug ponds were dry. Even farm wells were dry in many places. Despite all this, the inventory results were surprisingly positive. The number of P. fuscus breeding ponds had increased significantly. Of the ponds restored and newly dug by the project, 92 are located in P. fuscus distribution area, and breeding is already taking place in 31 of them. This result allows us to assume that P. fuscus will have adopted over a half of the ponds in the next couple of years. Thus, the project can be considered a resounding success in terms of this species. In many project sites, it has created a solid basis for an increase in numbers and improved the status of populations. For example, the 2010 inventory indicated Karula as having only 12 water bodies with P. fuscus breeding. In 2015, the species was breeding in 19 ponds, and this was

counting only project ponds. We must also factor in the unfavourable year, which gives reason to expect that many more active ponds will be added with the next warm spring. There are even some areas where, had it not been for the project s help, P. fuscus would have been on the brink of extinction (or already extinct?) by now. On Piirissaar, P. fuscus was breeding in two ponds in 2010, and in eight different ponds in 2014 2015. In Emajõe Suursoo, the results were one and four, respectively. In addition, the ponds used for breeding in 2010 were in poor shape, and would have probably been overgrown by today without restoration efforts. It is more complicated to assess the project s impact on L. pectoralis. As can be seen in the guidelines prepared on the basis of various project actions, the species prefers larger water bodies (beaver floods, shallow littoral zones of lakes, etc.) for breeding and uses ponds more as stepping stones between various larger populations or for expanding its distribution area. The species has expanded its distribution area significantly during the project years, and it is not possible to exactly establish the extent of the project s role in this. Seeing as L. pectoralis uses project ponds for breeding, a definite boost to the expansion of the distribution area can be discerned. Leucorrhinia pectoralis in Estonia 2008 Leucorrhinia pectoralis in Estonia 2014 Denmark The result concerning P. fuscus seems low-grade, but is in line with the general picture of the breeding success of the species in 2014 and 2015. The Danish national monitoring programme monitors P. fuscus both in the spring by counting callers at night and in early summer by counting the density of tadpoles. In 2014, calling activity was generally very good compared to average years, but the occurrences of tadpoles were greatly below average. Tadpoles were absent in 2014 even in many traditionally fertile breeding ponds. The spring of 2015 was again very cold, and P. fuscus breeding failed almost in all of Jutland. Despite of this, the number of colonized ponds increased remarkably in 2015. Of the ponds restored and newly dug in Denmark by the project, 36 are located in P. fuscus distribution area, and calling males were recorded already in 10 of them. The cold spring also had very negative impact on L. pectoralis. However, the actual results are better than indicated in the table, especially in terms of the future. During the project, P. fuscus reserve populations were established in Vejle and Hjørring municipalities. The 2015 inventory in Vejle indicated satisfactory calling activity. Breeding, however, was not yet successful. In Hjørring, many young toads, probably released in 2013, were caught during the breeding programme in the spring of 2015. In Hillerød, calling males were recorded in many ponds. In Allerød, L. pectoralis established a new permanent population during the project period. An important note about Denmark is that the starting position there was considerably worse than in Estonia. There were very few existing populations, and they were small, isolated and relatively far away from new ponds, which means that the ponds take that much longer to be colonized. According to the After-LIFE Conservation Plan, a major focus in the coming years will be on monitoring, in addition to preserving existing habitats and creating new ones. 23