Restoration of Coastal Meadows in Matsalu, Estonia

General

National Id

Estonia_01

Site name

Salmi coastal meadow, Matsalu National Park

Summary

The measure was implemented in Matsalu National Park, Estonia, a former coastal meadow site (Natura 2000 and Ramsar site) next to a big Salmi coastal meadow with many priority species. The old non-functioning small ditches were closed and scraped to restore the wetland hydrology and breeding and feeding grounds for waders and amphibians. Before the restoration works the area was used mainly for bovine grazing and the restoration did not change the conditions for that. However, due to the activities drinking water will be better available for the cattle. The project was implemented in 2013.

Light or indepth?

In-depth

The in-depth description of the case study

cs-ee_01-final_version.pdf

NUTS Code

Eesti

RBD code

EE1

Transboundary

Data provider

Sandra Oisalu, BEF Estonia

Source(s)

Ecosystem Restoration Case Study Template

Looduskaitseline ekspertiis pilootaladele Lääne- ja Hiiumaa kraavitatud rannaniitudel

Salmi rannaniidu taastamine, tí¶í¶ nr 13/1136

NWRM(s) implemented in the case study

Wetland restoration and management

Longitude

23.6666

Latitude

58.7167

Site information

Climate zone

cool temperate moist

Mean annual rainfall

600 - 900 mm

Mean rainfall unit

mm/year

Type

Actual Test Site

Average slope range

2-5%

Vegetation class

Habitat site of rare species - Platanthera bifolia, Dactylorhiza incarnata). At the moment in ditches - Lythrum salicaria, Carex vulpina, Schoenoplectus lacustris, Mentha aquatica, Alisma plantagoaquatica, Sparganium emersum.

Monitoring maintenance

Monitoring impacts effects

Administrative annual cost information

The Environmental Board is carrying out the monitoring of the waders in the area and the monitoring will show if the birds have started to use the area †“ this in their annual plan

Performance

Performance impact estimation method

Catchment outlet

Performance impact estimation information

The effectiveness of the measure depends on the habitat -if the species formerly identified in the coastal meadow (before the land improvement activities in the past) - so methodology will be counting the habitats

Design & implementations

Application scale

Field Scale

Installation date

2013

Age

Area (ha)

11,1499996185303

Area subject to Land use change or Management/Practice change (ha)

11,5

Size

3,90000009536743

Size unit

Design contractual arrangement

Arrangement type	Responsibility	Role	Comments	Name

Design consultation activity

Activity stage	Key issues	Name	Comments
			There were stakeholder meetings which included also land owners but no larger public involvment was carried out.
			There were stakeholder meetings which included also land owners but no larger public involvment was carried out.

Design land use change

Land use change type

Design authority

Authority type	Role	Responsibility	Name	Comments
			Estonian Fund for Nature
			'State Forestry
			Agricultureal board
			private land owners and renters

Lessons, risks, implications...

Key lessons

Reaching common ground with different stakeholders is a time consuming process and need moderation in order to come to agreements satisfying all involved parties.

Financing mechanism information

Mainly WWF fuding with soe national contribution.

Financing difficulties

financing funding solutions

Main amount of activities was financed by WWF, however, Estonian State Forest Management Centre in frame of their frame project agreed to finance some of the practical works.

Success factor(s)

Success factor type	Success factor role	Comments
Existing staff and consultant knowledge	main factor
Financing possibilities	main factor

Financing

Financing type	Comments
Other	Mainly financed by WWF, also contribution to practical works by State Forest Management Centre

Barrier

Barrier type	Barrier role	Comments
Lacking coordination between authorities	main barrier	It was quite difficult to find common ground with Environmental Board, Agricultural Board and State Forestry - Estonian Fund for Nature had two years of meetings with them before they could manage to complete the project.
Other	secondary barrier	Although there was enough information about this quite small and well known site, the State Forestry did not give permission to carry out the works without the official melioration plan for getting more data.

Driver

Driver type	Driver role	Comments
Organisation committed to it	main driver	The method for restoring the wetland was chosen for testing by Estonian Fund for Nature and it was done in frame of a project funded by WWF.

Financing share

Financing share type	Share	Comments
		As State Forestry maangement Centres contribution is not known then cannot define the %	View

Policy, general governance and design targets

Policy description

The aim of the application was to test in Estonia a new methodology for restoring a wetland (based on the example from United Kingdom) and to find out if this methodology can be used also for other similar areas with similar problems (old ditches that change hydrological conditions in nature protection areas).

Part of wider plan

Policy target

Target purpose
Improved Biodiversity

Policy pressure

Pressure directive	Relevant pressure

Policy area

Policy area type	Policy area focus	Name	Comments

Policy impact

Impact directive	Relevant impact

Policy wider plan

Wider plan type	Wider plan focus	Name	Comments

Policy requirement directive

Requirement directive	Specification

Socio-economic

Direct benefits information

Effective implementation of the measure will restore the habitat of the coastal meadow and will thus add to implementing the Nature Protection Act and Estonian Environmental Strategy 2030. As a Natura2000 and Ramsar site the restoration activity also contributes to their requirements.

Costs total information

Part of the costs were covered by WWF project - ca 11 500 eur - some parctical works and costs for meetings and travel. However, part of the costruction costs were paid by State Forest Management Centre in frame of one frame project so costs are not available.

Compensations annual information

No compansation for land owneres

Information on Ecosystem improved biodiversity

The species ( rare species - Platanthera bifolia, Dactylorhiza incarnata). At the moment in ditches - Lythrum salicaria, Carex vulpina, Schoenoplectus lacustris, Mentha aquatica, Alisma plantagoaquatica, Sparganium emersum.) ave formerly (before the land improvement works) been living in the area so restoration works provided possibility to for suitable habitat conditions for the species. Hoowever, monitoring is needed to confirm if the species have reeturned.

Biophysical impacts

Information on Water quality overall improvements

The wetland had good quality water, chemical status is good. It is a Nature2000 site. No pollution has been marked. The aim was not to rise the quality of water but to restore the hydrological regime.

Full Context

Collection(aka Doorway or Gallery)

Case Studies

Pathway(aka Context)

Default view

Area(aka Level or Site)

ALL