The Future of Europe's Seas - LIFE Marine Report

ASTRALE gamma-CONTRACT
The future of Europes seas contribution of the LIFE programme

to protecting and improving the marine environment
MARINE THEMATIC REPORT
September 2014
Dr Lynne Barratt, Mr John Houston, Mr Chris Rose, Mr Dan Mitchell

Marine Thematic Report Final Report September 2014

Table of contents
Table of contents
Acronyms
Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... i
1. Introduction ..............................................................................................................................1
1.1. Specific Issues Raised by Units C2 and B3 .................................................................................................................... 1
1.2. Directive Overlap ..................................................................................................................................................................... 1
1.3. Principal objectives of the study ....................................................................................................................................... 2
1.4. Evaluation Methodology ....................................................................................................................................................... 2
1.5. Limitations to the Study ....................................................................................................................................................... 3
2. Legislative texts considered .......................................................................................................4
2.1. European Instruments .......................................................................................................................................................... 4
2.2. The Marine Strategy Framework Directive .................................................................................................................. 5
2.3. The Water Framework Directive ....................................................................................................................................... 9
2.4. The Nature Directives ........................................................................................................................................................ 11
2.5. Other relevant Directives ................................................................................................................................................... 13
2.6. Integrated Coastal Management (ICM) ........................................................................................................................ 14
3. Evaluation of LIFE projects ....................................................................................................... 15
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

4. In Depth Analysis of selected projects ...................................................................................... 40
4.1. SWOT Analysis ........................................................................................................................................................................ 40
4.2. Maintaining Biodiversity .................................................................................................................................................... 40
4.3. Reconstruction and Remediation ................................................................................................................................... 41
4.4. Inventories ............................................................................................................................................................................... 45
4.5. Reducing/Re-using fishing discards .............................................................................................................................. 46
4.6. Contaminated Sediments ................................................................................................................................................... 49
4.7. Reducing Atmospheric Emissions from Shipping .................................................................................................... 50
4.8. Avoiding conflict and conflict resolution ..................................................................................................................... 51
4.9. Ones to Watch ......................................................................................................................................................................... 53
5. Conclusions and recommendations .......................................................................................... 54

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 Marine Projects .................................................................................................... 39

The authors would like to acknowledge copyright of all photographs taken by the LIFE projects and used in this
report.


Acronyms

BEOS Biomass Estimation Optical System
BIO LIFE Biodiversity Projects
CARE Collect by Artificial Reef Eco-Friendly System
CFP Common Fisheries Policy
DG Directorate General
DG ENV Directorate General Environment
DG MARE Directorate General for Maritime Affairs and Fisheries
EEA European Environment Agency
EC European Commission
EIA Environmental Impact Assessment
EMFF European Fisheries Fund
ENV LIFE Environment Policy and Governance strand
EQS
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
EU European Union
GAM Generalised Additive Modelling
GAMM Generalised Additive Mixed Modelling
GES Good Environmental Status (as set out in the Marine Strategy Framework Directive )
GES Good Ecological Status (as set out in the Water Framework Directive)
GHG Greenhouse Gas
GIS Geographical Information System
GMES Global Monitoring for Environment and Security
IAS Invasive Alien Species
IBA Important Bird Areas
ICES International Council for the Exploration of the Sea
ICM Integrated Coastal Management
IMO International Maritime Organisation
IMP Integrated Maritime Policy
INF LIFE Information and Communication strand
iNspire
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
IPPC
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)
LIFE + European Union Financial Instrument for the Environment (2007-2013)
LIFE III European Union Financial Instrument for the Environment (2000-2006)
LIFETrack LIFE programme monitoring database
LTER European Long-Term Ecosystem Research Network
Marpol International Convention for the Prevention of Pollution from Ships
MPA Marine Protected Area

MS Member State
MSP Maritime Spatial Planning
MSFD
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)
NAT LIFE Nature and Biodiversity strand
Natura 2000
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)
NGO Non-Governmental Organisation
NIS Non Indigenous Species
PAP Priority Action Programme
PCB Poly chlorinated biphenol
POM Programmes of Measures
RBMP River Basin Management Plan
RAC Regional Activity Centre
REACH Registration, Evaluation, Authorisation and Restriction of Chemicals
SAC Special Areas of Conservation
SEA Strategic Environmental Assessment
SPA Special Protected Area
SPC Speciality Polymer Coating
SWOT Strengths Weaknesses Opportunities Threats
TCY LIFE Third Countries strand
TED Turtle Exclusion Device
UNEP United Nations Environment Programme
UWWT Directive 91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991 concerning urban waste-water treatment
WFD
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)
VOC Volatile Organic Compound

i

Executive Summary
In the forward to the EU publication Seas for Life
1
the European Commissioner for the Environment Janez
Potonik 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 Units 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 15
th
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

1
EU (2011). Seas for Life: Protected- Sustainable Shared European Seas by 2020.

ii

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

iii

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

[Marine Thematic Report Final Version September 2014] 1
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
DEugenio 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.

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

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 Programmes 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 Programmes 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.

2. LEGISLATIVE TEXTS CONSIDERED
2.1. European Instruments

European seas are under severe environmental pressure from land based sources of pollution, from over-
exploitation of natural resources, from multiple uses of the marine environment and from the spread of non-
native 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 Europes 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.

2
See, for example, the most recent assessment of coastal issues published by EEA in 2013. Balancing the future of Europes 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 EUs Integrated Maritime Policy. COM (2012) 491 final. http://eur-
lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=COM:2012:0491:FIN:EN:PDF
5
LIFE and the marine environment. Promoting Sustainable Management of Europes 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

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 Europes 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 States 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
.

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

10
Op. Cit., note 39.
(to extent of MS
jurisdiction)

Figure 2-2: Marine Strategy Framework Directive Timeline

Regional Institutional Cooperation
Structures
5(2a) Establish
and implement
monitoring
programme
5(2b) Entry into
operation of the
Programmeof
Measures
Achieve Good
Environmental
Status at the
latest
19(3) Public
consultationand
information
process
5(2b) Programme of
Measures to achieve or
maintainGood
Environmental Status
26(1) Member
states shall bring
intoforce the
laws, regulations
and administrative
provisions
necessaryto
comply
7(1) Designate
authorityfor each
marineregion and
subregion
9(3) Supplement to Annex
I &III criteriaand
methodological standards
to be laid down
9(2) Notify the
Commissionon
the assessment
and determination
of Good
Environmental
Status
10(2) Notifythe
Commissionon
the environmental
targets
7(1) Annex II
designate
authority
+international
bodies
+international
coordination&
cooperation
18 Brief interim
progress report
within3 years of
eachprogramof
measures
20(1) A first evaluation
report on the
implementation(having
received all programs of
measures)
Commission/EU
Member
States
10(2) In respect of each
marineregion or
subregionestablish
environmental targets
and indicators
5(2a) Initial assessment
A determination of GES
Establishenvironmental
targets &associated
indicators
19(3) Public
consultation
process
13(6) Make publiclyavailable spatial
protectionmeasures:
Special Areas of Conservation (HD)
Special Protection Areas (BD)
Marine Protected Areas (International
and Regional Agreements)
19(3) Initial
assessmentdata
madeavailable for
European
Environment
Agency
21 Commissionprogress
report on the establishment
of Marine Protected Areas
12 TheCommissionreply to
member states on
consistencyand provide
guidancefollowingearlier
notifications
The research leadingto these results has received funding fromthe European Communitys 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 Communityis not liable for any use that maybe madeof the informationpresented here
20(2) Commissionreport
assessingthe
contributionof this
directive to the
implementationof
environmental protection
12 TheCommissionreply
to member states on
consistencyand provide
guidancefollowingearlier
notifications
Entry into force 20th day followingits publication
inthe Official J ournal of the European Union
General Provision: TheCommissionmust
respond within6 months
17(2) Every sixyears the marinestrategy shall be
updated
MARINE STRATEGY FRAMEWORK
DIRECTIVE
Authors
EVA ROTH
and TIM
OHIGGINS
KnowSeas contact details:
TimOHiggins
SAMS
ScottishMarineInstitute
Oban
Argyll
PA371QA Scotland
T: (+44) (0)1631559000
F: (+44) (0)1631559001
knowseas-coordination@sams.ac.uk
http://www.knowseas.com
n
o
w
S
e
a
s
.
c
o
m
Procedures
DATE 15.7.10 15.7.11 15.7.12 15.10.12 by 2013 15.7.14 by 2014 by 2015 by 2016 by 2019 2020
19(3) Public
consultationand
informationprocess
A TIMELINE FOR THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
Milestones

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)
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
information document
12
.
2. Non-indigenous species
do not adversely alter the
ecosystem
Main areas of concern are ballast water
(addressed through International Maritime
Organisation (IMO)
13
), fouling of ships,
hitch-hiking (e.g. with stock for
aquaculture) and commercial
introductions.
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.
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).
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
2013
14
is focused on sustainability
including putting an end to fish
discards. It would bring the CFP in
line with the MSFD.
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
Links to CFP and WFD (for control
of some pollutants) and
Environmental Quality Standard

11
http://eur-lex.europa.eu/LexUriServ/LexUriServ.do?uri=OJ:L:2010:232:0014:0024:EN:PDF
12
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-of-
Ships'-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

abundance and
reproduction
putting top predators at most risk. Indirect
effects of fishing include damage to the
sea floor.
Directive (EQS) (for safe levels of
contaminants). The MSFD Task
Group 4 report provides more
information
15
.
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.
Linked to legislation targeting land
use including Nitrates Directive,
Urban Waste-Water Treatment
Directive and WFD.
6. Sea floor integrity
ensures functioning of
the ecosystem
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
Link to Habitats Directive, Marine
Protected Areas and EU
Biodiversity Strategy.
7. Permanent alteration
to hydrographic
conditions does not
adversely affect the
ecosystem
Changes to the physical parameters of sea
water; temperature, depth, salinity,
turbidity etc. Particular pressures in coastal
areas, estuaries and navigation routes.
Link to Habitats Directive
(assessments) and WFD
(discharges)
8. Concentrations of
contaminants have no
effect
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.
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
and to come into force in 2015
16
.
9. Contaminants in
seafood are at safe levels
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.
Regulation 1881/2006 regulates
the maximum levels in foodstuffs
including fish. Shellfish Waters
Directive applies to all brackish and
marine waters.
10. Marine litter does
not cause harm
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
promoting solutions
17
.
Links to initiatives and policies on
MSFD web-pages.
18
Link to Waste
Framework Directive and
associated Directives (packaging,
landfill etc.) and Directives linked
to shipping.
11. Introduction of
energy (including
underwater noise) does
not adversely affect the
ecosystem
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.
Working group report
19
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.

15
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/marine/pdf/4-Task-group-4.pdf
16
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


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 radio-
nuclides)
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 Europes 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

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 LIFE projects relevant to marine
environment
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.
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.
UWWT: Council Directive
91/271/EEC of 21 May 1991
concerning urban waste-water
treatment (not repealed by WFD)

Sets requirements for pre-
treatment 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.
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.
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.
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.

Nitrates Directive 91/676/EEC
(repealed by WFD)
Its principal aim is to prevent
nitrates from agricultural sources
Many LIFE projects have addressed
nitrate reduction and some have

20
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.

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.
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
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)

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.
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
Shellfish Waters Directive
2006/116/EC (repealed by WFD in
October 2013)
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.
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.
Bathing Waters Directive
2006/7/EC (to come into force in
2015, not repealed by WFD)
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.

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.

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 Description LIFE project examples
Inventories Surveys and mapping to
identify sites for inclusion in
Natura 2000 network or
distribution of species
IBAs in Spain and Portugal
Baltic sea habitat inventories
Post larval fish in
Mediterranean
Management planning Developing partnership
approaches to marine
conservation issues
Marine Protected Areas
Working with stakeholders
Marine spatial planning
Intertidal habitats These include estuaries,
mudflats and sandflats.

Limited examples

21
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/appendix_4_life.pdf

Marine habitats True marine habitats include
reefs, caves, and Posidonia
beds.
Posidonia beds
Reconstructed boulder reefs
Sea Birds Sea birds nesting places, sites of
congregation and feeding areas
Audouins gull
Petrels, shearwaters, terns,
shag
Wildlife and fisheries Projects which are specifically
designed to address problems
between fisheries and wildlife
Monk seal
Small cetaceans
Turtles
Turtles All species are protected Loggerhead Turtle
Seals Monk seal is the focus of
several projects
Monk seal
Cetaceans All cetaceans are protected
through Habitats Directive
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.

22
http://archive.defra.gov.uk/environment/marine/documents/legislation/msfd-factsheet4-fishing-industry.pdf
23
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)

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 Europes 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.

25
http://www.scotland.gov.uk/Topics/marine/marineenergy/wave/WaveTidalSEA
26
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
32
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/lifefocus/documents/coastal.pdf

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.

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
0
2
4
6
8
10
12
14
16
2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

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

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
Nature
Environment
Information
Biodiversity

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

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
New
technologies
22%
Managememt
24%
Data
16%
Monitoring
5%
Information
systems
5%
Policy
3%
Stakeholders
25%

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 field-
collected 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 BaAR 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 long-
term ecological data and its comparison across eco-domains. In so doing the project will supply relevant

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 Scotlands 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 Europes 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.

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.

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

33
Proposal for a Directive establishing a framework for Maritime Spatial Planning and Integrated Coastal Management COM (2013)
133 final

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

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 Commissions 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.

34
http://www.pap-thecoastcentre.org/index.php?lang=en

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 Europes 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

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

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
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
35
40
Total all projects
Total ENV projects
Total NAT project

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. 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.
ii. 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.
iii. 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.
iv. 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.
v. 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 Europes seas (2006)
.
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/nature/natura2000/marine/docs/appendix_4_life.pdf
Contains a section on Natura2000 and MPAs

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 Arrbida-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 Arrbida. 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.

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 Audouins
gull Larus audouinii. The area is also important for seabirds such as Corys 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 dtre 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 Arrbida-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

36
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/features/2012/marine.htm

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. Non-indigenous species introduced by human activities at levels that do not adversely alter the
ecosystem.
ii. 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.
iii. Concentrations of contaminants are at levels not giving rise to pollution effects.
iv. Contaminants in fish and other seafood for human consumption do not exceed levels established by
Community legislation or other relevant standards.
v. Properties and quantities of marine litter do not cause harm to the coastal and marine environment.
vi. 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.

