Wetland biodiversity protection in Kamanos Strict Nature Reserve, Lithuania https://demo-water.devel5cph.eea.europa.eu/freshwater/admin/resources/nwrm-imported/nwrm-case-studies/wetland-biodiversity-protection-kamanos-strict-nature-reserve-lithuania https://demo-water.devel5cph.eea.europa.eu/freshwater/admin/++resource++plone-logo.svg Wetland biodiversity protection in Kamanos Strict Nature Reserve, Lithuania Title Wetland biodiversity protection in Kamanos Strict Nature Reserve, Lithuania Description Preview image No image Preview image caption Creators fullname Laszlo Cseh Contributors fullname NWRM Site information Climate zone warm temperate moist Mean rainfall 585 Mean rainfall unit mm/year Average temperature 6.74 Type Case Study Info Light or indepth? Light Vegetation class Sphagnum mosses Design and implementations Application scale Field Scale Installation date 2010 Lifespan 10 Performance timescale Immediate Area (ha) 1283 Area subject to Land use change or Management/Practice change (ha) 1218 Size 18.5 Size unit km Crop rotation no Public consultation 1 Design contractual arrangement No data Design consultation activity No data Design land use change No data Design authority Authority type Role Responsibility Name Comments NGO Initiation of the measure Nature Heritage Fund Other Implementation Kamanos Srict Nature Reserve Strict Nature Reserve is an institution for the protection of Kamanos bog and neighbouring areas of conservative importance Other Monitoring Kamanos Srict Nature Reserve Lessons, risks, implications Key lessons • Mid-Term Evaluations should have stringent timing requirements. All GEF projects should mandate that mid-term evaluations occur at a specific date in the project cycle. This should include recruitment of international expertise at least six months prior to the planned MTE date. • Relatively small management teams can produce big results. Successful implementation project with a relatively small full-time technical and management staff is an indication of the project benefiting from a contemporary, strategic approach; authentic stakeholders buy-in; an implementation environment with relatively good capacity; and capable, motivated leadership. The team also showed a willingness to identify and recruit necessary technical assistance. • Valuable indicators measure impact and quality, not just production. Projects should benefit from carefully designed indicators that provide an accurate measurement of the delivery of outputs but, more importantly, measure the impact delivery has on objective conservation values. • Projects may benefit from continuity between PDF-B and implementation teams. This project benefited from having the same strong team working from the beginning of the project through to implementation. Capacity, team building, partnerships, and project “historical perspective” were all enhanced with this consistency. Success factor(s) Success factor type Success factor role Comments Attitude of decision makers main factor Financing possibilities main factor EU funding was a big help. Available support tools main factor During the MOMENT project, it was possible to gain knowledge about the similar retention ponds in Sweden. As this was one of the first (pilot) retention ponds in Lithuania, therefore, knowhow was very usefull. Legal obligations main factor Financing Financing type Comments EU-funds: Rural development funds EU structural support according to the objectives provided in Cohesion Promotion Operational Programme; National funds State budget; Sub-national funds municipal budget; Private funds budget of municipal enterprises, providing services of stormwater management. Barrier Barrier type Barrier role Comments Lacking financing sources secondary barrier No financing for further implementation (building more dams) Driver Driver type Driver role Comments Other The goal should have been reached in the most cost effective measure. Small dams made of plastic were the best option. Construction costs were minimised, since no outsourcing was needed and SNR staff was able to build it. Financing share No data Policy, general governance Policy description Extensive drainage of the bog for agriculture and forestry, loss of biodiversity, change f habitat Part of wider plan 1 Policy target Target purpose Runoff control Increase Water Storage Improved Biodiversity Oher Societal Benefits Policy pressure No data Policy area No data Policy impact No data Policy wider plan Wider plan type Wider plan focus Name Comments Conservation of Inland Wetland Biodiversity in Lithuania’ National project Policy requirement directive No data Socio economic Ecosystem improved biodiversity 1 Information on Ecosystem improved biodiversity the sphagnum community is beginning to recover in places where it had been negatively impacted before and water table is rising Information on Ecosystem provisioning services increase in wild cranberries yields Information on Ecosystem impact climate regulation Improved storage of GHG in peatland Biophysical impacts Water quality overall improvements N/A info Soil quality overall soil improvements N/A info Monitoring maintenance Performance Performance impact estimation method Catchment outlet Performance impact estimation information Change of water table level in the bog Measures Forest riparian buffers Wetland restoration and management Removal of dams and other longitudinal barriers sources Nwrm type Light Nwrm geolocation 22.662279,56.280151 General National Id Lithuania_03 Site name Directorate of Kamanos Strict Nature Reserve Summary Kamanos Strict Nature Reserve is the largest raised bog (2,434ha) in the northern Lithuania region (a farming region) with ridge-pool complexes, numerous small lakes (over 120 pools each less than 2ha in area) and surrounding wet forests. In 65 ha of selected bogs and meadows restored with18.5km of ditches dammed Kamanos Strict Nature Reserve. The measures were implemented in the frame of larger UNDP-GEF project in 2004-2010. NUTS Code Lietuva RBD code LT2300 Transboundary 0 Longitude 22.662279 Latitude 56.280151 EEA core metadata Topics Temporal coverage {} Geographical coverage {} Publisher Rights Other organisations involved Add sources for the data used {} Contents There are currently no items in this folder.