37
LIFE and the marine environment promoting sustainable management of Europes 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 Europes 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.


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 Commissions LIFE and coastal management publication
39
(p.63-
65). 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.

39
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/lifefocus/documents/coastal.pdf

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.

40
Richardson, J.W., Green, C.R. Jnr., Malme, C.I. & Thomson, D.H. (1995). Marine Mammals and Noise. Academic Press

While there are a number of projects that deal
with eutrophication in inland surface waters, there
are few projects acknowledging the potential
marine impact. The project LIFE09 ENV/FI/569
GISBLOOM aims to build capacity to ensure better
integration of climate change into river basin
management plans in Finland. It will demonstrate
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 non-
indigenous species in the marine environment even though this is a topic of major concern. It is estimated
that Europes 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
Seas for Life protected sustainable shared European Seas by 2020. European Union 2011
42
See Life and the marine environment promoting sustainable management of Europes seas. Life III focus. 2006 for a full analysis of these projects.
Although the LIFE07 NAT/FIN/000151
FINMARINET project did not aim to
reduce eutrophication, the effect of
eutrophication underwater can be clearly
seen.

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

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

0
5
10
15
20
25
30
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

Number of POM included in the project

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

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
0
5
10
15
20
25
30
n
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

p
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

Total all projects
Total ENV projects
Total NAT projects

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, socio-
economic 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.


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 Spains 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 by-
catch 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

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
44
and 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.

43
LIFE and Coastal Management (2012): http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/publications/lifepublications/lifefocus/documents/coastal.pdf
44
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


3.9.1. Eutrophication

This is seen as a major issue throughout Europes 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 under-
represented 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 non-
indigenous 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:

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 co-
financiers 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 Project Costs
million
EU Contribution
million
No of Projects
Total for all projects 146,9 70,5 72
Total for ENV projects 78,5 34,2 39
Total for NAT projects 68,5 36,3 33
Average cost per project 2,04 0,98
Average cost per ENV projects 2,00 0,87
Average cost per NAT projects 2,06 1,09

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).


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

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 Total Cost
Million
EU
Contribution
Million
Top 5 ranked highest total cost projects
1 LIFE07 NAT/E/000732 INDEMARES 15.4 7.7
2 LIFE09 ENV/NL/000426 BLUETEC 7.4 2.5
3 LIFE08 ENV/IT/000399 EnvEurope 6.1 3.0
4 LIFE09 NAT/LV/000238 MARMONI 5.9 2.9
5 LIFE06 ENV/B/000362 ECOTEC-STC 5.2 1.5
Bottom 5 ranked lowest total cost projects
5 LIFE11 ENV/ES/000600 SEA-MATTER 0.74 0.37
4 LIFE06 TCY/INT/000250 DESTINATIONS 0.70 0.42
3 LIFE09 INF/PT/000045 ECO-COMPATVEL 0.61 0.28
2 LIFE12 INF/GR/000985 AMMOS 0.59 0.29
1 LIFE10 NAT/SI/000141 SIMARINE 0.47 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
ENV
0
2
4
6
8
10
0.5
1
1.5
2
2.5
3
3.5
4
4.5
5
6
6+
N
u
m
b
e
r

o
f

P
r
o
j
e
c
t
s

Total Project Cost Million
ENV
NAT

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 Units 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 Project Weblink
2009 LIFE05 ENV/NL/000018 NoMEPorts
2010 LIFE06 ENV/B/000362 ECOTEC-STC http://www.hydrex.be/

2012 LIFE07 ENV/D/000229 ECOSMA http://www.ecosma.de/
2013 LIFE07 ENV/UK/000943 PISCES
47
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. Maintaining biodiversity
2. Reconstruction and remediation
3. Inventories
4. Reducing/re-using fishing discards
5. Contaminated sediments
6. Reducing atmospheric emissions from shipping
7. 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

47
Project is shortlisted final selection pending

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

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 Arrbida-Espichel marine park. One major element of the project was the attempt to restore the lost
seagrass meadow at Portinho da Arrbida 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

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.

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

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 Ls 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.

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.


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, Corys 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.
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.

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
Box 3: INVENTORIES
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.

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

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)

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

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 by-
products 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.

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 m 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
m 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 m 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 worlds 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 long-
term 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

48
http://ec.europa.eu/clima/policies/transport/shipping/index_en.htm

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.


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. 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.

PISCES was particularly successful in engaging with government stakeholders, providing 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 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.

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.

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

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

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 ex-
post 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.

LIFE09 INF/PT/000045/VIVEIROS Carlos

[Marine Thematic Report September 2014] Annex 1

Annex 1

Initial Project Assessment

YES Comment Project acronym Project title Funding contract code start date end date e-mail coordinator name coordinator Website LIFE database website
Data Info
collected
Comments Total Budget EC contribution
YES information LIFE +IMAGINE
Integrated coastal area Management
Application implementing GMES, INspire
and sEis data policies
LIFE-ENV
LIFE12
ENV/IT/001054
02/07/2013 01/07/2016 g.saio@gisig.it Giorgio Saio
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/
Projects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspP
age&n_proj_id=4531
21/07/2013 1,521,258.00 754,628.00
Yes LIFE SMILE
Strategies for MarIne Litter and
Environmental prevention of sea pollution
in coastal areas
LIFE-ENV
LIFE12
ENV/IT/000289
01/07/2013 01/07/2016
ilaria.fasce@regione.ligu
ria.it
Ilaria Fasce
age&n_proj_id=4563
21/07/2013 1,186,944.00 570,958.00
Yes CYCLADES Life
CYCLADES "Integrated monk seal
conservation in Northern Cyclades"
LIFE-NAT
LIFE12
NAT/GR/000688
01/07/2013 30/06/2017 c.liarikos@wwf.gr Constantinos Liarikos
age&n_proj_id=4718
21/07/2013 2,237,346.00 1,677,977.00
Yes TARTALIFE
Reduction of sea turtle mortality in
commercial fisheries
LIFE-NAT
LIFE12
NAT/IT/000937
01/10/2013 30/09/2018 a.sala@ismar.cnr.it Antonello Sala
age&n_proj_id=4548
21/07/2013 4,228,000.00 3,171,000.00
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
age&n_proj_id=4514
21/07/2013 2,916,834.00 1,689,461.00
Yes
LIFE BaAR 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
age&n_proj_id=4750
21/07/2013 2,612,810.00 1,306,405.00
Yes LIFE Ghost -
Techniques to reduce the impacts of
ghost fishing gears and to improve
biodiversity in north Adriatic coastal areas
LIFE-BIO
LIFE12
BIO/IT/000556
01/07/2013 30/06/2016 luisa.daros@ismar.cnr.it Luisa Da Ros
age&n_proj_id=4778
21/07/2013 1,127,020.00 544,763.00
Yes
ecosystems based
management
PecheAPiedDeLoi
sir
Pilot experiments on sustainable and
participatory management of recreational
seafood hand harvesting
LIFE-ENV
LIFE12
ENV/FR/000316
01/07/2013 01/07/2017 stephanie.tachoires@air
es-marines.fr Stphanie Tachoires
age&n_proj_id=4704 05/01/2014 3,899,625.00 1,949,810.00
Yes marine litter
LIFE - AMMOS
Integrated information campaign for the
reduction of smoking related litter on
beaches
LIFE-INF LIFE12
INF/GR/000985
01/07/2013 31/03/2015
info@medsos.gr Evangelos Koukiasas
age&n_proj_id=4722 05/01/2014 599,918.00 299,709.00
Yes CSP
Celtic Seas Partnership (CSP)
stakeholder driven integrated
management of the Celtic Seas Marine
Region
LIFE-ENV
LIFE11
ENV/UK/000392
01/01/2013 31/12/2016 jmiller@wwf.org.uk J anet Miller www.celticseaspartnership.eu
age&n_proj_id=4218
21/07/2013 3,963,025.00 1,973,546.00
Yes BIAS
Baltic Sea Information on the Acoustic
Soundscape
LIFE-ENV
LIFE11
ENV/SE/000841
01/09/2012 31/08/2016 peter.sigray@foi.se Peter Sigray
http://www.foi.se/en/Customer--
Partners/Projects/BIAS/BIAS/
age&n_proj_id=4183
21/07/2013 4,577,315.00 2,215,567.00
Yes mussel cultivation BUCEFALOS
BlUe ConcEpt For A Low
nutrient/carbOn Systemregional aqua
resource management
LIFE-ENV
LIFE11
ENV/SE/000839
01/09/2012 31/08/2015 bo.fransman@skane.se Bo Fransman
age&n_proj_id=4182
21/07/2013 3,681,067.00 1,634,311.00
Yes Project MIGRATE -
Conservation Status and potential Sites
of Community Interest for Tursiops
truncatus and Caretta caretta in Malta
LIFE-NAT
LIFE11
NAT/MT/001070
0/10/2012 29/04/2016 funding@mepa.org.mt Petra Bianchi http://lifeprojectmigrate.com/
age&n_proj_id=4298
21/07/2013 964,006.00 476,003.00
Yes reuse of seaweed SEA-MATTER
Revalorization of coastal algae wastes in
textile nonwoven industry with
applications in building noise isolation
LIFE-ENV
LIFE11
ENV/ES/000600
01/09/2012 28/02/2015
rlopez@aitex.es Rosa Lpez Ferre www.seamatter.com
age&n_proj_id=4205 05/01/2014 738,918.00 369,458.00
Yes
offshore marine
habitats
ANDROSSPA
Management of the SPA site of Andros
Island to achieve a favourable
conservation status for its priority species
LIFE-NAT
LIFE10
NAT/GR/000637
01/09/2011 31/08/2015
inikolaou@andros.gr Nikolaou ISIDOROS www.androslife.gr
age&n_proj_id=4091 03/01/2014 1,805,749.00 1,354,312.00
Yes
Sustainable Cruise
Prototypes and approaches for raising the
waste hierarchy on board and certifying it
LIFE-ENV LIFE10
ENV/IT/000367
01/09/2011 30/06/2014
pinna@costa.it Elisabetta PINNA http://www.sustainablecruise.eu
age&n_proj_id=3933 03/01/2014 2,629,246.00 1,314,623.00
yes information SEWeb Scotland's Environmental Web LIFE-ENV
LIFE10
ENV/UK/000182
01/09/2011 31/08/2014 SEWeb@sepa.org.uk Mr Martin Marsden
http://www.environment.scotlan
d.gov.uk/life_project.aspx
age&n_proj_id=3990
14/12/2011 4,876,006.00 2,351,950.00
yes GREEN SITE
Green Site : supercritical fluid
technologies for river and sea dredge
sediment remediation
LIFE-ENV
LIFE10
ENV/IT/000343
01/10/2011 30/09/2013 g.cravin@alles.it Guerrino Cravin http://www.green-site.net/en
age&n_proj_id=3972
08/10/2011 1,377,428.00 684,298.00
Yes
MALTA SEABIRD
PROJ ECT
Creating an inventory of Marine IBAs for
Puffinus Yelkouan, Calonectris diomedea
and Hydrobates pelagicus in Malta
LIFE-NAT
LIFE10
NAT/MT/000090
01/09/2011 30/06/2016
paul.debono@birdlifema
lta.org
Paul DEBONO
http://maltaseabirdproject.word
press.com/about/
age&n_proj_id=4055
12/01/2012 873,964.00 436,982.00
Yes SHARKLIFE
Urgent actions for the conservation of
cartilaginous fish in Italy
LIFE-NAT
LIFE10
NAT/IT/000271
01/10/2011 31/12/2014 sdimarco@cts.it Luigi VEDOVATO
http://www.sharklife.it/en/the-
project
age&n_proj_id=4078
12/01/2012 1,337,640.00 668,820.00
Yes
SIMARINE-
NATURA
Preparatory inventory and activities for
the designation of marine IBA and SPA
site for Phalacrocorax aristotelis
desmarestii in Slovenia
LIFE-NAT
LIFE10
NAT/SI/000141
01/09/2011 28/02/2015 ursa.koce@dopps.si Ura KOCE
http://ptice.si/simarine-
natura/en/
age&n_proj_id=4061
12/01/2012 474,458.00 284,675.00
Yes SUBLIMO
Biodiversity Survey of Fish Post-Larvae in
the Western Mediterranean Sea
LIFE-NAT
LIFE10
NAT/FR/000200
01/12/2011 01/04/2015 lenfant@univ-perp.fr Philippe LENFANT
http://www.life-sublimo.fr/en/le-
projet/
age&n_proj_id=4075
12/01/2012 1,947,590.00 964,252.00
Yes BaltInfoHaz
Baltic Info Campaign on Hazardous
Substances
LIFE-INF
LIFE10
INF/EE/000108
01/10/2011 31/03/2015
kitty.kislenko@bef.ee
Ms Kitty Kislenko http://www.thinkbefore.eu/en/
age&n_proj_id=4034
14/12/2011 1,683,396.00 834,573.00
Project Information Financial Website
Yes
RED/climate
change
BLUETEC
Demonstration of the technological,
economic and environmental
sustainability of a full-scale tidal energy
device in an offshore environment
LIFE-ENV
LIFE09
ENV/NL/000426
01/09/2010 01/03/2014
Harry.Brouwer@bluewa
ter.com Harry BROUWER
http://www.bluewater.com/bluet
ec
age&n_proj_id=3640 05/01/2014 7,447,940.00 2,512,695.00
Yes posedonia ACCOLAGOONS
Actions for the conservation of coastal
habitats and significant avifauna species
in NATURA 2000 network sites of
Epanomi and Aggelochori Laggons,
Greece
LIFE-NAT
LIFE09
NAT/GR/000343
01/10/2010 29/09/2013
A.Giantsis@nath.gr Apostolos GIANTSIS http://www.accolagoons.gr
age&n_proj_id=3882 05/01/2014 1,639,770.00 1,229,828.00
Yes GISBLOOM
Participatory monitoring, forecasting,
control and socio-economic impacts of
eutrophication and algal blooms in river
basins districts
LIFE-ENV
LIFE09
ENV/FI/000569
01/10/2010 30/09/2013 olli.malve@ymparisto.fi
Senior Research
Scientist Olli Malve
www.environment.fi/syke/gisblo
om
age&n_proj_id=3719
16/09/2011 3,060,856.00 1,503,638.00
Yes
project terminated
no results
Mare Purum
Mare Purum- Prevention of Marine
Fouling on Commercial Shipping and
Leisure Boats with a Non Toxic Method
LIFE-ENV
LIFE09
ENV/SE/000351
01/09/2010 28/02/2014 gunilla@ekomarine.se Gunilla STBERG NONE FOUND
age&n_proj_id=3711
16/09/2011 1,800,673.00 886,211.00
Yes P.R.I.M.E.
Posidonia Residues Integrated
Management for Eco-sustainability
LIFE-ENV
LIFE09
ENV/IT/000061
01/09/2010 01/09/2013 di.susca@tin.it Donato SUSCA http://www.lifeprime.eu/
age&n_proj_id=3694
16/09/2011 1,152,917.00 568,455.00
yes SEDI.PORT.SIL
Recovery of dredged SEDIments of the
PORT of Ravenna and SILicon extraction
LIFE-ENV
LIFE09
ENV/IT/000158
01/09/2010 31/08/2012
elisa.ulazzi@medingegn
eria.it
Elisa ULAZZI http://www.lifesediportsil.eu
age&n_proj_id=3682
16/09/2011 1,969,614.00 931,192.00
yes SOL-BRINE
Development of an advanced innovative
energy autonomous systemfor the
treatment of brine fromseawater
desalination plants
LIFE-ENV
LIFE09
ENV/GR/000299
01/10/2010 31/03/2013 dimostinou@gmail.com Simeon ORFANOS
http://uest.ntua.gr/solbrine/?lan
g=en
age&n_proj_id=3679
16/09/2011 1,209,689.00 604,844.00
Yes ARION
Systems for Coastal Dolphin
Conservation in the Ligurian Sea
LIFE-NAT
LIFE09
NAT/IT/000190
01/10/2010 30/09/2014 taiuti@ge.infn.it Mauro TAIUTI
age&n_proj_id=3851
16/01/2012 1,733,377.00 1,110,885.00
Yes DENOFLIT
Inventory of marine species and habitats
for development of NATURA 2000
network in the offshore waters of
Lithuania
LIFE-NAT
LIFE09
NAT/LT/000234
01/10/2010 31/03/2015 darius@corpi.ku.lt Darius DAUNYS
age&n_proj_id=3787
16/01/2012 1,569,699.00 784,849.00
Yes
stakehlder engagement
conflict resolution
including marine
biodiversity and
development/fishermen
ECO-
COMPATVEL
Comunicando para a sustentabilidade
socioeconmica, usufruto humano e
biodiversidade emStios da rede Natura
2000 no arquiplago da Madeira
LIFE-INF
LIFE09
INF/PT/000045
01/10/2010 30/09/2014
sarafreitas.sra@gov-
madeira.pt Sara FREITAS www.lifeecocompativel.com
age&n_proj_id=3772 05/01/2014 607,792.00 285,646.00
Yes
Life Posidonia
Andalucia
Conservation of Posidonia oceanica
meadows in Andalusian Mediterranean
Sea
LIFE-NAT
LIFE09
NAT/ES/000534
01/01/2011 31/12/2013
elena.diaz@juntadeand
aluia.es;
dgdsia.cma@juntadean
dalucia.es
Elena DAZ ALMELA
http://www.lifeposidoniandaluci
a.es/en/index.aspx
age&n_proj_id=3829
16/01/2012 3,562,125.00 2,474,902.00
Yes MARMONI
Innovative approaches for marine
biodiversity monitoring and assessment
of conservation status of nature values in
the Baltic Sea
LIFE-NAT
LIFE09
NAT/LV/000238
01/10/2010 31/03/2015 heidrun.fammler@bef.lv Heidrun FAMMLER
http://marmoni.balticseaportal.n
et/wp/
age&n_proj_id=3822
16/01/2012 5,888,801.00 2,944,400.00
Yes MarPro
Conservation of Marine Protected
Species in Mainland Portugal
LIFE-NAT
LIFE09
NAT/PT/000038
01/01/2011 31/12/2015 catarina.eira@ua.pt Catarina EIRA
http://marprolife.org/index.php/
en/home
age&n_proj_id=3842
16/01/2012 2,773,032.00 1,386,516.00
Yes POSEIDONE
Urgent conservation actions of
*Posidonia beds of Northern Latium
LIFE-NAT
LIFE09
NAT/IT/000176
01/12/2010 30/09/2014
paololupino@beachmed
.eu
Paolo LUPINO http://www.lifeposeidone.eu/
age&n_proj_id=3808
16/01/2012 1,339,500.00 542,787.00
Yes Thalassa
Thalassa Campaign: Learn, Act,
Protect/Awareness, Educational and
Participation Campaign for Marine
Mammals in Greece
LIFE-INF
LIFE09
INF/GR/000320
01/09/2010 31/12/2013 v.savvidou@mom.gr Valia SAVVIDOU http://www.thalassa-project.gr
age&n_proj_id=3775
12/01/2012 1,343,248.00 667,124.00
Yes FISH SCALE
Food Information and Safeguard of
Habitat a Sustainable Consumption
Approach in Local Environment
LIFE-INF
LIFE09
INF/IT/000076
01/10/2010 30/09/2013
bvalettini@acquariodige
nova.it
Bruna VALETTINI www.fishscale.eu/
age&n_proj_id=3880
16/09/2011 1,074,026.00 537,013.00
Yes WEBAP Wave Energized Baltic Aeration Pump LIFE-ENV
LIFE08
ENV/S/000271
01/01/2010 31/12/2012 christian.baresel@ivl.se Christian Baresel www.webap.ivl.se
age&n_proj_id=3469
16/09/2011 1,178,605.00 562,553.00
yes
data management
inlcudes marine
EnvEurope
Environmental quality and pressures
assessment across Europe: the LTER
network as an integrated and shared
systemfor ecosystemmonitoring
LIFE-ENV
LIFE08
ENV/IT/000399
01/01/2010 31/12/2013
alessandra.pugnetti@is
mar.cnr.it
Alessandra
PUGNETTI
http://www.enveurope.eu/
age&n_proj_id=3445
15/09/2011 6,067,876.00 3,003,938.00
Yes FAROS
Integral networking of fishing actors to
organize a responsible optimal and
sustainable exploitation of marine
resources
LIFE-ENV
LIFE08
ENV/E/000119
15/01/2010 14/01/2013 antonio@iim.csic.es
Antonio LVAREZ
ALONSO
http://www.farosproject.eu/
age&n_proj_id=3431
15/09/2011 2,182,906.00 1,063,357.00
Yes MARITIMECO2
Impact assessment for the adoption of
CO2 emission trading for maritime
transport
LIFE-ENV
LIFE08
ENV/CY/000461
20/01/2010 20/07/2012
sserghiou@dms.mcw.g
ov.cy
Sergios SERGHIOU http://www.maritimeco2.com/
age&n_proj_id=3482
16/09/2011 830,946.00 411,723.00
Yes BOATCYCLE
Management, recycling and recovery of
wastes of recreational boat scrapping
LIFE-ENV
LIFE08
ENV/E/000158
01/01/2010 01/07/2012 cavolio@leitat.org Ciro AVOLIO http://www.life-boatcycle.com/
age&n_proj_id=3455
15/09/2011 925,458.00 358,601.00
yes COAST-BEST
CO-ordinated Approach for Sediment
Treatment and BEneficial reuse in Small
harbours neTworks
LIFE-ENV
LIFE08
ENV/IT/000426
01/01/2010 31/12/2012
alessandra.polettini@uni
roma1.it
Alessandra Polettini http://www.coast-best.eu/
age&n_proj_id=3434
15/09/2011 1,730,501.00 812,465.00
Yes invasive species CUBOMED
Development and demonstration of
eradication and control methods for an
invasive species: Carybdea marsupialis
(Cubozoa), Mediterranean
LIFE-NAT
LIFE08
NAT/E/000064
01/01/2010 31/12/2014 cesar.bordehore@ua.es
Cesar BORDEHORE
FONTANET
age&n_proj_id=3530
16/01/2012 1,683,195.00 813,498.00
Yes SAMBAH
Static Acoustic Monitoring of the Baltic
Sea Harbour porpoise
LIFE-NAT
LIFE08
NAT/S/000261
31/12/2009 30/12/2014 Mats.amundin@kolmar
den.com Mats AMUNDIN http://www.sambah.org
age&n_proj_id=3564 05/01/2014 4,242,013.00 2,112,098.00
Yes 3R-FISH
Integral management model of recovery
and recycling of the proper solid waste
fromthe fishing and port activities
LIFE-ENV
LIFE07
ENV/E/000814
01/01/2009 01/01/2012 jtaboada@cetmar.org J ulio Taboada Prez http://www.3rfish.org
age&n_proj_id=3287
14/09/2011 1,447,990.00 595,620.00
Yes BaltActHaz
Baltic actions for reduction of pollution of
the Baltic Sea frompriority hazardous
substances
LIFE-ENV
LIFE07
ENV/EE/000122
01/01/2009 31/12/2011 kitty.kislenko@bef.ee Kitty Kislenko http://www.baltacthaz.bef.ee/
age&n_proj_id=3285
13/09/2011 1,715,632.00 851,816.00
Yes ECOSMA
Ecological Certification of Products from
Sustainable Marine Aquaculture
LIFE-ENV
LIFE07
ENV/D/000229
01/01/2009 31/12/2011
stefan.rehm@crm-
online.de
Stefan REHM
http://www.ecosma.de
age&n_proj_id=3299
14/09/2011 828,144.00 414,072.00
Yes PISCES
Partnerships Involving Stakeholders in
the Celtic sea Eco-System
LIFE-ENV
LIFE07
ENV/UK/000943
01/07/2009 30/12/2012 jmiller@wwf.org.uk J anet Miller http://projectpisces.eu/
age&n_proj_id=3281
09/08/2013 2,103,888.00 1,022,753.00
Yes Recyship
Proyecto piloto de desmantelamiento y
descontaminacin de barcos fuera de
uso
LIFE-ENV
LIFE07
ENV/E/000787
01/01/2009 31/12/2012 mgarcia@reciclauto.es
Miguel ngel Garca
Molina
http://www.recyship.com/
age&n_proj_id=3241
14/09/2011 3,393,046.00 1,686,773.00
Yes
CETACEOSMAD
EIRA II
Identifying critical marine areas for
bottlenose dolphin and surveillance of the
cetaceans' conservation status in
Madeira archipelago
LIFE-NAT
LIFE07
NAT/P/000646
01/06/2009 30/06/2013
luisfreitas@museudabal
eia.org
Luis FREITAS
http://www.cetaceos-
madeira.com
age&n_proj_id=3344
16/01/2012 795,074.00 397,537.00
Yes
ConShagAudMIB
AGR
Concrete Conservation Actions for the
Mediterranean Shag and Audouin's gull
in Greece including the inventory of
relevant marine IBAs
LIFE-NAT
LIFE07
NAT/GR/000285
01/01/2009 31/12/2012
jakobfric@ornithologiki.
gr
J akob FRIC
http://www.ornithologiki.gr/page
_in.php?tID=2569&sID=172
age&n_proj_id=3372
16/01/2012 2,357,922.00 1,768,442.00
Yes FINMARINET
Inventories and planning for the marine
Natura 2000 network in Finland
LIFE-NAT
LIFE07
NAT/FIN/000151
01/01/2009 31/12/2012
pasi.laihonen@ymparist
o.fi
Pasi LAIHONEN www.ymparisto.fi/finmarinet
age&n_proj_id=3329
16/01/2012 3,408,950.00 1,704,315.00
Yes INDEMARES
Inventory and designation of marine
Natura 2000 areas in the Spanish sea
LIFE-NAT
LIFE07
NAT/E/000732
01/01/2009 31/12/2013
indemares@fundacion-
biodiversidad.es;
dpena@fundacion-
biodiversidad.es
David PEA http://www.indemares.es
age&n_proj_id=3370
16/01/2012 15,405,727.00 7,702,863.00
Yes
GARNIJ A-
MALTIJ A
SPA Site and Sea Actions Saving
Puffinus yelkouan in Malta
LIFE-NAT
LIFE06
NAT/MT/000097
01/09/2006 30/06/2010 nicholas.barbara@birdlif
emalta.org Nicholas BARBARA
http://www.lifeshearwaterprojec
t.org.mt
age&n_proj_id=3143 03/01/2014 919,732.00 459,866.00
Yes STABLE
Controlled Treatment of TBT-
Contaminated Dredged Sediments for
the Beneficial Use in Infrastructure
Applications Case: Aurajoki - Turku
LIFE-ENV
LIFE06
ENV/FIN/000195
01/04/2006 31/03/2009
J armo.Yletyinen@terra
mare.fi J armo YLETYINEN
http://projektit.ramboll.fi/life/stab
le/index.asp
age&n_proj_id=3102 03/01/2014 3,721,425.00 974,228.00
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@ville-
granville.fr
Clment NALIN
http://www.smbcg-
mareclean.eu
age&n_proj_id=3104
23/03/2011 1,569,358.00 783,429.00
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
http://www.zemships.eu/en/ind
ex.php
age&n_proj_id=3081
21/09/2011 5,158,348.00 2,384,424.00
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
http://www.hydrex.be/life_index.
htm
age&n_proj_id=3087
20/09/2011 5,200,611.00 1,525,413.00
Yes Biomares
Restoration and Management of
Biodiversity in the Marine Park Site
Arrbida-Espichel
LIFE-NAT
LIFE06
NAT/P/000192
01/01/2007 01/01/2011 kerzini@ualg.pt KarimERZINI
http://www.ccmar.ualg.pt/bioma
res/