Wetland biodiversity protection in Kamanos Strict Nature Reserve, Lithuania https://demo-water.devel5cph.eea.europa.eu/freshwater/admin/resources/nwrm-imported/nwrm-case-studies/wetland-biodiversity-protection-kamanos-strict-nature-reserve-lithuania https://demo-water.devel5cph.eea.europa.eu/freshwater/admin/++resource++plone-logo.svg Wetland biodiversity protection in Kamanos Strict Nature Reserve, Lithuania Title Wetland biodiversity protection in Kamanos Strict Nature Reserve, Lithuania Description Preview image No image Preview image caption Creators fullname Laszlo Cseh Contributors fullname NWRM Site information Climate zone warm temperate moist Mean rainfall 585 Mean rainfall unit mm/year Average temperature 6.74 Type Case Study Info Light or indepth? Light Vegetation class Sphagnum mosses Design and implementations Application scale Field Scale Installation date 2010 Lifespan 10 Performance timescale Immediate Area (ha) 1283 Area subject to Land use change or Management/Practice change (ha) 1218 Size 18.5 Size unit km Crop rotation no Public consultation 1 Design contractual arrangement No data Design consultation activity No data Design land use change No data Design authority Authority type Role Responsibility Name Comments NGO Initiation of the measure Nature Heritage Fund Other Implementation Kamanos Srict Nature Reserve Strict Nature Reserve is an institution for the protection of Kamanos bog and neighbouring areas of conservative importance Other Monitoring Kamanos Srict Nature Reserve Lessons, risks, implications Key lessons • Mid-Term Evaluations should have stringent timing requirements. All GEF projects should mandate that mid-term evaluations occur at a specific date in the project cycle. This should include recruitment of international expertise at least six months prior to the planned MTE date. • Relatively small management teams can produce big results. Successful implementation project with a relatively small full-time technical and management staff is an indication of the project benefiting from a contemporary, strategic approach; authentic stakeholders buy-in; an implementation environment with relatively good capacity; and capable, motivated leadership. The team also showed a willingness to identify and recruit necessary technical assistance. • Valuable indicators measure impact and quality, not just production. Projects should benefit from carefully designed indicators that provide an accurate measurement of the delivery of outputs but, more importantly, measure the impact delivery has on objective conservation values. • Projects may benefit from continuity between PDF-B and implementation teams. This project benefited from having the same strong team working from the beginning of the project through to implementation. Capacity, team building, partnerships, and project “historical perspective” were all enhanced with this consistency. Success factor(s) Success factor type Success factor role Comments Attitude of decision makers main factor Financing possibilities main factor EU funding was a big help. Available support tools main factor During the MOMENT project, it was possible to gain knowledge about the similar retention ponds in Sweden. As this was one of the first (pilot) retention ponds in Lithuania, therefore, knowhow was very usefull. Legal obligations main factor Financing Financing type Comments EU-funds: Rural development funds EU structural support according to the objectives provided in Cohesion Promotion Operational Programme; National funds State budget; Sub-national funds municipal budget; Private funds budget of municipal enterprises, providing services of stormwater management. Barrier Barrier type Barrier role Comments Lacking financing sources secondary barrier No financing for further implementation (building more dams) Driver Driver type Driver role Comments Other The goal should have been reached in the most cost effective measure. Small dams made of plastic were the best option. Construction costs were minimised, since no outsourcing was needed and SNR staff was able to build it. Financing share No data Policy, general governance Policy description Extensive drainage of the bog for agriculture and forestry, loss of biodiversity, change f habitat Part of wider plan 1 Policy target Target purpose Runoff control Increase Water Storage Improved Biodiversity Oher Societal Benefits Policy pressure No data Policy area No data Policy impact No data Policy wider plan Wider plan type Wider plan focus Name Comments Conservation of Inland Wetland Biodiversity in Lithuania’ National project Policy requirement directive No data Socio economic Ecosystem improved biodiversity 1 Information on Ecosystem improved biodiversity the sphagnum community is beginning to recover in places where it had been negatively impacted before and water table is rising Information on Ecosystem provisioning services increase in wild cranberries yields Information on Ecosystem impact climate regulation Improved storage of GHG in peatland Biophysical impacts Water quality overall improvements N/A info Soil quality overall soil improvements N/A info Monitoring maintenance Performance Performance impact estimation method Catchment outlet Performance impact estimation information Change of water table level in the bog Measures Forest riparian buffers Wetland restoration and management Removal of dams and other longitudinal barriers sources Nwrm type Light Nwrm geolocation 22.662279,56.280151 General National Id Lithuania_03 Site name Directorate of Kamanos Strict Nature Reserve Summary Kamanos Strict Nature Reserve is the largest raised bog (2,434ha) in the northern Lithuania region (a farming region) with ridge-pool complexes, numerous small lakes (over 120 pools each less than 2ha in area) and surrounding wet forests. In 65 ha of selected bogs and meadows restored with18.5km of ditches dammed Kamanos Strict Nature Reserve. The measures were implemented in the frame of larger UNDP-GEF project in 2004-2010. NUTS Code Lietuva RBD code LT2300 Transboundary 0 Longitude 22.662279 Latitude 56.280151 EEA core metadata Topics Temporal coverage {} Geographical coverage {} Publisher Rights Other organisations involved Add sources for the data used {} Contents There are currently no items in this folder.