age&n_proj_id=3164
16/02/2011 2,364,438.00 1,182,219.00
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
www.bluereef.dk
age&n_proj_id=3109
22/02/2011 4,808,398.00 2,364,199.00
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
www.lifecilentoinrete.eu
age&n_proj_id=3218
22/02/2011
website not in
english
1,598,932.00 1,039,306.00
Yes Co.Me.Bi.S.
Urgent conservation measures for
biodiversity of Central Mediterranean Sea
LIFE-NAT
LIFE06
NAT/IT/000050
01/10/2006 30/09/2009
rdefilippis@regione.lazio
.it
Raniero DE FILIPPIS http://www.lifecomebis.eu/
age&n_proj_id=3162
22/02/2011 1,100,000.00 525,000.00
yes DESTINATIONS
Development of Strategies for
Sustainable TourismInvestments in the
Mediterranean Nations
LIFE-TCY
LIFE06
TCY/INT/000250
01/02/2007 01/12/2009
zeljka.skaricic@ppa.htn
et.hr
Ivica Trumbic
http://www.project-
destinations.org/
age&n_proj_id=3171
30/03/2011 702,864.00 419,923.00
Yes alternative energy 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
age&n_proj_id=3074 20/12/2013 4,115,882.00 1,212,685.00
Yes BE-FAIR
Benign and environmentally friendly fish
processing practices to provide added
value and innovative solutions for a
responsible and sustainable
management of fisheries.
LIFE-ENV
LIFE05
ENV/E/000267
15/11/2005 15/11/2008 antonio@iim.csic.es
Antonio lvarez
Alonso
http://www.befairproject.com/
age&n_proj_id=2876
20/09/2011 1,858,552.00 909,248.00
yes spatial planning Elefsina 2020
Collaborative Environmental
Regeneration of Port-Cities: Elefsina Bay
2020
LIFE-ENV
LIFE05
ENV/GR/000242
01/10/2005 30/09/2009 grammatiads@olesa.gr Panagiotis MANAKOS http://www.life-ole.gr/
age&n_proj_id=2836
20/09/2011 1,921,600.00 751,425.00
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
http://lifempa.balticseaportal.net
/
age&n_proj_id=2927
16/02/2011 3,111,316.00 1,555,658.00
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://mofi.mom.gr
age&n_proj_id=2936
16/01/2012 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
01/03/2005 31/08/2008
ton.van.breemen@porto
famsterdam.nl
Ton VAN BREEMEN
age&n_proj_id=2870 20/12/2013 1,503,489.00 707,645.00
2005-2012
Number rejected after moderation 20
Number assigned to coastal management 14
Projects for analysis 72
Total Projects Reviewed 106
YES Maybe JH Comment Project acronym Project title Funding contract code start date end date e-mail coordinator name coordinator Website LIFE database website
Data Info
collected
wetland
reconstruction
LIFE CWR
Ecological Restoration and Conservation
of Praia da Vitria Coastal Wet Green
Infrastructure
LIFE-BIO
LIFE12
BIO/PT/000110
01/08/2013 31/07/2018 geral@cmpv.pt Elisabete Nogueira
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/project/Pr
ojects/index.cfm?fuseaction=search.dspPage
&n_proj_id=4745
21/07/2013 2,163,042.00 1,081,521.00
just dunes REDCOHA-LIFE Restoration of Danish Coastal Habitats LIFE-NAT
LIFE12
NAT/DK/001073
0/08/2013 31/08/2018 nst@nst.dk Uffe Strandby
&n_proj_id=4618
21/07/2013 2,845,912.00 1,422,956.00
LIFE-OFREA
Improving Water Reuse at the coastal
areas by an advanced desalination
process
LIFE-ENV
LIFE12
ENV/ES/000632
01/10/2013 30/09/2016
jordi.bacardit.penarroya
@acciona.com
J ordi Bacardit
&n_proj_id=4683
21/07/2013 797,976.00 398,988.00
groundwater
management in
coastal areas
WSTORE2
Reconciling agriculture with environment
through a newwater governance in coasta
and saline areas
LIFE-ENV
LIFE11
ENV/IT/000035
01/11/2012 31/10/2015
lorenzo.furlan@venetoag
ricoltura.org
LORENZO FURLAN
&n_proj_id=4232
21/07/2013 1,576,521.00 686,210.00
does not include
any marine priority
habitats
Salt of Life
Urgent Measures to Restore and Secure
Long-termPreservation of the
Atanasovsko Lake Coastal Lagoon
LIFE-NAT
LIFE11
NAT/BG/000362
01/07/2012 31/08/2018
diyana.kostovska@biodi
versity.bg
Diyana KOSTOVSKA
http://www.saltoflife.biodiversity.
bg/en/
&n_proj_id=4322
21/07/213 2,013,027.00 1,450,558.00
does not include
any marine priority
habitats
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 http://www.lifeaufidus.it/
&n_proj_id=4333
21/07/2013 2,354,000.00 1,765,500.00
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 http://www.lifemaestrale.eu/
&n_proj_id=4096
12/01/2012 1,479,986.00 1,109,989.00
Coastal lagoons/
mudflats &sand
flats not covered by
seawater at lowtide
-LAGOON
Restauracin y gestin del hbitat 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 IBAEZ
http://lifedeltalagoon.eu/lifedeltal
agoon/index.php?lang=en
&n_proj_id=3845
04/03/2011 3,054,703.00 1,490,084.00
does not include
any marine priority
habitats
TaCTICS
TaCTICS - Tackling Climate Change-
Related Threats to an Important Coastal
SPA in Eastern England
LIFE-NAT LIFE07
NAT/UK/000938
01/01/2009 31/12/2012
nick.folkard@rspb.org.uk
Nick Folkard
http://www.rspb.org.uk/reserves/
guide/t/titchwellmarsh/coastalch
ange/
&n_proj_id=3321
30/08/2013
managed
realignment no
longer included
MR Mo ToWFO
Managed Realignment Moving Towards
Water Framework Objectives
LIFE-ENV
LIFE06
ENV/UK/000401
01/10/2006 31/12/2009
WinnP.Willerby1.NE@en
vironment-agency.gov.uk
Philip Winn
http://www.environment-
agency.gov.uk/homeandleisure/f
loods/123710.aspx
&n_proj_id=3068
17/05/2011 898,232.00 417,232.00
no marine priority
habitats included
Kokemenjoki-
LIFE
FromAncient to the Present Estuary,
Kokemenjoki Wetland Chain
LIFE-NAT
LIFE06
NAT/FIN/000129
01/08/2006 31/07/2011
Arto.Ahokumpu@metsa.f
i; tapio.aalto@ely-
keskus.fi
Arto AHOKUMPU;
Tapio AALTO
http://www.ymparisto.fi/default.a
sp?node=21245&lan=en
&n_proj_id=3151
16/03/2011 3,408,558.00 1,704,279.00
no marine priority
habitats included
Marais de
Rochefort
Preservation and restoration of the
Rochefort marshes biological functions
LIFE-NAT
LIFE06
NAT/F/000147
01/10/2006 31/12/2010 thierry.micol@lpo.fr Thierry MICOL
http://www.maraisderochefort.lp
o.fr
&n_proj_id=3139
16/03/2011 791,216.00 395,608.00
no priority marine
habitats
BALTCOAST
Rehabilitation of the Baltic coastal lagoon
habitat complex
LIFE-NAT
LIFE05
NAT/D/000152
01/05/2005 31/12/2011
project@life-
baltcoast.eu; kueper@sn-
sh.de
Britta KPER www.life-baltcoast.eu
&n_proj_id=2998
16/02/2011 5,685,005.00 3,403,203.00
no marine priority
habitats
HABI.COAST
Protection of coastal habitats in pSCI Torre
Guaceto
LIFE-NAT
LIFE05
NAT/IT/000050
01/01/2006 31/12/2008
segreteria@riservaditorr
eguaceto.it
Alessandro
CICCOLELLA
http://www.riservaditorreguaceto
.it/intsites/habicoast/
&n_proj_id=2909
16/01/2012 730,000.00 365,000.00
Of Interest? Project Information Website Financial
Comment Project acronym Project title Funding contract code start date end date
e-mail
coordinator
name
coordinator
Website LIFE database website
Data Info
collected
Non-contaminant ship painting - Building of
a large scale pilot plant for non-
contaminating paint-coating of vessels
LIFE-ENV LIFE94 ENV/D/000297 01/10/1994 31/03/1998
http://ec.europa.eu/environment/life/
project/Projects/index.cfm?fuseacti
on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=110
7 20/12/2013 1,323,261.21 249,974.66
OSIS Marine Transport
Oil Spill Identification Systemfor Marine
Transport
LIFE-ENV
LIFE04
ENV/DK/000076
01/11/2004 30/06/2008 pmj@osis.biz
Peter MOELLER-
J ENSEN http://www.osis.biz/ss
2.asp
4 20/12/2013 3,977,750.00 1,193,325.00
Osis off shore
Sensor for identification of oil spills from
offshore installations
LIFE-ENV
LIFE02
ENV/DK/000151
01/01/2002 30/04/2005 pmj@osis.biz
Peter MOELLER-
J ENSEN
http://www.osis.biz
6 20/12/2013 3,359,448.00 867,392.00
ICZM SIMPYC
Environmental integration for ports and
cities
LIFE-ENV LIFE04 ENV/ES/000216 01/08/2004 31/01/2008
ftorres@valenci
aport.com
Federico TORRES
MONFORT
4 20/12/2013 1,720,049.00 830,026.00
TBT CLEAN
Development of an integrated approach for
the removal of tributyltin (TBT) from
waterways and harbours: prevention,
treatment and reuse of TBT contaminated
sediments
LIFE-ENV LIFE02 ENV/B/000341 01/10/2002 01/01/2005
Eddy.Bruyninck
x@haven.Antwe
rpen.be
Eddy BRUYNINCKX
5 20/12/2013 3,222,366.09 1,335,495.00
only example of WWT
directly related to sea
Aquarius
Techniques for the assessment of the
operating conditions and the control of the
efficiency of Sea Outfalls at the service of
coastal WWTP - Waste Water Treatment
Plants using underwater sensors and
acoustic telemetry systems.
LIFE-ENV LIFE99 ENV/IT/000155 01/06/1999 31/05/2001
progcomunitari
@mail.comune.
genova.it Enrico DA MOLO
http://www.gisig.it/Aqu
arius/Index.htm
9 03/01/2014 934,786.99 405,232.74
demo of IPPC
GESTINMER
Systemfor the integral management of the
wastes produced by the mussel cultured in
rafts and longlines
LIFE-ENV
LIFE04 ENV/ES/000239
15/10/2004 15/10/2007 mfernandez@c
etmar.org
Maria Luisa
Fernndez
Caamero http://193.144.36.199/li
8 03/01/2014 669,599.37 334,800.00
Dock waste water
recycling
Constructing a pilot unit to minimize the
organic tin compound and heavy metal
contamination of dock waste water
LIFE-ENV LIFE99 ENV/D/000414 01/10/1999 31/03/2002
N. PLATZ
2 03/01/2014 869,196.20 260,758.86
Electro-TBT-detoxification
New approach to an integrated electro-TBT-
detoxification of dredged material on a pilot-
scale
LIFE-ENV
LIFE99 ENV/D/000413
01/10/1999 30/06/2003
rehberg@tutech. Ludwig REHBERG
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
shellfish and bathing
waters
Brest Water
Restoring of the water quality in the bay of
Brest
LIFE-ENV LIFE92 ENV/F/000023 01/12/1992 31/12/1995
on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=638 05/01/2014
bathing water
An investigation into the survival of
sewage indicating organisms discharged to
the marine environment
LIFE-ENV
LIFE97
ENV/UK/000431
01/04/1997 31/03/1999
Roger WOOD
on=search.dspPage&n_proj_id=897 05/01/2014 334,307.51 159,883.10
Past projects might be used for illustration in Chapter 2 and not inlcuded in assessment
Project Information Website Financial
Comment Project acronym Project title Funding contract code start date end date e-mail coordinator name coordinator Website LIFE database website
Data Info
collected
no marine habitats
classified - coastal
only
LIFE VIMINE
An integrated approach to the sustainable
conservation of intertidal salt marshes in
the lagoon of Venice
LIFE-NAT
LIFE12
NAT/IT/001122
02/09/2013 01/09/2017 lpalmeri@unipd.it Luca Palmeri
&n_proj_id=4555
21/07/2013 2,024,295.00 1,396,763.00
LIFE Stop
CyanoBloom
Innovative technology for cyanobacterial
bloomcontrol
LIFE-ENV
LIFE12
ENV/SI/000783
01/07/2013 31/12/2016 info@arhel.si Marko Gerl
&n_proj_id=4601
21/07/2013 1,300,963.00 648,792.00
? Is this in lakes LIFE Saimaa Seal Safeguarding the Saimaa Ringed Seal LIFE-NAT
LIFE12
NAT/FI/000367
01/08/2013 31/08/2018 mikko.tiira@metsa.fi Mikko Tiira
&n_proj_id=4768
21/07/2013 5,261,612.00 3,946,209.00
? Link to
coastal/marine
Life+-oso-
Drwc-PL
Improvement of fish living conditions in
River Drwca and its tributaries.
LIFE-NAT
LIFE12
NAT/PL/000033
01/09/2013 31/08/2017
magdalena_kupiec@wp.
pl
Krzysztof Wolfram
&n_proj_id=4580
21/07/2013 3,401,394.00 1,700,697.00
? coastal
Niebieski korytarz
Regi
The construction of the blue ecological
corridor along the valley of Riga river and
its tributaries
LIFE-NAT
LIFE11
NAT/PL/000424
01/06/2012 30/09/2017
&n_proj_id=4286
21/07/2013 5,407,999.00 2,703,999.00
? Includes a
coastal/ marine
component
SAVING DANUBE
STURGEONS
Saving Danube Sturgeons - J oint Actions
to Raise Awareness on Overexploitation of
Danube Sturgeons in Romania and
Bulgaria
LIFE-INF
LIFE11
INF/AT/000902
01/07/2012 30/09/2015 jutta.jahrl@wwf.at J utta J ahrl http://danube-sturgeons.org/
&n_proj_id=4340
21/07/2013 770,836.00 384,143.00
early termination -
no results
AGROSAFE
Strengthening the awareness of Polish
farmers to reduce the eutrophication
impact fromagriculture
LIFE-INF
LIFE11
INF/PL/000480
01/09/2012 29/02/2016 rektor@wss.edu.pl Barbara Kowalkowska
http://agrosafe.pl/index.php?pag
e=home
&n_proj_id=4417
21/07/2013 534,483.00 263,504.00
cannot meet
objectives - will be
terminated
LCA4PORTS
European Ports Life Cycle Assessment
(LCA)
LIFE-ENV
LIFE10
ENV/IT/000369
01/11/2011 01/11/2015
life.anzio@libero.it,
life@comune.anzio.roma
.it
Gianluca IEVOLELLA http://www.lca4ports.eu/index.ph
p/en/
&n_proj_id=3934
08/10/2011 1,091,650.00 485,300.00
undergone early
termination - not
evaluated no data
E.N.A. Eco-Design for the Nautical Sector LIFE-ENV
LIFE09
ENV/IT/000125
01/09/2010 15/10/2013 www.progettoena.it
Esoh ELAME www.progettoena.it
&n_proj_id=3716 05/01/2014 3,000,199.00 1,500,099.00
no marine habitats
only
Life Ilhus do Porto
Sant
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
diliamenezes.sra@gov-
madeira.pt
Dilia MENEZES http://www.pnm.pt/
&n_proj_id=3802
16/01/2012 1,150,016.00 571,163.00
no marine habitats
only
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
http://www.natuurenbos.be/nl-
BE/Over-
ons/Projecten/Ztar.aspx
&n_proj_id=3867
16/01/2012 4,135,521.00 2,067,760.00
? 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 MARSH-
SMITH
http://www.wyeuskfoundation.or
g/isac/#
&n_proj_id=3538
23/02/2011 1,626,458.00 813,229.00
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
Pedro GERALDES http://life-corvo.spea.pt/pt/
&n_proj_id=3349 03/01/2014 1057761 507,118.00
?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 Patrizio Scarpellini www.lifeparc.eu/
&n_proj_id=3342
25/02/2011 1,511,286.00 755,500.00
No-only use of
freshwater-minor
link to water cycle
Eco-animation
Eco-Animation: a cutting edge cartoon to
raise awareness on climate change and
sustainable use of natural resources
among European children
LIFE-INF
LIFE07
INF/UK/000950
01/01/2009 31/03/2011 luigi@bs-europa.eu Mr. Luigi Petito
http://www.animate-eu.com/eco
and
http://www.myfriendboo.com/wat
ch.html
&n_proj_id=3313
14/12/2011 541,092.00 258,371.00
Moveable HEPP
Demonstration Plant in the Kinzig River:
Moveable Hydroelectric Power Plant for
Ecological River Improvements and Fish
Migration Reestablishment
LIFE-ENV
LIFE06
ENV/D/000485
01/10/2006 30/06/2011
schmid.georg@e-werk-
mittelbaden.de
Georg SCHMID http://www.moveable-hepp.com/
&n_proj_id=3075
23/03/2011 6,618,501.00 1,695,375.00
? Another
anadromous fish
project
LIFE-Projekt
Maifisch
The re-introduction of allis shad (Alosa
alosa) in the Rhine System
LIFE-NAT
LIFE06
NAT/D/000005
01/01/2007 31/12/2010
heiner.klinger@lanuv.nrw
.de
Heiner KLINGER http://www.alosa-alosa.eu
&n_proj_id=3121
16/01/2012 956,348.00 478,174.00
no marine priority
habitats - project
terminated early
with no results
Verbrakking
Westzaan
Restoration of brackish ecosystems in
Westzaan polder
LIFE-NAT
LIFE06
NAT/NL/000076
01/09/2006 31/08/2010
k.romeijnders@staatsbo
sbeheer.nl
Kees ROMEIJ NDERS
http://www.staatsbosbeheer.nl/A
ctueel/Dossiers/LIFE%20Nature/
LIFE%20Polder%20Westzaan/P
roject%20Verbrakking%20polde
r%20Westzaan.aspx
&n_proj_id=3126
18/03/2011 3,406,241.00 953,747.00
? Probably not -
heathalnd is quite
far removed sea
influence
Cuxhavener
Kstenheiden
Large Herbivores for Maintenance and
Conservation of Coastal Heaths
LIFE-NAT
LIFE05
NAT/D/000051
01/10/2005 30/09/2009
Renate.thole@mu.nieder
sachsen.de
Renate THOLE
http://www.life-
kuestenheiden.niedersachsen.d
e
&n_proj_id=2946
16/01/2012 928,996.00 464,498.00
? Does this have a
marine phase
Houting
Urgent actions for the endangered Houting
"Coregonus oxyrhunchus"
LIFE-NAT
LIFE05
NAT/DK/000153
01/02/2005 31/07/2009 ole@sns.dk Hans Ole HANSEN http://www.snaebel.dk/
&n_proj_id=2947
07/03/2011 13,385,913.00 8,031,548.00
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
Project Information Website Financial
4. Projects which do not have any marine priority habitats as defined in Chapter 2 of the report

[Marine Thematic Report September 2014] Annex 2

Annex 2

Project Assessment Matrix

Year Life Code B
io
d
iv
e
r
s
it
y

is

m
a
in
t
a
in
e
d
N
o
n
-
I
n
d
g
e
n
o
u
s

s
p
e
c
ie
s

d
o

n
o
t

a
d
v
e
r
s
e
ly

a
lt
e
r

t
h
e

e
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m
T
h
e

p
o
p
u
la
t
io
n
s

o
f

c
o
m
m
e
r
c
ia
l
f
is
h

s
p
e
c
ie
s

a
r
e

h
e
a
lt
h
y
E
le
m
e
n
t
s

o
f

t
h
e

f
o
o
d

w
e
b
s

e
n
s
u
e

lo
n
g
-
t
e
r
m

a
b
u
n
d
a
n
c
e

a
n
d

r
e
p
r
e
o
d
u
c
t
io
n
E
u
t
r
o
p
h
ic
a
t
io
n

is

m
in
im
is
e
d
S
e
a

f
lo
o
r

in
t
e
g
r
it
y

e
n
s
u
r
e
s

f
u
n
c
t
io
n
n
g

o
f

t
h
e

e
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m
P
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t

a
lt
e
r
a
t
io
n

o
f

h
y
d
r
o
g
r
a
p
h
ic

c
o
n
d
it
io
n
s

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

a
d
v
e
r
le
y

a
f
f
e
c
t

e
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
io
n

o
f

c
o
n
t
a
m
in
a
n
t
s

h
a
v
e

n
o

e
f
f
e
c
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
in
a
t
a
n
t
s

in

s
e
a
f
o
o
d

a
r
e

w
it
h
in

s
a
f
e

le
v
e
ls
M
a
r
in
e

lit
t
e
r

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

c
a
u
s
e

h
a
r
m
I
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
io
n

o
f

e
n
e
r
g
y

(
in
c
lu
d
in
g

u
n
d
e
r
w
a
t
e
r

n
o
is
e
)

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

a
d
v
s
e
r
s
e
ly

a
f
f
e
c
t

t
h
e

e
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m
comments
O
b
je
c
t
iv
e
s

m
e
t
P
r
o
je
c
t

s
c
o
r
e

o
v
e
r
a
ll
%
a
g
e
P
r
o
je
c
t

s
c
o
r
e

(
r
e
le
v
a
n
c
e

t
o

p
o
lic
y

a
r
e
a
)

o
u
t

o
f

6

(
E
N
V
)

C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
io
n

A
c
h
ie
v
e
d

o
u
t

o
f

3
0

(
N
A
T
)
t
o
t
a
l
c
o
s
t
s
E
U

c
o
n
t
r
ib
u
t
io
n
12
LIFE12 ENV/IT/001054
Integrated coastal area Management Applicatio
implementing GMES, INspire and sEis data policies -
designed to provide detailed information concerning land
based activities in 2 coastal locations suceptible to
flooding and erosion
Project open - due to close 07/16 - activities
progressing according to schedule at an early
stage
1,521,258.00 754,628.00
12
1
Strategies for MarIne Litter and Environmental prevention
of sea pollution in coastal areas - achieved through the
development of governance processes for implementing
an innovative catching mechanism for marine litter in a
pilot area - raising awareness
stage
1,186,944.00 570,958.00
12
LIFE12 NAT/GR/000688
1
Establish a unique protected area on the island of Gyaros and
its adjacent marine area. This effort will be based on the
EcosystemBased Management (EBM) approach, encouraging
the participation and active involvement of local stakeholders
Project open - due to close 06/17 - no results
reported to date
2,237,346.00 1,677,977.00
12
LIFE12 NAT/IT/000937
1
Reduction of se turtle mortality through introduction of low
impact fishing gers including TED and anti - turtle spray
for nets
Project open - due to close 30/09/18 - no
results reported to date
4,228,000.00 3,171,000.00
12
1
Retore and protect 4 key loggerhead nesting sites in
Calibri in Natura 2000 areas
reported to date
2,916,834.00 1,689,461.00
12
LIFE12 NAT/MT/000845
1
Preparing an inventory of Malta's marine benthic habitats
for inclusion in Natura 2000 network
reported to date
2,612,810.00 1,306,405.00
12
LIFE12 BIO/IT/000556
1 1
Techniques to reduce the impacts of ghost fishing gears
and to improve biodiversity in north Adriatic - remediation
of rocky aeas - protocols - strengthening of legislation -
public awareness - cost benefit analysis
reported to date
1,127,020.00 544,763.00
12
LIFE12 ENV/FR/000316
1
Promotion of effective and transferable methods for promoting
sustainable approaches to shore-based sea angling in 11 pilot
areas using ecosystembased approach to marine
management, Includes plans for MPAs
Project open - due to close 09/17 - no data
reported 3,899,625.00 1,949,810.00
12 LIFE12 INF/GR/000985 1
Integrated information campaign for the reduction of
smoking litter on beaches
Project open - due to close 03/16 - no data as
yet 599,918.00 299,709.00
11
LIFE11 ENV/UK/000392
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Stakeholder Driven Integrated Management of the Celtic
Seas Marine Region - aims to address all GES
Project open - due to close 12/16 - progress
according to schedule
3,963,025.00 1,973,546.00
11
LIFE11 ENV/SE/000841
1
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
MSFD
Project open - due to close 08/16 - progress on
schedule
4,577,315.00 2,215,567.00
11
1
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 viewto cleaning freshwater and
providing efficient yields of biomass for biogas.
3,681,067.00 1,634,311.00
11
1
Conservation Status and potential Sites of Community
Interest for Tursiops truncatus and Caretta caretta in
Malta and pSAC based on outcome
Project open - due to close 04/16 - progressing
964,006.00 476,003.00
11
1 1
Removal of marine algae debris frombeaches using new
techniques to reduce landfill and prevent damage to beac
ecosystems
according to schedule 738,918.00 369,458.00
10
1
Main actions concerns onshore activities to conserve bird
but also includes reduction in damage to seagrass beds
(Posidonia) and restructing fishing in protected area
through closed season
according to schedule 1,805,749.00 1,354,312.00
10 LIFE10 ENV/IT/000367 1
Reducing and recyling waste on board cruise liners to
address waste disposal issues
10
information systemcovering all environmental data
including marine to make better informed decision making
and allowprioritisation of actions (and budgets)
Project open - due to close 08/15 (with
prolongation) - progressing well
4,876,006.00 2,351,950.00
10
1
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
negative impact on human health and on ecosystems in
waterside areas
Project due to close 12/13 but prolongation
request still pending - current status not known
- prototype has been developed
1,377,428.00 684,298.00
10
1
Creating an inventory of Marine IBAs for Puffinus
Yelkouan, Calonectris diomedea and Hydrobates
pelagicus in Malta
873,964.00 436,982.00
10
1
improve conservation of elasmobrachs in Italy through
education and introduction of newlow-impact fishing
gears to reduce by-catch fromcommercial and leisure
fishing
Project open - close date 12/14 - progress
1,337,640.00 668,820.00
10
LIFE10 NAT/SI/000141
1
Preparatory inventory and activities for the designation of
marine IBA and SPA site for Phalacrocorax aristotelis
Project open - due to close 02/15 - problems
experienced with telemetry devices -
prolongation anticipated
474,458.00 284,675.00
10
LIFE10 NAT/FR/000200
1 1 1
Capturing a small number of endangered or over-exploited
fish at the postlarval stage - rearing themin laboratories
and releasing juveniles into designated habitats to improve
adult viability
1,947,590.00 964,252.00
10
LIFE10 INF/EE/000108
1
Baltic Info Campaign on Hazardous Substances through
reduced demand for such substances by the public Project open - close date 03/15
1,683,396.00 834,573.00
9
LIFE09 ENV/NL/000426
1 1
Demonstration of the technological, economic and
environmental sustainability of a full-scale tidal energy
Project open - due to close 03/14 - prolongatio
of 38 months pending 7,447,940.00 2,512,695.00
9
1
Mainly deals with coastal lagoons but has element of
restoration of Poseidonia meadows in SAC
Project closed 09/13 - project prolongation of
12 months under consideration?? 1,639,770.00 1,229,828.00
9
LIFE09 ENV/FI/000569
1
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 90 6
3,060,856.00 1,503,638.00
9
1
Prevention of Marine Fouling on Commercial Shipping an
Project open - due to close 02/14 - EC issues
recovery order 12/12 - project willnot meet its
objectives
1,800,673.00 886,211.00
9
1 1
Removal of Poseidonia debris frombeaches using new
techniques to reduce landfill and prevent damage to beac
ecosystems
Project closed 12/13 - final report pending -
project meeting objectives
1,152,917.00 568,455.00
9
1
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 90 5
1,969,614.00 931,192.00
9
LIFE09 ENV/GR/000299
1
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
1,209,689.00 604,844.00
9
1
Monitoring and management of bottlenose dolphin populations
in marine MPA throuigh detection vis underwater hydrophones
results will influence changes to MPA and managemet
methods for vessel activity in the area
Project open - due to close 09/15 - project
delayed in implementation by 12 months but
nowon track - will require prolongation
1,733,377.00 1,110,885.00
9
LIFE09 NAT/LT/000234
1 1
Compiling inventories of marine habitats and species in
offshore waters and designate newNatura 2000 sites
schedule
1,569,699.00 784,849.00
9
LIFE09 INF/PT/000045
1
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
monk seals
Project open - due to close 09/14 - on schedule
but facing some financing issues 607,792.00 285,646.00
9
LIFE09 NAT/ES/000534
1 1
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
anchoring - control of invasive algae species
schedule but some issues require resolution
3,562,125.00 2,474,902.00
9
LIFE09 NAT/LV/000238
1 1
Production of inventories and maps for underwater habitat
types and their flora and fauna outside Natura 2000
network in the Baltic - development of newecosystem-
based monitoring and assessment approaches (using
marine biodiversity indicators)
schedule
5,888,801.00 2,944,400.00
9
LIFE09 NAT/PT/000038
1
Reduction of impacts on target cetacean and seabird
populations through inappropriate fishing techniques
(promotion of newfishing gears to reduce by-catch) - aim
to implement SCI/SPA in Portuguese waters and increase
Natura 2000 network
Project open - due to close in 12/15 - meeting
objectives ths far
2,773,032.00 1,386,516.00
9
1 1 1
campaign to reduce (eliminate ?) damage done by illegal
fishing
Project open due to close 09/14 - appears to b
meeting objectives
1,339,500.00 542,787.00
9
LIFE09 INF/GR/000320
1
To mitigate the imminent danger, caused by human-
related threats, to the long-termtermviability 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
Project closed 30/12/13 - appears to be on
track to meet objectives
1,343,248.00 667,124.00
9
LIFE09 INF/IT/000076
1 1
Changing in the attitudes of fish consumers by increasing
their awareness of the importance of by-catch and
discarded species
Project closed 09/13 - project appears on track
to deliver objectives at least at the regional
level
1,074,026.00 537,013.00
8
LIFE08 ENV/S/000271
1
Demonstrating the technical feasibility of using a wave-
powered device - WEBAP - for the aeration of coastal zones
and open seas suffering oxygen depletion without harming
marine organisms
Objectives were met - techology successfully
demonstrated 77 6
1,178,605.00 562,553.00
8
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 n/a
6,067,876.00 3,003,938.00
8
LIFE08 ENV/E/000119
1
Integral networking of fishing actors to organize a
responsible optimal and sustainable exploitation of marine
resources Objectives achieved 82 6
2,182,906.00 1,063,357.00
8
LIFE08 ENV/CY/000461
1
Impact assessment for the adoption of CO2 emission
trading for maritime transport Project closed 07/2012 but final report not yet dn/a n/a
830,946.00 411,723.00
8
LIFE08 ENV/E/000158
1
Inventorise and develop best practice for recycling o
recreastional vessels - to reduce waste - link to marine
litter tentative Objectives achieved 72 4
925,458.00 358,601.00
8
1
Reduction in pollution exposure pathways by removal and
reduction of dredged sediments containing hazardous
materials and other pollutants Objectives achieved 77 5
1,730,501.00 812,465.00
8
LIFE08 NAT/E/000064
1
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
1,683,195.00 813,498.00
8
LIFE08 NAT/S/000261
1
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 n/a 4,242,013.00 2,112,098.00
7
LIFE07 ENV/E/000814
1
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 77 5
1,447,990.00 595,620.00
7
LIFE07 ENV/EE/000122
1
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 82 6
1,715,632.00 851,816.00
7
LIFE07 ENV/D/000229
1 1
Developed and promoted criteria for organic mariculture -
reduced pollution associated with mariculture practices
and imprpved water quality. All objectives met 87 6
828,144.00 414,072.00
7
Development of a set of transferable guidelines for the
ecosystembased approach to marine management
developed by stakeholders. Specifically designed to
demonstrate howstakeholders can work together and
participate in EU marine policy at a multi-national scale. All objectives met 92 6
2,103,888.00 1,022,753.00
7
LIFE07 ENV/E/000787
1
Reduction of hazardous waste through newtechniques fo
dismantaling and disposal of vessels
Final report due 31/12/13 - project progressing
but not without difficulties n/a n/a
3,393,046.00 1,686,773.00
7
LIFE07 NAT/P/000646
1
Identification of critical areas for bottlenose dolhins in
Madera waters - establishment of marine Natura 2000
sites for their protection
Final Report due 30/09/13 - on target to meet
objectives n/a n/a
795,074.00 397,537.00
7
1
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 93 30
2,357,922.00 1,768,442.00
7
LIFE07 NAT/FIN/000151
1
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 92 28
3,408,950.00 1,704,315.00
7
LIFE07 NAT/E/000732
1 1 1 1
protection and sustainable use of biodiversity in the
Spanish seas through the implementation of the Natura
2000 network. Seeks to establish at least 10 newNatura
sites - inventories and studies all completed.
Open project - closes 2014 - exceeding
objectives n/a n/a
15,405,727.00 7,702,863.00
6
1
Project aimed to halt the delcine of the Yelkouan
shearwater on the Maltese islands - SPA, management
palns and reduced human intererance
Project objectives met - revised targets met -
stakeholder engagement could have been mor
effective 66 24 919,732.00 459,866.00
6
LIFE06 ENV/FIN/000195
1
Following treatment of contaminants like TBT, dredged
materials were to be reused as rawmaterials for infrastructure
works, such as example harbour extensions. Yes 79 5 3,721,425.00 974,228.00
6
LIFE06 ENV/F/000136
1
Assessed levels of microbial pollution loads to sea -
developed tools to reduce loads froma number of sources
- specifically targetted shellfish toxicity and clean beaches
All objectives appear to have been achieved bu
not all expected results achieved hence low
score 54 5
1,569,358.00 783,429.00
6
LIFE06 ENV/D/000465
1
Reducing SOX and NOX and PMx fromships - high
contribution to air pollution but also deposition in marine
environment. Prototypes ships using hydrogen power
porpulsion mechanisms. Acheved all stated objectives 79 6
5,158,348.00 2,384,424.00
6
LIFE06 ENV/B/000362
1 1
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 fromits non-toxicity
and long lifespan plus regular cleaning to reduce NIS marine
organisms Yes 92 5
5,200,611.00 1,525,413.00
6
LIFE06 NAT/P/000192
1 1
Habitat restoration for reefs and submerged sandbanks in
an MPA plus restoration of seagrass beds Zostera
Partially - restoration of seagrass beds prooved
too challenging 64 20
2,364,438.00 1,182,219.00
6
LIFE06 NAT/DK/000159
1 1 1 1
Restoration resulted in 6 tonnes of macroalgae and 3 tonnes of
bottomfauna, 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 78 28
4,808,398.00 2,364,199.00
6
1
Project covered 9 coastal and marine SCIs - restoration
and conservation activities - target marine habitat
Posedonia beds.
Only partially - project encountered difficulties
in implementation 47 10
1,100,000.00 525,000.00
6
1
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 an
underwater trail was established to confine tourist activity.
Yes - management plans approved and
adopted 72 25
1,598,932.00 1,039,306.00
6
LIFE06 TCY/INT/000250
The project contributed considerably to the development of
environmentally friendly tourismin 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 tourismplanning in coastal areas. Yes but no particular GES targetted - arguably 92 6
702,864.00 419,923.00
6
LIFE06 ENV/D/000479
1
Targetted the IPPC in reducing pollution emmissions at
sea with innovative wind propulsion systemfor caro
vessels Yes 95 6 4,115,882.00 1,212,685.00
5
LIFE05 ENV/E/000267
1 1 1
Project reducing waste fromfishing vessels including
reducing by-catch - project had implications for MSFD and
CFP - maintains biodversity and reduces litter
(packaging). Yes 77 6
1,858,552.00 909,248.00
5
1
Tracking systemfor vessels and early warning systemfor
pollution events installed but not functioning after project
ended due to lack of funds
Partially - due to problems with partnership and
lack of common vision 56 5
1,921,600.00 751,425.00
5
1 1
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 70
3,111,316.00 1,555,658.00
5
1
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 74
1,564,735.00 938,841.00
5
1
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
interesting area for future exloration. yes 85 5 1,503,489.00 707,645.00
36 4 8 12 3 4 2 17 2 9 4 146,899,637.00 70,531,736.00
Year Life Code
I
n
p
u
t

c
o
n
t
r
o
l
s

(
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

t
h
a
t

i
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e

t
h
e

a
m
o
u
n
t

o
f

h
u
m
a
n

a
c
t
i
v
i
t
y

t
h
a
t

i
s

p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d

e
.
g
.

M
P
A
)
O
u
t
p
u
t

c
o
n
t
r
o
l
s

(
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

t
h
a
t

i
n
f
l
u
e
n
c
e

t
h
e

d
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

p
e
r
t
u
r
b
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

a
n

e
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t

t
h
a
t

i
s

p
e
r
m
i
t
t
e
d
)
S
p
a
t
i
a
l

a
n
d

t
e
m
p
o
r
a
l

d
i
s
t
r
i
b
u
t
i
o
n

c
o
n
t
r
o
l
s
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

c
o
o
r
d
i
n
a
t
i
o
n

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

t
o

i
m
p
r
o
v
e

t
h
e

t
r
a
c
e
a
b
i
l
i
t
y

o
f

m
a
r
i
n
e

p
o
l
l
u
t
i
o
n
E
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

i
n
c
e
n
t
i
v
e
s

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

i
n

e
c
o
n
o
m
i
c

i
n
t
e
r
e
s
t

o
f

u
s
e
r
s

t
o

a
c
h
i
e
v
e

G
E
S
M
i
t
i
g
a
t
i
o
n

a
n
d

r
e
m
e
d
i
a
t
i
o
n

t
o
o
l
s

(
r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
i
o
n

o
f

d
a
m
a
g
e
d

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
)
C
o
m
m
u
n
i
c
a
t
i
o
n
,

s
t
a
k
e
h
o
l
d
e
r

i
n
v
o
l
v
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

r
a
i
s
i
n
g

p
u
b
l
i
c

a
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
12
1
12
1 1 1
12
1 1
12
1 1 1
12
1 1
12
1 1
12
1 1 1 1
12
1 1
12 LIFE12 INF/GR/000985 1
11
1 1 1
11
1 1 1
11
1 1
11
1
11
1
10
1
10 LIFE10 ENV/IT/000367 1
10
1 1 1
10
1
10
1
10
1 1
10
1
10
1
10
1 1
9
9
1
9
1 1
9
9
1
9
9
1 1
9
1
9
1 1 1
9
1
9
1 1 1 1
9
1 1
9
1 1 1
9
1 1 1
9
1 1
9
1 1 1
8
LIFE08 ENV/S/000271
1
8
1 1
8
LIFE08 ENV/E/000119
1 1 1
8
1
8
LIFE08 ENV/E/000158
8
1 1
8
LIFE08 NAT/E/000064
1
8
LIFE08 NAT/S/000261
1 1 1
7
LIFE07 ENV/E/000814
1
7
1 1
7
LIFE07 ENV/D/000229
1
7
1 1 1 1
7
LIFE07 ENV/E/000787
1 1
7
LIFE07 NAT/P/000646
1 1
7
1
7
1 1 1
7
LIFE07 NAT/E/000732
1 1 1 1 1
6
1 1
6
6
LIFE06 ENV/F/000136
1 1
6
LIFE06 ENV/D/000465
1 1
6
LIFE06 ENV/B/000362
1 1 1
6
LIFE06 NAT/P/000192
1 1 1
6
1 1 1 1
6
1 1
6
1 1 1 1 1
6
1 1
6
LIFE06 ENV/D/000479
5
LIFE05 ENV/E/000267
1 1
5
1 1 1 1
5
1 1 1 1
5
1 1 1 1 1
5
27 24 18 21 6 12 7 30
54 48 35 42 12 24 14 60
Total all projects
Total ENV/INF projects
Total NAT project
Total Nature Projects 46
Total Env and Inf projects 154
108 96 70 84 24 48 28 120
54 48 35 42 12 24 14 60
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year Life Code D
e
v
e
lo
p
m
e
n
t o
f
n
e
w
/in
n
o
v
a
tiv
e

te
c
h
n
o
lo
g
ie
s
D
e
m
o
n
s
tr
a
tio
n
o
f g
o
o
d

p
r
a
c
tic
e
o
r
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
m
t
te
c
h
n
iq
u
e
s
D
a
t c
o
lle
c
tio
n
, d
a
ta

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
M
o
n
ito
r
in
g
In
fo
r
m
a
tio
n
s
y
s
te
m
s
P
o
lic
y
S
ta
k
e
h
o
ld
e
r
e
n
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
a
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s

Year Life Code D
e
v
e
lo
p
m
e
n
t o
f
n
e
w
/in
n
o
v
a
tiv
e

te
c
h
n
o
lo
g
ie
s
D
e
m
o
n
s
tr
a
tio
n
o
f g
o
o
d

p
r
a
c
tic
e
o
r
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
m
t
te
c
h
n
iq
u
e
s
D
a
t c
o
lle
c
tio
n
, d
a
ta

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
M
o
n
ito
r
in
g
In
fo
r
m
a
tio
n
s
y
s
te
m
s
P
o
lic
y
S
ta
k
e
h
o
ld
e
r
e
n
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
a
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s

Year Life Code D
e
v
e
lo
p
m
e
n
t o
f
n
e
w
/in
n
o
v
a
tiv
e

te
c
h
n
o
lo
g
ie
s
D
e
m
o
n
s
tr
a
tio
n
o
f g
o
o
d

p
r
a
c
tic
e
o
r
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
m
t
te
c
h
n
iq
u
e
s
D
a
t c
o
lle
c
tio
n
, d
a
ta

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
M
o
n
ito
r
in
g
In
fo
r
m
a
tio
n
s
y
s
te
m
s
P
o
lic
y
S
ta
k
e
h
o
ld
e
r
e
n
n
g
a
g
e
m
e
n
t
a
n
d
a
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s

12
1 1 12
1 1 12
1 1
12
1 1 1 12
1 1 1 12
1 1 1
12
1 1 12
1 1 12
1
12
1 1 1 12 LIFE12 INF/GR/000985 1 1 12
1
12
1 11
1 1 1 12
1 1
12
1 11
1 1 1 11
1
12
1 1 11
1 10
1
12
1 1 11
1 10
1
12 LIFE12 INF/GR/000985 1 1 10 LIFE10 ENV/IT/000367 1 1 10
1 1
11
1 1 1 10
1 1 1 1 10
1
11
1 1 1 10
1 10
1
11
1 10
1 1 9
1
11
1 9
1 9
1 1
11
1 9
1 1 9
1
10
1 9
1 9
1 1
10 LIFE10 ENV/IT/000367 1 1 9
1 9
1 1
10
1 1 1 1 9
1 9
1
10
1 9
1 9
1 1 1
10
1 9
1 9
1 1
10
1 1 8
LIFE08 ENV/S/000271
1 9
1
10
1 8
1 1 8
LIFE08 NAT/E/000064
1
10
1 8
LIFE08 ENV/E/000119
1 1 8
LIFE08 NAT/S/000261
1 1 1
10
1 1 8
1 7
LIFE07 NAT/P/000646
1 1
9
1 8
LIFE08 ENV/E/000158
1 1 7
1
9
1 8
1 7
1 1
9
1 1 7
LIFE07 ENV/E/000814
1 7
LIFE07 NAT/E/000732
1 1
9
1 7
1 1 6
1
9
1 7
LIFE07 ENV/D/000229
1 1 6
LIFE06 NAT/P/000192
1 1
9
1 7
1 1 1 6
1 1
9
1 7
LIFE07 ENV/E/000787
1 6
1
9
1 1 6
1 6
1 1
9
1 6
LIFE06 ENV/F/000136
1 1 5
1 1
9
1 1 6
LIFE06 ENV/D/000465
1 5
1 1 1
9
1 1 6
LIFE06 ENV/B/000362
1 9 16 11 2 0 0 17
9
1 6
1 1
9
1 1 1 6
LIFE06 ENV/D/000479
1
9
1 1 5
LIFE05 ENV/E/000267
1 1
9
1 5
1 1
9
1 5
1 1
8
LIFE08 ENV/S/000271
1 18 13 8 4 6 4 13
8
1 1
8
LIFE08 ENV/E/000119
1 1
8
1
8
LIFE08 ENV/E/000158
1 1
8
1
8
LIFE08 NAT/E/000064
1
8
LIFE08 NAT/S/000261
1 1 1
7
LIFE07 ENV/E/000814
1
7
1 1
7
LIFE07 ENV/D/000229
1 1
7
1 1 1
7
LIFE07 ENV/E/000787
1
7
LIFE07 NAT/P/000646
1 1
7
1
7
1 1
7
LIFE07 NAT/E/000732
1 1
6
1
6
1
6
LIFE06 ENV/F/000136
1 1
6
LIFE06 ENV/D/000465
1
6
LIFE06 ENV/B/000362
1
6
LIFE06 NAT/P/000192
1 1
6
1 1
6
1
6
1 1
6
1 1
6
LIFE06 ENV/D/000479
1
5
LIFE05 ENV/E/000267
1 1
5
1 1
5
1 1
5
1 1 1
5
1 1
27 29 19 6 6 4 30
54 58 37 12 11 8 60
54 58 37 12 11 8 60
0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year Life Code
B
io
d
iv
e
r
s
it
y

is

m
a
in
t
a
in
e
d
N
o
n
-
I
n
d
g
e
n
o
u
s

s
p
e
c
ie
s

d
o

n
o
t

a
d
v
e
r
s
e
ly

a
lt
e
r

t
h
e

e
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m
T
h
e

p
o
p
u
la
t
io
n
s

o
f

c
o
m
m
e
r
c
ia
l
f
is
h

s
p
e
c
ie
s

a
r
e

h
e
a
lt
h
y
E
le
m
e
n
t
s

o
f

t
h
e

f
o
o
d

w
e
b
s

e
n
s
u
e

lo
n
g
-
t
e
r
m

a
b
u
n
d
a
n
c
e

a
n
d

r
e
p
r
e
o
d
u
c
t
io
n
E
u
t
r
o
p
h
ic
a
t
io
n

is

m
in
im
is
e
d
S
e
a

f
lo
o
r

in
t
e
g
r
it
y

e
n
s
u
r
e
s

f
u
n
c
t
io
n
n
g

o
f

t
h
e

e
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m
P
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t

a
lt
e
r
a
t
io
n

o
f

h
y
d
r
o
g
r
a
p
h
ic

c
o
n
d
it
io
n
s

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

a
d
v
e
r
le
y

a
f
f
e
c
t

e
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
io
n

o
f

c
o
n
t
a
m
in
a
n
t
s

h
a
v
e

n
o

e
f
f
e
c
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
in
a
t
a
n
t
s

in

s
e
a
f
o
o
d

a
r
e

w
it
h
in

s
a
f
e

le
v
e
ls
M
a
r
in
e

lit
t
e
r

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

c
a
u
s
e

h
a
r
m
I
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
io
n

o
f

e
n
e
r
g
y

(
in
c
lu
d
in
g

u
n
d
e
r
w
a
t
e
r

n
o
is
e
)

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

a
d
v
s
e
r
s
e
ly
a
f
f
e
c
t

t
h
e

e
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m
comments
O
b
je
c
t
iv
e
s

m
e
t
P
r
o
je
c
t

s
c
o
r
e

o
v
e
r
a
ll
%
a
g
e
P
r
o
je
c
t

s
c
o
r
e

(
r
e
le
v
a
n
c
e

t
o
p
o
lic
y

a
r
e
a
)

o
u
t

o
f

6

(
E
N
V
)

C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
io
n

A
c
h
ie
v
e
d

o
u
t
o
f

3
0

(
N
A
T
)
t
o
t
a
l
c
o
s
t
s
E
U

c
o
n
t
r
ib
u
t
io
n
12
1
Establish a unique protected area on the island of Gyaros and
its adjacent marine area. This effort will be based on the
EcosystemBased Management (EBM) approach, encouraging
the participation and active involvement of local stakeholders
reported to date
2,237,346.00 1,677,977.00
12
1
Reduction of se turtle mortality through introduction of low
impact fishing gers including TED and anti - turtle spray
for nets
Project open - due to close 30/09/18 - no
results reported to date
4,228,000.00 3,171,000.00
12
1
Retore and protect 4 key loggerhead nesting sites in
Calibri in Natura 2000 areas
reported to date
2,916,834.00 1,689,461.00
12
1
Preparing an inventory of Malta's marine benthic habitats
for inclusion in Natura 2000 network
reported to date
2,612,810.00 1,306,405.00
12
1 1
Techniques to reduce the impacts of ghost fishing gears
and to improve biodiversity in north Adriatic - remediation
of rocky aeas - protocols - strengthening of legislation -
public awareness - cost benefit analysis
reported to date
1,127,020.00 544,763.00
11
1
Conservation Status and potential Sites of Community
Interest for Tursiops truncatus and Caretta caretta in
Malta and pSAC based on outcome
Project open - due to close 04/16 -
progressing according to schedule
964,006.00 476,003.00
10
1
Main actions concerns onshore activities to conserve
birds but also includes reduction in damage to seagrass
beds (Posidonia) and restructing fishing in protected area
through closed season
10
1
Creating an inventory of Marine IBAs for Puffinus
Yelkouan, Calonectris diomedea and Hydrobates
pelagicus in Malta
873,964.00 436,982.00
10
1
improve conservation of elasmobrachs in Italy through
education and introduction of newlow-impact fishing
gears to reduce by-catch fromcommercial and leisure
fishing
Project open - close date 12/14 - progress
1,337,640.00 668,820.00
10
1
Preparatory inventory and activities for the designation of
marine IBA and SPA site for Phalacrocorax aristotelis
Project open - due to close 02/15 - problems
experienced with telemetry devices -
prolongation anticipated
474,458.00 284,675.00
10
1 1 1
Capturing a small number of endangered or over-exploite
fish at the postlarval stage - rearing themin laboratories
and releasing juveniles into designated habitats to
improve adult viability
1,947,590.00 964,252.00
9
1
Mainly deals with coastal lagoons but has element of
restoration of Poseidonia meadows in SAC
Project closed 09/13 - project prolongation of
12 months under consideration?? 1,639,770.00 1,229,828.00
9
1
Monitoring and management of bottlenose dolphin populations
in marine MPA throuigh detection vis underwater hydrophones
- results will influence changes to MPA and managemet
methods for vessel activity in the area
Project open - due to close 09/15 - project
delayed in implementation by 12 months but
nowon track - will require prolongation
1,733,377.00 1,110,885.00
9
1 1
Compiling inventories of marine habitats and species in
offshore waters and designate newNatura 2000 sites
on schedule
1,569,699.00 784,849.00
9
1
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 607,792.00 285,646.00
9
1 1
campaign to reduce (eliminate ?) damage done by fishing and
anchoring - control of invasive algae species
on schedule but some issues require
resolution
3,562,125.00 2,474,902.00
9
1 1
Production of inventories and maps for underwater habita
types and their flora and fauna outside Natura 2000
network in the Baltic - development of newecosystem-
based monitoring and assessment approaches (using
marine biodiversity indicators)
on schedule
5,888,801.00 2,944,400.00
9
1
Reduction of impacts on target cetacean and seabird
populations through inappropriate fishing techniques
(promotion of newfishing gears to reduce by-catch) - aim
to implement SCI/SPA in Portuguese waters and increase
Natura 2000 network
Project open - due to close in 12/15 - meeting
objectives ths far
2,773,032.00 1,386,516.00
9
1 1 1
campaign to reduce (eliminate ?) damage done by illegal
fishing
Project open due to close 09/14 - appears to
be meeting objectives
1,339,500.00 542,787.00
9
1
To mitigate the imminent danger, caused by human-
related threats, to the long-termtermviability 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
Project closed 30/12/13 - appears to be on
track to meet objectives
1,343,248.00 667,124.00
8
LIFE08 NAT/E/000064
1
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
1,683,195.00 813,498.00
8
LIFE08 NAT/S/000261
1
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 n/a 4,242,013.00 2,112,098.00
7
LIFE07 NAT/P/000646
1
Identification of critical areas for bottlenose dolhins in
Madera waters - establishment of marine Natura 2000
sites for their protection
Final Report due 30/09/13 - on target to meet
objectives n/a n/a
795,074.00 397,537.00
7
1
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 93 30
2,357,922.00 1,768,442.00
7
1
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 92 28
3,408,950.00 1,704,315.00
7
LIFE07 NAT/E/000732
1 1 1 1
protection and sustainable use of biodiversity in the
Spanish seas through the implementation of the Natura
2000 network. Seks to establish at least 10 newNatura
sites - inventories and studies all completed.
Open project - closes 2014 - exceeding
objectives n/a n/a
15,405,727.00 7,702,863.00
6
1
Project aimed to halt the delcine of the Yelkouan
shearwater on the Maltese islands - SPA, management
palns and reduced human intererance
Project objectives met - revised targets met -
stakeholder engagement could have been
more effective 66 24 919,732.00 459,866.00
6
LIFE06 NAT/P/000192
1 1
Habitat restoration for reefs and submerged sandbanks in
an MPA plus restoration of seagrass beds Zostera
Partially - restoration of seagrass beds
prooved too challenging 64 20
2,364,438.00 1,182,219.00
6
1 1 1 1
Restoration resulted in 6 tonnes of macroalgae and 3 tonnes
of bottomfauna, 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 78 28
4,808,398.00 2,364,199.00
6
1
Project covered 9 coastal and marine SCIs - restoration
and conservation activities - target marine habitat
Posedonia beds.
Only partially - project encountered difficulties
in implementation 47 10
1,100,000.00 525,000.00
6
1
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
an underwater trail was established to confine tourist activity.
Yes - management plans approved and
adopted 72 25
1,598,932.00 1,039,306.00
5
1 1
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 70
3,111,316.00 1,555,658.00
5
1
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 74
1,564,735.00 938,841.00
32 2 5 7 0 2 0 1 0 0 0 68,451,428.00 36,345,508.00
Year Life Code
B
io
d
iv
e
r
s
it
y

is

m
a
in
t
a
in
e
d
N
o
n
-
I
n
d
g
e
n
o
u
s

s
p
e
c
ie
s

d
o

n
o
t

a
d
v
e
r
s
e
ly

a
lt
e
r

t
h
e

e
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m
T
h
e

p
o
p
u
la
t
io
n
s

o
f

c
o
m
m
e
r
c
ia
l
f
is
h

s
p
e
c
ie
s

a
r
e

h
e
a
lt
h
y
E
le
m
e
n
t
s

o
f

t
h
e

f
o
o
d

w
e
b
s

e
n
s
u
e

lo
n
g
-
t
e
r
m

a
b
u
n
d
a
n
c
e

a
n
d

r
e
p
r
e
o
d
u
c
t
io
n
E
u
t
r
o
p
h
ic
a
t
io
n

is

m
in
im
is
e
d
S
e
a

f
lo
o
r

in
t
e
g
r
it
y

e
n
s
u
r
e
s

f
u
n
c
t
io
n
n
g

o
f

t
h
e

e
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m
P
e
r
m
a
n
e
n
t

a
lt
e
r
a
t
io
n

o
f

h
y
d
r
o
g
r
a
p
h
ic

c
o
n
d
it
io
n
s

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

a
d
v
e
r
le
y

a
f
f
e
c
t

e
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m
s
C
o
n
c
e
n
t
r
a
t
io
n

o
f

c
o
n
t
a
m
in
a
n
t
s

h
a
v
e

n
o

e
f
f
e
c
t
C
o
n
t
a
m
in
a
t
a
n
t
s

in

s
e
a
f
o
o
d

a
r
e

w
it
h
in

s
a
f
e

le
v
e
ls
M
a
r
in
e

lit
t
e
r

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

c
a
u
s
e

h
a
r
m
I
n
t
r
o
d
u
c
t
io
n

o
f

e
n
e
r
g
y

(
in
c
lu
d
in
g

u
n
d
e
r
w
a
t
e
r

n
o
is
e
)

d
o
e
s

n
o
t

a
d
v
s
e
r
s
e
ly
a
f
f
e
c
t

t
h
e

e
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m
comments
O
b
je
c
t
iv
e
s

m
e
t
P
r
o
je
c
t

s
c
o
r
e

o
v
e
r
a
ll
%
a
g
e
P
r
o
je
c
t

s
c
o
r
e

(
r
e
le
v
a
n
c
e

t
o
p
o
lic
y

a
r
e
a
)

o
u
t

o
f

6

(
E
N
V
)

C
o
n
s
e
r
v
a
t
io
n

A
c
h
ie
v
e
d

o
u
t
o
f

3
0

(
N
A
T
)
t
o
t
a
l
c
o
s
t
s
E
U

c
o
n
t
r
ib
u
t
io
n
12
Integrated coastal area Management Application
implementing GMES, INspire and sEis data policies -
designed to provide detailed information concerning land
based activities in 2 coastal locations suceptible to
flooding and erosion
stage
1,521,258.00 754,628.00
12
1
Strategies for MarIne Litter and Environmental prevention
of sea pollution in coastal areas - achieved through the
development of governance processes for implementing
an innovative catching mechanism for marine litter in a
pilot area - raising awareness
stage
1,186,944.00 570,958.00
12
1
Promotion of effective and transferable methods for promoting
sustainable approaches to shore-based sea angling in 11 pilot
areas using ecosystembased approach to marine
management, Includes plans for MPAs
Project open - due to close 09/17 - no data
reported 3,899,625.00 1,949,810.00
12 LIFE12 INF/GR/000985 1
Integrated information campaign for the reduction of
smoking litter on beaches
Project open - due to close 03/16 - no data as
yet 599,918.00 299,709.00
11
1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1
Stakeholder Driven Integrated Management of the Celtic
Seas Marine Region - aims to address all GES
3,963,025.00 1,973,546.00
11
1
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
MSFD
on schedule
4,577,315.00 2,215,567.00
11
1
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 viewto cleaning freshwater and
providing efficient yields of biomass for biogas.
3,681,067.00 1,634,311.00
11
1 1
Removal of marine algae debris frombeaches using new
techniques to reduce landfill and prevent damage to
beach ecosystems
according to schedule 738,918.00 369,458.00
10 LIFE10 ENV/IT/000367 1
Reducing and recyling waste on board cruise liners to
address waste disposal issues
10
information systemcovering all environmental data
including marine to make better informed decision making
and allowprioritisation of actions (and budgets)
Project open - due to close 08/15 (with
prolongation) - progressing well
4,876,006.00 2,351,950.00
10
1
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
negative impact on human health and on ecosystems in
waterside areas
Project due to close 12/13 but prolongation
request still pending - current status not known
- prototype has been developed
1,377,428.00 684,298.00
10
1
Baltic Info Campaign on Hazardous Substances through
reduced demand for such substances by the public Project open - close date 03/15
1,683,396.00 834,573.00
9
1 1
Demonstration of the technological, economic and
environmental sustainability of a full-scale tidal energy
prolongation of 38 months pending 7,447,940.00 2,512,695.00
9
1
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 90 6
3,060,856.00 1,503,638.00
9
1
Prevention of Marine Fouling on Commercial Shipping an
Project open - due to close 02/14 - EC issues
recovery order 12/12 - project willnot meet its
objectives
1,800,673.00 886,211.00
9
1 1
Removal of Poseidonia debris frombeaches using new
techniques to reduce landfill and prevent damage to
beach ecosystems
1,152,917.00 568,455.00
9
1
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 90 5
1,969,614.00 931,192.00
9
1
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
1,209,689.00 604,844.00
9
1 1
Changing in the attitudes of fish consumers by increasing
their awareness of the importance of by-catch and
discarded species
Project closed 09/13 - project appears on
track to deliver objectives at least at the
regional level
1,074,026.00 537,013.00
8
LIFE08 ENV/S/000271
1
Demonstrating the technical feasibility of using a wave-
powered device - WEBAP - for the aeration of coastal zones
and open seas suffering oxygen depletion without harming
marine organisms
Objectives were met - techology successfully
demonstrated 77 6
1,178,605.00 562,553.00
8
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 n/a
6,067,876.00 3,003,938.00
8
LIFE08 ENV/E/000119
1
Integral networking of fishing actors to organize a
responsible optimal and sustainable exploitation of marine
resources Objectives achieved 82 6
2,182,906.00 1,063,357.00
8
1
Impact assessment for the adoption of CO2 emission
trading for maritime transport Project closed 07/2012 but final report not yet dn/a n/a
830,946.00 411,723.00
8
LIFE08 ENV/E/000158
1
Inventorise and develop best practice for recycling o
recreastional vessels - to reduce waste - link to marine
litter tentative Objectives achieved 72 4
925,458.00 358,601.00
8
1
Reduction in pollution exposure pathways by removal and
reduction of dredged sediments containing hazardous
materials and other pollutants Objectives achieved 77 5
1,730,501.00 812,465.00
7
LIFE07 ENV/E/000814
1
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 77 5
1,447,990.00 595,620.00
7
1
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 82 6
1,715,632.00 851,816.00
7
LIFE07 ENV/D/000229
1 1
Developed and promoted criteria for organic mariculture -
reduced pollution associated with mariculture practices
and imprpved water quality. All objectives met 87 6
828,144.00 414,072.00
7
Development of a set of transferable guidelines for the
ecosystembased approach to marine management
developed by stakeholders. Specifically designed to
demonstrate howstakeholders can work together and
participate in EU marine policy at a multi-national scale. All objectives met 92 6
2,103,888.00 1,022,753.00
7
LIFE07 ENV/E/000787
1
Reduction of hazardous waste through newtechniques
for dismantaling and disposal of vessels
Final report due 31/12/13 - project progressing
but not without difficulties n/a n/a
3,393,046.00 1,686,773.00
6
1
Following treatment of contaminants like TBT, dredged
materials were to be reused as rawmaterials for infrastructure
works, such as example harbour extensions. Yes 79 5 3,721,425.00 974,228.00
6
LIFE06 ENV/F/000136
1
Assessed levels of microbial pollution loads to sea -
developed tools to reduce loads froma number of source
- specifically targetted shellfish toxicity and clean beaches
All objectives appear to have been achieved
but not all expected results achieved hence low
score 54 5
1,569,358.00 783,429.00
6
LIFE06 ENV/D/000465
1
Reducing SOX and NOX and PMx fromships - high
contribution to air pollution but also deposition in marine
environment. Prototypes ships using hydrogen power
porpulsion mechanisms. Acheved all stated objectives 79 6
5,158,348.00 2,384,424.00
6
LIFE06 ENV/B/000362
1 1
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 fromits non-toxicity
and long lifespan plus regular cleaning to reduce NIS marine
organisms Yes 92 5
5,200,611.00 1,525,413.00
6
The project contributed considerably to the development of
environmentally friendly tourismin 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 tourismplanning in coastal areas. Yes but no particular GES targetted - arguably 92 6
702,864.00 419,923.00
6
LIFE06 ENV/D/000479
1
Targetted the IPPC in reducing pollution emmissions at
sea with innovative wind propulsion systemfor caro
vessels Yes 95 6 4,115,882.00 1,212,685.00
5
LIFE05 ENV/E/000267
1 1 1
Project reducing waste fromfishing vessels including
reducing by-catch - project had implications for MSFD
and CFP - maintains biodversity and reduces litter
(packaging). Yes 77 6
1,858,552.00 909,248.00
5
1
Tracking systemfor vessels and early warning systemfor
pollution events installed but not functioning after project
ended due to lack of funds
Partially - due to problems with partnership
and lack of common vision 56 5
1,921,600.00 751,425.00
5
1
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 nois yes 85 5 1,503,489.00 707,645.00
4 2 3 5 3 2 2 16 2 9 4 78,448,209.00 34,186,228.00
Year Life Code
I
n
p
u
t

c
o
n
t
r
o
ls

(
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

t
h
a
t

in
f
lu
e
n
c
e

t
h
e

a
m
o
u
n
t

o
f

h
u
m
a
n

a
c
t
iv
it
y

t
h
a
t

is

p
e
r
m
it
t
e
d

e
.
g
.

M
P
A
)
O
u
t
p
u
t

c
o
n
t
r
o
ls

(
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

t
h
a
t

in
f
lu
e
n
c
e

t
h
e

d
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

p
e
r
t
u
r
b
a
t
io
n

o
f

a
n

e
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t

t
h
a
t
is

p
e
r
m
it
t
e
d
)
S
p
a
t
ia
l
a
n
d

t
e
m
p
o
r
a
l
d
is
t
r
ib
u
t
io
n

c
o
n
t
r
o
ls
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

c
o
o
r
d
in
a
t
io
n

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

t
o

im
p
r
o
v
e

t
h
e

t
r
a
c
e
a
b
ilit
y

o
f

m
a
r
in
e

p
o
llu
t
io
n
E
c
o
n
o
m
ic

in
c
e
n
t
iv
e
s

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

in

e
c
o
n
o
m
ic

in
t
e
r
e
s
t

o
f

u
s
e
r
s

t
o

a
c
h
ie
v
e

G
E
S
M
it
ig
a
t
io
n

a
n
d

r
e
m
e
d
ia
t
io
n

t
o
o
ls

(
r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
io
n

o
f

d
a
m
a
g
e
d

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
)
C
o
m
m
u
n
ic
a
t
io
n
,

s
t
a
k
e
h
o
ld
e
r

in
v
o
lv
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

r
a
is
in
g

p
u
b
lic

a
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
12
1 1
12
1 1 1
12
1 1
12
1 1
12
1 1 1 1
11
1
10
1
10
1
10
1 1
10
1
10
1
9
1
9
1
9
1 1 1
9
1
9
1 1 1 1
9
1 1
9
1 1 1
9
1 1 1
9
1 1
8
LIFE08 NAT/E/000064
1
8
LIFE08 NAT/S/000261
1 1 1
7
LIFE07 NAT/P/000646
1 1
7
1
7
1 1 1
7
LIFE07 NAT/E/000732
1 1 1 1 1
6
1 1
6
LIFE06 NAT/P/000192
1 1 1
6
1 1 1 1
6
1 1
6
1 1 1 1 1
5
1 1 1 1
5
1 1 1 1 1
26 8 9 9 1 4 6 17
52 16 18 18 2 8 12 34
Total all projects
Total NAT project
104 32 36 36 4 16 24 68
52 16 18 18 2 8 12 34
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Year Life Code I
n
p
u
t

c
o
n
t
r
o
ls

(
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

t
h
a
t

in
f
lu
e
n
c
e

t
h
e

a
m
o
u
n
t

o
f

h
u
m
a
n

a
c
t
iv
it
y

t
h
a
t

is

p
e
r
m
it
t
e
d

e
.
g
.

M
P
A
)
O
u
t
p
u
t

c
o
n
t
r
o
ls

(
m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

t
h
a
t

in
f
lu
e
n
c
e

t
h
e

d
e
g
r
e
e

o
f

p
e
r
t
u
r
b
a
t
io
n

o
f

a
n

e
c
o
s
y
s
t
e
m

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t

t
h
a
t

is

p
e
r
m
it
t
e
d
)
S
p
a
t
ia
l
a
n
d

t
e
m
p
o
r
a
l
d
is
t
r
ib
u
t
io
n

c
o
n
t
r
o
ls
M
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

c
o
o
r
d
in
a
t
io
n

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s
M
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

t
o

im
p
r
o
v
e

t
h
e

t
r
a
c
e
a
b
ilit
y

o
f

m
a
r
in
e

p
o
llu
t
io
n
E
c
o
n
o
m
ic

in
c
e
n
t
iv
e
s

m
a
n
a
g
e
m
e
n
t

m
e
a
s
u
r
e
s

in

e
c
o
n
o
m
ic

in
t
e
r
e
s
t

o
f

u
s
e
r
s

t
o

a
c
h
ie
v
e

G
E
S
M
it
ig
a
t
io
n

a
n
d

r
e
m
e
d
ia
t
io
n
t
o
o
ls

(
r
e
s
t
o
r
a
t
io
n

o
f

d
a
m
a
g
e
d

c
o
m
p
o
n
e
n
t
s
)
C
o
m
m
u
n
ic
a
t
io
n
,

s
t
a
k
e
h
o
ld
e
r

in
v
o
lv
e
m
e
n
t

a
n
d

r
a
is
in
g

p
u
b
lic

a
w
a
r
e
n
e
s
s
12
1
12 LIFE12 ENV/IT/000289 1 1 1
12 LIFE12 ENV/FR/000316 1 1
12 LIFE12 INF/GR/000985 1
11 LIFE11 ENV/UK/000392 1 1 1
11
1 1 1
11
1 1
11
1
10 LIFE10 ENV/IT/000367 1
10
1 1 1
10
1
10
1 1
9
9
1 1
9
9
1
9
9
1 1
9
1 1 1
8
LIFE08 ENV/S/000271
1
8
1 1
8
LIFE08 ENV/E/000119
1 1 1
8
1
8
LIFE08 ENV/E/000158
8
1 1
7
LIFE07 ENV/E/000814
1
7
1 1
7
LIFE07 ENV/D/000229
1
7
1 1 1 1
7
LIFE07 ENV/E/000787
1 1
6
6
LIFE06 ENV/F/000136
1 1
6
LIFE06 ENV/D/000465
1 1
6
LIFE06 ENV/B/000362
1 1 1
6
1 1
6
LIFE06 ENV/D/000479
5
LIFE05 ENV/E/000267
1 1
5
1 1 1 1
5
1 16 9 12 5 8 1 13
2 32 17 24 10 16 2 26
Total all projects
Total NAT project
4 64 34 48 20 32 4 52
2 32 17 24 10 16 2 26
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

[Marine Thematic Report September 2014] Annex

Annex 3

SWOT Analyses

SWOT matrix LIFE05NAT/LV/000100 Baltic MPAs-Marine Protected Areas in the Eastern Baltic Sea maintaining biodiversity closed project
Strengths Weaknesses
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 by-
catch
Website Baltic Sea Portal maintained: now includes LIFE+ MARMONI
project
Excellent media and communication activity and dissemination of results
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
Opportunities Threats
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
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
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
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
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
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
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

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)
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

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
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
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 Ls
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

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 Ls 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
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
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.
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.

The treatment system is simple and has a low-tech character - economic
constraints shouldnt 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.
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
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

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
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
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
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.
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 real-
life cleaning been performed before the end of the project (only in-house
tests). Further tests would have to take place in real life conditions.
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.
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
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

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
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
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
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 laymans 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
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
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
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
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)
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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), Corys 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
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
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.
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
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 human-
monk seal conflict.
The membership of the beneficiarys 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.
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 projects 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.
Fishermens 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.
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
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 communitys 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 projects results.

SWOT matrix LIFE 07 ENV UK 943 PISCES avoiding conflict and conflict resolution
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).
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.

Although stakeholder engagement is resource intensive, it can lead to long-
term 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
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
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)

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
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
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 surveillance.
Natural catastrophes/increasing of extreme events (floods, warmer
seawater, etc.)

SWOT matrix LIFE 09 ENV IT 158 SEDI.PORT.SIL contaminated sediments closed project
Project involved the port authority Autorit Portuale di Ravenna as a co-
financier.
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.
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 didnt 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.
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).

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
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.
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.
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.

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
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
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

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
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
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
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
NGO campaign shown to be able to attract funding from public and private
sources including donations through voluntary tourist contributions, e.g.
WWFs 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
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
Construction, refinement and demonstration of 160 m 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.

Some comparably minor problems that restricted reliability and therefore
flight time were not resolved before the end of the project.
Larger kites (320 m) that have the potential to achieve increased emissions
reductions are currently in the R&D stage.
Use of the 160 m 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 m 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, 260-
380.000 tons of SOx and 30-50.000 tons of soot particles).
The estimated selling price of a 320 m 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.

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
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.
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.

Partner Germanischer Lloyd developed the worlds 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.
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.

The Future of Europe's Seas - LIFE Marine Report

Enviado por

Dados do documento

Título original

Direitos autorais

Formatos disponíveis

Compartilhar este documento

Compartilhar ou incorporar documento

Opções de compartilhamento

Você considera este documento útil?

Este conteúdo é inapropriado?

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

The Future of Europe's Seas - LIFE Marine Report

Enviado por

Direitos autorais:

Formatos disponíveis

ASTRALE gamma-CONTRACT

The future of Europes seas contribution of the LIFE programme

Você também pode gostar